HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-08-23The 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, August 23, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated August 9, 2016 and Town Board Study Session August
9, 2016.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, August 11, 2016.
4.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated July 20, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
5.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated July 15, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 19, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
Prepared 8/12/16
* Revised: 08/19/16
1
2.REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (OUTSIDE ENTITIES):
1.LARIMER COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY UPDATE ON 911
REDUNDANT SERVICE. Chief Executive Officer Kulp.
3.ACTION ITEMS:
1.INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK FOR
THE ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER. Attorney White.
2.ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt.
3.MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES – CONTRACT AWARD. Manager Ash.
4.ESTES VALLEY MASTER TRAILS PLAN ADOPTION. Director Muhonen.
Item to be considered by Planning Commission prior to Town Board action.
5.APPROVAL OF MATCHING GRANT FUNDS FOR VISITOR CENTER BANK
STABILIZATION PROJECT. Director Muhonen.
6.PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY VOLUNTARY
WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT. Director Bergsten & Superintendent
Boles.
7.HONDIUS WATER USERS VOLUNTARY WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Director Bergsten & Superintendent
Boles.
8.ORDINANCE #21-16 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO CONCURRENT SUBMITTAL AND TIMING OF REVIEW
SECTION 3.1.E. Planner Chilcott.
9.RESOLUTION #15-16 TO AFFILIATE THE ESTES PARK POLICE OFFICERS
WITH THE FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION (FPPA) FOR
RETIREMENT. Director Williamson.
4. ADJOURN.
*
*
*
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 9, 2016
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 9th day of August 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Art Messal/Town citizen stated his concern that the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
discussion has moved forward without any public comment. He commented the Habitat
homes approved at the last meeting would have no oversight and may change the
neighborhood. He suggested Habitat donate the land to the Land Trust as open space.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen questioned if the Board can make a decision based on
subjective determination from a Development Code that is subjective. The Mayor
requested Town Administrator Lancaster and Town Attorney White address the
question directly with Ms. Hiland by contacting her in writing. She expressed her
disappointment with the Board’s approval of the Special Review for the Lazy B project.
The Town citizens came forward to speak out against the development and provided
written comment yet the Board approved the development.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission would hold its regularly
scheduled meeting on August 16, 2016.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated he has served as the Town’s appointment on the
CML Policy Committee for the last several years. After discussion the Board agreed to
reappointment Town Administrator Lancaster as the Town’s appointment to the CML
Policy Committee.
Kimberly Culp/Executive Director for LETA has requested time on the next agenda to
update the Board on LETA’s efforts to provide a redundant 911 line. CenturyLink has
not provided a redundant system since their system was compromised during the 2013
flood. The Board consensus was to schedule the update for the August 23, 2016
meeting.
Town Administrator Lancaster provided a Board Policy Governance quarterly report on
Policy 3.3 Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12 General Town Administrator –
Internal Operating Procedures, and Policy 3.13 Town Organizational Plan. He reported
compliance with all areas with the exception of 3.3.4 and 3.13. The 2017 budget would
be prepared with the intention of expenditures not exceeding expected revenues. The
3
Board of Trustees – August 9, 2016 – Page 2
past budgets approved by the Board spent down fund balance reserves, which is not
sustainable. The organizational plan was not presented to the Town Board following
the certification of the biennial election. Further discussion would follow on how to
calculate fund balance because there have been questions from the new Board on how
it is determined. He stated the 2015 CAFR has not been completed by the auditors by
the end of July; however, the Town has been granted an extension.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 26, 2016 and Town Board Study Sessions
July 26, 2016 and July 28, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee, July 28,
2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 12, 2016.
(acknowledgement only)
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig)to approve the Consent Agenda
Items,and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN LLC
DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN TO BLOOMBERRIES BOX CART LLC,
DBA BLOOMBERRIES BOX CART 1209 MANFORD AVENUE, OPTIONAL
PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE.Town Clerk Williamson presented the
application to transfer the current Optional Premise liquor license. All required
paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on July 7,
2016. TIPS training has been completed. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Koenig) to transfer the Optional Premise Liquor License filed by
Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC, dba Bloomberries Box Cart at 1209 Manford
Avenue for the Events Center and Pavilion, and it passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1.RESOLUTION #13-16 SUPPORTING THE LARIMER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH INITIATIVE.Peggy Reeves presented a review of the ballot issue to
build a 24/7 public treatment center that would provide high-quality detox,
mental health and substance abuse treatment. Larimer County has over
75,000 people that meet the criteria for needing mental or behavioral health
services but are unable to access the care needed due to inadequate public
facilities. Currently, individuals with mental and behavioral health problems are
sent either to jail or the emergency room which cost the tax payer 4 times more
than traditional services. The tax would be 25 cents on every $100 spent and
would sunset in 25 years. The funds would be used to purchase the land, build
a facility and provide services. The item has been approved by the Larimer
County Commissioners for the upcoming November General Election ballot.
Board comments were heard and summarized: the tax would be a long term
investment; stated the importance in providing the services to the community;
and mental health is a real problem that needs to be addressed. After further
discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb)to approve
Resolution #13-16 Supporting the Larimer County Mental Health Initiative
on the General Election Ballot, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
recusing herself.
4
Board of Trustees – August 9, 2016 – Page 3
2.ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
Attorney White stated the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Estes
Valley Recreation and Park District has been drafted and would be placed on
the August 23, 2016 agenda for the Board’s consideration. He recommended
the item be tabled and discussed in conjunction with the IGA. It was moved
and seconded (Holcomb/Norris)to continue the item to the August 23,
2016 Town Board meeting, and it passed unanimously.
3.PUBLIC HEARING - MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION.Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Planner Gonzales stated the property contains
approximately 6.17 acres and zoned A-1-Accommodations. The Board of
County Commissioners conditionally approved the Mountain Meadow
Subdivision Final Plat on May 16, 2016 with the condition the subdivision would
be annexed by the Town of Estes Park within 3 months of Final Plat approval.
The property borders Town limits on the north and on the west. Directly
southeast and south are other County properties. The conditionally approved
Final Plat consists of a 15 lot single-family home subdivision located off Fish
Hatchery Road. The subdivision shall retain the A-1 zone district classification.
The Annexation Agreement between the Town and The Sanctuary, LLC (Mark
Theiss) requires the land owner to have the improvements listed in Phase 1
installed and accepted by the Town and/or guaranteed prior to the application
for any building permit on any of the Phase 1 lots. This course of action is not
customary with subdivision and annexation proposals. Typically, the
improvements are guaranteed prior to the approval of the plat or annexation, or
installed, inspected and approved prior to plat recordation.
Trustee Martchink questioned if the applicant would be interested in discussing
a density bonus to limit the use to workforce housing. The applicant would be
willing to entertain discussion on the topic.
Hearing no public comment, Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney
White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb)to approve Resolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16 and the
annexation agreement for the Mountain Meadow annexation, and it passed
unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
5
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 9, 2016
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 9
th day of August, 2016.
Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Hunt and Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF TOWN FUNDING FOR ESTES VALLEY INVESTMENT IN
CHILDHOOD SUCCESS (EVICS).Nancy Almond/EVICS Director presented the Board
with an overview of EVICS stating the agency provides information, assistance, and
support regarding childcare, parenting, and early childhood services in the community.
EVICS was formed through the partnership between the Town of Estes Park and the
Early Childhood Council of Larimer County in 2006 with the primary focus of providing
scholarships. The program has grown over the last 10 years and has expanded its
services to meet the basic needs of families, including connecting families to food,
clothing, etc. The organization has been receiving Community Service grant funding
over the past 10 years from the Town, which has decreased from 75% to 19% of the
operational budget. The funds from the Town help leverage the scholarship funds
EVICS receives from other organizations. Other communities in Colorado have provide
support for childcare ranging from a sales tax, General Fund, and the building of a
childcare facility. Dependable and consistent funding from the Town would provide
additional leverage for other funding sources, aid in expanding services to meet the
needs of the community, allow EVICS to plan for the future, save time in preparing
annual grant application, and provide access to greater county, state and federal
resources. EVICS requested the Town consider a separate budget line item of
approximately $50,000 to $60,000 for the services provided by EVICS through the
development and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement or provide EVICS with a
three-year funding cycle through the grant process. The funding would support the
economic health of the community and sustainability of the community through the
retention of working families.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned if EVICS reaches out
to other organizations in town for support such as service groups and the business
community; questioned the number of kids being served through EVICS; if the Town
funds EVICS it would have to reduce funding for other entities in town; and workforce
housing and childcare are the biggest need in the community. Staff has begun work on
the development of the 2017 budget which is currently $750,000 over budgeted
revenues. A recommended budget would be reviewed with the Board during the
October budget study sessions and staff would take direction from the Board on items
to be added and deleted from the proposed budget. The request would be reviewed by
the Board during the budget sessions.
7
Town Board Study Session – August 9, 2016 – Page 2
UPDATE ON HOUSING NEEDS AND RESPONSE
Administrator Lancaster stated the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) housing
study demonstrated most resort communities allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to
aid in providing additional workforce housing. Staff would propose amending the Estes
Valley Development Code to allow ADUs in all zoning districts with the exception of RM
– Residential Multi-Family, require them to be attached, limited to 800 sq. ft., one per lot
and limit the use to long term rentals, no vacation rentals permitted. The current code
requires the lot to be 1.33 times the size of the minimum lot size for the zoning district.
Homeowners could rent the basement apartment to help them afford a house in Estes
Park as a side benefit to allowing ADUs.
Concern was raised on the need to enforce the use of the units as vacation homes and
the need to add additional staff. Staff stated enforcement would be complaint based.
Staff confirmed the Town could adopt the provisions within Town limits if the County
Commissioners do not agree with the amendments to allow ADUs. The code change
would legalize the current existing units and make it easier for people to advertise and
find available units to rent.
The Board agreed to move the code amendments forward to allow ADUs as outlined
with the exception of removing the lot size requirement of 1.33 and use the percentage
of the lot coverage to determine the size of the unit rather than limit it to 800 sq. ft.
Director Hunt stated the code amendments would be heard by the Planning
Commission at their August meeting and be brought forward for the Board’s
consideration at the second meeting in September.
An additional item being considered by staff is an increase to the density bonus of 8
units per acre to 12-15 units per acre for affordable and workforce housing
developments with deed restrictions to limit the use and prohibit short-term vacation
rentals. The developments would be approved through a review process and would not
be a use by right.
Board comments followed: Town needs to review density and whether or not to allow
vertical building to increase density; each development should be reviewed to determine
the number of units per acre rather than setting a limit; include wildlife corridor for each
development to address the wildlife concerns; and concerned with the length and cost
of the review process for the developers before the development may be approved or
denied. The Board consensus was to move forward with reviewing barriers to
development such as those outlined by staff.
Staff has found resources through Alliance for Innovation to aid in the development of a
Request for Proposal (RFP) and a decision making matrix for the development of the
Fish Hatchery property. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested the RFP include the
developer build a childcare facility onsite. Staff stated the item would be added to the
decision making matrix and those developments that include a facility would have
additional points.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
The Board discussed the next steps once the comment period has concluded for the
Loop EA. Mayor Jirsa suggested the Board hold a special meeting to discuss the final
document, including the addendum with the public comment. The Board agreed to set
a special meeting after the final EA has been issued.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Town would begin discussions with the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District on turning over the Fire Station to the District. The current lease
does not clearly address the responsibility of building maintenance. The building was
built on federal land through a Special Use Agreement, which would need to be
converted to the District if the building become District property.
8
Town Board Study Session – August 9, 2016 – Page 3
Administrator Lancaster reviewed a memo prepared and presented to the Town Board
in May 2015 outlining the possibility of Estes Park joining the Regional Transportation
District (RTD).
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Mayor Jirsa requested the Board consider amending Policy Governance to include the
evaluation of the Town Attorney and the Municipal Judge, discuss the monitoring report
format used by the Town Administrator, and the evaluation of the Boards own policies.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
9
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 11, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 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 August 2016.
Committee: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Attending:Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Also Attending:Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten and Muhonen, Supervisor
Berg, Manager Ash, Engineer Stallworth, and Recording
Secretary Beers
Absent: None
Chair Koenig called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Reports
1.Community Service Officers (CSO’s) Verbal Update:Chief Kufeld provided
an update on CSO’s stating the department planned ahead for the Barnes Dance
and hired six CSO’s as opposed to the budgeted five, to work the intersections.
The department has received positive comments on CSO’s and the effectiveness
of the Barnes Dance. The department took a step back on parking enforcement
due to the demand of CSO’s to work the intersections. Three CSO’s have gone
back to school, one had surgery, leaving two currently on staff. The department
would bring some of the CSO’s back for Labor Day weekend as well as Scotfest.
Chief Kufeld went on to mention the difficulties associated with hiring students for
the season as it impacts how long they are on staff.
2.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions:
x Trustee Nelson commends the CSO’s and their personal relation skills
and their conducting of the Barnes Dance.
UTILITIES
HONDIUS WATER USERS VOLUNTARY WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU). There are private water systems
throughout the Estes Park Valley which are struggling to maintain aging infrastructure
and meet regulatory requirements. Owners of the system would bring the infrastructure
up to Town standards and once improved, the Town would take over the system and
the associated customers. Current water customers would not subsidize any of the
infrastructure repairs to the Hondius system. The county has been successful in this
process for many years using the EPA State Drinking Water Revolving Fund Loan
Program, however it was not available to finance detailed design improvements.
Financing the detailed design is more expensive than the small systems can afford. The
department looked for additional options through the US Department of Agriculture for
Rural Development. The department continues to work through legal issues. Director
Bergsten stated that Town Attorney White would need to review the terms for the MOU.
After further discussions, the Committee recommended approval of the MOU, to the
Town Board, to be included as an Action Item at the August 23, 2016 Town Board DRAFTuhonen, Suhonen
worth,worth,and Rec
e Officers (CSO’s) Verbal UpdateCSO’s) Verbal Update
OO’ss statstating in the department planned aepartment planned a
CSO’sCSO’s as opposed to as opposed to the budgeted the
ment has received positivement has received positive commentsco
nes Dancenes D .The department took ahe department too
the demand of CSO’s to work the ihe demand of CSO’s to work the
to school, chool, onee had surgery, leavinhad surgery, leavin
ould bring some of thesome of th CSO’s back ack
Chief Kufeld went on to mention theChief Kufeld went on
the season as it impacts how lonthe season as it impacts
2.2 Verbal Updates and Commates and Comm
x Trustee Nelson e Ne c
and their conduir co
TIESTIES DWATWATDUMUM
11
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – August 11, 2016 – Page 2
meeting.
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE & WATER CO. (PEMPWCo) VOLUNTARY
WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT. The Town and PEMPWCo entered into
an MOU on April 14, 2015 for a voluntary water system transfer agreement. On July 5,
2016 PEMPWACo Board approved proceeding with the project by a 78% vote. Under
the MOU the letter of intent would be signed August 11, 2016. Director Bergsten
anticipates construction to start early 2017 and take approximately 3-5 months. The
Committee recommended approval of the agreement to the Town Board, to be
included as an Action Item at the August 23, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Reports
1.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions:
x Park Entrance, Hondius, Prospect Mountain, Blue Spruce, and Charles
Heights are the independent water suppliers within the Town limits. Director
Bergsten elaborated the Charles Heights system has already been added to
the town system. Charles Heights has not been completed based on project
priority and frequency of problems at other locations taking priority. Charles
Heights has asked to expedite their construction by offering to help fund the
construction. Director Bergsten stated that due to the fact that the county has
already been dealing with Charles Heights there is a good chance that it will
be expedited now that they have paved the way with the USDA.
x The Broadband Engineering RFP was issued a month ago and would close in
a week. IT had approximately 10 companies submit questions and 10-15
companies participated in a pre-bid meeting.
x The State started the close out process for the Fish Creek Flood Recovery
Project and the department continues to work through the six step process.
PUBLIC WORKS
Reports
1.CDOT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for New Dynamic Message Sign
Board on US 36:Director Muhonen stated the Agreement will be signed and
approved for the dynamic message sign board and will be located on Hwy 36,
East of Fourth Street, facing East towards incoming traffic on 36. Director
Muhonen stated the location will allow traffic to be directed to the Events Center
parking lot. The Dynamic Message sign on Hwy 36 will not replace banners.
Signs will be limited to traffic and messaging only. Director Muhonen stated that
the department has a grant application submitted to the Upper Front Range for
the 2017 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program for 2 more
signs.
2.2016 Street Improvement Program:Manager Stallworth provided an update
on the 2016 Street Improvement Program. He stated road improvements for
2016 have been completed on time and within budget including crack sealing of
70% of roadways, and overlays of 1.1 miles and 12,000 sq ft of additional paving.
SEMA construction continues to make progress on Dry Gulch with paving of
phase 2 to begin next week and top lift of phase 1 the following week to complete
the paving for the project.
3.Barnes Dance Traffic Flow Update: Director Muhonen elaborated on the
changes made to downtown intersections with the use of the Barnes Dance and
its effectiveness. The department coordinated the signals at Hwy 34/36, mid-walk
pedestrian signal, Riverwalk signal and Elkhorn signal and improved Westbound
traffic from 12 minutes in 2015 to 7.4 minutes in 2016. This caused Eastbound to
go from 2 to 3 minutes to 5 minutes. Round trip travel times through downtownDRAFTtingting
Blue Spruce, and CharlesBlue Spruce, an
within the Town limitswithin the Town limits. Director .
ystem hasystem already beenen a added to dd
ot been completed based on projecot been completed based on proj
other locations taking priority. Chaother locations taking priority. Cha
r construction by offering to construction by offe help fu
tated that due to the fact that the cohat due to the
arles Heights there is a good chans there is c
have paved the way with the USDA.have paved the way wit
ringng RFPRFP was issued a month agowas issued a month a
oximatelyately 10 companies submit qu10 companies submit
ted in a pprere--bid meeting.meeting.
d the close out process for the out process for the FisFis
e department continues to work throe department continues to work thro
SS RCCDOTDOT I Intergovernmental ntergovernm Agreem
BBoard on oard on USUS 36:6:Director MuhDire
approvedapproved for the dynamic mefor the dynamic
East of Fourth Street, facurth Street, fac
Muhonen stated the located t
parking p lot.The The Dyn
Signs will be limitedSigns will be limit
the department hthe department h
e 2017 e 2017 ConCon
s. s.
12
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – August 11, 2016 – Page 3
for the Gold Route shuttle increased with the implementation of the Barnes
Dance. During this year’s peak hour downtown 1,179 cars traveled through the
Moraine intersection compared to 1,266 cars last year. Director Muhonen
researched CDOT counts and compared the two weekends in 2015 against the
same weekends in 2016. Two volumes were within 1% of each other, which led
Director Muhonen to conclude the counts are a consequence of the Barnes
Dance. The department staff continues to work on finding a signal timing
sequence that optimizes the volume of vehicles and pedestrians that can be
moved through the downtown core, while respecting the safety needs and
minimizing the travel time delay for each mode.
4.Feasibility Study for the Town to Maintain CDOT Signs, Striping and
Signals within Town Limits:Director Muhonen proposed hiring a consultant to
conduct a Feasibility Study to evaluate taking over the signing, striping and
signals on the CDOT network in the Estes Valley to complete improvements in a
timely manner. CDOT would pay the Town to complete the signing, striping and
signals. The consultant would cost approximately $6,000. Funds are available in
the 2016 budget.
5.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions
x Manager Ash provided project updates including Carriage Hills Dam repair,
the Moraine Ditch, Brook Court and Moraine Bridge. Cornerstone Engineering
was hired to provide construction management and is on site daily providing
updates and ensuring plans approved by the state are being followed.
Projected completion date is November 15th. The Brook Court project was
started and on schedule for competition by September 5
th. Moraine ditch
would begin after the Brook Court project and is projected to be completed by
September 30th. Engineering has issued three RFP’s, the Estes Valley
Stormwater Master Plan, Carriage Hills Augmentation Plan, and the Moraine
Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Management Services Plan.
x Estes Valley Master Trails Plan has been completed and are posted online.
Public Works attends the Trails Committee monthly meetings along with the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Chair. Projects compiled would be
ranked based on priority. The Trails Committee and TAB would agree on
what projects to complete using both Rec District and Town 1A funds to
complete larger segments of trails through collaboration.
x Molly Mills with the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC) submitted a
grant application for river improvements on the Big Thompson. They were
awarded funding to repair the eroded north river bank near the Visitor Center
at a cost of $108,000 if a local match can be provided. The EVWC have
requested the Town consider funding the 12.5% local match of $13,500.
Director Muhonen requested an action item at the upcoming meeting to
authorize the department to use funds from the Conservation Trust Fund for
the match.
x CDOT approved the department’s request to use Construction
Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) approach for the parking structure.
The construction would begin in November with a completion date in June
2017. The Project Manager would complete and issue an RFP and assemble
a CM/GC team.
There being no further business, Chair Koenig adjourned the meeting at 9:21 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town ClerkDRAFTigns, igns, Stripin
ed hiring aed hiring consulta
the signing, striping athe signing,
complete improvements in a complete improve
mpletemplete the signing, striping and ng, strip
ely $6,000. Funds are available in ely $6,000. Funds are availa
stionsions
updatess including Carriage Hills Daincluding Ca
t and Moraine Bridgene Bridge.Cornerstone
uction management and is on site duction management and
plans approved by the state are lans approved by the sta
date is Noveis November 15thmber .The he BrookBro
edule for competitionor competition byby S Syyeptembeptemb
the Brook Court project and is projeCourt project and is proj
thh..Engineering has issuedEngineering has iss threeree
Master PMaster Planlan, Carriage Hills Augmeage Hi
ridge Replacement Project Manageridge Replacement Project
Valley MValley aster TTrails ra Plan has beenhas b
ic Works c Wo attendds thes the T Trails Commiomm
ransportation Advisory Boardportation Advisory Board (TAB(TAB
ranked based on prioritybased on p .The TraThe Tra
what projects to complete usinwhat projects to
complete larger segments of tcomplete larger segm
xx Molly MillsMills with thethe Estes Es
grant application for rivpplication for riv
awarded funding to reundi
at a cost of $108,of $
requested the the T
Director MuhoDirector Muh
authorize thauthorize th
he matche matc
OTOT
13
14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 20, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of July, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Ann Finley
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Tom Street
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Gregg Rounds
Amy Hamrick
Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded to approve the June meeting minutes and the motion
passed unanimously.
PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Barnes Dance – The Town’s Traffic Consultant, Fred, came to make adjustments to
pedestrian timing at the intersection of Elkhorn & Moraine. He increased the pedestrian
traffic timing allowing 6 additional seconds which was taken from the vehicle traffic. The
lights were coordinated to 116 seconds at all intersections to help flow and the ‘Right
Turn on Green Only’ sign was removed to relief NB traffic congestion/back-ups.
Member Slack experienced green lights all the way down Elkhorn this morning!
Shuttle run comparison hand-out compared 2015 & 2016. It appeared to show a 3
second increase between 2015 & 2016, however the data needs some adjusting to use
same timeframe each year. 2016 seemed to have more recorded data, which effected
the measurement. Updates will be made to chart once the remaining information is
received by Fred. Chair Campbell suggested that the shuttles go west only down
Elkhorn and loop up to Wonderview to make their round-trip rather than driving the
downtown route to help their times. Director Muhonen agreed that was an interesting
idea.
BARNES DANCE: CSO’s need to consistently announce that you can cross diagonally to
ensure everyone knows due to those that aren’t up by the pole that shows the
15
Transportation Advisory Board – July 20th, 2016 – Page 2
directional crosswalk sign. The idea was mentioned to have music playing during the
Barnes Dance.
Public Works is hiring Larimer County Traffic Engineer to perform a feasibility study
regarding taking control over CDOT lights/signage/striping. This will allow more
flexibility in managing the roads within town without having to clear all decisions
through CDOT and will allow more timely response to residents. CDOT will be
refreshing highway paint in August.
Public Works received a request to add bicycle sensitive signs – providing for a 3-foot
allowance between the car and the bicycle. MUTCD provides for allowed signs – the
approved signs are a bike symbol/share the road. Greg has sent a request to CDOT for
this signage on all three highways. TAB does not support the proposed sign. Member
Morris says it’s too mild. The Board will agree to a custom sign and propose to initiate
the first of these signs on Dry Gulch Road. Director Muhonen invited TAB to submit
requests for signs on specified streets to work with the coalition.
LOOP: Director Muhonen invited everyone to please come to the LOOP public hearing
tonight. Attendance and comments are needed on both sides of issue. On Tuesday, July
19, 2016, two citizens came to the LOOP Q/A session. Both citizens were strongly
opposed to the LOOP, however after 30-45 minutes of discussion, they felt they had
more opportunity to hear the facts about certain aspects of the LOOP project to which
they were previously opposed. Greg was very appreciative for the commentary and that
he was able to shed light on the factual base of the proposal.
DRY GULCH: Contractor is currently working on Phase 2 of this project. There is a local
detour through neighborhoods. At this time there is no signing/striping at the
roundabout by Gray Hawk. Public Works will handle getting this done.
BIG HORN SIGNAGE: A request was received to add a 20 MPH speed limit sign on Big
Horn Drive. The traffic/pedestrian/bicycle situation is dangerous without proper
signage.
VISITOR CENTER: Due to the continual situation wherein guests are parking along the
Drop-Off / Pick-Up area in front of the Visitor Center, rather than install ‘No Parking’
signs, Public Works will paint the curbing red to indicate it’s a no parking zone.
16
Transportation Advisory Board – July 20th, 2016 – Page 3
PARKING STRUCTURE: This project is still pending approval from FTA. There will be a
one-on-one conversation with the head of the planning group. The Regional Director
stated South Side IS eligible and they’re very close to making a decision for categorical
exclusion. Director Muhonen will call appropriate superiors to ensure a decision is ready
to be made.
Per CDOT, since the Town of Estes Park hasn’t utilized the allocated funding, they’ve
been put on an inactive list for future grant applications. Additionally, if the Town has
not broken ground by October 1, 2016, provided funding will be lost. Currently pushing
for a new delivery method, CM/GC. The Town has proposed this method to CDOT –
they said “Maybe” and provided a manual. There needs to be a project kick-off meeting
to present to CDOT why this method should be used. They typically require the
Design/Bid/Build method but this would exceed the allotted time for needed funding.
There will be a meeting with CDOT on 7/28/16 to discuss. FTA isn’t very excited about it
so Director Muhonen has requested Town Administrator Lancaster make necessary
contact.
DMB (Dynamic Message Board): Director Muhonen believes the best place to put the
DMB is on 36 between Community Drive and 4th Street. Director Muhonen has
submitted applications for two additional DMB’s.
PROJECT UPDATES, Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
2016 STIP work has been completed and looks good.
DRY GULCH: The schedule is strong and all is going well. The contractor is thinking of
tearing out the bypass road to eliminate continued use despite the barrels.
Chair Campbell will be scheduling a meeting with RMNP. TAB suggested waiting until
after September for the new RMNP Superintendent, Darla, to get her feet wet in her new
role. Member Morris suggested Director Muhonen involve RMNP in all LOOP
discussions. He will touch base with interim leads.
TAB INITIATIVES
Chair Campbell asked Director Muhonen how the TAB initiatives were received by the
trustees. Trustee Holcomb did not hand out the draft proposal to the other trustees as
anticipated. Director Muhonen stated that all trustees are on board for finding solutions
to the parking problem and are supportive of a Transportation Master Plan. There
needs to be a guiding document to start in 2017 or 2018 (start with Hwy 7 per
17
Transportation Advisory Board – July 20th, 2016 – Page 4
discussion with Alison Chilcott). The question was posed whether or not Community
Development should come to the meeting for land use requirements. Director
Muhonen clarified that transportation leads land use, but that proper communication
coordination will be necessary.
PAID PARKING: The memo has evolved since last month and is not quite ready for a
true vote. It has been deemed too big a proposal to ask trustees to approve paid
parking. There is not yet enough initial buy-in.
There needs to be training for the new trustees and mayor on the background
information for paid parking. Between now and late December, 2016, TAB will perform
community outreach. Once researched vendors are narrowed down, the information
will be collected and disseminated to trustees.
Chair Campbell proposed to have TAB do legwork to solicit vendors to supplement/help
to locate vendors for paid parking. Different studies have been conducted. Director
Muhonen had high praise for the write-up. As he learned from the LOOP project, early
& effective citizen involvement (right now 50/50) is required. It is critical to begin the
discussion in an open, receptive way and allow opportunity for buy-in and full
understanding of the parking problem in town. It would be a good start to ask the
community to provide their ideas for solutions. There are currently 3 phases: paid
parking, employee parking and a parking expansion plan. It is important to engage
residents in smaller groups to show we’re listening. Make it a discussion. Need to
include expansion piece within the deliverable (working on it at a minimum). Can paid
parking contribute to parking expansion??
The TAB and Town will work together to determine proper public process, including
neighborhood meetings and small group data gatherings. The initiative to be led by a
consultant will be for paid parking as well as employee parking. Public outreach will be
led by TAB once appropriate strategies have been determined.
Member Hamrick wants to state, once again, that when the draft implementation
strategy refers to downtown employee parking, it appears to point to downtown
businesses as being a large part of the problem.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:04 pm.
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 15, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Board Room, in said Town of
Estes Park on the 15th day of July, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Carlie Bangs
Terry Rustin
Vicki Papineau
Ronna Boles (& Paige the baby)
Also Present: Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Flood Recovery Project Associate
Patrick Martchink, Trustee Liaison
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Rustin/Bangs) to approve the June meeting minutes with
minor corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
On Saturday, July 16, the Town would be holding a weed roundup at the Boneyard from
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Represented entities would include Larimer County, Parks
Division, Estes Valley Land Stewardship Association (ELSA), Rocky Mountain National
Park (RMNP) and others. These organizations would be giving away educational
booklets, latex gloves, weed bags, and KIND Coffee gift certificates.
19
On Monday, July 18, through Tuesday, July 19, the Parks Division will be giving tours to
the America In Bloom judges (i.e., Rec area, YMCA, Downtown). Supervisor Berg will
inform the PAB of the final critique once received . Keri Kelly and Supervisor Berg will be
taking the judges to the local “Business Bright Spots” wherein the Town awards
businesses for lovely landscaping and taking care of the area outside their business.
Mike Donnachie, Parks Maintenance Worker, placed 35 out of the 50 identification signs
by the trees in Estes Park. This was made possible through grant funding from the
Colorado Tree Coalition. These trees help guests identify native trees along with non-
native trees in order to educate locals what could grow in our climate besides
Ponderosa, Aspen, and Spruce.
The brochures for trees and flowers, which the Parks Division created, are available at
the Visitor’s Center, Town Hall, Public Works Department, and the Library to help
educate residents and guests on trees and flowers in the Estes community.
CDOT responded involving the tunnel tiles and lights. The Town will move forward with
the tiles and will then begin work on the lighting due to CDOT permit timing and
process. Trustee Martchink had brought an Eagle Scout into the project that is
interested in putting up more tiles. Along with Supervisor Berg, the mentioned Eagle
Scout and Kristin Hill would be meeting to figure out the timing of this project.
Supervisor Berg would like to see this project compete sooner than later due to
weather. Berg had also been in contact with Steve’s Welding to enclose the tunnel lights
for the time being to prevent vandalism. The Town would be considering switching the
lights to more efficient LED lighting.
DEVLOPMENT CODE PLANT LIST FINALIZATION
20
Director Muhonen had previously suggested placing notes and installation guidelines for
newly planted material to warn users about the wildlife population and their grazing
preferences. Annuals were not included in the list so a recommendation was made to
meet with Keri Kelly, Parks Maintenance Worker, to provide a list of annuals and insight
on other options for protection methods other than fencing.
The Board discussed many options for the development code plant list. Chair Lebeau
would like to add to the grasses section.
Trustee Liaison Martchink enjoyed the new music walkway additions and praised the
Board for their well thought out comments involving the Art in Public Places selection
process.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.
21
22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:ChairBettyHull,CommissionersDougKlink,NancyHills,SteveMurphree,Sharry
White,RussSchneider,MichaelMoon
Attending:ChairHull,CommissionersMurphree,Moon,Klink,White,Schneider,andHills
AlsoAttending:CommunityDevelopmentDirectorRandyHunt,PlannerCarrieMcCool,Senior
PlannerAlisonChilcott,TownAttorneyGregWhite,TownBoardLiaisonRon
Norris,CountyLiaisonMichaelWhitley,RecordingSecretaryKarenThompson,
andTownTrusteeWalker
Absent:None
ChairHullcalledthemeetingtoorderat1:30p.m.Therewereapproximatelyeightpeoplein
attendance.EachCommissionerwasintroduced.ChairHullexplainedtheprocessforacceptingpublic
commentattoday’smeeting.Thefollowingminutesreflecttheorderoftheagendaandnot
necessarilythechronologicalsequence.
ChairHullwelcomedDirectorHunt,whocomestoEstesParkfromLaramie,Wyoming,wherehe
servedtheCityastheCommunityDevelopmentDirector.
1. PUBLICCOMMENT
JohannaDarden/TownresidentsuggestedtheCommissionersconsidermakingsureadeveloper
hasallfundsavailabletotakeaprojecttocompletionpriortoapprovingtheprojects.
2. CONSENTAGENDA
Approvalofminutes,June21,2016PlanningCommissionmeeting.
Itwasmovedandseconded(Schneider/Klink)toapprovetheconsentagendaaspresentedand
themotionpassedunanimously.
3. METES&BOUNDSPARCEL,650COMMUNITYDRIVE;ESTESVALLEYCOMMUNITYCENTER
LOCATION&EXTENTDEVELOPMENTPLAN2016Ͳ06&MINORSUBDIVISIONPLAT
TomCarosello/ExecutiveDirectoroftheEstesValleyRecreationandParksDistrict(EVRPD)
presentedtheapplication.Theowner’srepresentative,ChuckJordan,wasinattendance,along
withVanHornEngineering&SurveyingEngineerDavidBangs.Hestatedthisprojectcomesabout
astheresultofaballotitempassedinNovemberof2015.Thedevelopmentreviewisforan
approximate65,000squarefootmultiͲgenerationalcommunitycenteronapproximately6.49
acres.ThesiteisbeingconveyedtotheEVRPDfromtheEstesParkSchoolDistrict.Sincethe
election,consultantsandarchitectswerehired,andtheyhavebeenincollaborationwithTown
andSchoolDistrictstaffondesigningthefacility.TheoriginalsquareͲfootcostofthecenterwas
approximately$290.Thecurrentcostsare$412persquarefoot,whichhasforcedtheEVRPDto
putlimitationsontheoriginaldesigns.TheEVRPDwillbestayingwithintheirbudgettoconstruct
theproposedcommunitycenter.
23
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
PlannerMcCoolreviewedthestaffreport.ThesiteislocatedontheEstesParkSchoolscampus,
surroundedbyStanleyPark.Theentiresiteis43.5areas.Theapplicantwouldliketocreatetwo
lotstoaccommodatetheproposedcommunitycenterandtheexistingschoolbuildingsite.
ProposedLot1wouldaccommodatetheexistingschools(37.86acres),andLot2would
accommodatetheCommunityCenter(6.49acres).AccesstothesiteisfromManfordAvenue
andCommunityDrive.ThisisaLocationandExtentDevelopmentPlanreview,whichgivesthe
Commissionersthelocationandscopeofthedevelopmentplan.Keyreviewcriteriaiscompliance
withtheComprehensivePlanandtheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).Additionally,a
MinorSubdivisionPlatisrequestedtocreatetwoparcelsofrecordfromoneexistingparcel.Staff
andtheapplicanthaveworkedcloselytogethertoworkthroughissues.Theapplicationwas
routedtoallaffectedagenciesandadjacentpropertyowners,andalegalnoticewaspublishedin
thelocalnewspaper.Allagencycommentshavebeenaddressedbytheapplicantandcanbe
takencareofduringthebuildingpermitprocess.
PlannerMcCoolstatedtherearethreekeyissues:
x Maximumlotcoverage,where71.7%isproposed,andthemaximumallowedis65%.The
applicantisrequestingaminormodificationfromtheEVDCtoallowthe71.7%.TheEstes
ValleyPlanningCommission(EVPC)hastheauthoritytograntaminormodificationto
allowtheproposedincreaseinlotcoveragepercentage.TheCommissionmustfindthat
themodificationadvancesthegoalsandpurposesoftheEVDC,orrelievesomepractical
difficultyindevelopingthesite.Stafffindsthatallowingthe6.7%overtheallowablelimit
wouldrelievedifficultiesandpromoteamoreenvironmentallysustainableproject.
PlannerMcCoolstatedthereweremanydesignchallenges,includingbutnotlimitedto
incorporatingtheexistingaquaticfacilityintothedesignofthestructure.
x Buildingsite,orientation,andmaterialsrequirements,wheretheapplicantisrequestinga
minormodificationtoallowthemainentranceofthecommunitycenterfrontManford
Avenue.TheEVDCrequiresthemainentranceofallbuildingsintheCO–Commercial
Outlyingzonedistrictbeorientedtothefrontpropertylineandtothemaximumextent
feasiblelong,flatorblankwallsfacingthestreetshouldbeavoided.Thefrontproperty
lineisalongCommunityDrive,andtheapplicantprefersthemainentrancefrontManford
Avenue.Theapplicanthasproposedenhancedtreatmenttothebuildingalong
CommunityDrivewhichwouldresultinlessvisualimpact(buildingmaterials,façade
changes,windows,etc.).TheexistingaquaticcenterdoesnotfrontCommunityDrive.
x Screeningandminimizingvisualimpactofrooftopmechanicalequipment.Theapplicant
mentioneddesignchangesthroughoutthereviewprocess,andthefinaldesignforthe
rooftopmechanicalequipmentandscreeningofsuchhasnotbeenfinalized.Theapplicant
requestedtodeferthatsubmittaltoalaterdatetobedetermined.Therefore,staffhas
includedaconditionofapprovalfortherooftopscreening.
24
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
StafffindstheproposeddevelopmentadvancesseveraladoptedCommunityͲwidepolicies,
includingcommunitydesign,growthmanagement,mobilityandcirculation,aswellaseconomics.
PlannerMcCooldiscussedthesubdivisiondesignstandards.TheEVDCstatessidewalksonboth
sidesofthestreetmayberequiredifitisdeterminedtherearesignificantpedestrianuses,unless
thereareunusualtopographicalconditions.Sidewalksinthisareagetheavyuse,astheschools
arelocatednearby.Itwasimportanttolookatcoderequirementsanddesignchallengesandhow
theapplicanthasaddressedthosechallenges.TheCommissionerscandetermineifsidewalksare
requiredonbothsides.TheapplicationhasproposedsidewalksalongCommunityDrive,butnot
onManfordAvenue.Therearecrosswalksdirectingpedestriantraffictothenorthsideof
ManfordAvenue,wheresidewalksalreadyexist.PlannerMcCoolstatedthedrainagestructureis
proposedforthenorthwestcornerofthesitealongCommunityDrive,whichlimitsspacefora
sidewalkonManfordAvenue.Theapplicantisrequestingmoreinternalparkinglotconfigurations
toprovidepedestrianaccess.Again,thedesignchallengesofincorporatingtheexistingaquatic
centermakeitunfeasibletoconstructasidewalkalongManford.PlannerMcCoolstated
adequatepublicservicesandfacilitiesareavailabletoservethedevelopment.Approvalofthe
minorsubdivisionwouldnotbedetrimentaltothepublicwelfare,injurioustootherpropertiesin
theneighborhood,norinconflictwiththepurposesandobjectivesoftheEVDC.
PlannerMcCoolstatedstaffisrecommendingapprovaloftheLocationandExtentDevelopment
Plan,withtheconditionregardingtherooftopscreeningofmechanicalequipment.Staffis
requestingtheconditionbemetwithin30daysofthePlanningCommissiondecision.
StaffandCommissionDiscussion
CommissionerMoonwasconcernedaboutthesidewalkissue.AsamemberofthePoliceAuxiliary
Unit,heassistsstudentscrossingthestreetsandisconcernedfortheirsafety.Hestatedabetter
effortshouldhavebeenmadetorelocatethedetentionpondinordertocreatesidewalkson
ManfordAvenue.
ApplicantandStaffDiscussion
DavidBangs/applicantengineerstatedtherearethreemainconnectionpointstotheexisting
publicinfrastructure:(1)onthewestsideoftheproposedcommunitycenterthatcrossesatthe
intersectionofGravesAvenueandCommunityDrive,whereanupgradedcrosswalkwillbe
constructed;(2)atthenorthwestcornerofthesitewhichcrossesManfordAvenuetoexisting
sidewalkonthenorthside,headingwest;(3)totheeast,existingconnectionswiththeschools
willbeimprovedalongthenorthsideofManfordAvenue.Theapplicantfeelsthesemeasuresare
adequatetogettingpedestrianstoexistingsidewalks.Thereisnosidewalkproposedalongthe
southsideofManfordAvenue.TheimprovedcrosswalkatGravesAvenueandCommunityDrive
willmakethecrosswalkslineupperpendicularwiththeintersection,ratherthanthecurrent
angleddesign.Vehicularcongestionwillbegreatlyreducedwiththereconfigurationofvehicle
accessroutes.Mr.Bangsstateditwouldnotbepracticaltorelocatethedrainagestructureas
thereisalargevaultinthatareacontainingthemechanicalequipmentfortheschool’ssprinkler
systems.CommissionerHillsstatedthepeaktraffictimeforthecommunitycenterwillbe
25
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
between5:30and9a.m.,whichisthesametimestudentswillbearrivingtotheschools.Many
residentsvisittheexistinghealthclubsduringtheseearlymorninghours.She,too,wasconcerned
aboutstudentsafetyasitrelatedtosidewalksandtraffic.Mr.Bangsstatedthetrafficstudy
conductedbyDelichAssociateswasvalidandcredible.CommissionerKlinkstatedtheEVDC
requiressidewalksandtrailsinplaceswherethereisverylittlepedestriantraffic,andnowthey
arebeingaskedtowaivethestandardforsidewalksinaveryhightrafficarea.
ChuckJordan/projectarchitectexplainedtheschooldistricthasbeenapartofthedesignprocess,
anddidnotrequestasidewalkbeplacedonthesouthsideofManfordAvenue.Commissioner
MoonstatedthesituationatGravesandCommunityDrivewouldbemuchbetter,butthought
askingstudentstocrossanintersectiontwiceisnotacceptablewhentheadditionofasidewalk
wouldeliminateoneofthecrossings.
OtherCommissionercommentsincluded,butwerenotlimitedto:concernthattheballotstated
theproposedcommunitycentercouldbeusedasanevacuationcenterduringemergencies,but
wouldbedeficientinthatareawiththecurrentplanstohaveonlyacaterer’skitchen;whilea
commercialkitchenisnotpartofthecurrentplan,therearecommercialkitchenslocatedwithin
theschools;imperviouscoverageislessthanoriginallyplannedbecausethefootprinthasbeen
slightlyreduced,andsomelandscapeislandsintheparkinglotshavebeenredesignedtoincrease
theamountofparkingavailable;thedevelopmentreviewpertainstothefootprintofthebuilding
andtheminorsubdivisionplat,notthespecificusesoftheproposedbuilding.Mr.Bangs
requestedtoreservetherighttoprovideclosingcomments,ifneeded.
PublicComment
JohannaDarden/TownresidentstatedtheprojectdoesnotmeetthegoalsoftheComprehensive
Planortheneedsofthecommunity.Whatwaspresentedtothecommunitypriortothevotefor
thebondisquitedifferentthanwhatisbeingproposed.Acommunitycentershouldbemorethan
arecreationcenter.Theseniorcenterservicesthatwereproposedearlierhavebeenreduced.
Sheattendedmanymeetingsregardingthiscommunitycenter,andthecurrentproposalis
nothinglikewhatthepeoplevotedfor.
Publiccommentclosed.
StaffandCommissionDiscussion
CommissionerHillsreiteratedherconcernregardingthevehicletrafficearlyinthemorning,and
thesafetyconcernforstudents.ShewasinfavorofrequiringsidewalksalongManfordAvenue.
Itwasmoved(White)tocontinuetheapplicationtoallowtheapplicanttimetoworkonthe
trafficandsidewalkissues.Themotiondidnotreceiveasecond.
DirectorCarosellostatedthesidewalkcouldbeworkedintothedesignwithoutcontinuingthe
meetinganddelayingtheEVPCdecision.
26
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
TownAttorneyWhitestatedconditionscouldbeplacedregardingsidewalksandparking.The
applicantisunderaveryfasttrackandisupagainstsomeverytightdeadlines.Ifthereviewofthe
applicationiscontinuedthereisaverygoodchancetheprojectwoulddie.
StaffFindings
1. Theapplicationisconsistentwiththepolicies,goalsandobjectivesoftheComprehensive
Plan.
2. Adequateservicesandfacilitiesareavailabletoservethedevelopment,ifrevisedto
complywithrecommendedconditionsofapproval.
3. Ifrevisedtocomplywiththerecommendedconditionofapproval,theapplicationswill
complywithapplicablesectionsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode,asdescribedinthe
staffreport.
4. TherequestedMinorModificationtoMaximumLotCoveragerequirementsin§4.4,Table
4Ͳ5oftheEVDCrelievespracticaldifficultiesindevelopingthesite.
5. TherequestedMinorModificationtotheBuildingOrientationrequirementin§4.4D,
AdditionalZoningDistrictStandardsoftheEVDCrelievespracticaldifficultiesindeveloping
thesiteandresultsinlessvisualimpactwhileensuringthecharacteroftheareais
maintained.
6. ApprovaloftheproposedMinorSubdivisionwillnotbemateriallydetrimentaltothe
publicwelfare,injurioustootherpropertyintheneighborhood,orinconflictwiththe
purposesandobjectivesofthisCode.
7. ThePlanningCommissionistheDecisionͲMakingBodyfortheLocationandExtent
DevelopmentPlanandtheRecommendingBodyfortheMinorSubdivisionPlat
application.
8. TownBoardofTrusteesistheDecisionͲMakingBodyfortheMinorSubdivisionPlat
application.
ConditionsofApproval
1.TheapplicantshallsubmitanamendedElevationPlanthatidentifiesthefinallocationof
rooftopmechanicalequipmentandscreeningpursuanttoEVDC§7.13withinthirty(30)
daysofPlanningCommissionapproval.
2. TheapplicantshallinstallsidewalksonthesouthsideofManfordAvenuefromthe
intersectionofCommunityDriveandManfordAvenueattheeastend,totheintersection
ofCommunityDriveandManfordAvenueatthewestendoftheproperty.
Itwasmovedandseconded(Moon/Schneider)torecommendapprovalwiththefindingsand
conditionrecommendedbystaff,withtheadditionofCondition#2bytheCommissionandthe
motionpassed6Ͳ1withChairHullvotingagainst.
Commissionercommentsincluded:mosttrafficwillbebetween5:30and9a.m.;addingthe
sidewalkwouldreducethenumberofcrossingsrequiredfromthemiddleandhighschoolsfrom
threetoone;eliminatingmultiplecrossingswouldimprovestudentsafety.
27
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4.PROPOSEDAMENDMENTTOTHEESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTCODEREGARDING
CONCURRENTREVIEW–TIMINGOFBOARDOFADJUSTMENTREVIEW
SeniorPlannerChilcottreviewedthestaffreport.Shestatedin2014theTownBoardandCounty
CommissionamendedtheEVDCtorequirethatinallcases,varianceapprovalsmustbethelast
entitlementapprovalobtained.Specifically,thecodestates“TheCommunityDevelopment
DirectorshallrequirethatBOAreviewoccurafterfinalactiononrelateddevelopment
applicationsbytheDecisionͲMakingBody...”Thisamendmentwasputinplaceindirectresponse
toaspecificdevelopmentapplication.Atthattime,Trusteesdirectedstafftorevisitthecode
amendmentduringthenext18Ͳ24months.Inthattime,Staffhasfoundthecodeamendmentto
havemoredisadvantagesthanadvantages.Specifically,therequirementcreateslongerreview
timesfornonͲcomplexornonͲcontroversialprojects.Forcomplexprojects,thereisadditional
financialburdenontheapplicantforengineeringanddesignexpensesthatcouldbereducedif
theBOAreviewoccurredearlieroninthereviewprocess.
SeniorPlannerChilcottstatedstaffrecommendsthecurrentcodeberevisedtoallowthe
applicanttorequestaparticularprocessingschedulefortheirapplication,andfortheCommunity
DevelopmentDirectortohavetheauthoritytoreviewandapprovedsaidschedule.Thiswould
providemoreflexibilityfortheDirectorinregardstoschedulingapplicationreviews.This
directionwasbroughtforwardatthedirectionInterimDirectorKarenCumbo.ThePlanning
CommissionistheRecommendingBodytoboththeTownBoardandCountyCommission.
StaffandCommissionDiscussion
Therewasdiscussionaboutwhethercertainapplicationprocessescouldbecircumventedifthis
codeamendmentpassed.Therewasadditionaldiscussionaboutthedefinitionof“concurrent”.It
wasstatedthereareconsiderablecostsinvolvedinthedesignofprojects,andiftheBOAisthe
lastofthereviewprocessesandthevarianceisdenied,theapplicantwouldhavespenta
significantamountontheprojectwithoutapositiveoutcome.IftheBOAcouldbeoneoffirstto
reviewtheproject,thoseexpensescouldbeminimized.Othercommentsincluded:thiswouldbe
puttingthecodebackthewayitwas;thereisnoproblemwithgivingauthoritytotheCommunity
DevelopmentDirector,butwouldliketoseecriteriathatdefineswhentheCommunity
DevelopmentDirectormakesthedecisionforwhichprocess.Thisexplanationofauthoritycould
bethroughawrittenpolicy.
DirectorHuntsuggestedhavingaknownquantityfortheapplicant,e.g.astandardprocesswitha
calendarthatallowsthepublic,staff,andBoardmemberstoknowifanapplicationisfiledona
certaindateandiscomplete,itwillreachcertainmilestonesoncertaindates.Hewouldliketo
makesurethatistransparentforthepublicandapplicants.Acalendarcouldbeprovidedto
Commissionersforreview.Asituationwherethisprocesswouldberelevantiswhenapotential
buyerhasacontractonaproperty,andtheabilitytohavethevarianceheardatthebeginningof
theprocesswouldassistindeterminingwhetherornotthepropertycouldbedevelopedas
planned.CommissionerKlinksuggestedremovingthetext“wheneverpossible”fromthe
proposedcodelanguagetoaddclaritytotheamendment.
28
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
PublicComment
JohannaDarden/townresidentstatedthereasontheBOAwasaskedtomaketheirdecisionafter
thePlanningCommissionwasforaverygoodreason,whentheproposedperformingartscenter
heightvariancewasbeingdetermined.ShewasuncomfortablewithhavingtheBOAbeingthe
firstdecisionͲmakingbodyonamajorproject.Allthefactsshouldbeconsideredontheproject.
Shesuggestednotmakingarecommendationonthisitemtodaytoallowtimeforadditional
thoughtontiming.ShestatedprojectsintheEstesValleytendtobepushedthroughveryfast.
Itwasmovedandseconded(Klink/Hills)torecommendapprovaloftheproposedcode
amendmenttotheTownBoardandCountyCommissionaspresentedbystaff,withtheremoval
ofthetext“wheneverpossible”inadditiontotheotherproposedtextdeletionsandthe
motionpassedunanimously.
5. REPORTS
A. EstesValleyBoardofAdjustment
1.PlannerChilcottreportedtheMaxwellInnandNewbergResidencevarianceswere
approvedJuly12,2016
B.EstesParkTownBoard
1.PlannerChilcottreportedtheAnnexationRequestforMountainMeadowSubdivisionwas
continuedtoAugust9,2016toallowstaffandtheapplicanttoworkoutanagreementfor
phasingtheinfrastructureimprovements.
C.LarimerCountyBoardofCommissioners
1.CommissionerWhitestatedthePlanningCommissionersreceivedaletterfromTown
AdministratorLancasteronJuly1,2016regardingAccessoryDwellingUnits(ADUs).Itwas
broughttotheattentionoftheLarimerCountyBoardofCommissionersthatworkforce
housingwasneededduetotheanticipatedclosingofHighway34betweenLovelandand
EstesPark.CommissionerDonnellyandCommissionerJohnsondidnotsupportpursuing
thetopicofADUsatthistime.
AssistantTownAdministratorMachalekstatedthereishopetomeetwiththeCounty
CommissionerstodiscussADUsandworkforcehousinginregardstothehighwayclosure.
Therehasnotbeenanyformaldiscussionaboutproposedcodeamendments.
AdministratorLancasterprovidedadvanceinformationtothePlanningCommissioners.
CommissionerWhitestatedshewasconcernedabouttheCountyCommissioner’s
commentsregardingtheHousingSummitandADUsandprocesses.ATAMachalekstated
atsomepoint,therewillbeapublicmeetingregardingtheseitems,andtheywillbe
noticedsothepublicisawareofthem.TownBoardLiaisonRonNorristhanked
CommissionerWhiteforbringinguptheissue.Thisisacasewheresomeconcurrent
reviewandcommunicationwouldbeprudent,andrecommendedATAMachalekprovide
somebackgroundinformationtoTownTrusteesinhisweekͲendreporttohelpthe
Trusteesgetuptospeedonthisissue.
29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
July 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
D.SeniorPlannerChilcottreportedstaffiscontinuingtoworkonanagreementwithWinterand
AssociatestoperformtheDowntownPlan.Staffreceivedarevisedscopeandbudgetlatelast
weekandwilldeterminehowtomoveforward.
E.EnvironmentalPlannerTinaKurtzreportedsheisnowtheFloodplainManagerfortheTownof
EstesPark.Regardingfloodplainmapping,wearewaitingforpeerreviewsofthehydrology
studytobecompleted.Asoftoday,nodateshavechanged.Therewasbriefdiscussionabout
howmappingisrelatedtobridgereplacement.Ms.Kurtzstatedthemapcreatorswillbase
theirmapsonexistingconditions.Anyprojectstakingplaceafterthoseinitialmappingstudies
canbeaddressedasneeded.Changescanalsobemadeafterfloodplainmapsareformally
adopted.Thestatehascontroloverthemappingprocess.Ifapprovedprojectsarecompleted
afterthemappingisdone,changescanbemadetothemapstoincorporatethechanges.
TownAttorneyWhitestatedtheEnvironmentalAssessmentfortheLoopprojectincludedthe
areafromRiversideDrivedownstreamtoHighway36.Thisareamaybefurtherstudiedfor
possiblechannelwidening.
Therebeingnofurtherbusiness,ChairHulladjournedthemeetingat2:53p.m.
_________________________________
BettyHull,Chair
___________________________________
KarenThompson,RecordingSecretary
30
380 N. WILSON AVE
Loveland, CO 80537
Desk: 970-962-2170
Fax: 970-663-9133
www.leta911.org
August 4, 2016
To: All Larimer County Government Partners
RE: 9-1-1 Diversity
Problem:
On September 12, 2013 Estes Park and the surrounding Valley lost the ability to dial 9-1-1 from their wireless and landline devices.
From that tragic flood, we learned the core CenturyLink infrastructure that supports 9-1-1 was not built with physical path redundancy to
many of our communities in Larimer County including Estes Park. Despite ongoing conversations with the Public Utilities Commission,
Commission Staff, and CenturyLink, tangible progress to address this issue was not made. On March 23, 2016 a spring snowstorm
caused another 9-1-1 outage in the same Estes Valley area. The outage lasted for 7 hours on landline phones and 28 hours for wireless
phones.
Background:
LETA has found the following items to be critical for your consideration:
Attachment 1 was created by the PUC and is a summary on the historical documented action that has occurred since
LETA’s investigatory request following the 9-1-1 outage in September 2013.
The PUC rules and Tariff process in Colorado allows a certified basic emergency service provider to provide 9-1-1
in Colorado. In Colorado, we have two certified 9-1-1 providers, CenturyLink and West Safety Services.
CenturyLink is the only carrier that provides the physical network for 9-1-1.
May 20th, 2016 LETA, CenturyLink and all Stakeholders held a meeting in Estes Park to discuss 9-1-1 diversity and
to have an open discussion about resolution.
June 22nd 2016 LETA provided CenturyLink with a formal written request to provide diversity to Estes Park as the
PUC stated the previous verbal and written inquiries did not constitute a formal request.
July 13th, 2016 LETA held a conference call with CenturyLink and the PUC about LETA’s formal diversity request.
August 2nd 2016 LETA held another conference call with CenturyLink and the PUC about LETA’s formal diversity
request.
Current Status:
CenturyLink stated they are having conversations with Platte River Power Authority(PRPA) about running fiber on PRPA’s poles or
leasing fiber that is being ran by PRPA along Highway 34/Highway 43 to Estes Park. CenturyLink did not know the status of their
negotiations with PRPA nor could they provide a timeline. If CenturyLink partners with PRPA, this would provide a diverse physical
path for 9-1-1 in the Estes Valley.
CenturyLink has not provided a formal written response to LETA’s diversity request dated June 22 nd 2016. CenturyLink stated they will
respond to LETA in writing but did commit to a timeframe.
CenturyLink remains as the only 9-1-1 provider in Colorado providing the physical network.
The telecom rules do not require a timeline for a carrier to reply to a 9-1-1 diversity request. The rules simply state “the carrier shall
develop cost based tariff rates for diverse routing of 9-1-1 circuits”. The PUC has demonstrated over the last several years that they do
not have the authority to require CenturyLink to provide diversity in our 9-1-1 network.
Action:
The LETA Board believes they have tried to resolve the 9-1-1 Diversity issue through all means possible without resolve. LETA is
contemplating filing a formal complaint at the PUC, Governor’s Officer, and the Federal Communications Commission. They would like
to file the complaint with signatures of our Government Partners. Please contact me or your LETA Board representative by August 31st
2016 if your agency would like to jointly file a complaint.
Sincerely,
Kimberly J. Culp
Kimberly Culp, LETA Chief Executive Officer
970-962-2175 kculp@leta911.org
31
32
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: August 23, 2016
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District and the Town of Estes Park for the Estes Valley Community
Center
Objective:
To obtain Board approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Estes
Valley Recreation and Park District (District) and the Town of Estes Park (Town)
regarding the Estes Valley Community Center (EVCC).
Present Situation:
On July 12, the Town Board unanimously approved Resolution #17-16 directing staff to
negotiate an intergovernmental agreement with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District for the Estes Valley Community Center. Town staff has met with representatives
of the District and drafted an IGA that staff believes is in line with the direction given by
the Board. The District Board approved the IGA on August 16.
Advantages:
•Provides for enhanced services for seniors including recreational programs,
social programs, and activities
•Provides for the transfer of existing program coordinators
•Provides for unified management and programming of the EVCC
•Eliminates the need for ongoing lease/operating agreements between the Town
and the District for the operation of the EVCC
•Provides Senior Center patrons with seamless integration into all program
offerings at the EVCC
Disadvantages:
•The delivery method of some programming may change
•Some senior citizens are more comfortable with the Senior Center being part of
the Town rather than part of the District
Budget:
The 1A funds are budgeted and will be distributed in accordance with the IGA
33
Action Recommended:
That the Town Board approve the IGA
Level of Public Interest:
Very High
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding the Estes Valley
Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign.
34
35
36
37
38
39
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: August 9, 2016
RE: Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
(Continued from July 26, 2016)
[NOTE: Italics signify new sentences added since the July 26 Town Board
Memorandum on this topic.]
Objective:
Determine if the fee waiver request complies with Town Board’s adopted fee waiver
policy and take action on the request.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) has submitted three
development applications for the proposed Estes Valley Community Center, a minor
subdivision plat application, a location and extent development plan application, and a
variance application. On July 19, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
approved the development plan and forwarded a recommendation to Town Board to
approve the minor subdivision plat. The variance is scheduled for Board of Adjustment
review on August 2, 2016. Staff anticipates that a building permit application will be
submitted within the next few weeks. The height variance was approved by the Board of
Adjustment on August 2, 2016, with no conditions.
The EVRPD is requesting a waiver of the development application fees, building permit,
and plan review fees. Requested fee waivers total approximately $137,000, if all
Community Development fees (Planning review, Building permit, and Building Plan
Review) are waived.
The Town Board has adopted a fee waiver policy to support essential community needs
through consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community
Development Department. The policy states in part that public funded government
construction may be exempted from building permit fees, development review fees, and
sign code fees. It also states that the decision-making body (Town Board) will hear the
Community Development Memo
41
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
fee waiver request and may choose to waive fees based on the merits of the request.
The community center project is a publically funded government construction project.
For the exact policy language refer to the attached policy.
The Community Development/Community Services Committee reviewed the fee waiver
request at the June 16, 2016 meeting and forwarded the request for Town Board
consideration and action.
Proposal:
The attached letter from the EVRPD dated May 27, 2016, further describes the request.
The bulk of the requested fee waiver, approximately $133,000, is for building permit
fees. These fees are intended to cover direct expenses associated with review of the
community center construction plans and in-progress inspection of construction for
compliance with the Town’s adopted building codes.
Typically, Community Development does not make recommendations regarding fee
waiver requests. However, this requested waiver is significant enough that Chief
Building Official (CBO) Birchfield recommended Town Board approve a partial rather
than full fee waiver. The Division’s ability to provide plan review and inspection services
for the Community Center project within the approved departmental budget will be
compromised with a full fee waiver request. Another option to address the CBOs
concern is a budget revision to account for the reduced revenue and increased
expenses.
The CBO recommended that twenty percent (20%) of the building permit fee,
approximately $16,817, be retained. This is intended to cover the Building Division’s
general administrative costs associated with the Community Center project. The CBO
recommended no waiver of the plan review fee as the CBO intends to outsource plan
review to Colorado Code Consulting (CCC) for workload reasons.
The following table (Table 1) estimates the fiscal impact of a FULL planning and
building fee waiver:
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variance $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$84,083.75
Plan Review Fees**$49,000.00
Subtotal $133,083.75
TOTAL $136,783.75
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $22,500,000.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the number of reviews
required. They could range anywhere from $19,000.00 - $49,000.00.
42
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
The following table (Table 2) estimates the fiscal impact of a PARTIAL planning and
building fee waiver, following the Building Official’s suggestions outlined above:
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variance $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$67,267.00
Plan Review Fees**$0.00
Subtotal $67,267.00
TOTAL $70,967.00
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $22,500,000.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the number of reviews
required. They could range anywhere from $19,000.00 - $49,000.00.
Staff estimates that waiving ALL fees (Table 1) will reduce 2016 Budget estimated total
revenues as follows:
Planning div. (1600 series): 1.0% ($3,700 / $374,096)
Building Safety div. (2300 series): 34.2% ($133,084 / $389,210)
Staff estimates that PARTIALLY waiving fees (Table 2) will reduce 2016 Budget
estimated total revenues as follows:
Planning div. (1600 series): 1.0% ($3,700 / $374,096)
Building Safety div. (2300 series): 17.3% ($67,267 / $389,210)
Please note that at this time no other fees have been requested for waiver in connection
with the Community Center project – e.g., waiver have not been requested for water tap
fees or other utility fee costs, etc.
Advantages:
Aligns with Town Board’s policy of supporting essential community needs through
consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community Development
Department.
Waiving fees will reduce project costs for a community project that has a very tight
budget. If fees are not waived, the EVRPD may need to further reduce the size or
scope of the project.
Disadvantages:
The fee waiver policy applies to waiver of in-house fees, not direct expenses
incurred in outsourcing. The Town has incurred and will continue to incur direct
expenses associate with outsourcing for this project. Community Development
outsourced development application review to McCool Development Solutions due
the applicants’ construction schedule and a staff (Planner) vacancy. The Building
Division intends to outsource the building plan review for workload reasons.
However, this policy is about seven months overdue for review and possible revision
43
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
and the policy was adopted prior to the department outsourcing a fairly significant
amount of work.
Approval of the request would reduce the ability to recover expenses associated with
the Community Development Department’s development review, building permitting
and inspection functions.
Approval of the request would impact the ability of the department to meet the cost
recovery goals established by Town Board.
Level of Public Interest
High – Community Center
Low – Fee Waiver Request
Action Recommended:
On June 21, 2016, the Community Development/Community Services Committee heard
the staff report and forwarded the request to Town Board for consideration and action.
The committee made no recommendation to approve or deny the request. Because the
requested fee waiver is greater than $3,000, Town Board is the decision-making body
for this request.
Budget:
General Fund: 101-1600-341.30-00 Charges for Services – Application Fees-Inside
$3,700 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-1600.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Estimated at $6,000 in outsourced development review services (budgeted)
General Fund: 101-2300-322.10-00 Licenses and Permits – Building
Approximately $133,000 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-2300.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Roughly estimated at $50,000 in outsourced building services (unbudgeted)
Sample Motion:
a. I move to approve the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request.
b. I move to approve the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request,
provided that Building Plan Review Fees are not waived and that Building Permit Fees
are waived in an amount no more than eighty (80) percent of the final Building Permit
Fee total.
c. I move to deny the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request.
Attachments:
1. Written request from the applicant
2. Community Development Fee Waiver Policy
44
45
46
47
Public Comment
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sonja McTeague <sonjamcteague@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Town considers agreement to transfer senior services to Recreation District Aug. 23
To: krusch@estes.org
The bottom line is: senior citizens have been budgeted out! This in the community with the the highest mean
age in Colorado! Shameful!!!
Sonja McTeague
Sent from my iPad
From: Esther Cenac <esther.cenac@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Town considers agreement to transfer senior services to Recreation District Aug. 23
To: krusch@estes.org
Pot note-And the fault lies with the town so do not keep trying to place blame on rec. board or anywhere else.
Take the blame and retify it.
Esther Cenac
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Esther Cenac <esther.cenac@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Town considers agreement to transfer senior services to Recreation District Aug. 23
To: krusch@estes.org
This is a bunch of bunk. I do not use meal services for seniors but many do and need them. Meals on wheels
was even in use 30 years ago. My on- laws needed the service then. Mid day meals are used by many and
may be the only ho meal they enjoy. Our taxes and volunteer services contribute as much or more than many
others. If we can continue with help for children and the poor...seniors need assistance as well.
Esther Cenac
date: Tue, Jun
21, 2016 at
2:27 PM
subject: Estes
Valley
Community
Center
48
Hello. I've just read the following that was posted on Facebook :
"The Town of Estes Park Colorado is leaning heavily on the Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District as they try to reduce dedicated "senior space" in the design of the Estes Valley
Community Center to the point of discussing not releasing the funding of Ballot 1A money. If you
listen to the public comments at the town board meeting this week, those voters want a community
center and they feel the town is prioritizing the senior center space. I would encourage you to
contact town staff and EVRPD with your opinions about this project, they have difficult decisions to
make and expressing your support and concerns will be helpful."
When I voted for the Community Center, it was based on the plans which included the space allocated for
the Senior Center. I believe changing this is a slap in the face to seniors and all the folks who cast their
votes.
Please consider EVERYONE in our beautiful community when making the difficult decisions to come. I
am a volunteer at The Estes Park Senior Center, and also for the Meals on Wheels program.
Thank you,
Jan Tenzer
from: karin
edwards <karinjedwards@gmail.com>
to: townclerk@estes.org
date: Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:58 AM
Please don't transfer senior services to parks and rec. Please leave the senior center in the current location
and find storage for the museum in another location.
Thank you.
Sharon Coleman <scole6142@gmail.com>
Aug
16
to me
Just wanted to say that I've never experienced a Senior Center without meal services. Quite a disgrace!
49
from: WERFSR@aol.com
to: townclerk@estes.org
date: Wed, Aug 17, 2016
at 7:17 PM
We are not permanent residents of Estes Park; however, we do spend 4
months here and own property in Estes Valley and also are interested in the
plans for the services for Seniors. It is our understanding that there would be
no meal service or meals-on-wheels for Senior citizens if their center is moved
to the new recreational facility. This is a serious mistake to make by the city of
Estes Park. Your permanent residents include many senior adults who use
the services of the Senior Center year round. Many summer residents also
use the Senior Center and their food services during the time that they are in
Estes Park. I feel sure that there are many senior citizens and handicapped
citizens who also depend upon the Meals-On-Wheels deliveries.
The city of Estes Park must consider the needs of its' permanent residents
over the emphasis on tourism or this little "paradise" will disappear.
Mr. & Mrs. W. E. Ryle
2160 Upper High Drive
P. O. Box 2193
Estes Park, CO
50
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Fwd: New Community Center
krusch@estes.org <krusch@estes.org>Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM
To: Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>, Lori Mitchell <lmitchell@estes.org>,
Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anne Nichting <anichting@aol.com>
Date: August 10, 2016 at 3:42:28 PM MDT
To: krusch@estes.org, Tom Carosello <tomc@evrpd.com>, "judyfontius@estesvalley.net"
<judyfontius@estesvalley.net>, Susan Robertson <susanrobertson@xmission.com>
Cc: Sandra Life <sandra31943@yahoo.com>, Carol Arnold <arncarol@gmail.com>
Subject: New Community Center
To the Boards of the Town of Estes Park, EVRPD and Seniors Inc.,
As an initial side note, I would request that this email be forwarded to all
the Trustees of the Town and the Mayor, EVRPD Board Members and
Seniors Inc Board Members. I am also providing a copy to two neighbors
who have been concerned about this issue. These are my concerns only and
do not reflect the thoughts or concerns of others.
As a preface to my concerns, here is where I stand : I live in the Estes
Valley but not within the limits of the Town of Estes Park. I moved up here
from Denver as a full time resident in February of this year. My husband and I
have owned a home up here since May 2011. I am shy of 60 but love the
thought of spending my retirement here in Paradise. I currently volunteer one
day a week with the Meals on Wheels program. I am concerned about the
misunderstandings, lack of communication and lack of co ordination between
your three entities in the process of bringing on line a Community Center to
the Estes Valley. And I think there are other stakeholders involved that are not
represented by your three entities.
I will also preface my concerns with how excited I am about a
Community Center. I think it is sorely needed and will be an invaluable asset
in the long term for the Estes Valley if the current status quo is handled with
more communication and coordination between your three entities (the
Town, EVRPD and Seniors Inc.)
When I ask questions and get responses from one entity it has raised
more uncertainty and questions for me. For instance, the Town indicated it
would transition all three current staff members who service seniors to
EVRPD but based on a response from EVPRD it seems they have plans for 51
only one staff person directed with a focus, not solely, on senior services.
This would appear to be a big cut back. And it seems even if Seniors Inc.
wanted to help build a seniors only space within the Community Center, this
might not be a possibility. As someone who practiced Elder Law, I think
having at least one dedicated space for meetings, coffee, etc. would be a key
service for the senior community. This would be a dedicated place to meet
with other senior friends, away from the bustle of the rest of the community,
and without the concerns about the ability to hear or walk given
the rambunctious nature of younger generations.
And there are key social services being offered to seniors through the
Senior Center today medical referral services , transportation, integration
with and to other county services that I do not think are currently being
considered. Is this a role a new Meals on Wheels entity would be expected to
continue? Is that being considered or planned for? The Town has had
dedicated space and human resources devoted to senior services for quite
some time. I am concerned about the precipitous and unplanned manner they
are removing themselves from senior services to the Estes Valley.
I also have questions for Seniors Inc. and EVPRD about their
communication and leadership roles in this process to date and moving
forward. My goal is not to inflame the situation but to see how the community
can work with all three of you in a coordinated fashion.
Therefore, I ask if there is not a way for each of your three groups to
come together and communicate more with each other and the
local community in a combined leadership role to answer questions, address
concerns and perhaps plan better after listening to the questions and
concerns? I think the lack of coordinated leadership has been and will
continue to be a real problem within the senior community of the Estes Valley
unless more co ordination occurs. I think trust has been lost and it is up to
you as elected officials to regain that trust. To be blunt, coordinated
leadership is lacking and that falls on elected officials. I vote to elect leaders
not just elected officials.
I have questions about each entities leadership role or lack of it in this
process. But rather than focus on those individual questions I will ask you to
figure out a way that each of your entities can come together and co ordinate
an effort to listen to the Estes Valley communities concerns particularly
the seniors because of all the changes they are facing and take them into
account as the Community Center project moves forward.
I think Estes Park and its immediate surroundings are a wonderful
retirement community for nine months of the year. For three months of the
year it is a tourist community. I would appreciate if you could direct me to a
fact based study indicating how much monies through sales tax and property
52
tax Estes Park citizens and those in the immediate area contribute to its
revenue. I want to understand this to know that elected officials are directing
monies towards servicing their tax paying constituencies. I want to become
more informed about this and would appreciate your assistance. I think the
seniors of the Estes Valley are an important tax paying base that may get
overlooked.
I think this process with regards to the Community Center needs a lot
more communication, transparency and commitment in order to overcome all
the misunderstandings and lack of coordination in order to make it a unified
community and truly multigenerational Community Center. I greatly
appreciate your consideration, patience and perseverance during this
process. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Nichting
53
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Transfer of Senior Services
Rick & Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:15 PM
To: townclerk @estes .org
Please be aware that Senior Centers offering Senior Serv ices are not normally in recreation c enters in Northern
Colorado.
Seniors BlueBook .com
page 5657
Please listen t o and repres ent y our senior population in Es tes Park !
Vic k i Papineau
1711 Dek k er Circ le
Es t es Park, CO
Sent from my iPhone
im age1.JPG
144K
54
ENGINEERING Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 17, 2016
RE: Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement – Project Management Services
Objective:
To add project management services to support Town staff in the design and
construction of the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.
Present Situation:
In July, 2015, The Town applied for and received grant funding to improve the capacity
of the Moraine Avenue Bridge at the Riverwalk crossing. As Public Works developed
the scope and schedule of the project, it became apparent that management of a $2
Million dollar bridge replacement in downtown Estes Park could consume a project
manager nearly full time for the duration of the project. Public Works staff began
looking for ways to manage this project. Budgeting dollars from the General Fund for
another staff member was not a preferred option.
The Town reached out to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and was able to
receive funding assistance to hire a flood recovery project manager. This grant
agreement became effective on 12/31/2015 and extends through 2/28/2018. After
receipt of the grant, 2 separate attempts were made to hire a project manager as a 2-
year term employee through traditional measures (newspaper, indeed, CML, etc.).
Resumes were reviewed and interviews conducted, but no applicants demonstrated the
ability to manage all aspects of the project. After these unsuccessful attempts, the
Town reached out to DOLA again and received authorization to hire a consultant.
Proposal:
August 1, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Qualifications for the Moraine
Avenue Bridge Replacement - Project Management Services that focused on the
consultant’s expertise in the following areas:
1.The ability to be an extension of Town Public Works staff and support the project
from the Town perspective.
2.Provide public interface opportunities (meetings, open houses, presentations,
etc.).
3.Provide the technical ability to put out RFP’s and bid documents, review plans
and contracts, perform cost estimates, and work with grant funding requirements.
55
4. Provide technical expertise to address hydrology, hydraulics and floodplain
issues that exist.
5.Provide technical expertise to coordinate with CDOT, utilities, permitting, and
right-of-way acquisition.
6. Provide Construction Management and project closeout expertise.
One firm responded to the Request for Qualifications – Cornerstone Engineering &
Surveying.
The Cornerstone proposal demonstrated the firm’s ability to provide design services on
bridge/box culvert projects with federal funding and within the CDOT Local Agency
guidelines. They have experience with permitting, roadway design, construction
bidding, right-of-way acquisition, pedestrian underpass and trails, and utility relocations.
They have also added Deere/Ault to the project team which provides strong experience
in hydrology, hydraulics and floodplain analysis. Cornerstone is a local firm and
provided local examples of pertinent projects they had done that included:
1.Big Thompson River Bridge crossing at US Highway 36;
2.US Highway 36/Fish Creek Road Project;
3.Fish Creek Pedestrian Trail;
4.The MacGregor Avenue sidewalk expansion;
They are currently providing construction management for the Town on the Carriage
Hills dam repair project. The timing of that project ending would work well with this
project beginning.
Concurrently running with the Request for Qualifications, Public Works also advertised
again for a term staff position as a project manager. There were no applications
received that demonstrated adequate expertise needed to manage the bridge
replacement project.
Advantages:
•Contract approval will allow dedicated personnel to advance the design and
construction of the bridge project and meet the grant funding timelines.
•The grant funding provided by DOLA is for flood recovery efforts. Grant dollars
are not dependent on successful completion of the bridge replacement project.
The Town does not have the responsibility to reimburse DOLA should
unforeseen circumstances cause the bridge project to terminate.
Disadvantages:
•With this project, Public Works is looking to remove and replace a concrete box
culvert along a major transportation corridor in the middle of downtown Estes
Park. This will be a high profile project with multiple stakeholder concerns to
address. Even with the management consulted out, it will take additional staff
time to address public comments, attend meetings, etc.
•The construction work, even performed during the off-peak season in the winter,
will be disruptive to traffic flow and business.
56
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project and meet the grant
funding timelines, Staff recommends awarding a professional services contract to
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying.
Budget:
This project management service will be funded from a grant awarded to the Town for
flood recovery efforts through the Department of Local Affairs. There is $220,000
allocated for this management service. The Engineering budget (101-2400) of the
General Fund will be the budget location of this.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this project is expected to be high. This project has direct impacts to
traffic flow and downtown activity. Dedicated management will be vital to the project
success.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of a professional services contract with Cornerstone
Engineering and Surveying for the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project –
Project Management Services for a project cost not to exceed $220,000.
Attachments:
Professional Services Contract
Exhibit A – Town Issued Request For Qualifications
Exhibit B – Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying submitted proposal
57
58
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Contract is entered into this 23rd day of August, 2016, by and between the Town of
Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”) and Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (“Consultant”).
Whereas, the parties desire to contract with one another to complete the following project:
Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Project Management Services.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services.
a.The Consultant shall perform the services set forth in the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) which is an exhibit to this contract, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). The Town reserves the right to
remove any of the Services from the RFQ upon written notice to Contractor.
In the event of any conflict between this Contract and the RFQ, the provisions
of this Contract shall prevail. The Request for Qualification is a direct
extension of this contract.
b.No material change to the Services, including any additional compensation,
shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment to this
Contract executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written
authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for
additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust
enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided
herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is authorized to
modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of
action.
2.Price. The Town shall pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed $220,000. The
Town shall make payment within thirty days of receipt and approval of monthly invoices, which
shall identify the specific Services performed for which payment is requested.
3.Term. This Contract shall be effective from August 23, 2016 through February 28,
2018. This Contract may be extended or renewed by written agreement of the parties.
4. Appropriation. To the extent this Contract constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt or
financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the Town’s
annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The Town
shall have no obligation to continue this Contract in any fiscal year in which no such appropriation
is made.
5.Independent Contractor. The parties agree that the Consultant is an independent
Contractor and is not an employee of the Town. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’
compensation benefits from the Town and is obligated to pay federal and state income
tax on any money earned pursuant to this Contract.
59
6.Insurance Requirements.
a.Policies. The Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, shall procure and keep
in force during the duration of this Contract the following insurance policies
and shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing upon
execution of this Contract:
i.Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Consultant and
naming the Town as an additional insured with minimum combined
single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000
aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and
operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad
form property damage (including completed operations), personal
injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket
contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed
operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests
provision.
ii.Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the Consultant
and naming the Town as an additional insured against any liability for
personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising out of the use of motor
vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of all motor vehicles
controlled by the Consultant which are used in connection with this
Contract, whether the motor vehicles are owned, non-owned, or hired,
with a combined single limit of at least $1,000,000.
iii.Professional liability insurance insuring the Consultant against any
professional liability with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. (Note: this policy shall only be required if the
Consultant is an architect, engineer, surveyor, appraiser, physician,
attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional.)
iv.Workers’ compensation insurance and all other insurance required by
any applicable law.
b. Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be with companies qualified
to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s financial rating
acceptable to the Town. Said policies shall not be cancelable or subject to
reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty days prior
written notice to the Town. The Consultant shall identify whether the type of
coverage is “occurrence” or “claims made.” If the type of coverage is “claims
made,” which at renewal the Consultant changes to “occurrence,” the
Consultant shall carry a six-month tail. Comprehensive general and
automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and protection of
the Consultant and the Town. Such policies shall provide that the Town,
although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be entitled to
recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its officers,
employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Contractor, its officers,
employees, agents, subconsultants, or business invitees. Such policies shall
60
be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in excess of coverage
the Town may carry.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town,
its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability, claims, and demands on account
of any injury, loss, or damage, including court costs and attorneys’ fees, arising out of or
connected with the Services, if such injury, loss, or damage, or any portion thereof, is caused by,
or claimed to be caused by, the negligent act, omission, or other fault of the Consultant or any
subconsultant of the Consultant, or any officer, employee, or agent of the Consultant or any
subconsultant, or any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible. The Consultant’s
indemnification obligation shall not be construed to extend to any injury, loss, or damage to the
extent caused by the act, omission, or other fault of the Town. This paragraph shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Contract.
8.Professional Responsibility.
a.Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services, holds
all professional licenses required by law to perform the Services, and has all
requisite corporate authority to enter into this Contract.
b.The Services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently
maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or
similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Services shall be done in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
c.Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings,
specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or
resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications,
reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional
practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions
which fall below the standard of professional practice.
d.Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and
incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of its services. Neither the
Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the
Consultant’s services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
under this Contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of
this Contract.
e.Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any
employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a
financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or entity
which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or work for
the services provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms and conditions of
this Contract. Consultant understands and agrees that the purpose of this
provision is to prevent any information created as a result of Consultant’s
61
services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the preparation of
any bid or performance of any work for the Town.
f.Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise,
Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than twenty
percent (20%) of the work required under the Scope of Services. Upon
execution of this Contract, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of
proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor to
whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between
Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Contract including, but
not limited to, Section 10.
9.Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices, requirements,
immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and other provisions of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. and under any other applicable law.
10.Compliance with Applicable Laws.
a. Generally. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the
Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible for payment of all applicable
taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits and
approvals.
b.C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the date
of this Contract, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien
who will perform work under this Contract and that the Consultant will
participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in
order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly
hired for employment to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that fails to
certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or
contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The
Consultant certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this
Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the Department
program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-verify program
or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment
screening of job applicants while this Contract is being performed. If the
Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant performing work
under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the
Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant and Town within
three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subconsultant is
employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the
subcontract with the subconsultant if within three days of receiving the notice
required pursuant to this subparagraph the subconsultant does not stop
employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Consultant shall not
terminate the contract with the subconsultant if during such three days the
62
subconsultant provides information to establish that the subconsultant has not
knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall
comply with any reasonable request by the Department made in the course of
an investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the Town
may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with “Termination,”
below. If this Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall be liable for actual
and consequential damages to the Town. (Note: this paragraph shall not apply
to contracts: (i) for Services involving the delivery of a specific end product
(other than reports that are merely incidental to the performance of said work);
or (ii) for information technology services and/or products.)
c.Section 3. The work to be performed under any Contract issued as a result of
this solicitation is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u (Section 3)
which states that: 1) Employment, training, contracting and other economic
opportunities generated by HUD assistance shall, to the greatest extent
feasible, be directed to low and very low-income persons residing within the
Project Area; and 2), Contracts for work in connection with the Project be
awarded to businesses which are located in, or owned substantially by
persons residing in the Project Area. All CDBG-DR funded projects must, to
the greatest extent feasible, comply with Section 3 when contracting for
professional services.
11. Termination.
a. a. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Contract without cause
upon thirty days prior written notice to the other. The Town shall be liable to
pay the Consultant for Services performed as of the effective date of
termination, but shall not be liable to the Consultant for anticipated profits.
b.For Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to
be a material element of this Contract. In the event either party fails to perform
according to the terms of this Contract, such party may be declared in default.
If the defaulting party does not cure said breach within ten days of written
notice thereof, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Contract
immediately upon written notice of termination to the other. In the event of
termination of this Contract pursuant to this Section, the non-defaulting party
shall be entitled to recover all damages caused by said default. In the event
that Consultant is in default, the Town may withhold payment to the Consultant
for the purposes of setoff until such time as the amount of damages is
determined.
12.Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed received
when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested:
To the Town: To the Consultant:
Kevin Ash __________________________
Town of Estes Park __________________________
170 MacGregor Avenue __________________________
Estes Park, CO 80517 __________________________
Email: kash@estes.org __________________________
63
The Contract work shall be completed according to the following schedule unless
otherwise modified in writing with a subsequent Amendment to this Contract.
Task Description Due Date Responsible Party
Letting Date August 1, 2016 Letting Date
Pre-Submittal Meeting August 8, 2016 Pre-Submittal Meeting
Last Day for Questions August 12, 2016 Last Day for Questions
Proposal Opening August 15, 2016 Proposal Opening
Contract Negotiations August 15-18, 2016 Contract Negotiations
Notice of Award August 18, 2016 Notice of Award
Town Board Approval August 23, 2016 Town Board Approval
Project Start/NTP August 29, 2016 Project Start/NTP
Final Completion February 28, 2018 Final Completion
13.Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in performance of the Services and
is a significant and material term of this Contract.
14.Entire Agreement. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or
amended except by written agreement of the parties. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction
holds any provision of this Contract invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not invalidate or
render unenforceable any other provision of this Contract.
15. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Contract without the Town’s prior
written consent.
16.Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
17.Instruments of Service. Drawings, models, specifications, research, reports,
studies, data, photographs and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by
Consultant and its subconsultants in the performance of obligations under this Contract are
Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to the project identified in this Contract.
Consultant and its subconsultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective
Instruments of Service and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including copyrights; except that, upon execution of this Contract, the Consultant grants to the
Town a non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid, non-revocable license to reproduce and use the
Consultant's Instruments of Service solely in connection with the above-referenced project,
including the project's further development by the Town and others retained by the Town for such
purposes. The Consultant shall obtain similar licenses from its subconsultants consistent with
64
this Contract. Consultant shall, during the term of this Contract provide the Town with copies of
all Instruments of Service prepared by Consultant or its subconsultants contemporaneous with
such preparation, and shall provide them in electronic format or any other format requested by
the Town.
18.Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to
bring any action to enforce any provision of this Contract or to recover any damages from the
other party as a result of the breach of this Contract, including, but not limited to, defective work,
and the party that prevails in such litigation, the other party shall pay the prevailing party its
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court.
19.Electronic Signature. This Contract may be executed by electronic signature in
accordance with C.R.S. § 24-71.3-101 et seq.
Signed by the parties on the date written herein.
Signature page follows.
The Consultant is required to have a DUNS number and be registered on Sam.gov.
The Town of Estes Park represents and warrants that its contractors, are not presently excluded
from participation, debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, voluntarily
excluded, or otherwise ineligible to participate in a federal payment program by any federal or
State of Colorado department or agency. If the Town or any of our respective contractors are
excluded from participation, or becomes otherwise ineligible to participate in any such program
during the term of grants, the Town will notify the state or federal agency in writing within three
(3) days after such event. Upon the occurrence of such event, whether or not such notice is given
to the Town, the state in its sole discretion, reserves the right to immediately cease contracting
with the Town and terminate the grant without penalty.
Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352)—Contractors that apply or bid for an award of
$100,000 or more must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will
not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer
or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining
any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must also
disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any
Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-Federal award.
65
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
ATTEST:
________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Town Attorney
Consultant
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
STATE OF ________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________________,
20 by __________________________________________________.
(Insert name of individual signing on behalf of the Consultant)
___________________________
Notary’s official signature
S E A L
___________________________
Commission expiration date
66
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
67
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3
PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 4
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 4
DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................. 8
GRANT REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS .......................................................................................... 10
CONTRACT, TERMS AND CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 11
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Professional Services Agreement
68
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Estes Park is seeking a consultant with specific expertise in project management
services to manage the design, engineering and construction of a bridge replacement project for
the Town of Estes Park.
This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) provides the requirements for prospective applicants to
complete. The Position will be financed with a grant awarded to the Town through the
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA).
A pre-submittal meeting will be held at 2 p.m. on Monday, August 8 at the Town of Estes Park
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, CO 80517. The purpose of this
meeting will be to discuss the RFQ and answer questions. We encourage all interested
Proposer’s to attend.
Proposals will be evaluated to select a consultant with the requisite experience, qualifications,
and resources to complete the Project successfully with an agreed upon Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) and schedule in accordance with the project requirements specified by the Town.
Time is of the essence to complete this project.
To facilitate questions that may arise in preparing the Proposals, the Town will be responding to
questions in addendum format. All communication regarding this RFQ required for RFQ
clarifications, including technical questions shall be submitted in writing to the Point of Contact
(POC) person for this Project:
Kevin Ash, PE, Engineering Manager
Public Works
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517-1200
kash@estes.org
The Town has no obligation to accept further inquiries regarding the RFQ after the deadline
listed under the Proposed Project Schedule. The Town will be bound only to the Town’s written
answers to questions, as issued through the addendum process. Following the deadline for
submittal of the questions, an addendum containing the questions and answers will be posted
as a downloadable document on the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing website and on the Town’s
website by the deadline listed in this RFP. To be considered, all applicants will be required to
acknowledge receipt and concurrence of all RFP addenda in their Proposal letter of transmittal.
All addenda will become part of the RFP and of any Contract awarded.
The Town will not be responsible for the accuracy of any other oral explanations, interpretations
and/or representations.
Access to addenda will be provided on the Town’s website at http://www.estes.org/RFP.
Information related to this solicitation, including all Exhibits and any addenda, will be posted to
the Town of Estes Park website at: www.estes.org/rfp and Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing.
69
PROJECT BACKGROUND
During the September 2013 flood, the insufficient conveyance capacity of the Moraine Avenue
Bridge resulted in backwatering, causing water to overtop the banks of the river and flow onto
Weist Drive and Moraine Avenue.
Moraine Avenue (US Hwy 36) is a primary thoroughfare within the Town of Estes Park, which
begins at an intersection with Elkhorn Avenue in the heart of downtown Estes Park. 200 feet
south of this intersection, Moraine Avenue crosses Fall River and is a part of the Town’s
Pedestrian Riverwalk. This location is also approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence
with the Big Thompson River.
This bridge (Moraine Avenue Bridge) connects the downtown business corridor with the Beaver
Meadows entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), which is the most popular
entrance station. It also serves as the primary link between the eastern and western parts of
town, which is particularly important for emergency services and the economic viability of the
businesses west of the bridge. The other available routes to reach the west side of town and
the Beaver Meadows entrance from the downtown area and eastern parts of town are much
longer, sinuous or narrow making it difficult for larger vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles) to
negotiate. Use of these alternative routes also lengthens the response time of emergency
services. The bridge has a heavy traffic load throughout the year, in particular during the
primary visitor season of May through October.
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
This Scope of Work is intended to be a general outline of the Project work and not an all-
inclusive description of the professional and technical services that may be required to
undertake and complete the Project.
The proposed project is the removal and replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to increase
the current conveyance capacity, estimated as 576 cfs on the upstream side (12 feet wide by 6
feet deep at 8 feet per second velocity) and 768 cfs (16 feet wide by 6 f eet deep at 8 feet per
second) on the downstream side, so that it can convey the 100-year flood event discharge.
[Estimates of current bridge capacity were made by staff from Community Development
Department Building Division on August 25, 2014, for purposes of gathering data for a FEMA
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program application.] However, if during the engineering analysis it is
determined that site constraints and topographic limits do not allow for adequate capacity to
convey the 100-year event plus two feet of freeboard, the bridge will be designed to the largest
flood discharge possible, which would still result in significantly greater capacity than currently
exists.
Part of the vision of this project is to provide the current pedestrian traffic an alternative safe
crossing walkway under the new bridge. This crosswalk is part of the Estes Park Riverwalk
along Fall River which is part of the Estes Valley trails system and a draw for visitors to the
area. It will be determined during the engineering design phase if this is a possibility, given
bridge design constraints.
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND INFORMATION
Your proposal must include the following content:
1. Letter of Transmittal
2. Project Team Qualifications
70
3. Past Project Portfolio
4. Statement of Familiarity of Location
Letter of Transmittal
Provide a letter of transmittal that is limited to:
1.The name of the individual who will serve as the Consultant’s representative and have
contracting authority, and who will sign the proposal; the name of the individual who will serve
as the primary contact person for the Consultant’s work;
2. A description of the corporate ownership of the Consultant or the prime consultant in the case
of a proposing team.
Project Team Qualifications
1.The Project Team must demonstrate expertise and experience in the following:
a. Specific experience managing projects of similar size, complexity, and subject matter
b. Familiarity with environmental issues related to design, engineering, and construction of a
bridge replacement
2. The Project Team’s qualifications are to be demonstrated by providing the following
information:
a. Submit an organizational chart identifying the proposed Project Team’s key personnel and
subcontractors, including measures to assure the consistency and retention of key personnel of
the Project Team. The key personnel in the Project Team as specified in item 3 below shall
remain the Project Team throughout the contract term unless the Town of Estes Park consents
to a personnel change.
b. A summary of your firm’s business operations and capabilities as they pertain to the
proposed project of not more than three (3) pages in length. If the proposed Project Team
includes subcontractors, a summary of not more than one (1) page in length may be provided
for each subcontractor. Inclusion of any other descriptions of a firm’s overall business, or
promotional material is not encouraged and will not receive review.
c. Provide a personnel table identifying key personnel and proposed subcontractors and identify
the key personnel and proposed subcontractor’s expertise as related to this project’s
requirements.
3. For the Project Team’s key personnel, include resume and, at a minimum, the following
information for each individual:
a. Name/firm;
b. Project team assignment and responsibilities;
c. Availability during contract term;
d. Summary of expertise/experience with respect to the qualifications requirements listed above;
e. Education and relevant registrations;
f.Years of professional experience;
g. Experience with preparation of NEPA documentation including their role in the preparation;
h. Experience with Trail Design Engineering, including their role in the preparation;
Each resume for key personnel not to exceed two (2) pages.
4. For the proposed Project Manager, key personnel, and subcontractors, provide a list of at
least three (3) relevant projects. For each project provide a summary of the project including the
individual’s role, the date the project was completed, and a current reference that may be
contacted. The Project Manager, key personnel, and subcontractors shall only list project which
71
their company performed at least 50% of the work. The list and summary of projects shall be no
more than five (5) pages each.
DELIVERABLES
The selected project management consultant will be expected to provide oversight and manage
the project from design concept through construction and closeout. The following tasks
represent a high level understanding of how the project will develop and demonstrates the
categories that the project manager will oversee and manage. Specific details and
responsibilities will be negotiated once a consultant has been selected.
Task 1 – Flood Mitigation Project Manager, Construction Manager & Contractor Selection
The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department will enter into a contract with a selected
consultant/firm for a Project Manager (PM) to support Town engineers and adequately interface
with the design team, the construction contractor, Town Staff/Officials and the public.
Task 2 – Public Engagement, Coordination, and Education
Flood recovery work since September 2013 has validated the important role that effective public
engagement and coordination plays in project success. Further, the higher success rate of
engagement and coordination built from an education platform is proven. In Estes Park, private
landowners and community members are critical stakeholders in every conceivable flood
recovery effort that is needed to bring the Estes Valley area to a state of resiliency – for the
community, the economy, and the river system itself.
Additional tools for effective engagement and coordination, beyond stakeholder meetings,
include public open houses, targeted interviews with agencies and owners, online reference
page for project updates, interactive webpage, blog updates and/or Facebook page. Tools for
ongoing education efforts will include educational mini-presentations incorporated into
stakeholder and public meetings (project specific, general river science, and floodplain
management topics).
Task 3 – Assessment, Detailed Engineering Analysis and Conceptual Design
Engineering work in this task will build off of the ecologic, geomorphic, and flood risk
assessments completed for the Fall River Plan for Resiliency (Plan). Additional data will be
collected as identified in the Plan and/or as determined to be necessary during office- and field-
level assessments.
Additional data collection will be integrated into a detailed assessment of current conditions. The
additional data collection is expected to include, but not be limited to cross sectional, profile, and
topographic survey, geotechnical investigation and analysis, pebble counts, and office-level
estimation of limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in the project reach to support required
permitting and authorizations.
Detailed hydraulic models will be prepared for both regulatory and final design use. Floodplain
analysis will include effective, current, and proposed conditions. The models will be evaluated
for design purposes over the range of discharge profiles, from the 10- to 500-year.
After completion of the hydraulic analysis, preliminary roadway and bridge design will be done,
developing several bridge structure and foundation alternatives to meet the new width, span and
72
clearance requirements. The bridge and road approach alternatives will consider several
attributes such as construction cost, timing, traffic control, staged construction if required,
durability and aesthetics.
After the alternatives are developed, they will be presented in a matrix format that will allow the
City to select a preferred alternate. The preferred alternate will be developed to a 30% ‘Concept
Design’ level.
Along with the concept design plans, a written summary, including basis of design, will be
developed that documents the background information, alternatives studied and the basis of
selection. The concept design plans will be used for stakeholder review and comment.
Task 4 – Final Analysis and Design and Construction Documents
Following stakeholder review and comment, final analysis and design will be conducted to
respond to comments as directed and finalize design concepts, then develop construction
documents to include a construction drawing set and construction specifications. The submittals
will be a 60% complete set, 95% review set and then a final (100%) set. Construction drawings
will include plan and profile sheets showing locations and elevations of all proposed treatments,
as well as cross sections and typical details. Construction specifications will be correlated to the
construction drawings and provide more detail on materials and methods for project
implementation. Plans and specifications will conform to the latest CDOT Standard
Specifications.
Task 5 – Permitting
Required permits anticipated for this project are:
Federal Permits: (1) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) or New Study; (2) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Authorization by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE); (3) Section 404 to include threatened and endangered (T&E)
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); (4) Section 404 to include historic and
cultural issues under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); (5) Section 404 to include
annual monitoring for the typically required five year period; (6) FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Federal Environmental Laws/Executive Orders: (1) EO 11988 – Floodplain Management; (2) EO
11990 – Wetland Protection; (3) EO 12898 – Environmental Justice; (4) EO 13112 – Invasive
Species
State Permits: (1) Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) for Land Development; (2) Air Quality
Conformity Permit; (3) Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Construction Stormwater
and/or Dewatering
Local Permits: (1) Town Right-of-Way Permit; (2) Town Floodplain Development Permit; (3)
Town Grading Permit; (4) Utilities Agreements.
This scope of work assumes that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) will be required for this project because the project will occur in advance
of an anticipated new flood study for the drainages in Estes Park. This scope of work
additionally assumes that the project will qualify for authorization under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act using Nationwide and/or Regional General Permits (i.e., not require an Individual
73
Permit) and that no threatened and endangered species, historic or cultural issues of note will
need to be addressed.
60% complete plans will be utilized for permit applications.
Task 6 - Design Engineering Support for Construction
This task provides design engineering support to the Town throughout the construction bid and
implementation phases. Support includes provision of pertinent information on the final design
and permitting requirements to support preparation of a construction bid and assistance with
contractor prequalification, ranking, and selection processes, as well as development of an
engineer’s opinion of probable cost to assist evaluation of received bids. Design support to the
CM is included in this task as needed for design clarification, site visits, review of shop
drawings, etc. as necessary to ensure accurate interpretation and implementation of the
construction documents. Included in this task is final inspection and close out, as-built drawings
and a final load rating of the bridge.
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
Proposed Project Schedule
Letting Date August 1, 2016
Pre-Submittal Meeting August 10, 2016
Last Day for Questions August 12, 2016
Proposal Opening August 15, 2016
Contract Negotiations August 15-18, 2016
Notice of Award August 18, 2016
Town Board Approval August 23, 2016
Project Start/NTP August 29, 2016
Final Completion December 31, 2017
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
The Town intends to select a Consultant who is fully qualified and has assembled a Project
Team that can provide satisfactory service. The Town will be the sole judge of whether or not a
Consultant is considered to be fully qualified for the purpose of this RFQ, and will determine if
the proposals are complete and meet the requirements as described in this RFQ.
The Consultant selected for the Project will be chosen on the basis of the greatest apparent
benefit to the Town and the qualifications of the Project Team. In addition, the Town will comply
with Colorado Revised Statute (CRS 24-30- 1403), (24-30- 1408) and Title 23 CRF Part 172.
Proposals shall be evaluated by a selection committee assigned by the Town Board of Trustees
or designee on the basis of the Evaluation Criteria noted herein. The Town Board of Trustees,
shall make the final determination of the Consultant selected.
Each submitted proposal will be evaluated by the selection committee using the following
general criteria with a maximum of 100 points possible.
Project Team Qualifications – 30 points
a.Relevant expertise and experience of personnel assigned and committed to the
Project.
74
Relevant Project Examples/References – 30 points
a.Relevant project performance history, including competency, responsiveness,
cost control, work quality and ability to meet schedules and deadlines.
b.Public involvement expertise where scientific and/or technical study results were
presented to the general public and elected officials in an easy-to-understand
manner.
c.References from three pat clients for similar projects.
Responsiveness to Project Schedule/Project Approach – 30 points
a.Demonstrated understanding, approach, and effectiveness of approach to the
Project requirements, methodology, and deliverables.
b.Demonstrated understanding of the region and its characteristics.
c.Adherence to the Project completion date.
d.Understanding and foresight of any critical issues and challenges involved in the
project.
Proposal Accuracy/Completeness/Presentation – 5 points
a.Clarity, conciseness, organization and editorial precision in the proposal.
b.Adherence to the RFQ requirements. Incomplete proposals or failure to provide
the information required by the RFQ will result in the proposal not being
considered.
Budget Adherence – 5 points
a.Ability to perform work and complete the project within the project budget.
b.Proposed cost of the project compared to the project budget.
The selection committee will make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees for the
final selection of a Consultant and Contract approval for the Project. It is anticipated that a
recommendation from the selection committee will be forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees
for consideration and approval.
Submittal of Proposals
All Proposing firms shall comply with all conditions, requirements, and specifications contained
herein, with any departure constituting sufficient cause for rejection of the Proposal.
All proposals shall be submitted no later than 2:00 pm MST, August 15, 2016.
Proposals shall be addressed to:
Town of Estes Park, Department of Public Works, Room 100
PO Box 1200
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Attn: Kevin Ash
Fee Schedule shall be in separate sealed envelope (and not included in electronic copy) with
Consultant Name and Project Identification labeled. Proposal packages shall be submitted in a
sealed package marked on the outside:
a. Name of Consultant
b. Subject: Request for Qualifications – Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project
Management Services
75
GRANT REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
The work to be performed under any Contract issued as a result of this solicitation is subject to
the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as
amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u (Section 3) which states that: 1) Employment, training, contracting and
other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance shall, to the greatest extent
feasible, be directed to low and very low-income persons residing within the Project Area; and
2), Contracts for work in connection with the Project be awarded to businesses which are
located in, or owned substantially by persons residing in the Project Area. All CDBG-DR funded
projects must, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with Section 3 when contracting for
professional services.
Consultant selection will be made on the basis of a balance of adherence to the requirements of
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u
(Section 3), qualifications and the cost of proposed services that provide best value to the
Project.
The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u (Section 3) which
states that: 1) Employment, training, contracting and other economic opportunities generated by
HUD assistance shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low and very low-income
persons residing within the project area; and 2), Contracts for work in connection with the
project be awarded to businesses which are located in, or owned substantially by persons
residing in the project area. All Disaster Emergency Funds (DEF) funded projects must, to the
greatest extent feasible, comply with Section 3 when contracting for professional services.
Socioeconomic procurement required for all federal grants
Affirmative steps 44.CFR 13.36(e) – all 6 steps
1. Placing qualified small, minority, and women’s firms on solicitation lists
2. Assuring that small, minority, and women’s firms are solicited whenever they are
potential sources
3. Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or
quantities to permit maximum participation
4. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage
participation by these businesses
5. Using the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business
Development Agency
6. Requiring contractors to take affirmative steps when procuring subcontractors
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Contract,
it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this
Contract and that the Consultant will participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department
of Labor and Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in order to
confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to
perform work under this Contract. The Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an
illegal alien to perform work under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that
fails to certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or contract
with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant certifies that it has
confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to
perform work under this Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the
76
Department program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-verify program or the
Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while
this Contract is being performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a
subconsultant performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an
illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant and Town within
three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subconsultant is employing or
contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within
three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subconsultant
does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Consultant shall not
terminate the contract with the subconsultant if during such three days the subconsultant
provides information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed or
contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the
Department made in the course of an investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the
authority established in C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the
Town may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with “Termination,” below. If this
Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages
to the Town. (Note: this paragraph shall not apply to contracts: (i) for Services involving the
delivery of a specific end product (other than reports that are merely incidental to the
performance of said work); or (ii) for information technology services and/or products.)
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Submitting Consultants must attest that they are competent in conducting this project and
assure that their proposal is complete and will result in successful execution of work to complete
the Project.
Contract Formation
A proposal submitted in response to this RFQ is an offer to contract with the Town. A proposal
becomes a contract only when legally awarded and accepted in writing by the Town.
RFQ Amendments
Prior to the proposal due date and time, the Town reserves the right to change any portions of
this RFQ. Any changes or corrections will be through one or more written addendum(s), dated,
attached to, or incorporated in, and made a part of this RFQ. All changes must be authorized
and issued in writing by the Town. If there is any conflict between addendum(s), or between an
addendum(s) and the RFQ, whichever document was issued last in time shall be controlling.
It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to verify that every addendum has been received
prior to submitting a proposal and to acknowledge all addenda.
Incorporation of Documents
This RFQ, any subsequent addendum(s), and the Consultant’s proposal will be incorporated
into the resulting contract.
Right to Cancel
The Town reserves the right to cancel or reissue all or part of this RFQ at any time as allowed
by law without any obligation or liability.
The Town reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals or any part thereof. The right is
reserved to waive any formalities or informalities contained in any Proposal, and to award the
77
Contract to the most responsive and responsible Consultant as deemed in the best interest of
the Town.
Variation from Request for Proposal
The Town reserves the right to negotiate final terms with the selected Consultant that may vary
from those contained in this RFQ.
Licenses
The Consultant and sub-consultant(s) shall be licensed to do business in the State of Colorado
and the Town of Estes Park or provide a commitment that it/they will become licensed in
Colorado and the Town within thirty (30) calendar days of the Consultant selection by the Town
Board of Trustees. The Town of Estes Park charges a $200 annual business license fee.
Insurance
The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance of the type and amount as required.
Certificates must be approved by the Town Clerk’s Office prior to issuance of the contract.
References and Conflict of Interest Inquiry
The Town reserves the right to request a client list from the Consultant, for the purpose of
determining potential conflicts of interest or for obtaining references. Such lists shall be
considered proprietary.
Project Interfacing
Following award of the Contract, the Consultant will propose a Communication Protocol for
Town review and approval. This document will establish roles and responsibilities and identify
Project communications protocols with the Consultant and the Town. The Communication
Protocol will include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Procedures for scheduling and facilitating status updates and meetings.
2. Consultant will submit a monthly Project Status Report to the Town, in an agreed upon
format. Reports shall commence within four weeks after the Contract is executed and
continue through the end of the Contract period.
3. The Consultant shall not release Project-related documents to anyone other than the
Town’s Point of Contact, unless agreed upon by the Town.
Fees and Payment
A Contract Change Order approved by the Public Works Engineering Manager will be required
for any change(s) to a Project task(s). Additional services proposed by the Project Team must
be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the Public Works Engineering Manager prior to
performance and payment for such services.
Billing and payment cycles are as printed on the Annual Vendor Payment Schedule generated
by the Town’s Finance Department. The Consultant will submit and the Public Works
Engineering Manager will review and approve invoices on a monthly basis. The amount of such
payment shall be based on monthly Project Status Reports. Invoices must be sufficiently
detailed to meet grant reimbursement requirements which include the following information on
individual Project Team members: descriptions of activity/task by person, hours, dates, location,
78
and rate. Once an invoice is approved by the Public Works Engineering Manager, the Finance
Department will process it according to the Town’s current Vendor Payment Schedule.
Invoices shall meet or exceed minimum Disaster and Emergency Funds (DEF) reimbursement
requirements to ensure the Town is fully reimbursed for all work performed by the Consultant
and sub-consultants.
Payments to the Consultant will not exceed 95% of the total Project cost until the Project is
completed and accepted by the Town. The contract will be effective until all deliverables are
provided to the Town and deemed complete by the Town. Any edits or modifications necessary
to finalize deliverables will be the responsibility of the Consultant.
Sub-consultants
The Consultant shall indicate in the proposal any work intended to be performed by sub-
consultants. The Consultant shall name the sub-consultants, if known, at the time of the
proposal. To be considered eligible for this Project, the Consultant must perform at least 70% of
the Project work themselves.
With written permission of the Public Works Director, the Consultant may hire sub-consultants
not identified in the proposal to complete portions of the Project if (1) the Consultant lacks
sufficient in-house expertise or capacity and (2) such hiring does not result in the Consultant
performing less than 70% of the Project work themselves. Sub-consultants shall meet the same
quality standards and schedules, and provide the same level of documentation as the
Consultant.
The sub-consultant shall make an effort to use small, minority, and women-owned business
enterprises whenever possible.
Financial Capabilities
The Consultant must be financially capable and solvent in fulfilling the requirements of the
Contract.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest means that because of other activities or relationships, a person or entity is
unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Town, is or might be
otherwise impaired in its objectivity in performing the contract work, or has an unfair competitive
advantage.
The Project Team must disclose any current or expected future contractual relationships which
may pose a conflict of interest with this Project. Disclosure shall include date and duration of
said contract(s), the nature of the service provided, and a plan for managing potential conflicts
of interest.
Handling of Information
The Consultant shall not disclose any information concerning the Town or the Project, or
information that may be classified as confidential, for any purpose not directly connected with
the administration of this contract, except with prior written consent of the Public Works Director,
or as may be required by law.
Equal Opportunity Employer
The Town of Estes Park is an Equal Opportunity Employer and no otherwise qualified individual
shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, national origin,
79
ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), physical or mental disability,
marriage to a co-worker and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a
discriminatory practice or participating in an employment discrimination proceeding) in any
phase of employment for this Project.
Small Business, Minority and Women Enterprises
The Consultant shall make an effort to use small, minority, and women-owned business
enterprises whenever possible.
The following steps are required for federally funded projects:
1. Place qualified small, minority, and women’s firms on solicitation lists
2. Assure that small, minority, and women’s firms are solicited whenever they are potential
sources.
3. Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to
permit maximum participation.
4. Establish delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage
participation by these businesses.
5. Use the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business
Development Agency.
6. Require contractors to take affirmative steps when procuring subcontractors.
80
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
MORAINE AVENUE
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Town of Estes Park
Public Works Department
170 MacGregor Avenue, Room 100
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
August 15, 2016
PREPARED BY:
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
1692 Big Thompson Avenue – Suite 200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Phone: (970) 586-2458 81
82
Table of Contents
Qualifications & Experience
Previous Experience
Firm References
Key Personnel
Organizational Chart
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Michael S. Todd, P.E., Principal
Jes Reetz, Senior Planner
Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc.
Mark Severin, P.E., Water Resource Engineer/Principal
Primary Contact Person
Statement of Understanding
TABLE OF CONTENTS
83
The staff of Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. has completed similar
projects in the Estes Valley. The Prospect Avenue By-pass Reconstruction
was funded through the Town of Estes Park to reconstruct the existing
Prospect Avenue, Fir Avenue and Moccasin Circle Drive. The work included
preparation of easements for utilities, storm drainage and Right-of-Way, traffic
analysis, geotechnical investigation, drainage study, utility relocation, design
of roadway and sidewalk, preparation of plans and specifications, bidding,
construction observation and materials documentation.
The U.S. Highway 36 Bridge across the Big Thompson River (STA 0361-049,
STE0631-054). The U.S. Highway 36 at Big Thompson River Project
included traffic analysis, roadway design, pedestrian trail design structural,
hydraulic, scour, wetland/404 Permit, road widening, bidding, construction
observation, materials documentation and certified payroll.
The U.S. Highway 36/Fish Creek Road Project (STE M405-008) was
supported by Federal funding through CDOT with the Town of Estes Park as
the Local Agency. Work included traffic analysis, roadway design, pedestrian
trail design, structural underpass design, retaining wall design, preparation of
plans and specifications through CDOT design guidelines and Local Agency
Manual, construction bidding, construction observation, materials
documentation and certified payroll.
Fish Creek Pedestrian Trail (STE M405-009) was supported by Federal
funding through CDOT with the Town of Estes Park as the Local Agency.
Work included preparation of easements for trail alignment, setting of HARN
control along the proposed alignment, structural retaining wall design,
pedestrian trail design, utility relocation, preparation of plans and
specifications through CDOT design guidelines, and Local Agency Manual,
bidding, construction observation, materials documentation and certified
payroll.
The MacGregor Avenue sidewalk expansion was funded through the Town of
Estes Park to increase parking and provide safe pedestrian access from Hwy
34 By-pass to the downtown area. Work included the design build of
structural block retaining walls, sidewalk, additional parking area, relocation of
overhead power to underground, drainage, and preparation of plans.
Team members from the firms of Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc., will
contribute professional expertise with their years of experience on hydrology,
hydraulic, floodplain analysis and FEMA review.
We are highly confident in our team’s qualifications and experience for the
management and related services for the proposed Moraine Avenue Bridge
Replacement.
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
84
Table of Contents PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Knoll Trail
Lake Estes
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Trail
Phase I & II
85
US HWY 34/36 BRIDGE & UNDERPASSThe project consisted of widening
U.S. Highway 36 and the bridge
across the Big Thompson River,
reconfiguration of intersections with
intersecting streets and installation of
a pedestrian underpass connecting
the existing Lake Estes trail system
with the Town River Walk. Being the
first pedestrian underpass of its kind
in Estes Park, this welcome addition
has been a tremendous visual and
functional success for all to enjoy.
86
Along with the Town of Estes Park and Colorado
Department of Transportation, Mr. Todd led the design
development, preparation of construction specifications
and plans, project management and construction
observation of this complex project. The project
consisted of installation of a pedestrian underpass,
replacement of a cable guardrail with a new Type 3
guardrail and widening of approximately a quarter mile of
U.S. Highway 36. The highway widening was for
installation of center turn lanes with reconfiguration of
intersecting side streets to improve an existing high
accident area. Also included was the construction of
approximately two miles of pedestrian trail. Now
completed, this pedestrian underpass and trail system
has implemented a significant addition, extending a city
wide projected trail system. Working with the Bureau of
Reclamation, a safe and environmentally sensitive end
product has evolved for all to enjoy.
US HWY 36/
FISH CREEK ROAD
87
Design development preparation of
construction specifications and plans,
project and construction management of
$650,000 2950 linear feet of pedestrian
trail along Fish Creek Road. Project
involved CDOT oversight with Federal
Funding for 2500 feet of pedestrian trail.
Tasks included surveying Right-of-Way,
mapping, development and acquisition
of easements, 404 Permitting, Wetland,
and Retaining Wall Design.
PHASE II
FISH CREEK TRAIL EXTENSION
88
PHASE III FISH CREEK TRAIL EXTENSION
The trail included 2800 linear feet of
concrete pedestrian trail adjoining
Scott Avenue at Lakeshore Drive and
extending around Carriage Hills
Ponds to the already existing Hwy 7
hike/bike trail at Carriage Drive and
Larkspur Avenue. Construction was
required to stay within the trail
alignment and minimize disturbances
to the surrounding natural areas.
The project included the construction
of 1200 square feet of wetland to
mitigate areas disturbed by the new
trail alignment. The project involved
CDOT oversight with Federal
Funding for the pedestrian trail.
89
Table of Contents FIRM REFERENCES
Town of Estes Park Projects: Prospect Avenue,
Hwy 34/36 and Hwy 36 Fish Creek Rd
Town of Estes Park (Retired)
Greg Sievers – Project Manager
552 Grand Estates Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
970.218.7256
Carriage Hills Dam Modifications
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Greg Muhonen
Director of Public Works
970.577.3581
Kevin Ash
Public Works Civil Engineer
970.577.3586
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
Chris Beiker
District Manager
P.O. Box 568
Estes Park, CO 80517
970.586.1049
Park R3 School District
Dave Coleson
Director of Operations /Transportation
1701 Brodie Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
970.586.2361
Housing Authority of the City of Loveland
Jeff Feneis
Director of Development
375 West 37th Street, Suite 200
Loveland, CO 80538
970.635.5925
90
KEY PERSONNEL
Providing a hands-on approach and actively involved in all phases of design,
CES’s principals have over 30 years of combine experience. With a
reputation for sound judgment and quality documentation, our staff combines
excellent technical skills with effective communication to facilitate a team
approach on each project. Creative thinking, design considerations and cost-
efficient engineering lead to innovative, practical solutions to fit within budge
parameters and site constraints.
Our philosophy and management style is based on the belief that our
engineers should consistently exhibit a strong commitment to quality of
design. Our client-oriented approach and follow through provide excellence
from the initial stages of the project to completion. We take pride in
successfully translating our client’s goals into effective results. CES has
been consistent with this practice and it has allowed us to establish ongoing
working relationships on many projects with the local residence, Town of
Estes Park Community Development, Town of Estes Park Public Works
Department and local utility companies.
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Michael S. Todd, P.E., Principal
Jes Reetz, Senior Planner
Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc.
Mark Severin, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer/Principal
91
Support Staff
KEY STAFF & TEAM MEMBERS
Hydraulics & Hydrology
Specifications & Cost Estimates
Utility Coordinator & Design
Surveying, Inc.
Consultants, Inc.
Project Team Coordinator
Team Leader
Surveying, Inc.
Project Management
Preparation of Plans
Roadway Design
Cornerstone Engineering &
Michael S. Todd, P.E.
Deere & Ault
Mark Severin, P.E.
Cornerstone Engineering &
Support Staff
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 92
PRINCIPAL PROFILE
MICHAEL S. TODD, P.E.
Principal
EXPERTISE Roadway and Bridge Design, Structural Analysis & Design,
Commercial and Residential, Historic Renovation,
Infrastructure Design, Drainage Analysis, Construction
Management, Land Development, Design Build & General
Contracting
EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, 1992
Graduate Work: Groundwater, Environmental and
Hydrogeology, Colorado State University, 1994-1995
REGISTRATION Professional Engineer – State of Colorado
PROFESSIONAL American Society of Civil Engineers; Tau Beta Pi, Honorary
AFFILIATIONS Fraternity
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Mr. Todd’s expansive background in engineering has allowed him to utilize his
expertise in many design/build and construction management projects. He has
performed as design engineer and project manager for municipalities,
government and private sector clients. These projects have included roadways,
bridges and multi use trails, storm drainage, water and wastewater treatment and
design, water and sewer line design and land development. He performs
structural evaluation and design and has provided engineering services for fuel
tank removal, environmental site assessments and tunneling and geotechnical
evaluations.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Roadways/Trails:
Prospect Avenue By-Pass Reconstruction
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
State Highway 36/Fish Creek Road and Underpass –
Colorado Dept. of Transportation
State Highway 34/36 Bridge Underpass – Colorado Dept.
of Transportation
Historic & Preservation:
Holzwarth Never Summer Ranch
Columbine Cabin – Never Summer Ranch NPS
Park Service
McGraw Ranch – Rocky Mt. National Park Associates
McGraw Ranch Building 103, 105, 106 Rocky Mountain
National Park Associates, Rocky Mountain National Park
Lewis House/Miner Museum – Lafayette, CO
Knoll Trail & Bridge
93
Historic & Preservation: (continued)
William Allen White Cabin and Outlying Cabins Condition
Assessment and Work Program – Rocky Mt. National
Park Association, Rocky Mt. National Park
Building 48 Renovation and Work Program –
Rocky Mt. National Park Association
Twin 1 & 2 Cabins, Rose Cabin, Mamma’s Cabin,
Taxidermy Cabin, Never Summer Ranch Rocky Mt.
National Park Associates, Rocky Mt. National Park
Water Storage Tanks:
MacGregor Mountain 300,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank –
Town of Estes Park
Glacier Creek 1,000,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank –
Town of Estes Park
Summit Property 300,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank –
YMCA
Mountain Side 100,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank – YMCA
Civil:
Lone Tree Housing Development – Simpson Housing
North College Avenue Underpass – City of Fort Collins
Lake Estes Pedestrian Trail, Phase I, II, IV –
Town of Estes Park
Town of Estes Park Fuel Tank Removal –
Town of Estes Park
Mary’s Lake Raw Water Pump Station – Town of Estes Park
Estes Park Medical Center
Harmony Foundation
Wapiti Crossing Condominium Development
Black Canyon Inn
Overlook Development
Estes Park Good Samaritan
Mirasol Development
Talons Pointe
Fish Creek Trail Extension
MacGregor
Mountain Water
Storage Tank
Structural Design:
Estes Park Catholic Church – Basis
Architecture
Estes Park Visitors Center – Basis Architecture
Black Canyon Inn – Sloan Investments, LLC
Best Western Motel – Basis Architecture
ABC Climbing Gym – ABC Kids Climbing, LLC
Residential Construction – Dallman
Construction
Residential Construction – Kingswood Homes
Riverspointe Downtown – Basis Architecture
YMCA Summit
Water Storage
McGraw
Ranch
Holzwarth Never
Summer Ranch
94
KEY PERSONNEL PROFILE
JES REETZ
Senior Planner
EXPERTISE Drafting, Site Development, Engineering Services
EDUCATION Associates of Applied Science, Front Range
Community College 1998
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Mr. Reetz’s background in civil drafting has allowed him to apply his skills on
various construction/development projects. These projects have included
roadways and trails, water and sewer lines, dams, tunnels, geology maps and
profiles and land development. Mr. Reetz has utilized various drafting
programs and is currently utilizing AutoCAD of which he has 20 years
experience.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Development Plans:
Black Canyon Inn Condominiums Master Plan
Harmony Foundation Treatment Facility
Estes Park Medical Center – Multiple expansions,
& parking expansions
Eagles Crest Condominiums
Wapiti Crossing Condominiums
Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums
East Riverwalk Condominiums
Estes Park Visitor Center
Cherokee Meadows Subdivision
Talons Pointe
Johnstown Self Storage
Olympus Views Condominiums (Commercial Office Space)
Roadway/Trails:
Hwy 34/36 Bridge Underpass Town
of Estes Park
Lake Estes Pedestrian Trail,
Phase II, IV
Taft Hill Road Underpass, Trail
System, Parking Lot and Observation
Area – City of Ft. Collins
Black Canyon Inn – Bldg F
95
Mark A. Severin, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer/Principal
EDUCATION AND SPECIAL TRAINING
M.S., Agricultural Engineering, University of Nebraska, 1988
B.S., Agricultural Engineering, Colorado State University, 1985
REGISTRATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer, Colorado
QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Severin has been responsible for engineering analysis and design of numerous hydrologic and
hydraulic projects, including stream bed and bank stabilization, channel remediation, backwater
analysis, water conveyance systems, energy dissipation structures, floodplain mapping, flood
frequency analysis, and sediment transport analysis. Investigations of hydroelectric and water
resources projects include analysis of dam failures, determination of spillway inflow design floods,
evaluation of spillway adequacy, pre-feasibility planning of pumped storage projects, expansion of
hydroelectric projects, and dam stability analysis.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Dam and Spillway Projects
Chute Spillway Capacity Study for Clear Creek Reservoir. Project Manager responsible for the analysis
of the Inflow Design Flood (IDF) using both the Extreme Precipitation Analysis Tool (EPAT) and the
traditionally accepted methodology for calculating the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The
study also included an evaluation of the existing capacity of the chute downstream of the concrete service
spillway and identified improvements that could increase the capacity of the chute.
South Platte Reservoir, Littleton, Colorado. Project Engineer responsible for the design of the
emergency spillway and bypass channel. A site specific Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) was
evaluated for this project that significantly reduced the size of the Inflow Design Flood (IDF).
Constructing a bypass channel to route the runoff of the IDF around the reservoir further reduced the
inflow to the reservoir.
James Tingle Dam and Reservoir, Park County, Colorado. Project Engineer responsible for the design
and hydraulic/hydrologic analyses of the emergency spillway, outlet works, and long throated measuring
flume.
Pleasant Valley Reservoir Spillway, Longmont, Colorado. Project Engineer responsible for the
hydraulic and hydrologic evaluation of the existing emergency spillway, determination of the IDF,
preparation of an Incremental Damage Analysis (IDA), and inundation mapping.
Coal Ridge Waste Dam Spillway. Project Manager responsible for hydrologic and hydraulic review of
the existing spillway and hydraulic design of a roller compacted concrete (RCC) emergency spillway.
96
Gaynor Dam Spillway. Project Manager responsible for hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the
inadequate emergency spillway and dam break analysis of the embankment. An IDA was performed to
reduce the IDF.
Prince Lake No. 1 Rehabilitation. Project Engineer responsible for the hydrologic and hydraulic
evaluations of the rehabilitation of the dam and reservoir. A Hazard Classification Report was submitted
to the Office of the State Engineer.
Davis No. 1 Dam Rehabilitation. Project Engineer responsible for the hydrologic and hydraulic
evaluations of the rehabilitation of the dam and outlet. Inflow to the reservoir through an interconnect
pipe from the adjacent Davis No. 2 reservoir was evaluated.
Windsor Lake Spillway and Outlet Works, Windsor, Colorado. Project Engineer responsible for
hydrologic evaluation and hydraulic design of the relocated outlet structure for the project. Historically,
Windsor Lake (Kern Reservoir) has operated as an equalizer reservoir for the New Cache la Poudre
Irrigating Company and flood control for the Windsor Basin. By moving the outlet structure to a
downtown location in the Greeley No. 2 Canal, flood control is expanded to also provide for the adjacent
Law Basin without impacting the equalizer operation. With the increased drainage area contributing to
the lake, an IDA was performed to demonstrate the adequacy of the existing emergency spillway.
Dam Hazard Classification Projects
Hazard Classification for Mason Reservoir. Project Manager responsible for the determination of
hazard classification for the dam at Mason Reservoir. Hydraulic and hydrologic computer models of the
clear day breach outflow were developed for the 10-mile study reach downstream of the dam using GIS,
HEC-RAS, and HEM-HMS to determine impacts to habitable structures and paved road crossings.
Hazard Classification for Welsh Reservoir. Project Manager responsible for the determination of hazard
classification for the dam at Welsh Reservoir. Hydraulic and hydrologic computer models of the clear
day breach outflow were developed for the 6-mile study reach downstream of the dam using HEC-RAS
and HEC-HMS to determine impacts to habitable structures and road crossings.
Dam Breach Inundation Mapping Projects
Dam Breach Inundation Mapping for Dams at Santa Maria, Continental, and Terrace Reservoirs.
Project Manager responsible for dam breach analysis and inundation mapping for Santa Maria Reservoir
and Continental Reservoir owned by the Santa Maria Reservoir Company and Terrace Reservoir owned
by the Terrace Irrigation Company. These three reservoirs are located in the San Juan Mountains of
southern Colorado and are tributary to the Rio Grande. Including the common river reaches, the
combined extent of inundation mapping for these three studies covered 373 miles downstream of the
dams. The inundation maps were prepared for inclusion in the Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for the
respective reservoirs.
Dam Breach Inundation Mapping for Highland Ditch Company Dams. Project Manager responsible
for dam breach analysis and inundation mapping for six dams at five reservoirs (Foothills, McIntosh,
Highland #1, Highland #2, and Highland #3 reservoirs) owned by the Highland Ditch Company. GIS,
HEC-RAS, and HEC-HMS were used to model clear day breach outflow and develop inundation maps
for the study reaches downstream of each dam. The inundation maps were prepared for inclusion in the
EAPs for the respective reservoirs.
97
Dam Breach Analysis of Harper Lake Dam. Project Manager responsible for dam breach analysis and
inundation mapping using DAMBRK and HEC-RAS computer models. A three-mile reach was studied
to determine the inundated area that would result from a clear day piping failure of the embankment. The
inundation map was prepared for inclusion in the Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP).
Dam Breach Analysis of Cabin Creek, Clear Creek, and Georgetown Dams. Project Engineer
responsible for preparation of dam breach and flood frequency analyses. Cabin Creek is the lower
reservoir for a 280 MW pumped storage project.
Dam Breach Analysis of Yards Creek Lower Reservoir. Project Engineer responsible for the preparation
of a flood frequency analysis and dam breach analysis using DAMBRK computer model. As part of the
EAP, Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and clear day dam failures were modeled to determine
incremental stage rise, travel times, and inundation boundaries.
Hydrologic and Dam Breach Analysis of Way, Hemlock Falls, Peavy Falls, Michigammi Falls, Brule,
Twin Falls, Kingsford, Big Quinnesec, and Little Quinnesec Dams, Various Locations. Project
Engineer responsible for preparation of PMP estimates, watershed flood routing, and dam breach analyses
using HMR52, HEC-1, and DAMBRK computer models. This system of dams and three rivers required
complex analyses to determine the effect of domino failures and concurrent floods on the two drainage
basins. The entire system was modeled to evaluate the IDF for particular dams.
Dam Breach Analysis of Norway Point Dam and Four Mile Dam. Project Engineer responsible for
preparation of dam breach analysis using DAMBRK and HEC-2 computer models. A 12-mile reach was
studied to determine the downstream effect and the inundation boundary due to dam failure for several
floods involving the PMF.
Hydroelectric Projects
Relicensing of Cushman Hydropower Project. Project Engineer for hydrologic, hydraulic, sediment
routing, and reservoir operation studies to determine methods of mitigating flooding resulting from land
use, hydropower operation, and aggradation within the channel system. Responsibilities included
development and calibration of a hydraulic and sediment routing computer model that was used to
determine channel aggradation for various proposed reservoir operation scenarios. Data collection
included channel and floodplain cross-section surveys, suspended sediment and bed load measurements
during flood events, and stream flow measurements.
Hydroelectric Expansion Projects. Project Engineer for prefeasibility study to evaluate expansion of
hydroelectric projects in the Tennessee River. Nine mainstem plants having a combined capacity of more
than 2,000 MW were evaluated to identify projects for which expansion would be cost effective.
Responsibilities included reservoir operation simulation and layout, sizing, and cost estimates of proposed
expansions.
Pumped Storage Projects, Various Locations. Planning Engineer responsible for conceptual studies to
develop pumped storage projects in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Minnesota.
The projects ranged from 200 to 1,200 MW and some utilized an underground mine for the lower
reservoir. Responsibilities included layouts, sizing, and cost estimates for water conductors, dams, mine
modifications, and power plans.
98
PRIMARY CONTACT
Michael Todd, PE – Principal
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
1692 Big Thompson Avenue – Suite 200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Office: 970.586.2458
Cell: 970.214.7318
Email: mtodd@ces-ccc.com
99
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) has read and feels fully
confident with our understanding of the proposal work for the Project
Management Services for Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement. The project
management is to supplement the Town staff for the bridge improvement
project for the Moraine Avenue Bridge located along the 100 Block of Moraine
Avenue in downtown Estes Park. The project manager will oversee the
replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge from solicitation for design
consultants, design and project bidding through construction and complete
closeout.
The purpose of the project is to improve the flow capacity of the Moraine
Avenue Bridge for major storm events. The project will incorporate hydraulic,
hydrology, FEMA Review, structural, traffic, possible right-of-way acquisition
and or easements and scheduling.
CES has developed a working relationship within the Estes Park Community
and feels competent in our ability to coordinate the project with impacted
business owners, local utilities, Colorado Department of Transportation and
the Town staff and officials.
The project is being funded by the CDBG –DR funding for flood recovery.
With the bridge being located on US Highway 36A, CDOT review process and
approval will be required for the bridge design and construction. CES has
completed similar projects in the Estes Valley with the Town o f Estes Park
and CDOT. CES has read the Town of Estes Park - Professional Services
Contract and is agreeable to the conditions of the contract.
CES acknowledges that as project manager for the Moraine Avenue Bridge,
the team will not be eligible to bid o n any other aspect of the bridge projects
as it develops.
Our proposed Project Team feels competent in our understanding of the
Scope of Services and our ability to manage a professional, timely and
economical product.
100
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
1692 Big Thompson Avenue – Suite 200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Phone: (970) 586-2458
Fax: (970) 586-2459 101
102
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 23, 2016
RE: Visitor Center River Bank Stabilization
Objective:
Public Works (PW) staff seeks approval from the Town Board to spend up to $13,585 of
our Larimer County Open Space Fund to stabilize the eroding north bank of the Big
Thompson River at the Estes Park Visitor Center.
Present Situation:
The Town owns the land adjacent to the Big Thompson River from the US36 right of
way eastward to about the center of the Visitor Center building where we abut Bureau of
Reclamation (BoR) land near the river flow measuring flume. This area serves as the
welcoming portal to Estes Park and is heavily utilized by both our visitors and by our
local community.
These grounds suffered erosion damage during the 2013 flooding resulting in poor bank
stability, dangerous access to the river, and potential damage to trees and structures in
the area. The Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC), on behalf of the Town,
applied for and was awarded $108,680 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) grant
funds by the Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services
(NRCS) to repair this damage. These funds cannot be used to repair the related flood
damage on state (CDOT) or federal (BoR) lands. This grant requires a 12.5% match of
local funds.
Proposal:
PW proposes the Town, as the owner of the land receiving the repair work and a good-
faith partner with the EVWC, provide the local match funds of $13,585 for this work.
EVWC will manage the contractor procurement and construction oversight. The work
will include placement of protective stone riprap, revegetation of the river bank, stone
terracing to improve public recreational access to the water, and river channel
improvement to enhance the fishery. EVWC will be coordinating with BoR to ensure the
work does not conflict with the Bureau’s annual dredging of this river reach. No Town
staff effort for project management is required. The Town will be provided review and
comment opportunities as the design concept and details are established. The work
could start as early as November 2016 to coincide with the proposed commencement of
103
construction of the Transit Facility Parking Structure. The work is estimated to be
completed within 30 days, weather permitting. The grant requires the work to be
completed by December 31, 2017.
Advantages:
The advantages of providing these local match funds include:
•Enhance river bank and river channel resiliency during future flood events.
•Beautification to supplement the visitor experience for users of the Visitor Center
and the new parking structure.
•Stabilization of the ongoing soil erosion that is exposing the Town’s turf irrigation
system and undermining the concrete Riverwalk trail.
•Continued strengthening of our relationship with the EVWC through collaborative
project efforts.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantages of performing this restoration work include:
•Disturbance of the river bank and the associated introduction of sediment into the
river during construction.
•Temporary closure of the Riverwalk trail during construction.
Action Recommended:
The PW staff proposes the Town Board grant permission and allocate funds for the
EVWC to perform this work on Town land.
Budget:
The local matching funds for this project in the amount of $13,585 can be taken from
unobligated revenue in the Larimer County Open Space fund. This has not been
encumbered in the 2016 budget and will require a supplemental appropriation.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposal is expected to be low, however the public benefit is high.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny payment to the EVWC in an amount not to exceed $13,585
upon completion of the flood damage repair of the north bank of the Big Thompson
River at the Visitor Center.
Attachments:
Photo of the project site
104
105
106
UTILITIES Memo
To:Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director and
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date:August 23, 2016
RE:Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline & Water Co.
Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement
Objective:
To obtain Town Board approval of the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement
with Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline & Water Company (PEMPWCo).
Present Situation:
To improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of delivering drinking water to our
citizens, the Town and PEMPWCo entered into an MOU on April 14, 2015.
Since that time the preliminary engineering and environmental reports have been
completed. PEMPWCo met on July 5th, 2016 and approved proceeding with the project
by a 78% vote.
At the time of writing this memo the agreement has not been signed by PEMPWCo;
however, we anticipate it will have been signed before it is presented to the Town
Board.
Proposal:
To solidify the arrangement, we request the Town Board approve the attached
agreement with PEMPWCo.
Advantages:
This project supports the Town’s mission to provide high-quality, reliable services for the
benefit of our citizens while being good stewards of public resources. All project funding
obligations will be covered by the PEMPWCo owners.
Disadvantages:
Staff work load will increase; however, hours and costs will be logged and included for
reimbursement through the project.
107
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
Budget:
All project related costs will be funded by PEMPWCo members. The Utilities budget will
provide payments with reimbursements to follow. We expect the lag in reimbursements
to be within a two to three month window.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate. Other neighborhoods are looking to follow this same process. Those
neighborhoods are located in the County and would be processed with the County’s
help.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve proposed agreement.
Attachments:
Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement
108
WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT
This WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT is entered into
this ____ day of ____________, 2016 between the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”) and
the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (the “Company”).
WHERAS, the Town, through its Water Enterprise, operates and maintains a
municipal water system within the Town of Estes Park and surrounding areas for the
distribution of treated water; and
WHEREAS, the Company owns the water distribution system (the “System”) located
in the Park Entrance Estates, Block 1 neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Town provides treated water to the Company as a bulk water
customer; and
WHEREAS, the Company has determined the need to replace the System to
provide improved water quality, pressure and fire flow volume and meet Town standards
and requirements for water distribution systems; and
WHEREAS, preliminary engineering and environmental reports have been
completed and approved by all parties for the replacement of the System; and
WHEREAS, following replacement of the System, the Company has requested that
the Town accept transfer of the new water distribution system (“the New System”); and
WHEREAS, to finance the cost of the System’s design and replacement the
Company petitioned the Town to apply for project financing; and
WHEREAS, the Town has applied for and received preliminary approval of a loan
and grant administered on behalf of the Rural Utility Service (RUS) by the State of
Colorado and area staff of the USDA Rural Development (the “Agency”) dated August
_____, 2016 (the “Letter”) which sets forth the terms and requirements of said financing;
and
WHEREAS, upon transfer of the New System, the Town will create a new project
cost recovery rate which will be applied only to the properties served within the Company’s
existing boundary for the purpose of repayment of project financing; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions of each party’s
responsibility for the design, bidding, financing, transfer, operation, and payment for the
New System.
NOW , THEREFORE, the parties agree to the terms and conditions as set forth
herein.
109
Section 1, Project Financing and Costs
A. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A is the preliminary
engineering report outlining a concept design, estimated project costs and description of
properties serviced by the Company. This report has been reviewed and accepted by both
the Parties and included within the application to the Agency and forms the basis for the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
B. Project Financing. The Town has received the Letter, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B from the Agency. Unless this
Agreement is terminated as set forth herein, the Town and the Company shall be
responsible for the tasks and responsibilities set forth within the Letter. The Town will
obtain interim financing (See Section III 17. of the Letter) from a commercial financial
institution. The continuation of this project is contingent upon the Town receiving interim
financing acceptable to the Town in its sole discretion.
C. Cost of the Project. The cost of the project based upon the preliminary engineering
is estimated to be $1,223,000 (See Section I 3. of the Letter). Revenues available for
payment of the cost of the project are more fully set forth in Section I 2. of the Letter. As
set forth in the Letter, project funding shall be used in the sequence as set forth in Section I
8. of the Letter.
D. Reimbursement of Costs. The Company shall be responsible for reimbursing the
Town for all costs incurred by the Town including the cost to procure the funding, the
interim loan and other project related costs including, but not limited to, administrative,
legal, and engineering costs. This obligation of the Company is not contingent upon
completion of the project. In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided hereafter,
the Company is responsible for reimbursing the Town for all project costs to the date of
termination. Said reimbursement shall occur within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the
Company of an invoice specifying the costs and the amount due.
Section 2, Detailed Design and Construction Bidding
Upon acquisition of project financing by the receipt of Form RD 1940-1 from the Agency,the
Town will procure engineering services for detailed design, construction bid documents and
construction bid services. The Town shall approve construction drawings for the New
System prior to bidding.
The Town shall consult with the Company during the procurement of and detailed design of
the New System. It is understood by the parties, that construction of the New System may
include the need to obtain easements from property owners. The Company shall be
responsible for obtaining and providing easements to the Town for the location and
installation of the New System prior to bidding (See Section III 14. of the Letter).
Each property will have a separate connection into the water main. Project design and
construction of private service lines is limited to the physical water main connection to the
private property lot line. A new valve will be installed at each property line. As indicated in
110
the Town’s standards, each service line is owned and maintained by the property owner
including the physical connection into the water main.
The Town and Company will work with the engineering consultant to solicit and select an
appropriate construction bid subject to compliance with Section III of the Letter.
Section 3, Construction
Following receipt of an acceptable bid and subject to the requirements of Section IV of the
Letter, the Town shall enter into a contract with the successful bidder for construction of the
New System. The Company has agreed that construction costs of the New System in the
accepted bid shall not exceed $1,175,600. In the event the construction bid exceeds said
sum, the Company must agree in writing to pay the amount of the construction cost bid in
excess of $1,175,600. If the Company does not accept the increased construction cost in
the bid, this Agreement shall terminate. Upon the execution of the appropriate construction
contract with the Town, the New System shall be constructed according to the Contract
Documents.
Section 4, Construction Closeout and Water System Transfer
A. Transfer. Following completion of construction and Town acceptance of the New
System, the Company will convey the New System to the Town free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances by bill of sale acceptable to the Town. Upon transfer of the New
System, the Town shall be responsible for operations and maintenance of the new water
distribution system.
B. Customers. Upon transfer of the New System, all Company customers shall
become Town of Estes Park water customers. It will be the responsibility of the customers
to pay the published water service rates adopted by the Town and pay the additional
project cost recovery rate which will cover project costs and loan obligations.
C. Abandoned Assets. There may be abandoned assets currently owned by the
Company or assets abandoned after construction of the New System. The parties
understand and agree that the Town will not accept responsibility or ownership of those
assets, and said assets shall remain the responsibility of the Company.
D. Connection Fee Credit. The parties understand and agree that all lots currently
receiving service from the Company have been credited with the appropriate amount of the
bulk water rate surcharge entitling these lots to the Town’s residential connection fee (aka
the system development and water rights fees) and no fees are due and owing from any
current customer.
E. Future Connection Fees. If and when any existing vacant lots and/or future vacant
lots in the subdivision process are developed, those property owners must connect to the
Town’s water system and pay the Town’s then current connection fees. At the time their
111
new water service begins they will also be charged the project’s cost recovery rate. At that
time the Town will review the project cost recovery rate and determine if a rate reduction is
warranted or if the additional funds will be used for early loan payoff.
Section 5, Additional Terms and Conditions
A. Additional Documents or Action. The parties agree to execute any additional
documents and to take any additional action necessary to carry out this Agreement.
B. Integration and Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire agreement
between the parties and there are no oral or collateral agreements or understandings
between the parties with respect to the operation and maintenance of the New System.
Only an instrument in writing signed by all parties may amend this Agreement. If any
provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, no other provision shall
be affected by such holding, and all of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.
C. Governing Law. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern this Agreement.
D. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall accrue to the benefit of, and be binding upon,
the parties, and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns; provided,
however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit the assignment of this
Agreement except as otherwise specifically authorized in this Agreement. The Parties shall
execute a Memorandum of Agreement, and the Town shall record the Memorandum of
Agreement in the Clerk and Recorder’s Office of Larimer County, Colorado to provide any
future owner of properties within the subdivision notice of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
E. Time is of the Essence. The parties acknowledge that time is of the essence, and
agree to fully and promptly cooperate in order to secure funding.
F. Notice. Any and all notices or any other communication herein required or permitted
shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or deposited in the United
States postal service as regular mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows or to such
other person or address as a party may designate in writing to the other party:
Town of Estes Park
Attn: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline & Water Company
Attn: President
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
112
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
date first set forth above.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE
& WATER COMPANY
By:______________________________ By:______________________________
Title: Mayor Title: President
Name: Todd Jirsa Name: Fred Engelman, Jr.
ATTEST
By:______________________________
ATTEST
By:______________________________
113
114
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY
IN
JUNE 3, 2016
115
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY
IN
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
JVA, Inc.
25 Old Town Square, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
phone: 970-225-9099
JVA Project No. 2539c
JUNE 3, 2016
116
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................. 2
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 2
REPORT FORMAT ................................................................................................................. 2
SECTION 1 – PROJECT PLANNING ............................................................................................. 3
SITE LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 3
PLANNING AREA ............................................................................................................. 3
SERVICE AREA ................................................................................................................. 3
LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION ...................................................... 3
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT .................................................................................. 3
GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS ........................................................................... 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 4
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND .......................................................................... 4
SECTION 2 – EXISTING FACILITIES ............................................................................................... 5
LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................. 5
HISTORY OF SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................... 5
CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES ....................................................................................... 6
FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES .............................................................................. 6
CURRENT RATE SCHEDULE ................................................................................................. 6
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS .............................................................. 6
TABULATION OF USERS BY MONTHLY USAGE CATEGORIES .................................................... 6
EXISTING DEBT ................................................................................................................. 6
RESERVE ACCOUNTS ........................................................................................................ 7
SECTION 3 – NEED FOR PROJECT .............................................................................................. 8
HEALTH AND SECURITY ......................................................................................................... 8
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................................... 8
SYSTEM O&M ..................................................................................................................... 8
REASONABLE GROWTH ........................................................................................................ 9
SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 10
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 10
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 10
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ........................................................................................... 10
ALTERNATIVE 2: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ......................................................... 10
SECTION 5 – SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 13
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 13
117
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
NON-MONETARY FACTORS ................................................................................................ 13
SECTION 6 – PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................... 14
PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN ........................................................................................... 14
PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 15
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 7 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 16
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION FROM JUNE 2013 TO FEBRUARY 2016 (GALLONS) ... 4
TABLE 2: ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 15
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
APPENDIX B – PAGES FROM 2015 TOWN OF ESTES PARK MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX C – TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER RATE SCHEDULE 2015 – 2018
APPENDIX D – COST ESTIMATES
118
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo) was created by Block One of
The Park Entrance Estates property owners, and is located in the Town of Estes Park (Town),
Larimer County, Colorado. PEMPWCo is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates a
potable water distribution system for 18 Park Entrance Estates residential homes. The
PEMPWCo distribution system is currently supplied by to the Town distribution system through
a master meter and bulk water usage agreement. The PEMPWCo distribution system was built in
the 1960’s and consists entirely of 4-inch asbestos cement (AC) water mains.
PEMPWCo has requested that the Town take ownership and operation of the PEMPWCo
distribution system, however the Town requires all water mains in its distribution system meet
Town standards. To provide required fire flow and meet material and sizing requirements of the
Town, PEMPWCo is working with the Town for a distribution system pipeline replacement
project. This project will include the replacement of pipe, increased capacity for fire flow,
service line replacement in the right-of-way, and installation of isolation valves, fire hydrants,
and air-relief valves according to Town standards. This project will also include the demolition
of the existing abandoned water storage tank and the decommission of the existing abandoned
groundwater well. Upon successful completion of the proposed replacement of distribution pipe
and associated components, the PEMPWCo’s distribution system will be fully incorporated into
the Town’s water distribution system.
The proposed project is needed to construct a functional replacement of PEMPWCo’s aging
drinking water distribution system. This project will provide the neighborhood with long term
reliable drinking water, reduce operational costs, and reduce regulatory related costs through
consolidation.
The project will accomplish the goal of reduced long-term operations, maintenance, and
compliance of drinking water standards by transferring ownership responsibility to the Town
which has the appropriate Technical, Managerial, and Financial capacity. The Town’s current
economy of scale is such that the marginal increase of adding the responsibilities of
PEMPWCo’s distribution system is minimal compared to the burden it presents to 18 property
owners. The project reduces overall cost of delivering safe and reliable potable water by
reducing compliance obligations to one larger authority, the Town (PWSID# C00135257),
instead of both the Town and PEMPWCo (PWSID# C00135559).
The design and construction of the project will be funded by PEMPWCo. A Town Enterprise
fund for collecting surcharges from Park Entrance Estates on their water bills, will be established
to cover loan debt payments managed by the Town.
119
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
The Town has received an administrative grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs
(DOLA) for preliminary development and documentation of the project which is required for the
loan application. The grant requires a dollar for dollar match which has been funded by the Park
Entrance Estates property owners.
Water rights and plant development fees (tap charges) must be paid by all new customers tying
into the Town’s water system. Town bulk water customers pay these fees based on the contract
agreement with the Town executed at the time bulk water service begins. The Town’s tap
charges for the existing PEMPWCo customers have already been paid in full through the bulk
water agreement. The one existing undeveloped lot will be required to pay the Town’s tap fee
when developed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project consists of replacement of existing distribution system piping and
appurtenances. All waterline replacement work will occur within existing road right-of-ways.
Environmental considerations for this project are discussed in the Environmental Report.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for PEMPWCo’s existing water system included no action and
replacing the distribution system in accordance with Town standards.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative is to replace the distribution system with 8-inch ductile iron pipe,
valves, air relief valves, and fire hydrants, and abandon the existing system in place. This will
allow for PEMPWCo’s water line to be updated to current Town of Estes Park Water Department
Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway Design Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District Standards. This project will also include the demolition of the existing abandoned water
storage tank and the decommission of the existing abandoned groundwater well.
Advantages of the recommended alternative include: 1) meeting standards and transferring
responsibility of the waterline to the Town of Estes Park so that the operation and maintenance
burden will no longer be placed on the 18 homeowners within PEMPWCo, 2) the new larger pipe
distribution system will provide sufficient capacity for fire flow, 3), increased bury depth of mains
to prevent freezing, and 4) the proposed ductile iron pipe will minimize operation and
maintenance, in comparison to the existing AC pipe which has exceeded its useful life and has
increased leaks and breaks.
REPORT FORMAT
PEMPWCo has retained JVA to complete this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) as the first
step in planning for water distribution system improvements. The PER has been prepared in
accordance with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service
Bulletin 1780-2.
120
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 1 – PROJECT PLANNING
SITE LOCATION
PLANNING AREA
The project is located in the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The planning area
for the distribution system is generally described as the subdivision limits and encompasses
approximately 30 acres. Figure 1 in Appendix A shows the location of the PEMPWCo service
area and the planning area of the Town.
The Town of Estes Park Water Department has recently completed a Master Plan and service for
the PEMPWCo water distribution system is included in the Master Plan. Relevant pages to the
PEMPWCo project of the Master Plan are included in Appendix B for reference. It should be
noted that the Master Plan incorrectly states the number of homes in PEMPWCo served by the
Town’s distribution system is 23, instead of the actual 18 homes.
SERVICE AREA
PEMPWCo’s distribution system service area encompasses approximately 30 acres within the
SW ¼ of Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West, in Larimer County. The PEMPWCo
service area is zoned residential. PEMPWCo’s distribution system currently delivers potable
water to the 18 residential taps in the community. There is one undeveloped lot in the
community. The Town’s distribution system delivers drinking water to the remaining residents
of the Town. Figure 1 in Appendix A shows the service area location of PEMPWCo’s
distribution system within the Town’s service area.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION
This project will be reviewed by the Town to ensure the PEMPWCo’s water line is updated to
current Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway Design
Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT
Refer to the Environmental Report for a discussion on the environmental resources present.
GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS
Within PEMPWCo’s distribution service area, there are 18 developed lots and one vacant lot.
Growth is therefore limited to the one undeveloped lot within the project’s service area.
121
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
Population trends and potable water demand projections for PEMPWCo are seasonal with higher
water use during the summer when more residents are present. No changes in water demand are
projected for the PEMPWCo distribution system in the future, however the existing 4-inch AC
mains will be replaced with 8-inch DIP mains in order to provide sufficient capacity for fire
flow.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
A public meeting was held on April 14, 2015 to discuss the project with open public comment.
As this project continues to progress, there will be another public meeting to review project
details, costs, financing, and impact to each property owner. There also will be a public Town
Board meeting with public comment to approve the creation of an enterprise fund for the purpose
of funding this project.
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
The community’s water distribution system currently has 18 residential taps. Each residential
home has a water meter inside the home. The community’s total monthly consumption from June
2013 to February 2016 is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Monthly Water Consumption from June 2013 to February 2016 (gallons)
Bill Month Year
2013 2014 2015 2016
January 46,050 33,260 29,990
February 39,400 20,530 16,870
March 34,400 23,670
April 24,090 59,310
May 31,310 28,770
June 56,390 35,950 48,140
July 86,740 86,690 71,120
August 70,010 71,000 67,470
September 60,330 29,320 61,250
October 28,400 62,120 39,890
November 38,320 10,330 23,500
December 31,810 22,660 74,120
Some of these residences are second-homes, so there are periods of time in which there is no
water demand from some homes. The summer maximum month from June 2013 to February
2016 was July 2013 with 86,740 gallons, which is about 155 gallons per tap per day. There is
one undeveloped lot, so the demand will increase slightly when this lot is developed and a
service connection installed.
122
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 2 – EXISTING FACILITIES
LOCATION MAP
PEMPWCo’s existing distribution system facilities consists of 4-inch AC mains, one isolation
valve, and one hydrant. There is an abandoned water tank and abandoned well that were used
before connecting to the Town distribution system through a bulk usage master meter. A map of
the existing system is included as Figure 2 in Appendix A.
HISTORY OF SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Construction of the PEMPWCo distribution system began in the mid 1960’s. A well was drilled
(Larimer County Parcel Number 3526321927) and storage tank installed (Larimer County Parcel
Number 3526321026). The well report was filed on September 23, 1965 and adjudicated on
December 18, 1972. Asbestos Cement (AC) pipe was used to bring potable water to the
properties. AC pipe was a common choice for potable water main construction from the 1940s to
the 1970s. The assets were deeded to PEMPWCo in 1968. In 1980 a fire hydrant was installed at
Sunrise Lane and Meadow Circle. A chlorination pump was placed in service in 1981 but it
experienced numerous problems and didn’t operate most of the year. In 1982 the chlorine pump
relay failed and has not been used since.
By 1994 it became increasingly difficult to get volunteers to serve as PEMPWCo Board members.
The customers were asked if they should bring their system up to Town standards and have the
Town take over ownership and operations. At that time the Special Improvement District for the
water system failed. Subsequently, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 went on Town water. In 1988 the
well was abandoned and a bulk water supply agreement allowed PEMPWCo to connect to the
Town’s distribution system through a billing meter and cross connection control device. CDPHE
assigned public water system identification number (PWSID) 135559 identifying PEMPWCo as a
community water system in 1995 and compliance sampling was implemented. In 2000
PEMPWCo requested the Town take over their system. The Town responded:
"Unfortunately, Block 1 Park Entrance Estates water system is not up to Town
Standards, due to the fact that most of your lines are 4-inch Transite® (AC pipe) at
a depth of 4 feet or less... As we discussed prior to your annexation and Special
Improvement District discussions, it will be expensive to upgrade your system
since the roadways are all paved…"
Additionally, the nearby Block 2 neighborhood upgraded their system at their own expense,
setting precedent of communities paying their way to meet Town standards and to be maintained
by the Town. PEMPWCo is now working with the Town to secure loan funding for upgrading the
distribution system prior to transferring ownership to the Town. The Town will maintain the loan,
123
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
while PEMPWCo residents will pay a water bill surcharge into a Town enterprise fund to cover
the annual debt payment.
CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The PEMPWCo distribution system consists of approximately 3,000 linear feet of 4-inch AC
pipe, one mainline valve, one fire hydrant, one master meter at the entrance to the community,
and water meters in each of the residences. There is not adequate fire protection, looping, or
maintenance flushing to reduce disinfection by-products (DBPs). The piping was not designed to
meet the now required 1,500 gpm fire suppression demands. The distribution system functions
strictly to provide water for potable, household purposes. The existing 4-inch AC pipe is not able
to provide 1,500 gpm fire flow. The existing AC pipe is a hazardous material when cut, and
requires specially trained operators to ensure personnel protection during any repairs. In addition,
the existing pipe lines were not buried deep enough underground to ensure freeze protection.
FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
CURRENT RATE SCHEDULE
PEMPWCo is currently charged monthly by the Town according to the Water Rate Schedule
included in Appendix C. The base fee and usage is based off of the 2-inch meter at the entrance
to the community. This total is then split between the 18 residences each month based on usage
and billed internally by PEMPWCo.
After the proposed improvements, each residence will be charged based on their individual meter
rather than by the 2-inch master meter. Also, each resident in PEMPWCo will be charged a
surcharge in order to repay the loan. The 18 residents will not have to pay tap fees to be added to
the Town’s distribution system. However, the one undeveloped lot becomes developed, it will
have to pay the Town’s tap fee to join the distribution system.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The annual operations and maintenance costs for PEMPWCo’s existing distribution system are
difficult to quantify. There are no annual set costs, as the community does not regularly maintain
the distribution system. The only costs associated with the system are in times of repair and/or
emergency. These emergency repair and replacement costs are expected to increase significantly
in the coming years as the existing AC pipe goes beyond its typical life expectancy.
TABULATION OF USERS BY MONTHLY USAGE CATEGORIES
The existing PEMPWCo’s distribution system serves 18 residential taps. There is one
undeveloped lot that will also be a residential tap once it is developed.
EXISTING DEBT
PEMPWCo has no existing debt. The Town has debt from other water infrastructure
improvements. The loan for this project will be paid by the PEMPWCo users only, and not by
124
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
any other members of the Town. While the Town will manage the loan payments for
PEMPWCo, no additional debt will be added to the Town as a whole.
RESERVE ACCOUNTS
PEMPWCo has no existing reserve accounts. The Town’s existing O&M reserve account will
include sufficient funds for meters and other short-lived assets for the 18 homes served by the
PEMPWCo distribution system, as well as funds to perform regular maintenance and repairs as
needed.
125
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 3 – NEED FOR PROJECT
HEALTH AND SECURITY
There is currently no outstanding compliance issues associated with PEMPWCo’s water
distribution system or with the Town’s water distribution system.
There are no health concerns with water consumption from AC mains, however AC poses a
health and safety concern for maintenance personnel during a pipe repair.
The existing water mains have a bury depth of less than 4-feet in some areas. This can cause
pipes to freeze and can lead to pipe breaks and loss of access to potable water for residents.
There are no anticipated security concerns with the proposed water distribution system
improvements as the proposed lines are buried. Construction site fencing, signage, and other
associated security equipment will be provided and maintained by the contractor during
construction.
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
The PEMPWCo’s distribution system was installed in the mid-1960s. AC pipe was a common
choice for potable water main construction from the 1940s to the 1970s. AC pipe is
manufactured from a mixed slurry of portland cement (80-85%) and a mixture of chrysotile
asbestos fibers (15-20%).
The PEMPWCo distribution system has exceeded the life expectancy for AC pipe of 40 to 60
years. Breaks and leaks are expected to increase for the system. PEMPWCo does not have
maintenance employees and therefore must hire a contractor for any breaks or leaks.
AC pipe is very brittle and cracks under stress from external loads, and is only available in four
foot pipe lengths, so there is a joint every four feet along the pipeline’s alignment. Each joint has
the potential to be a weak spot along the pipeline which can contribute to leaks.
In addition, PEMPWCo’s 4-inch distribution system was not designed for adequate fire flow for
the community. Also, there is only one mainline valve and one fire hydrant in the 3,000 linear
feet of distribution piping.
SYSTEM O&M
PEMPWCo’s water distribution system is not regularly maintained. When there is an issue, the
community reacts appropriately to fix the emergency. The Town’s current water distribution
system is operated by the Town’s Water Superintendent with regular maintenance.
126
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
Primary operation and maintenance concerns with PEMPWCo’s existing distribution system are
related to AC pipe repairs. Any repairs necessary to the AC pipe requires hazard material
certified procedures, which can be costly and dangerous. Any future repairs to the proposed
ductile iron pipe (DIP) will not have this operation and maintenance requirement.
There are no automatic controls associated with these improvements. All installed valves will be
manually operated. Valves added to the distribution system as part of this project will be added
to the Town’s valve maintenance schedule. In addition, hydrants added to the distribution system
as part of this project will be added to the Town’s hydrant flushing maintenance schedule.
REASONABLE GROWTH
Within the community, there is only one vacant lot and 18 developed lots. Growth is therefore
limited to that one undeveloped lot within the project’s service area.
Population trends and potable water demand projections for PEMPWCo are seasonal with higher
water use during the summer when more residents are present. No changes in water demand are
projected for the PEMPWCo distribution system in the future, however the existing 4-inch AC
mains will be replaced with 8-inch DIP mains in order to provide sufficient capacity for fire
flow.
127
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
INTRODUCTION
Each alternative has been developed with consideration for costs, project needs, Town standards,
and fire flow requirements. The alternatives discussed in this section are the two feasible
alternatives for PEMPWCo’s existing water system:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Distribution System Replacement and Abandonment
DESIGN CRITERIA
Specific design criteria is included and required for the Town’s acceptance of the system and in
order to reduce freezing potential, increase fire flow capabilities, and reduce operation and
maintenance.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
The “No Action” alternative consists of keep the existing 4-inch AC pipe waterline in service.
The neighborhood would continue to react to breaks and leaks, which are likely to increase over
the coming years, and continue to struggle with routine operation and maintenance of their system
and conforming to regulatory standards, thereby putting public health at risk. The inefficiencies
placed on PEMPWCo would continue to degrade economic resources of the neighborhood and
could add a regulatory burden of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
The existing system does not meet the Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards and Estes
Valley Fire Protection District Standards which require a minimum pipe size of 8 inches for dead-
end lines, pipe material of ductile iron, a minimum bury depth of 4-feet, and it must provide a
maximum allowable fire flow of 1,500 gpm at each hydrant. PEMPWCo cannot transfer
responsibility of their waterline to the Town of Estes Park without conforming to the required
standards. Based on PEMPWCo’s goals to reduce its maintenance burden and future pipe repair
costs, provide fire flow, and reduce pipe freezing, the “No Action” alternative is not
recommended.
ALTERNATIVE 2: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CRITERIA
Alternative 2 involves the construction of a new water distribution system for PEMPWCo that
will comply with Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway
Design Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Standards. This alternative also
128
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
includes abandoning the existing AC main in place, and the demolition of the existing abandoned
water storage tank and the decommission of the existing abandoned groundwater well.
The new distribution system will include approximately 3,500 linear feet of 8-inch DIP,
approximately 500 linear feet of 2-inch copper service, isolation valves, and six fire hydrants.
The required fire flows for the mostly dead-end mains will be achieved with the installation of 8-
inch diameter pipe. The proposed 8-inch main will also loop completely around Meadow Circle,
to avoid a dead-end main and to allow for better flow through the distribution and minimize
water-age. The potable water supply will continue to be provided by the Town of Estes Park. A
map of the proposed replacement of the existing distribution system is provided as Figure 3 in
Appendix A.
Per Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed
in the right-of-way. The valves will be spaced at a maximum of 600 feet along the main. Any
tees will have two valves and any crosses will have three valves. A valve will also be placed at
each fire hydrant. Fire hydrants will be located as directed by the Town’s Fire Chief. Fire
hydrants will be 6-inches and will be located at the tee from the main line, and placed at a
maximum spacing of 500 feet in residential areas. Fire hydrants located at dead-ends may be
used as blow-offs for system flushing and maintenance.
The existing AC pipe will be abandoned in place. The master meter at the entrance to
PEMPWCo will also be abandoned, as it will not be necessary for the proposed system. The
meters at each household in the community will be replaced with new Town meters inside each
household to measure each home’s water usage.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed replacement of PEMPWCo’s distribution system will not have long term
environmental impacts as it is an in-kind replacement of an existing system. Any impacts during
construction will be mitigated. A construction phase stormwater management plan will be in
place to mitigate the potential of runoff carrying loose excavation soils to the Big Thompson
River.
The proposed project is not located in the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain or near any
wetlands. A map of the floodplain and a map of the local wetlands are both included in Appendix
A.
LAND REQUIREMENTS
Per Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed
in the existing right-of-way, so there will be no additional land requirements.
CONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUES
The entire Estes Park area is susceptible to subsurface rock requiring blasting to achieve a
minimum five feet of cover above the top of the pipe. The opinion of probable cost will include
rock removal.
129
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
The new main will be installed in the existing right-of-way. Traffic control will be required in
the community during construction, and will cause short-term disruption of transportation.
Construction will cause short-term potable water service outages during service line tie over.
Tie-ins will be made at discrete points to minimize disruption of service to the residents.
SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed replacement of the AC pipe with DIP will minimize leaks in the existing
distribution system, mitigating any unaccounted for water.
COST ESTIMATE
Total cost for this alternative includes the labor and materials necessary to complete the items
described above. The estimated total capital cost for this alternative is $1,175,600. The estimated
20-Year present worth operation and maintenance cost is $891,000, which includes the debt
payments for all capital costs. A detailed breakdown of this estimate is provided in Appendix D.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages:
Larger 8-inch DIP will meet required standards for fire flow
Safer pipe material during maintenance with lower repair costs
Fire hydrants will allow for system flushing and will provide fire protection to the
community
Operation and maintenance will be responsibility of the Town, not PEMPWCo, with
sufficient funds and staff to perform regular maintenance
Known cost in debt repayment compared to unknown costs in aging AC pipe repairs
Disadvantages:
Capital cost of new main installation project, including rock removal/blasting
130
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 5 – SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Replacement of the AC pipe with DIP will result in a decrease in maintenance and point repairs
on the pipe. The proposed system will be included in the Town’s flushing, water quality testing,
and fire hydrant maintenance schedule.
The estimated 20-Year present worth operation and maintenance cost for the replacement of the
distribution system, including debt repayment, is $891,000. A detailed breakdown of this
estimate is provided in Appendix D.
NON-MONETARY FACTORS
Operation and maintenance of the new distribution system will be the duty of the Town, which
will relieve the community from the burden of the responsibility. Increased fire flow capacity
will improve safety of the neighborhood
131
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 6 – PROPOSED PROJECT
PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN
Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative. The new distribution system will include
approximately 3,500 linear feet of 8-inch DIP, approximately 500 linear feet of copper service,
valves, and fire hydrants. The proposed 8-inch main will also loop completely around Meadow
Circle, to avoid dead-ending the main and allow for better flow through the distribution and
reduce water-age. The potable water supply will continue to be provided by the Town of Estes
Park. The project will also include the demolition of the existing abandoned water storage tank
and the decommission of the existing abandoned groundwater well. A map of the proposed
replacement of the existing distribution system is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix A.
Per Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed
in the right-of-way. The valves will be placed at a maximum spacing of 600 feet along the main.
Any tees will have at least two valves and any crosses will have at least three valves. A valve
will also be placed at each fire hydrant. Fire hydrants will be located as directed by the Town’s
Fire Chief. Fire hydrants will be 6-inches and will be located at the tee from the main line, and
placed at a maximum spacing of 500 feet in residential areas. Fire hydrants located at dead-ends
may be used as system blow-offs during flushing.
The existing AC pipe will be abandoned in place. The exact location of the AC pipe is unknown
and no tracer wire was installed to aide in locating the existing AC pipe. If the proposed main
alignment crosses the existing AC pipe, proper removal and disposal methods will be used by the
contractor. The project will have an allowance for AC pipe removal to be used when needed. The
master meter at the entrance to PEMPWCo will also be abandoned, as it will not be necessary for
the proposed system. The meters at each household in the community will be replaced in
accordance with Town water meter standards to measure each household’s water usage.
Alternative 2 is recommended as it will allow for the PEMPWCo’s water line to be updated to
current Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway Design
Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Standards. The new larger pipe
distribution system will provide sufficient capacity for fire flow and an increased bury depth will
prevent freezing. By meeting standards and transferring responsibility of the waterline to the
Town of Estes Park, the operation and maintenance burden will no longer be placed on
PEMPWCo. By replacing the existing AC pipe now, PEMPWCo will avoid costly leaks and
break repairs as the 1960’s era AC pipe goes beyond its useful life. Furthermore, with the
abandonment of the AC pipe, health and safety risks will minimize during maintenance.
132
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A public meeting addressing the improvements to the water system will be held with a 30-day
notice period. A memo will be submitted to USDA summarizing the outcome with an attendance
list and meeting agenda.
The anticipated schedule for implementation of the proposed project is shown in Table 2. It is
anticipated that design of the proposed distribution system improvements will commence
immediately following approval of this PER. Approval of this PER is anticipated in August
2016. Upon completion of the design, the Construction Application will be submitted to CDPHE
and the funding agencies for approval. After CDPHE and funding approval, construction will
begin. It is anticipated that four months for construction completion will be required.
Table 2: Anticipated Project Schedule
Task Anticipated Date
Submit PER and ER to USDA June 2016
Commence Design August 2016
Submit Construction Application to CDPHE October 2016
CDPHE Review and Approval January 2017
Funding Secured January 2017
Obtain Bids February 2017
Commence Construction April 2017
Construction Completion August 2017
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Construction will require coordination with the Town for right-of-way permits.
133
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Preliminary Engineering Report
SECTION 7 – CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The selected alternative for PEMPWCo is to replace the existing 4-inch AC main with 8-inch
DIP. Mainline valves and fire hydrants will also be installed. This project will also include the
demolition of the existing abandoned water storage tank and the decommission of the existing
abandoned groundwater well. The implementation of these improvements will require additional
design.
134
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
135
SAINT VRAIN
FALL RIVER
HIGHWAY 36
HIGHWAY 7M O R A I N E EL
KHORNHIGHWAY 66BIG T
H
O
M
PS
O
N
W O N D E RV I E W
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
3
6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
³
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550
Feet
Legend
Town of Estes Park Boundary
PEMPWCo Service Area
Road Centerline
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
COLORADO
LARIMER
COUNTYTOWN OF
ESTES PARK
136
PEMPWCo
Distribution
System
May 2, 2016
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
137
138
G!.
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
d
dG!.
H
EIN
Z P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
HIGHVIEW COURT
HEI
NZ PARKWAYSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
FIGURE 2: EXISTING PEMPWCo DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
EXIST CONNECTION &
MASTER METER FOR
THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK WATER MAIN
HIGH DR M O R A I N E A V E
Legend
G!.Existing Fire HydrantdExisting Valve
&Existing Curb Stop
Existing Service
Existing PEMPWCo Water Main - 4" AC
Existing Town of Estes Park Water Main - 6" DI
G!.Existing Town of Estes Park Fire Hydrant
PEMPWco Distribution Service Area
Building Footprint
Property Line
³
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
SUNRISE LANE
MEADOW CI
RCLEABANDONED WATER TANK
139
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(H
EIN
Z P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
HIGHVIEW COURT
HEI
NZ
PARKWAYSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
³
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
Legend
!(Proposed Valve
G!.Proposed Fire Hyrdrant
Proposed Service - 2" CU
Proposed Water - 8" DI
Abandoned Water - 4" AC
Town of Estes Park Water - 6" DI
G!.Town of Estes Park Fire Hydrant
PEMPWCo Service Area
Building Footprint
Property Line
FIGURE 3: PROPOSED PEMPWCo DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
CONNECTION TO
THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK WATER MAIN
M O R A I N E A V EHIGH DR
SUNRISE LANE
MEADOW CI
RCLE140
APPENDIX B – PAGES FROM 2015 TOWN OF ESTES
PARK MASTER PLAN
141
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Due to the growth of this portion of the transient population, FEI estimates that the current transient
population of the Town in 2014 is made up of 71.3 percent RMNP visitors and 28.7 percent non-
RMNP visitors. Using the methodology summarized in Table 17, but substituting 71.3 percent for 73
percent and the average July 2014 visitor number of 22,377 persons per day, FEI estimates that the
peak transient population was 24,254 persons per day in July 2014.
2.3 Non-Transient Population (workforce personnel)
The non-transient population is comprised largely of workers who commute into Town, but do not
live within the Town’s service area. In a report prepared in 2008 by RRC Associates, Inc. for the
Estes Park Housing Authority, information obtained from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
was used to estimate how many employees commuted to the Estes Valley for work in 2007. Table 18
summarizes these findings.
Table 19. Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment Quantification of
Non-transient Population
2007 (estimated)
Total Jobs (DOLA) 5,587
Jobs per Employee 1.28
Total Employees 4,365
% of Employees that Commute 11.0%
Number of Employees that Commute 480
Based on the estimate of 480 persons for the non-transient population in 2007, FEI has estimated that
the current 2014 non-transient population is 567 persons based on the 2.4 percent annual growth the
Estes Valley was experiencing between 2000 and 2010. It is our opinion that it is appropriate to
estimate the growth in non-transient population based on the growth in permanent population due to
the fact that the majority of year-round employees work in public services. As permanent population
grows, the need for more employees in these sectors also grows.
2.4 Bulk / Wholesale Population
The Town currently provides water to six bulk/wholesale customers. The current customers include
Windcliff Property Owners Association, Hondius Water Users Association, Park Entrance Mutual
Pipeline Water Company, John Timothy Stone Cliff Association, Prospect Mountain Water
Company, and Spruce Lake RV Park.
In the 2007 HDR Report, the Town had estimated the bulk population based on metered sales and an
assumption of per capita water usage. As a result, the report concluded that the bulk population was
786 persons in the peak season and 398 persons in the off season. The Town has indicated that very
little, if any, growth has been experienced in these communities since the 2007 HDR Report, and FEI
has continued to rely on the number of households that were recorded in 2006. Since the 2007 HDR
Report, two additional contracts, Prospect Mountain Water Company and Spruce Lake RV Park, have
been added for a total of six contracts. The Town provided an estimate of the number of homes
and/or RV’s served by Prospect Mountain Water Company and the Spruce Lake RV Park. A
summary of available information regarding the bulk/wholesale contracts is shown in Table 19.
142
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Table 20. Homes Served by the Town's Bulk/Wholesale Contracts
Water Provider Peak Season
Homes Served
Windcliff Property Owners Association 120
Hondius Water Users Association 73
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline Water Company 23
John Timothy Stone Cliff Association 17
Prospect Mountain Water Company 147
Spruce Lake RV Park 60
Total 440
Based on an average of 2.11 persons per household as identified in the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan, the bulk/wholesale population is currently 929 persons in the peak season and 395 persons in
the off season.
2.5 YMCA Emergency Contract
The YMCA of the Rockies is located within the Estes Valley. The Town has an existing agreement
with the YMCA that it will provide up to 0.43 million gallons per day (MGD) upon an emergency
request. Although the customers at the YMCA are not included in the population projections, they
are included in the build-out demand as well as the peak daily demand for the projection horizon of
2034.
3. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
To properly project the Town’s peak day and annual potable water demand in 2034, FEI has analyzed
how each of the populations described in this report may grow over the coming years. Details for the
growth utilized for each population type are provided below.
3.1 Permanent Population Growth
The U.S. Census data relied upon to estimate the Town’s permanent population shows that the Town
does not exhibit the exponential growth that is expected of diverse populations. The Town is unique
in that a vast majority of the permanent residents are couples without children or adults living alone.
Over the past 50 years, the Town’s growth has been better described by a linear relationship than an
exponential relationship, and it is our opinion that this will continue in the future.
Based on our discussions with Town staff and the data available on Town population, density, and
build-out conditions, there is no longer much opportunity for additional residential development
within the Town’s limits, and in some places condominiums are being replaced with townhouses.
Also, the Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment concluded that households in the unincorporated
portions of Estes Valley would decrease as a percentage of total households in the Estes Valley from
52% to 46% due to lack of growth potential (i.e. available/vacant lots). Based on these projections, it
is our opinion that the Town and Estes Valley will experience very little growth in the foreseeable
future.
In 2007, as part of an update to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, a build-out analysis was
performed in order to determine the Town’s maximum permanent population when built-out. The
Town performed the analysis using geographic information systems (GIS), comparing the available
residential zoning to the housing units that already existed at the time. Based on this spatial analysis,
143
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
the Town determined that the build-out population for the Estes Valley is 18,867 persons, excluding
commercial accommodations. This is a significantly higher build-out population than what was
initially provided in the 2007 HDR Report (12,738 persons). Based on discussions with the Town’s
utilities and community development staff it is our opinion that the build-out condition of 18,867
persons is a reasonable projection.
FEI has utilized three different linear growth rates in order to appropriately encompass the variability
of predicting future growth. The three growth rates used were 0.8 percent, corresponding to the
growth of the Town between 2000 and 2010, 1.6 percent, corresponding to the growth of the State of
Colorado between 2000 and 2010, and 2.4 percent, corresponding to the growth of the Estes Valley
between 2000 and 2010. Table 20 presents the predicted year that build-out conditions will be
reached using these estimated linear growth percentages.
Table 21. Estimated Year Build-out Population May be Reached
0.8% 1.6% 2.4%
Estimated Year Build-out Population is Reached 2094 2052 2038
Estimated 2034 Population 13,480 15,652 17,823
Table 20 shows that the Town is still many years from reaching the build-out population based on the
way population has been growing since the U.S. Census began taking surveys in 1950. It is our
opinion that the Town will continue to experience linear population growth and that the rate of
population growth will slow as it approaches the build-out population.
3.2 Transient Population Growth
The transient population of the Town is the largest portion of the population during the peak season of
May through September. The Guest Research Study established that in 2010, 73 percent of the
Town’s transient population was visitors to RMNP. Based on the visitation data for RMNP over the
last 20 years and conversations with RMNP staff, it is our opinion that park visitation will remain
relatively constant and may even decrease in the future. To the extent that the proposed Downtown
Estes Loop affects RMNP visitation, it is our opinion that this will likely increase the average
monthly and annual visits to RMNP, but will not affect the maximum monthly and annual visits to
RMNP since the park is already near capacity. For the purpose of this analysis, FEI has assumed that
this portion of the transient population will not grow in the future, and the maximum number of daily
visitors observed in July 2001 will be used to predict the peak demand for future years as well.
As described earlier in this report, it is our opinion that the portion of the Town’s transient population
that does not visit RMNP will grow consistently at a rate of 1.6 percent. This growth of a portion of
the transient population causes the transient population as a whole to grow at a rate of 0.4 percent per
year. Based on this rate of growth, if the RMNP were to experience the peak month of July 2001
(24,178 visitors per day) again in 2034, this would result in a Town transient population of 29,848
persons per day, which reflects the growth of the transient population that does not visit RMNP. FEI
estimates that the average offseason transient population in 2034 would be 3,868 persons per day.
3.3 Non-transient Population Growth
The non-transient population represents employees who work in the Town but live elsewhere. In
general, Town employees help to provide essential services to the Town’s permanent population. It is
our opinion that it is appropriate to estimate the growth of the Town’s non-transient population using
methodology consistent with the way the permanent population growth was estimated. Table 21
144
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
provides a summary of the expected 2034 non-transient population using the 0.8 percent, 1.6 percent,
and 2.4 percent growth rates previously utilized for the permanent population. These growth rates
have been projected forward using the 2014 estimated population of 567 persons.
Table 22. Estimated 2034 Non-transient Population
0.8% 1.6% 2.4%
Estimated 2034 Population 658 748 839
3.4 Bulk/Wholesale Population Growth
The bulk/wholesale population represents a group of residential water users, both permanent and
semi-permanent, that receive water through one of the Town’s bulk contracts. FEI has previously
estimated the 2014 bulk/wholesale population to be 929 persons in the peak season and 395 persons
in the off season. The conclusion of the 2007 HDR Report was that the bulk/wholesale contract
communities, at that time, were at 80 percent of build-out with no plans for expansion. This
conclusion would not apply to the Prospect Mountain Water Company and Spruce Lake RV Park,
which were added as bulk/wholesale contracts after the date of that report.
For the four communities that were included in the 2007 HDR Report, the Town has indicated that
there has been limited growth since 2007. FEI has assumed that due to limited growth over the last
several years they are still at 80 percent of build-out. For the Prospect Mountain Water Company, we
estimate 184 taps in 2035. FEI has considered this number to be the build-out condition for the
Prospect Mountain Water Company contract. Spruce Lake RV Park is a small percentage of the
bulk/wholesale contracts and an even smaller percentage of the Town’s total population, therefore it
has been assumed that this community will not grow significantly in the future. Due to the uncertain
nature of growth in these communities and the relatively small populations in question, FEI has
assumed the most conservative scenario, which is that all of these bulk/wholesale contracts will have
attained build-out conditions by the year 2034. Table 22 provides a summary of FEI’s estimate of the
2034 bulk/wholesale population for the Town.
Table 23. Estimated Number of Homes Served by Bulk/Wholesale Contracts in 2014 and 2034
Bulk/Wholesale Contract
Estimated
2014
Homes
Estimated
2014
Population
Estimated
2034
Homes
Estimated
2034
Population
Windcliff Property Owners
Association 120 254 150 317
Hondius Water Users Association 73 155 92 195
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline Water
Company 23 49 29 62
John Timothy Stone Cliff Association 17 36 22 47
Prospect Mountain Water Company 128 271 184 390
Spruce Lake RV Park 60 127 60 127
Total 440 932 703 1,487
a/ Based on an average of 2.11 persons per household
3.5 Accessory Dwelling Units /Short Term Property Rentals
Rocky Mountain National Park generates a high demand for short term vacation rentals and seasonal
work force housing. A potential growth in future water demand exists if the development code were
to allow accessory dwelling units to be constructed on existing parcels in residential neighborhoods.
145
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
This subject was debated around the year 2008 and resulted in restrictions which forbid accessory
dwelling units as rentals in residential neighborhoods. Future water demand increases from accessory
dwelling units is therefore not considered in this demand projection.
Future water demand projection studies should review then current status of accessory dwelling units
in areas zoned single family, noting development code and HOA covenant changes such as:
- Can multiple families occupying the same parcel in an area zoned as single family
- The definition of a family; marriage, adopted, blood relation, other
- Living quarters above a garage with a kitchen
- Allowance for long term and or short term renters
- Enforcement of rental laws
- Can accessory dwelling units be detached or only attached to the structure
Even if current restrictions were eased additional considerations would be required. The maximum
number of allowable accessory dwelling units would be limited by the minimum lot size and property
setbacks. That maximum potential would further be reduced based on the likelihood of property
owners’ interest in constructing an accessory dwelling unit -- even though their property passes all the
restrictions.
4. PER CAPITA DEMAND
The boundary of the Town of Estes Park’s water system service area coincides roughly with the boundary
of the Estes Valley. The majority of the water system is located below the “blue line,” which is composed
of a set of contour elevations throughout the Valley, below which the current water system can deliver
water by gravity. The existing water system is supplied by two water treatment plants (Mary’s Lake Water
Treatment Plant [MLWTP] and Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant [GCWTP]).
4.1 Water Treatment Plant Production
Figure 7 shows the historic peak day water treatment plant production by month for the years 2009
through 2013. Data from 2006, included in the 2007 HDR Report, are also plotted for comparison.
The values reported are total water treatment from both the GCWTP and MLWTP.
146
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Figure 7. Estes Park Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production
The increased water treatment plant production in the peak season of May through September can be
explained by a combination of increased Town population in those months and increased per capita
demand in those months. Figure 7 shows that there has not been a significant increase in peak
monthly water treatment plant production for normal consumption since 2006, the last year of data
included in the 2007 HDR Report. June 2012 does not constitute normal usage because production
was increased to fight the Woodland Heights fire.
In order to analyze the current and future potable water demand of the Town, FEI determined the
average annual daily demand and applied a peaking factor to estimate peak daily demand. The
average annual daily demand is defined as the average daily production during the peak season of
May through September for a particular year. The peaking factor is defined as the ratio of the peak
daily demand for a particular year to the average annual daily demand. Figure 8 shows the Town’s
historic peak day demand, average annual daily demand, and peaking factor. The 2007 HDR Report
correctly how production seemed to be rebounding after the 2002 drought effects. With the inclusion
of additional data from 2007 through 2013 that is indeed the case, and the average annual daily
demand has stabilized at approximately pre-drought levels. However, with the increased population
of the Estes Valley from 2002 to the present, an increase in average annual daily demand would be
expected. It is our opinion that this is an indication of increased conservation within Estes Valley.
Consistent with national trends, per capita demand has decreased since the 2002 drought.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPeak Monthly Flow (MGD)Month
Town of Estes Park Seasonal Water Treatment
Plant Production
2006
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
147
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Figure 8. Peak Season Water Treatment Plant Production
Table 24 shows the historic minimum, average, and maximum values for each of the parameters
shown in Figure 8. The values listed for the peaking factor were used as the low, most-likely, and
high values in the analysis. The 4.3 MG peak day demand shown from July of 2002 reflects the
production required to supply water to fight the Big Elk Fire, without this event the peak demand day
would have similar to the previous year at 3.1 MGD. In 2012 the Woodland Heights Fire consumed
21 structures and led to the recorded peak water demand of 3.9 MGD, without this fire event the 2012
peak usage would have also been 3.1 MGD.
Table 24. Historic Potable Water Demand (1993-2013)
Peak Daily Demand
(MGD)
Average Annual Daily Demand
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
Minimum 2.5 1.7 1.3
Average 3.3 2.0 1.6
Maximum 4.3 2.2 2.0
It should be noted that even with the inclusion of data for 2007 through 2013, Table 23 is extremely
similar to the information presented in the 2007 HDR Report. The only difference is a slight increase
in the average peak daily demand (3.3 MGD compared to 3.2 MGD in the 2007 HDR Report). This
increase in average peak daily demand is likely the result of population increase, but is dampened by
a decrease in per capita demand due to conservation.
5. PER CAPITA DEMAND
Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2012 is shown on Figure
8. The total metered use from 2006 is also included as a point of reference.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Potable Water Demand (MGD)Year
Town of Estes Park Peak Season Water
Treatment Plant Production
Peak Day Demand
Average Peak Season Day
Demand
Peak/Avg Ratio (Peak Season)
148
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Figure 9. Park 2012 Potable Water Use
Figure 9 shows that residential and commercial use in 2012 are very similar and follow roughly the same
monthly pattern. The difference between total water treatment plant production and total metered use can
be explained by the system losses and other uses not metered such as fire training, firefighting and system
flushing. System losses include water consumed or lost in the treatment process or distribution pipelines.
Bleeders exist to bleed water from the system during the winter months in order to keep the distribution
pipes from freezing and to ensure water quality. It should be noted that the total metered use for 2012 and
2006 are very similar and show that total potable water use is dependent on weather, changes in volumetric
rates and consumer installation of new water efficiency water fixtures and appliances.
Per capita water demand can be calculated by distributing the water treatment plant production over the
population to arrive at a per capita per day demand. Using this method, each customer is allocated a portion
of residential and commercial demand as well as system losses. The 2007 HDR Report provided a single
per capita demand for the peak season of May through September and a single per capita demand for the
off season of October through March. Each per capita demand value encompassed all four categories of
population, which covers a wide range of use patterns, from permanent residents to people who simply stop
in the Town to go shopping.
Due to the Town’s extremely high transient population during the peak season, it is our opinion that it is
not appropriate to attribute a per capita demand to the Town’s total population without considering the
different population categories. Even within the transient population, per capita demand can vary between
day and overnight visitors to the Town. However, it is difficult to determine per capita demand for the
permanent and transient populations separately because both populations exert a demand in both the
residential and commercial sectors. For the purpose of this analysis, FEI has assumed that the per capita
demand of the transient population is the same in the peak season and the off season. By making this
assumption, a relationship between peak season permanent population per capita demand and off season
permanent population per capita demand can be established.
In most front-range communities, outdoor water use during the summer months can make up as much as
50 percent of total water use. This can be determined by subtracting the winter water use, representative
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Potable Water Usage (MG)Month
2012 Potable Water Usage
Total 2012 WTP Production
Total 2012 Metered Use
2012 Residential Metered
Use
2012 Commercial Metered
Use
2006 Total Metered Use
149
Town of Estes Park
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
of indoor use that does not change seasonally, from the summer water use. The same methodology can be
applied to this analysis for the Town, but consideration must be taken for the fact that in general, the Town’s
permanent population does not have a high level of outdoor water use. For the purpose of this analysis,
FEI has assumed that outdoor water use makes up 30 percent of total water use by the permanent population
during the peak season of May through September.
By combining the assumption that the per capita demand for the transient population is constant year-round
and the assumption that outdoor use is 30 percent of total use by the permanent population during the peak
season, low and mid-range estimated values for the permanent and transient population’s peak and off-
season per capita demand can be determined. Table 24 presents the per capita demand for these populations,
calculated based on total water treatment plant production data from 2012. The high estimated value was
determined by applying a peaking factor to the mid-range value, based on the ratio of peak day demand in
a drought year (2002) with the 2012 peak day demand. The peak day demand for those years were 4.3
MGD and 3.9 MGD, respectively, representing a 10% increase. This factor is lower than that included in
the 2007 HDR Report because 2012 was considered to be a drier year than 2006, but not as severe a drought
as 2002.
Table 25. Town of Estes Park Per Capita Water Demands
Scenario
Permanent Population Peak
Season Demand
(gpcd)
Transient Population
Demand
(gpcd)
Low 70 34
Mid 101 34
High 111 34
The permanent and transient populations make up the majority of the Town’s population during the peak
and off-seasons. However, a per capita demand must be assigned to the non-transient and bulk/wholesale
populations as well. It is our opinion that due to the fact that the non-transient population does not live
locally and commutes into Town, it is appropriate to apply the transient population per capita demand to
the non-transient population. Due to the fact that the bulk/wholesale population is comprised of permanent
and semi-permanent residents, it is our opinion that it is appropriate to apply the permanent population per
capita demand to the bulk/wholesale population. These populations represent a small percentage of total
water demand and these assumptions are not likely to dramatically affect projected potable water demand
in the future.
6. PROJECTED POTABLE WATER DEMAND
The anticipated potable water demand for the Town in the year 2034 can be determined using the projected
2034 populations and the per capita demand for each population. However, per capita demand can change
over time with the introduction of water efficient indoor fixtures and with State focus on conservation in
the coming years. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) estimates that a 34 percent reduction
in per capita demand could be achieved through active and passive conservation for indoor and outside uses
over the next 40 years. The impact of these conservation measures can already be seen in the water
production numbers at MLWTP and GCWTP. Despite population growth in the Valley over the last 12
years, the total production at MLWTP and GCWTP has not increase significantly since the 2002 drought.
While some of the 34 percent reduction in per capita demand has been realized, it is expected that
conservation will have a continued impact on per capita demand going forward.
For the purpose of this analysis, FEI has estimated the projected potable water demand for the planning
horizon of 2034 in eight scenarios that consider the following four variables:
150
APPENDIX C – TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER RATE
SCHEDULE 2015 – 2018
151
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Water Rate Schedule 2015-2018
Effective June 1, 2015
TO CALCULATE YOUR MONTHLY WATER BILL:
Follow the formula below using the charts for Base Fee and Volume Charge on this page
Base Fee + [ (Gallons Used divided by 1,000) x Volume Charge] = Monthly Water Bill
BASE FEE BY METER SIZE*Most residential meters are 3/4"
METER SIZE
Inches:Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
5/8"$23.82 $38.11 $26.92 $43.06 $30.15 $48.23 $32.56 $52.09
3/4" *$23.82 $38.11 $26.92 $43.06 $30.15 $48.23 $32.56 $52.09
1"$28.58 $45.73 $37.68 $60.29 $50.34 $80.55 $54.37 $86.99
1-1/2"$41.68 $66.69 $67.29 $107.66 $100.38 $160.61 $108.41 $173.46
2"$67.88 $108.61 $114.39 $183.03 $160.67 $257.08 $173.52 $277.65
3"$119.09 $190.55 $201.87 $322.99 $301.45 $482.32 $325.57 $520.91
4"$214.37 $342.99 $336.44 $538.31 $502.52 $804.04 $542.72 $868.36
6"$252.17 $403.47 $402.68 $644.29 $553.20 $885.12 $747.46 $955.93
8"$1,270.27 $2,032.43 $1,435.40 $2,296.64 $1,607.65 $2,572.24 $1,736.26 $2,778.02
10"$1,826.20 $2,921.92 $2,063.61 $3,301.77 $2,311.24 $3,697.98 $2,496.14 $3,993.82
VOLUME CHARGE BY RATE CLASS PER 1,000 GALLONS
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
Residential $4.59 $7.35 $4.73 $7.57 $4.87 $7.80 $5.26 $8.42
Commercial $4.65 $7.44 $4.85 $7.76 $5.00 $8.00 $5.40 $8.64
Pumped Flow $6.43 $10.29 $6.63 $10.60 $6.82 $10.92 $7.37 $11.79
Bulk Water **$5.15 $8.74 $5.30 $9.60 $5.46 $10.55 $5.90 $11.39
** A volume charge per 1,000 gallons shall be assessed to existing bulk water or pumped flow customers
in lieu of a connection charge.
EXHIBIT A
RATE CLASS
Effective June 1, 2015
2015 2016 2017 2018
Effective June 1, 2015
2015 2016 2017 2018
152
APPENDIX D – COST ESTIMATES
153
Job Name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
Job Number: 2539c
Date: 6/3/2016
By: LBT
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Demolition of Abandoned Water Storage Tank 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Rock Removal Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Asphalt Cutting, Patching, and Debris Removal Allowance 10,500 SF $8 $84,000
Seeding 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
Asbestos Cement Pipe Disposal Allowance 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
8-Inch Ductile Iron Pipe 3,500 LF $100 $350,000
8-Inch Gate Valve 8 EA $3,500 $28,000
2-Inch Copper Pipe 500 LF $75 $37,500
Fire Hydrant Assembly 6 EA $7,500 $45,000
Air Relief Valve Assembly 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
Connect to Existing Town of Estes Park Distribution System 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Water Meter and Installation 18 EA $700 $12,600
Service Line Connections 18 EA $1,500 $27,000
$716,600
Subtotal $716,600
Contingency (20%) $143,000
Contractor's OH&P (15%) $129,000
Permitting and Design (10%) $72,000
Resident Project Representative (10%) $72,000
Compaction Testing and Inspection Allowance $7,000
Administrative and Legal (5%) $36,000
Project Total $1,175,600
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Division 02 - Sitework
Sitework Subtotal
2539c - OPC - OPC 154
Job Name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
Job Number: 2539c
Date: 6/3/2016
By: LBT
Year n Annual Cost 2015 PW Annual Cost 2015 PW
2016 0 33,000$ 33,000$ 56,100$ 56,100$
2017 1 33,800$ 32,911$ 56,050$ 54,576$
2018 2 34,500$ 32,710$ 56,050$ 53,142$
2019 3 35,300$ 32,588$ 56,150$ 51,837$
2020 4 36,100$ 32,451$ 56,150$ 50,474$
2021 5 289,100$ 253,044$ 56,150$ 49,147$
2022 6 37,800$ 32,216$ 56,150$ 47,855$
2023 7 38,700$ 32,116$ 56,250$ 46,680$
2024 8 39,600$ 31,999$ 56,250$ 45,453$
2025 9 40,500$ 31,866$ 56,250$ 44,258$
2026 10 342,700$ 262,549$ 56,350$ 43,171$
2027 11 42,400$ 31,629$ 56,350$ 42,036$
2028 12 43,400$ 31,524$ 56,350$ 40,931$
2029 13 44,400$ 31,403$ 56,350$ 39,855$
2030 14 45,400$ 31,266$ 56,450$ 38,876$
2031 15 362,900$ 243,349$ 56,450$ 37,854$
2032 16 47,500$ 31,015$ 56,450$ 36,858$
2033 17 48,600$ 30,899$ 56,550$ 35,953$
2034 18 49,700$ 30,767$ 56,550$ 35,008$
2035 19 50,800$ 30,621$ 56,550$ 34,087$
2036 20 430,200$ 252,500$ 56,650$ 33,250$
20 Year O&M (2016PW) = 1,552,400$ 917,400$
Annual O&M Costs:Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Notes:
No Action
Distribution
System
Replacement
Mainline Repairs $25,000 $1,000
Water Quality Sampling $8,000 $0
Debt Repayment Through Bill Surcharge $0 $55,050
*Note 1
Annual Subtotal $33,000 $56,050
Other O&M Costs:
5 year Replacement Cost (pipe) $225,000 $0
10 year Replacement Costs (meters) $15,000 $15,000
Given:
Energy = 0.08$/kwh
Inflation (I) =2.3%
Interest (i) = 2.70%
*Note 1: No inflation applied to loan repayment: $1,175,600 Loan over 40 years at 3.5% interest
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
No Action Distribution System
Replacement
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FORMULAS
Annual Cost = (Sum of O&M items) x (1 + I)n
Present Worth = (Annual Cost ) x (1 + i)‐n
NOTES
Inflation Rate: value as indicated at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm . "Over the last 12 months, the
index increased 2.3 percent before seasonal adjustment"
Interest Rate: According to USDA The “real” federal discount rate from Appendix C of OMB Circular A‐94 should be
used for determining the present worth of the uniform series of O & M values ; see:
2539c - OPC - O&M 155
156
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY
IN
JUNE 10, 2016
157
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FOR
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY
IN
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
JVA, Inc.
25 Old Town Square, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
phone: 970-225-9099
JVA Project No. 2539c
JUNE 10, 2016
158
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1
SITE LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 2
PLANNING AREA ............................................................................................................. 2
SERVICE AREA ................................................................................................................. 2
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 2
REPORT FORMAT ................................................................................................................. 3
LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE ............................................................................................ 4
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................................... 5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION .......................................................................................................... 7
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES / BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................ 8
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................... 8
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 8
WETLANDS .............................................................................................................................. 9
FLOODPLAINS ....................................................................................................................... 10
IMPORTANT FARMLAND .......................................................................................................... 11
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 12
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
APPENDIX B – AGENCY LETTER RESPONSES
APPENDIX C – IPAC REPORT AND OFFICAL SPECIES LIST
159
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo) was created by Block One of
The Park Entrance Estates property owners, and is located in the Town of Estes Park (Town),
Larimer County, Colorado. PEMPWCo is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates a
potable water distribution system for 18 Park Entrance Estates single-family homes. Potable water
is supplied by the Town through a master meter and bulk water usage agreement. The PEMPWCo
distribution system was built in the 1960’s and consists entirely of 4-inch asbestos cement (AC)
water mains.
PEMPWCo has requested that the Town take ownership and operation of the PEMPWCo
distribution system, however the water mains in its distribution system do not meet Town
standards. To provide required fire flow and meet material and sizing requirements of the Town,
PEMPWCo is working with the Town on a distribution system pipeline replacement project. This
project will include the replacement of water mains with increased capacity for fire flow, service
line replacement within the right-of-way, and installation of isolation valves, fire hydrants, and
air-relief valves in accordance with Town standards. This project will also include the demolition
of the existing abandoned water storage tank and the decommissioning of the existing abandoned
groundwater well. Upon successful completion of the proposed project, the PEMPWCo’s
distribution system will be fully incorporated into the Town’s water distribution system.
The proposed project is needed to construct a functional replacement of PEMPWCo’s aging
drinking water distribution system. This project will provide the neighborhood with long term
reliable drinking water, improve safety, and reduce operational costs through consolidation.
The project will accomplish the goal of reduced long-term operations, maintenance, and
compliance of drinking water standards by transferring ownership responsibility to the Town
which has the appropriate Technical, Managerial, and Financial capacity. The Town’s current
economy of scale is such that the marginal increase of adding the responsibilities of PEMPWCo’s
distribution system is minimal compared to the burden it presents to 18 property owners. The
project reduces overall cost of delivering safe and reliable potable water by reducing compliance
obligations to one larger authority, the Town (PWSID# C00135257), instead of both the Town and
PEMPWCo (PWSID# C00135559).
The design and construction of the project will be funded by PEMPWCo. A Town Enterprise fund
for collecting surcharges from Park Entrance Estates on their water bills will be established to
cover loan debt payments managed by the Town.
The Town has received an administrative grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs
(DOLA) for preliminary development and documentation of the project which is required for the
160
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
loan application. The grant requires a dollar for dollar match which has been funded by the Park
Entrance Estates property owners.
Water rights and plant development fees (tap charges) must be paid by all new customers tying
into the Town’s water system. Town bulk water customers pay these fees based on the contract
agreement with the Town executed at the time bulk water service begins. The Town’s tap charges
for the existing PEMPWCo customers have already been paid in full through the bulk water
agreement. The one existing undeveloped lot will be required to pay the Town’s tap fee when
developed.
SITE LOCATION
PLANNING AREA
The project is located in the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The planning area
for the distribution system is generally described as the subdivision limits and encompasses
approximately 30 acres. Figure 1 in Appendix A shows the location of the PEMPWCo service area
and the planning area of the Town. Figure 2 in Appendix A shows the existing distribution system.
SERVICE AREA
PEMPWCo’s distribution system service area encompasses approximately 30 acres within the SW
¼ of Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West, in Larimer County. The PEMPWCo service
area is zoned residential. PEMPWCo’s distribution system currently delivers potable water to the
18 residential taps in the community. There is one undeveloped lot in the community. The Town’s
distribution system delivers drinking water to the remaining residents of the Town. Figure 1 in
Appendix A shows the service area location of PEMPWCo’s distribution system within the
Town’s service area.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative is to replace the distribution system with 8-inch ductile iron pipe,
valves, air relief valves, and fire hydrants, and abandon the existing system in place. This will
allow for PEMPWCo’s water line to be updated to current Town of Estes Park Water Department
Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway Design Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District Standards. This project will also include the demolition of the existing abandoned water
storage tank and the decommissioning of the existing abandoned groundwater well.
Advantages of the recommended alternative include: 1) meeting standards and transferring
responsibility of the waterline to the Town of Estes Park so that the operation and maintenance
burden will no longer be placed on the 18 homeowners within PEMPWCo, 2) the new larger pipe
distribution system will provide sufficient capacity for fire flow, 3), increased bury depth of mains
to prevent freezing, and 4) the proposed ductile iron pipe will minimize operation and maintenance,
in comparison to the existing AC pipe which has exceeded its useful life and has frequent leaks and
breaks.
161
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
REPORT FORMAT
PEMPWCo has retained JVA to complete this Environmental Report (ER) in conjunction with a
Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), as the first step in planning for water distribution system
improvements. The ER has been prepared in accordance with the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Part 1970.
162
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE
The new distribution system will include approximately 3,500 linear feet of 8-inch DIP,
approximately 500 linear feet of 2-inch copper service, isolation valves, and six fire hydrants. The
required fire flows for the mostly dead-end mains will be achieved with the installation of 8-inch
diameter pipe. The proposed 8-inch main will also loop completely around Meadow Circle, to
avoid a dead-end main and to allow for better flow through the distribution and minimize water-
age. The potable water supply will continue to be provided by the Town of Estes Park. A map of
the proposed replacement of the existing distribution system is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix
A.
Per Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed
in the right-of-way. The valves will be spaced at a maximum of 600 feet along the main. Any tees
will have two valves and any crosses will have three valves. A valve will also be placed at each
fire hydrant. Fire hydrants will be located as directed by the Town’s Fire Chief. Fire hydrants will
be 6-inches, and placed at a maximum spacing of 500 feet in residential areas. Fire hydrants located
at dead-ends may be used as blow-offs for system flushing and maintenance.
The existing AC pipe will be abandoned in place. The master meter at the entrance to PEMPWCo
will also be abandoned, as it will not be necessary for the proposed system. The meters at each
household in the community will be replaced with new Town meters inside each household to
measure water usage.
163
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
A request for input on the environmental impacts of this project was sent to various agencies for
their review and comment. The text of each agency letter was generic and is shown below:
This letter represents a formal request for input from your agency regarding a
USDA Environmental Report for the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water
Company (PEMPWCo) Water Distribution System Improvement Project. Figure 1
shows the area of potential effect (APE) for the project.
Located within the Town of Estes Park (Town), in Larimer County, PEMPWCo
owns and operates the water distribution system for their small community.
PEMPWCo has an agreement with the Town for domestic water service through a
master meter at the entrance to the subdivision. PEMPWCo’s distribution system
service area encompasses approximately 30 acres within the SW ¼ of Section 26,
Township 5 North, Range 73 West, in Larimer County. The distribution system
delivers water to 18 single family homes. There is one undeveloped residential lot
in the service area.
PEMPWCo’s water distribution system consists of approximately 3,000 lf of 4-
inch asbestos cement (AC) pipe with 18 water service taps. There is currently one
valve and one fire hydrant in the existing system. The water main is located within
the road right-of-way. The existing system is undersized for fire suppression
requirements in the area. Furthermore, there are health and safety risks that are
involved during maintenance of the existing AC pipe.
In order for PEMPWCo’s water line to be updated to current Town of Estes Park
Water Department Standards, Town of Estes Park Roadway Design Standards,
Upper Thompson Sanitation District Standards, and the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District Standards, it is proposed to replace the existing AC pipe with 8-
inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) within the right-of-way. Fire hydrants and valves will
be installed at locations approved by the local Fire District. A loop around Meadow
Circle will be incorporated into the new alignment.
The climate in the planning area is characterized by cold winters and moderate
summers. The average monthly temperatures range from daytime highs in the 70s
and lows in the 40s during the summer months and daytime highs in the 40s and
lows in the teens during the winter months. The subdivision consist of mountain
terrain and is located along the mountain side with elevations ranging from 7,880
to 7,720 ft.
The environmental report, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), will be prepared and submitted to the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development to assess the environmental impacts of the
improvements of the distribution system.
164
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
We look forward to receiving input from your agency in regard to this project.
Please reply at your earliest convenience, or within 30 days as required by USDA.
If you have any questions, or require any further information, please feel free to
contact me. Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.
Figure #1 was also sent with each letter and can be seen in Appendix A. The agencies that
received this letter are as follows:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Colorado Historical Society
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division
National Park Service
All agency response letters received can be found in Appendix B.
165
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
A request was made for the Colorado Historical Society to conduct a file and literature review for
the proposed project. The purpose of a file and literature review is to compile information on
whether previous cultural resource inventories have been conducted or whether cultural resources
have been previously documented within the project area. Those cultural resources eligible,
potentially eligible, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) require
consideration for potential adverse impacts.
A letter was sent to the Colorado Historical Society Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation for their comment on the proposed new distribution system project for PEMPWCo.
A response letter was received on May 9, 2016, and is attached in Appendix B. It is anticipated
that USDA will coordinate their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies with the
Colorado State Historical Preservation Office for this project. If additional studies under the
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) are required, they will be completed in
coordination with USDA’s review of this project.
166
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES /
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The project area was assessed for potential habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Federally threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA. Significant adverse
effects to a federally listed species or its habitat require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA.
An IPaC Trust Resources Report was generated for the proposed project area, and is included in
Appendix C. In addition, an official species list was requested from the Regulatory Documents
section, and is also included in Appendix C. Both documents state that there are no critical habitats
within the project area.
A letter was sent to FWS for their comment on the proposed project. A response letter was received
on May 6, 2016, and is attached in Appendix B. It is anticipated that USDA will coordinate their
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies with the Fish and Wildlife Service for this
project. If additional studies under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act are required,
they will be completed in coordination with USDA’s review of this project. It is anticipated that,
since there are no critical habitats within the project area, a “No Effect” determination will be
made.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would temporarily impact plant and wildlife habitat; however, impacts would
be minor. The project area is mostly adjacent to residential streets and would likely result in minor
disturbance to existing vegetation. The proposed distribution lines would result in a temporary
reduction in wildlife use of the area during construction, but wildlife use would return to
preconstruction conditions soon after project completion.
167
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
WETLANDS
The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the physical, biological, and chemical quality of waters of
the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Regulatory Program administers and
enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a USACE permit is required for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the U.S. USACE defines waters
of the U.S. as all navigable waters and their tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries,
all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters.
According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the PEMPWCo service area is not located
in a delineated wetland area. A NWI map of the wetlands near the service area is presented in
Appendix A. There will be no negative environmental consequences associated with the wetlands
as it is anticipated that no potential wetlands or waters of the U.S. occur within the project area.
168
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
FLOODPLAINS
The proposed project is not located in the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain. A Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number
08069C1281F, is included in Appendix A.
169
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
IMPORTANT FARMLAND
This project will not convert agriculture lands defined as important farmland by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to non-agricultural uses.
170
Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
USDA Drinking Water Environmental Report
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
The PEMPWCo’s distribution system was installed in the mid-1960s. AC pipe was a common
choice for potable water main construction from the 1940s to the 1970s. AC pipe is manufactured
from a mixed slurry of portland cement (80-85%) and a mixture of chrysotile asbestos fibers (15-
20%). Primary operation and maintenance concerns with PEMPWCo’s existing distribution
system are related to AC pipe repairs. Any repairs necessary to the AC pipe requires hazard
material certified procedures, which can be costly and dangerous.
The existing AC pipe will be abandoned in place. The exact location of the AC pipe is unknown
and no tracer wire was installed to aide in locating the existing AC pipe. If the proposed main
alignment crosses the existing AC pipe, proper removal and disposal methods will be used by the
contractor. The project will have an allowance for AC pipe removal to be used when needed.
When working with AC pipe by tapping, removing portions of the pipe, attaching fittings, or
disposing of the pipe, certain precautions will need to be taken. It will be the responsibility of the
Contractor to follow State and Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the CDPHE Air
Quality Control Commission Regulation 8 Part B, and the CDPHE Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division.
171
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
172
SAINT VRAIN
FALL RIVER
HIGHWAY 36
HIGHWAY 7M O R A I N E EL
KHORNHIGHWAY 66BIG T
H
O
M
PS
O
N
W O N D E RV I E W
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
3
6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
³
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550
Feet
Legend
Town of Estes Park Boundary
PEMPWCo Service Area
Road Centerline
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
COLORADO
LARIMER
COUNTYTOWN OF
ESTES PARK
173
G!.
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
d
dG!.
H
EIN
Z P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
HIGHVIEW COURT
HEI
NZ PARKWAYSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
FIGURE 2: EXISTING PEMPWCo DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
EXIST CONNECTION &
MASTER METER FOR
THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK WATER MAIN
HIGH DR M O R A I N E A V E
Legend
G!.Existing Fire HydrantdExisting Valve
&Existing Curb Stop
Existing Service
Existing PEMPWCo Water Main - 4" AC
Existing Town of Estes Park Water Main - 6" DI
G!.Existing Town of Estes Park Fire Hydrant
PEMPWco Distribution Service Area
Building Footprint
Property Line
³
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
SUNRISE LANE
MEADOW CI
RCLEABANDONED WATER TANK
174
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(H
EIN
Z P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
HIGHVIEW COURT
HEI
NZ
PARKWAYSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
³
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
Legend
!(Proposed Valve
G!.Proposed Fire Hyrdrant
Proposed Service - 2" CU
Proposed Water - 8" DI
Abandoned Water - 4" AC
Town of Estes Park Water - 6" DI
G!.Town of Estes Park Fire Hydrant
PEMPWCo Service Area
Building Footprint
Property Line
FIGURE 3: PROPOSED PEMPWCo DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: MAY 2016
CONNECTION TO
THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK WATER MAIN
M O R A I N E A V EHIGH DR
SUNRISE LANE
MEADOW CI
RCLE175
H
EIN
Z P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
HIGHVIEW COURT
HEI
NZ PARKWAYSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
FIGURE 1: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
PROJECT: 2539c - PEMPWCo WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATE: APRIL 2016
HIGH DR M O R A I N E A V E
Legend
Existing PEMPWCo Water Main - 4" AC
Proposed Water - 8" DI
Proposed Service - 2" CU
Existing Town of Estes Park Water Main - 6" DI
Area of Potential Effect
Property Line
Road Centerline
³
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
SUNRISE LANE
MEADOW CI
RCLECOLORADO
LARIMER
COUNTY
PROJECT
LOCATION
176
PEMPWCo
Distribution
System
May 2, 2016
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
177
178
APPENDIX B – AGENCY LETTER RESPONSES
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
APPENDIX C – IPAC REPORT AND OFFICAL
SPECIES LIST
189
IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation (): A project planning tool to helphttps://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
streamline the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service environmental review process.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
PEMPWCo Water
Distribution System
Improvement Project
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Generated May 10, 2016 12:50 PM MDT, IPaC v3.0.7
This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or
analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service review or concurrence, please return to the IPaC website and request an official
species list from the Regulatory Documents page.
190
Table of Contents
IPaC Trust Resources Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Refuges & Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
191
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC Trust Resources Report
NAME
PEMPWCo Water Distribution System
Improvement Project
LOCATION
Larimer County, Colorado
IPAC LINK
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/
N6ZAP-D4KNR-C2RMV-HEXFW-BBZRIY
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact Information
Trust resources in this location are managed by:
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
Denver Federal Center
P.o. Box 25486
Denver, CO 80225-486
(303) 236-4773
192
Endangered Species
Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the
of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.Endangered Species Program
This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should
not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the
IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents
section.
of the Endangered Species Act Federal agencies to "request of theSection 7 requires
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may
be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted,
permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the Regulatory
Documents section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by
activities in this location:
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Endangered Species
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
193
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Birds
Least Tern Sterna antillarum
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES
Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in
Nebraska.
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07N
Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B074
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES
Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in
Nebraska.
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079
Whooping Crane Grus americana
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES
Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in
Nebraska.
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003
Fishes
Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E00F
Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES
Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in
Nebraska.
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06X
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Endangered Species
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
194
Threatened
Threatened
Candidate
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Flowering Plants
Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q0VV
North Park Phacelia Phacelia formosula
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q204
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2WA
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES
Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in
Nebraska.
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2YD
Insects
Arapahoe Snowfly Arsapnia arapahoe
CRITICAL HABITAT
has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0W0
Mammals
Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei
CRITICAL HABITAT
There is critical habitat designated for this species.final
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0C2
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Endangered Species
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
195
Critical Habitats
There are no critical habitats in this location
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Endangered Species
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
196
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Migratory Birds
Birds are protected by the and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle
.Protection Act
Any activity that results in the of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unlesstake
authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There are no provisions for allowing[1]
the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take
of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and
implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The following species of migratory birds could potentially be affected by activities in this
location:
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008
Black Rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0J4
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FW
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Migratory Birds
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
197
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HA
Brown-capped Rosy-finch Leucosticte australis
Season: Wintering
Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0J6
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06X
Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DK
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DV
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HQ
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FY
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06S
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU
Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus
Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0ER
Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0ID
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Season: Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Migratory Birds
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
198
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern
Bird of conservation concern Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B070
Veery Catharus fuscescens
Season: Breeding
Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0IL
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0EA
Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FX
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii
Season: Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Migratory Birds
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
199
Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries
Refuge and fish hatchery data is unavailable at this time.
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Refuges & Hatcheries
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
200
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation underNWI wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army
.Corps of Engineers District
DATA LIMITATIONS
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information
on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use
of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata
should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the
actual conditions on site.
DATA EXCLUSIONS
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
DATA PRECAUTIONS
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such
activities.
There are no wetlands in this location
IPaC Trust Resources Report
Wetlands
5/10/2016 12:50 PM IPaC v3.0.7
201
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
134 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 670
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
PHONE: (303)236-4773 FAX: (303)236-4005
URL: www.fws.gov/coloradoES; www.fws.gov/platteriver
Consultation Code: 06E24000-2016-SLI-0705 May 10, 2016
Event Code: 06E24000-2016-E-01094
Project Name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of
your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills
the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ).et seq.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of
the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can
be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed
list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)
of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are requiredet seq.
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered
species and/or designated critical habitat.
202
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,
that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq.
development of an eagle conservation plan
(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects
should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing
impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment
203
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Official Species List
Provided by:
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 25486
DENVER, CO 80225
(303) 236-4773
http://www.fws.gov/coloradoES
http://www.fws.gov/platteriver
Consultation Code: 06E24000-2016-SLI-0705
Event Code: 06E24000-2016-E-01094
Project Type: WATER SUPPLY / DELIVERY
Project Name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
Project Description: The project is located in the Town of Estes Park (Town), Larimer County,
Colorado. The planning area for the distribution system is generally described as Block One of the
Park Entrance Estates subdivision limits. The proposed project is needed to construct a functional
replacement of Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company's (PEMPWCo) aging drinking
water distribution system.
The existing PEMPWCo distribution system consists of approximately 3,000 linear feet of 4-inch
asbestos cement (AC) pipe, one mainline valve, one fire hydrant, one master meter at the entrance to
the community, and water meters in each of the residences. There is not adequate fire protection,
looping, or maintenance flushing to reduce disinfection by-products (DBPs).
The existing PEMPWCo distribution system has exceeded the life expectancy for AC pipe of 40 to
60 years. Breaks and leaks are expected to increase for the system. PEMPWCo does not have
maintenance employees and therefore must hire a contractor for any breaks or leaks. AC pipe is
very brittle and cracks under stress from external loads, and is only available in four foot pipe
lengths, so there is a joint every four feet along the pipeline’s alignment. Each joint has the potential
to be a weak spot along the pipeline which can contribute to leaks. In addition, PEMPWCo’s 4-inch
distribution system was not designed for adequate fire flow for the community. Also, there is only
one mainline valve and one fire hydrant in the 3,000 linear feet of distribution piping.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
204
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
The recommended alternative is to replace the distribution system with include approximately 3,500
linear feet of 8-inch DIP, approximately 500 linear feet of 2-inch copper service, isolation valves,
and six fire hydrants. The required fire flows for the mostly dead-end mains will be achieved with
the installation of 8-inch diameter pipe. The proposed 8-inch main will also loop completely around
Meadow Circle, to avoid a dead-end main and to allow for better flow through the distribution and
minimize water-age. The potable water supply will continue to be provided by the Town of Estes
Park.
Per Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed in
the right-of-way. The valves will be spaced at a maximum of 600 feet along the main. Any tees will
have two valves and any crosses will have three valves. A valve will also be placed at each fire
hydrant. Fire hydrants will be located as directed by the Town’s Fire Chief. Fire hydrants will be 6-
inches and will be located at the tee from the main line, and placed at a maximum spacing of 500
feet in residential areas. Fire hydrants located at dead-ends may be used as blow-offs for system
flushing and maintenance.
The existing AC pipe will be abandoned in place. The master meter at the entrance to PEMPWCo
will also be abandoned, as it will not be necessary for the proposed system. The meters at each
household in the community will be replaced with new Town meters inside each household to
measure each home’s water usage.
The proposed replacement of PEMPWCo’s distribution system will not have long term
environmental impacts as it is an in-kind replacement of an existing system. Any impacts during
construction will be mitigated. A construction phase stormwater management plan will be in place
to mitigate the potential of runoff carrying loose excavation soils to the Big Thompson River. The
proposed project is not located in the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain or near any wetlands. Per
Town of Estes Park Water Department Standards, the ductile iron water main will be placed in the
existing right-of-way, so there will be no additional land requirements.
It is anticipated that design of the proposed distribution system improvements will commence in
August 2016. The Construction Application will be submitted to CDPHE in October 2016. Bidding
is expected in February 2017 with Construction completion in August 2017.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
205
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it
may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code
matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'
section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
206
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Project Location Map:
Project Coordinates: The coordinates are too numerous to display here.
Project Counties: Larimer, CO
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
207
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 13 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be
considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For
example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 5 of
these species should be considered only under certain conditions. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical
Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area
section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you
have questions.
Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)
Least tern (Sterna antillarum)
Population: interior pop.
Endangered Water-related
activities/use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte and
Laramie River Basins
may affect listed
species in Nebraska.
Mexican Spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis lucida)
Population: Entire
Threatened Final designated
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Population: except Great Lakes watershed
Threatened Final designated Water-related
activities/use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte and
Laramie River Basins
may affect listed
species in Nebraska.
Whooping crane (Grus americana)
Population: except where EXPN
Endangered Final designated Water-related
activities/use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte and
Laramie River Basins
may affect listed
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
208
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
species in Nebraska.
Fishes
Greenback Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias)
Population: Entire
Threatened
Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus
albus)
Population: Entire
Endangered Water-related
activities/use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte and
Laramie River Basins
may affect listed
species in Nebraska.
Flowering Plants
Colorado Butterfly plant (Gaura
neomexicana var. coloradensis)
Threatened Final designated
North Park phacelia (Phacelia
formosula)
Endangered
Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes
diluvialis)
Threatened
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid
(Platanthera praeclara)
Threatened Water-related
activities/use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte and
Laramie River Basins
may affect listed
species in Nebraska.
Insects
Arapahoe Snowfly (Arsapnia
arapahoe)
Candidate
Mammals
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
209
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Population: Contiguous U.S. DPS
Threatened Final designated
Preble's meadow jumping mouse
(Zapus hudsonius preblei)
Population: wherever found
Threatened Final designated
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
210
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM
Critical habitats that lie within your project area
There are no critical habitats within your project area.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
211
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM - Appendix A
Appendix A: FWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
There are no refuges or fish hatcheries within your project area.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
212
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM - Appendix B
Appendix B: FWS Migratory Birds
The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA). Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including
eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16
U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). The MBTA has no otherwise lawful activities. For more information regarding these Acts see:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php
http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php
All project proponents are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations protecting birds when planning
and developing a project. To meet these conservation obligations, proponents should identify potential or existing
project-related impacts to migratory birds and their habitat and develop and implement conservation measures that
avoid, minimize, or compensate for these impacts. The Service's Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) report identifies
species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are
likely to become listed under the Endangered Species Act as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
For information about Birds of Conservation Concern, go to:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php
For information about conservation measures that help avoid or minimize impacts to birds, please visit:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php
To search and view summaries of year-round bird occurrence data within your project area, go to the Avian Knowledge
Network Histogram Tools at:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/akn-histogram-tools.php
Migratory birds of concern that may be affected by your project:
There are 23 birds on your Migratory birds of concern list.
Species Name Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
Seasonal Occurrence in
Project Area
American bittern (Botaurus
lentiginosus)
Yes Breeding
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
213
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM - Appendix B
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Yes Year-round
Black Rosy-Finch
(Leucosticte atrata)
Yes Year-round
Black Swift (Cypseloides
niger)
Yes Breeding
Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella
breweri)
Yes Breeding
Brown-capped Rosy-Finch
(Leucosticte australis)
Yes Wintering
Cassin's Finch (Carpodacus
cassinii)
Yes Year-round
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo
regalis)
Yes Year-round
Flammulated owl (Otus
flammeolus)
Yes Breeding
Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
Yes Year-round
Lewis's Woodpecker
(Melanerpes lewis)
Yes Breeding
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus)
Yes Breeding
Long-Billed curlew
(Numenius americanus)
Yes Breeding
Peregrine Falcon (Falco
peregrinus)
Yes Breeding
Prairie Falcon (Falco Yes Year-round
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
214
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM - Appendix B
mexicanus)
Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes
montanus)
Yes Breeding
Short-eared Owl (Asio
flammeus)
Yes Wintering
Swainson's hawk (Buteo
swainsoni)
Yes Breeding
Veery (Catharus fuscescens)Yes Breeding
Virginia's Warbler
(Vermivora virginiae)
Yes Breeding
Western grebe
(aechmophorus occidentalis)
Yes Breeding
Williamson's Sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus thyroideus)
Yes Breeding
Willow Flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii)
Yes Breeding
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
215
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 05/10/2016 01:25 PM - Appendix C
Appendix C: NWI Wetlands
There are no wetlands within your project area.
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: PEMPWCo Water Distribution System Improvement Project
216
United States Department of Agriculture
DFC Bldg. 56, Room 2300, PO BOX 25425, Denver, CO 80225, 720-544-2920, 720-544-2981
Colorado Relay (800) 659-3656 • www.rd.usda.gov/co
“USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.”
August 9, 2016
Frank Lancaster
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Denver, CO 80518
SUBJECT: Recipient Name: Town of Estes Park
Project Name: Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
Water Application
CFDA NUMBER – 10.760
Loan: $658,000
Grant: $529,000
Applicant: $18,000
DOLA: $18,000
TOTAL $1,223,000
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
This letter establishes conditions which must be understood and agreed to by you before further
consideration may be given to your application. The loan and grant will be administered on
behalf of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) by the State and Area staff of USDA Rural
Development, both of which are referred to throughout this letter as the Agency. Any changes in
project cost, source of funds, scope of project, or any other significant changes in the project or
applicant must be reported to and concurred with by the Agency by written amendment to this
letter. If significant changes are made without obtaining such concurrence, the Agency may
discontinue processing of the application.
All conditions set forth under Section III – Requirements Prior to Advertising for Bids must be
met within 9 months of the date of this letter. If you have not met these conditions, the Agency
reserves the right to discontinue the processing of your application.
If you agree to meet the conditions set forth in this letter and desire further consideration be
given to your application, please complete and return the following forms immediately:
Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions”
Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds”
RUS Bulletin 1780-12, “Water and Waste System Grant Agreement”
217
The loan/grant will be considered approved on the date Form RD 1940-1, “Request for
Obligation of Funds,” is signed by the approving official. Thus, this letter in itself does not
constitute loan and/or grant approval, nor does it ensure that funds are or will be available for the
project. When funds are available, the Form 1940-1 will be provided to you for your signature.
After you sign and return the form to the Agency, the request will be processed and loan/grant
funds will be approved and obligated.
Extra copies of this letter are being provided for use by your engineer, attorney, bond counsel
and accountant. All parties may access information and regulations referenced in this letter at
our website located at www.rd.usda.gov.
The conditions are as follows:
SECTION I - PROJECT DETAIL
1. Project Description – Funds will be used to construct a functional replacement of
PEMPWCo aging drinking water distribution system. From that point the Town of Estes Park
will take ownership and operation of the system.
Facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices and
must meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local agencies. The proposed facility design
must be based on the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) as concurred with by the Agency.
2. Project Funding – The Agency is offering the following funding for your project:
Agency Loan - $658,000
Agency Grant - $529,000
This offer is based upon the following additional funding being obtained.
Applicant Contribution - $18,000
DOLA - $18,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - $1,223,000
This funding is offered based on the amounts stated above. Prior to loan closing, any increase in
non-Agency funding will be applied first as a reduction to Agency grant funds, up to the total
amount of the grant, and then as a reduction to Agency loan funds.
Any changes in funding sources following obligation of Agency funds must be reported to the
processing official. Project feasibility and funding will be reassessed if there is a significant
change in project costs after bids are received. If actual project costs exceed the project cost
estimates, an additional contribution by the Owner may be necessary. Prior to advertisement for
construction bids, you must provide evidence of applicant contributions and approval of other
funding sources. This evidence should include a copy of the commitment letter. Agency funds
will not be used to pre-finance funds committed to the project from other sources.
218
3. Project Budget – Funding from all sources has been budgeted for the estimated
expenditures as follows:
Project Costs: Total Budgeted:
Administration/Legal $36,000
Construction $846,000
Contingency $143,000
DOLA – Pre-planning Grant $18,000 (already awarded)
Engineering Fees $144,000
Includes:
Basic Services $72,000
Resident Project Representation (Inspection) $72,000
Independent Lab Services $7,000
Interest - Interim $11,000
Applicant Match $18,000 (already expended)
TOTAL $1,223,000
Obligated loan or grant funds not needed to complete the proposed project will be deobligated
prior to start of construction. Any reduction will be applied to grant funds first. An amended
letter of conditions will be issued for any changes to the total project budget.
SECTION II – LOAN AND GRANT TERMS
4. Repayment – The interest rate will be the lower of the rate in effect at the time of loan
approval or the time of loan closing, unless you request otherwise. Should the interest rate be
reduced, the payment will be recalculated to the lower amount.
Your loan will be scheduled for repayment over a period of 40 years. Payments will be equal
monthly amortized installments, beginning one month after closing. For planning purposes, use
a 2.25% interest rate and an amortization factor of 3.17, which provides for a monthly payment
of $2,086. The precise payment amount will be based on the interest rate at which the loan is
closed, and may be different than the one above.
The payment due date will be established as the day that the loan closes. Due dates falling on the
29th, 30th, and 31st day of the month will be avoided.
5. Security – The loan will be secured by a Revenue bond with 1st lien position in the
amount of $658,000. The bond will be fully registered as to both principal and interest in the
name of the United States of America, Acting through the United States Department of
Agriculture.
219
The bond and any ordinance or resolution relating thereto must not contain any provision in
conflict with the Agency Loan Resolution, applicable regulations, or its authorizing law. In
particular, there must be no defeasance or refinancing clause in conflict with the graduation
requirements of 7 U.S.C. 1983.
Additional security requirements are contained in RUS Bulletin 1780-12, “Water and Waste
System Grant Agreement,” and RUS Bulletin 1780-27, “Loan Resolution (Public Bodies).” A
draft of all security instruments, including draft bond resolution, must be reviewed and concurred
in by the Agency prior to advertising for bids. The bond resolution and Loan Resolution must be
duly adopted and executed prior to loan closing. The Grant Agreement must be fully executed
prior to the first disbursement of grant funds.
6. Electronic Payments – Payments will be made on the day your payment is due through
an electronic preauthorized debit system. You will be required to complete Form RD 3550-28,
“Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments,” for all new and existing indebtedness to
the Agency prior to loan closing. It will allow for your payment to be electronically debited
from your account on the day your payment is due.
7. Construction Completion Timeframe - All projects must be completed and all funds
disbursed within five years of obligation. If funds are not disbursed within five years of
obligation, you must submit to the Agency a written request for extension of time with adequate
justification of circumstances beyond your control. Requests for waivers beyond the initial
extension will be submitted to the Assistant Administrator for concurrence decision.
8. Disbursement of Agency Funds - Agency funds will be disbursed into the borrower’s
depository account through an electronic transfer system. SF 3881, “ACH
Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form,” must be completed and submitted to the
Agency prior to advertising for bids.
Any applicant contribution will be the first funds expended, followed by other funding sources.
Interim financing or Agency loan funds will be expended after all other funding sources unless a
written agreement is reached with all other funding sources on how funds are to be disbursed
prior to start of construction or loan closing, whichever occurs first. Interim financing funds or
Agency loan funds must be used prior to the use of Agency grant funds. The Grant Agreement
must not be closed and funds must not be disbursed prior to loan funds except as specified in
RUS Instruction 1780.45(d). In the unlikely event the Agency mistakenly disburses funds, the
funds will be remitted back to the Agency electronically.
Grant funds are to be deposited in an interest-bearing account (exception provided below) in
accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 and interest in excess of $500 per year remitted to the Agency.
The funds should be disbursed by the recipient immediately upon receipt and there should be
little interest accrual on the Federal funds. Recipients shall maintain advances of Federal funds
in interest-bearing accounts, unless:
a.The recipient receives less than $120,000 in Federal awards per year.
b. The best reasonably available interest-bearing account would not be expected to earn
interest in excess of $500 per year on Federal cash balances.
220
c.The depository would require an average or minimum balance so high that it would not
be feasible within the expected Federal and non-Federal cash resources.
d. A foreign government or banking system prohibits or precludes interest-bearing
accounts.
9. Reserves – Reserves must be properly budgeted to maintain the financial viability and
sustainability of any operation. Reserves are important to fund unanticipated emergency
maintenance and repairs, and assist with debt service should the need arise. The following
reserves are required to be established as a condition of this loan:
a.Debt Service Reserve – As a part of this Agency loan proposal, you must establish a
debt service reserve fund equal to at least one annual loan installment that accumulates at
the rate of 10% of one annual payment per year for ten years or until the balance is equal
to one annual loan payment. Ten percent of the proposed loan installment would equal
$208.60 per month; this amount should be deposited monthly until a total of $25,032 has
accumulated. Prior written concurrence from the Agency must be obtained before funds
may be withdrawn from this account during the life of the loan. When funds are
withdrawn during the life of the loan, deposits will continue as designated above until the
fully-funded amount is reached.
b.Short-Lived Asset Reserve – In addition to the debt service reserve fund, you must
establish a short-lived asset reserve fund. Based on the preliminary engineering report,
you must deposit at least $1,500 into the short-lived asset reserve fund annually for the
life of the loan to pay for repairs and/or replacement of major system assets. It is your
responsibility to assess your facility’s short-lived asset needs on a regular basis and adjust
the amount deposited to meet those needs.
Current assets can also be used to establish and maintain reserves for expected expenses,
including but not limited to operation and maintenance, deferred interest during the construction
period, and an asset management program.
SECTION III –REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ADVERTISING FOR BIDS
10. Environmental Requirements – The project as proposed has been evaluated to be
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. Other Federal, State, tribal, and local
laws, regulations and or permits may apply or be required. If the project or any project element
deviates from or is modified from the originally-approved project, additional environmental
review may be required.
11. Engineering Services – You have been required to complete an Agreement for
Engineering Services, which should consist of the Engineers Joint Contract Documents
Committee (EJCDC) documents as indicated in RUS Bulletin 1780-26, “Guidance for the Use of
EJCDC Documents on Water and Waste Projects with RUS Financial Assistance,” or other
approved form of agreement. The Agency will provide concurrence prior to advertising for bids,
and must approve any modifications to this agreement.
221
12. Contract Documents, Final Plans, and Specifications
a.The contract documents must consist of the EJCDC construction contract documents as
indicated in RUS Bulletin 1780-26 or other Agency-approved forms of agreement.
b. The contract documents, final plans, and specifications must comply with RUS
Instruction 1780, Subpart C – Planning, Designing, Bidding, Contracting, Constructing
and Inspections, and must be submitted to the Agency for concurrence prior to
advertising for bids along with an updated cost estimate. The Agency may require
another updated cost estimate if a significant amount of time elapses between the original
submission and advertising for bids.
c.The use of any procurement method other than competitive sealed bids must be requested
in writing and approved by the Agency.
13. Legal Services – You have been required to execute a legal services agreement with your
attorney and bond counsel, if applicable, for any legal work needed in connection with this
project. The agreement should stipulate an hourly rate for the work, with a “not to exceed”
amount for the services, including reimbursable expenses. RUS Bulletin 1780-7, “Legal
Services Agreement,” or similar format may be used. The Agency will provide concurrence
prior to advertising for bids. Any changes to the fees or services spelled out in the original
agreement must be reflected in an amendment to the agreement and have prior Agency
concurrence.
14. Property Rights - Prior to advertising for bids, you and your legal counsel must furnish
satisfactory evidence that you have or can obtain adequate continuous and valid control over the
lands and rights-of-way needed for the project. Acquisitions of necessary land and rights must
be accomplished in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act. Such control over the lands and rights will be evidenced by the
following:
a.Right-of-Way Map – Your engineer will provide a map clearly showing the location of
all lands and rights-of-way needed for the project. The map must designate public and
private lands and rights and the appropriate legal ownership thereof.
b.Form RD 442-20, “Right-of-Way Easement” – This form may be used to obtain any
necessary easements for the proposed project.
c.Form RD 442-21, “Right-of-Way Certificate” – You will provide a certification on this
form that all right-of-way requirements have been obtained for the proposed project.
d.Form RD 442-22, “Opinion of Counsel Relative to Rights-of-Way” – Your attorney
will provide a certification and legal opinion on this form addressing rights-of-way,
easements, and title.
The approving official may waive title defects or restrictions, such as utility easements, that do
not adversely affect the suitability, successful operation, security value, or transferability of the
facility. Any such waivers must be provided by the approving official in writing prior to closing
or the start of construction, whichever occurs first.
222
You are responsible for the acquisition of all property rights necessary for the project and for
determining that prices paid are reasonable and fair. The Agency may require an appraisal by an
independent appraiser or Agency employee in order to validate the price to be paid.
15. System Policies, Procedures, Contracts, and Agreements – The facility must be
operated on a sound business plan. You must adopt policies, procedures, and/or ordinances
outlining the conditions of service and use of the proposed system. Mandatory connection
policies should be used where enforceable. The policies, procedures, and/or ordinances must
contain an effective collection policy for accounts not paid in full within a specified number of
days after the date of billing. They should include appropriate late fees, specified timeframes for
disconnection of service, and reconnection fees. A draft of these policies, procedures, and/or
ordinances must be submitted for Agency review and concurrence, along with the documents
below, before closing instructions may be issued unless otherwise stated.
a. Conflict of Interest Policy – Prior to obligation of funds, you must certify in writing that
your organization has in place an up-to-date written policy on conflict of interest. The
policy will include, at a minimum: (1) a requirement for those with a conflict or potential
conflict to disclose the conflict/potential conflict; (2) a clause that prohibits interested
members of the applicant’s governing body from voting on any matter in which there is a
conflict, and (3) a description of the specific process by which the governing body will
manage identified or potential conflicts.
You must also submit a disclosure of planned or potential transactions related to the use
of Federal funds that may constitute or present the appearance of personal or
organizational conflict of interest. Disclosure must be in the form of a written letter
signed and dated by the applicant’s official. A negative disclosure in the same format is
required if no conflicts are anticipated.
Sample conflict of interest policies may be found at the National Council of Nonprofits
website, https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/conflict-of-interest, or in
Internal Revenue Service Form 1023, Appendix A, “Sample Conflict of Interest Policy,”
at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf. Though these examples reference non-profit
corporations, the requirement applies to all types of Agency borrowers.
Assistance in developing a conflict of interest policy is available through Agency-
contracted technical assistance providers if desired.
Fully executed copies of any policies, procedures, ordinances, contracts, or agreements must be
submitted prior to loan closing, with the exception of the conflict of interest policy, which must
be in place prior to obligation of funds.
16. Closing Instructions – The Agency will prepare closing instructions as soon as the
requirements of the previous paragraphs are complete, as well as a draft of the security
instrument(s). Closing instructions must be obtained prior to advertising for bids.
17. Interim Financing – For all loans exceeding $500,000, where loan funds can be
borrowed at reasonable interest rates on an interim basis from commercial sources for the
construction period, such interim financing will be used to preclude the necessity for multiple
223
advances of Agency loan funds. You must provide the Agency with a copy of the interim loan
financing agreement for review prior to advertising for bids. The Agency approving official may
make an exception when interim financing is cost prohibitive or unavailable. Grant funds from
the Agency will be disbursed by multiple advances through electronic transfer of funds after
interim financing or Agency loan funds are expended, in accordance with RUS Instruction
1780.45.
18. Construction Account – You must establish a construction account for all funds related
to the project. Construction funds will be deposited with an acceptable financial institution or
depository that meets the requirements of 31 CFR Part 202. A separate account will not be
required for Federal funds and other funds; however, the recipient must be able to separately
identify, report, and account for all Federal funds, including the receipt, obligation and
expenditure of funds. Financial institutions or depositaries accepting deposits of public funds
and providing other financial agency services to the Federal Government are required to pledge
adequate, acceptable securities as collateral, in accordance with 31 CFR Part 202. All funds in
the account will be secured by a collateral pledge equaling at least 100% of the highest amount
of funds expected to be deposited in the construction account at any one time. Your financial
institution can provide additional guidance on collateral pledge requirements.
Agency funds will be disbursed into the borrower’s depository account through an electronic
transfer system. SF 3881, “ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form,” must be
completed and submitted to the Agency prior to advertising for bids.
19. System Users – This letter of conditions is based upon your indication at application that
there will be at least 18 residential users on the existing system when construction is completed.
Before the Agency can agree to the project being advertised for construction bids, you must
certify that the number of users indicated at application are currently using the system or signed
up to use the system once it is operational.
If the actual number of existing and/or proposed users that have signed up for service is less than
the number indicated at the time of application, you must provide the Agency with a written plan
on how you will obtain the necessary revenue to adequately cash flow the expected operation,
maintenance, debt service, and reserve requirements of the proposed project (e.g., increase user
rates, sign up an adequate number of other users, reduce project scope, etc.). Similar action is
required if there is cause to modify the anticipated flows or volumes presented following
approval.
If you are relying on mandatory connection requirements, you must provide evidence of the
authorizing ordinance or statute along with your user certification.
20. Other Funding – Prior to advertising for bids, you must provide evidence of applicant
contributions and approval of other funding sources. This evidence should include a copy of the
commitment letter from each source.
21. Proposed Operating Budget – You must establish and/or maintain a rate schedule that
provides adequate income to meet the minimum requirements for operation and maintenance
(O&M), debt service, and reserves. Prior to advertising for bids, you must submit a proposed
224
annual operating budget to the Agency which supports the operation, maintenance, debt service,
and reserves, as well as your proposed rate schedule. The operating budget should be based on a
typical year cash flow after completion of the construction phase and should be signed by the
appropriate official of your organization. Form RD 442-7, “Operating Budget,” or similar
format may be utilized for this purpose. It is expected that O&M will change over each
successive year and user rates will need to be adjusted on a regular basis.
Technical assistance is available at no cost to help you evaluate and complete a rate analysis on
your system. This assistance is available free to your organization. If you are interested please
contact our office for information.
22. Permits –The owner or responsible party will be required to obtain all applicable permits
for the project, prior to advertising for bids. The consulting engineer must submit written
evidence that all applicable permits required prior to construction have been obtained with
submission to the Agency of the final plans, specifications, and bid documents.
23. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – The Agency
requires all financed water and wastewater systems to have a VA/ERP in place. Borrowers with
existing systems must provide a certification that a VA/ERP has been completed prior to
advertising for bids. The VA/ERP documents themselves are not submitted to the Agency. The
VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other emergency events. In
particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in areas where severe
drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated every three years at
a minimum.
For new systems, see Section V of this letter of conditions. For VA/ERP requirements
throughout the life of the loan, see Section VII. Technical assistance at no cost is available in
preparing these documents.
24. Bid Authorization - Once all the conditions outlined in Section III of this letter have
been met, the Agency will authorize you to advertise the project for construction bids. Such
advertisement must be in accordance with applicable State statutes.
SECTION IV - REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION
25. Bid Tabulation – Immediately after bid opening, you must provide the Agency with the
bid tabulation and your engineer’s evaluation of bids and recommendations for contract awards.
If the Agency agrees that the construction bids received are acceptable, adequate funds are
available to cover the total project costs, and all the requirements of Section III of this letter have
been satisfied, the Agency will authorize you to issue the Notice of Award.
a.Cost Overruns. If bids are higher than expected, or if unexpected construction problems
are encountered, you must utilize all options to reduce cost overruns. Negotiations,
redesign, use of bidding alternatives, rebidding or other means will be considered prior to
commitment of subsequent funding by the Agency. Any requests for subsequent funding
to cover cost overruns will be contingent on the availability of funds. Cost overruns
exceeding 20% of the development cost at time of loan or grant approval or where the
225
scope of the original purpose has changed will compete for funds with all other
applications on hand as of that date.
b. Excess Funds. If bids are lower than anticipated at time of obligation, excess funds must
be deobligated prior to start of construction except in the cases addressed in this
paragraph. In cases where the original PER for the project included items that were not
bid, or were bid as an alternate, the State Office official may modify the project to fully
utilize obligated funds for those items. Amendments to the PER, ER, and letter of
conditions may be needed for any work not included in the original project scope. In all
cases, prior to start of construction, excess funds will be deobligated, with grant funds
being deobligated first. Excess funds do not include contingency funds as described in
this letter.
26. Contract Review – Your attorney will certify that the executed contract documents,
including performance and payment, if required, are adequate and that the persons executing
these documents have been properly authorized to do so in accordance with RUS Instruction
1780.61(b).
Once your attorney has certified that they are acceptable, the contract documents will be
submitted to the Agency for its concurrence. The Notice to Proceed cannot be issued until the
Agency has concurred with the construction contracts.
27. Final Rights-of-Way – If any of the rights-of-way forms listed previously in this letter
contain exceptions that do not adversely affect the suitability, successful operation, security
value, or transferability of the facility, the approving official must provide a written waiver prior
to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. For projects involving the acquisition of land, you must
provide evidence that you have clear title to the land prior to the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed.
28. Insurance and Bonding Requirements - Prior to the start of construction or loan
closing, whichever occurs first, you must acquire and submit to the Agency proof of the types of
insurance and bond coverage for the borrower shown below. The use of deductibles may be
allowed, providing you have the financial resources to cover potential claims requiring payment
of the deductible. The Agency strongly recommends that you have your engineer, attorney, and
insurance provider(s) review proposed types and amounts of coverage, including any exclusions
and deductible provisions. It is your responsibility and not that of the Agency to assure that
adequate insurance and fidelity or employee dishonesty bond coverage is maintained.
a.General Liability Insurance – Include vehicular coverage.
b.Workers’ Compensation – In accordance with appropriate State laws.
c.Fidelity or Employee Dishonesty Bonds – Include coverage for all persons who have
access to funds, including persons working under a contract or management agreement.
Coverage may be provided either for all individual positions or persons, or through
blanket coverage providing protection for all appropriate workers. During construction,
each position should be bonded in an amount equal to the maximum amount of funds to
be under the control of that position at any one time. The coverage may be increased
during construction based on the anticipated monthly advances. After construction and
throughout the life of the loan, the amount of coverage must be for at least the total
226
annual debt service of all outstanding Agency loans. The Agency will be identified in the
fidelity bond for receipt of notices. Form RD 440-24, “Position Fidelity Schedule Bond,”
or similar format may be used.
d.National Flood Insurance - If the project involves acquisition or construction in
designated special flood or mudslide prone areas, you must purchase a flood insurance
policy at the time of loan closing.
e.Real Property Insurance – Fire and extended coverage will normally be maintained on
all structures except reservoirs, pipelines and other structures if such structures are not
normally insured, and subsurface lift stations except for the value of electrical and
pumping equipment. The Agency will be listed as mortgagee on the policy when the
Agency has a lien on the property. Prior to the acceptance of the facility from the
contractor(s), you must obtain real property insurance (fire and extended coverage) on all
facilities identified above.
Insurance types described above are required to be continued throughout the life of the loan. See
Section VII.
29. Initial Compliance Review – The Agency will conduct an initial compliance review of
the borrower prior to loan closing or start of construction, whichever occurs first, in accordance
with 7 CFR 1901, Subpart E.
SECTION V – REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING
a.(Interim Financing) Interim financing is being used. Loan closing will occur near the
end of construction when interim funds are about to be completely disbursed. Documents
detailed above from Sections II and III regarding security, electronic payments (Form
3550-28), and system policies, procedures, contracts, and agreements must be adopted
and/or executed and submitted to the Agency prior to loan closing. In addition, the
following items are required prior to closing:
31. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – The Agency
requires all financed water and wastewater systems to have a VA/ERP in place. New water or
wastewater systems must provide a certification that an ERP is complete prior to the start of
operation, and a certification that a VA is complete must be submitted within one year of the
start of operation. Borrowers with existing systems must provide a certification that a VA and
ERP are completed prior to authorization to advertise for bids. The VA/ERP documents are not
submitted to the Agency. Technical assistance is available in preparing these documents at no
cost to you. The VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other
emergency events. In particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in
areas where severe drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated
every three years at a minimum.
32. Other Requirements – All requirements contained in the Agency’s closing instructions,
as well as any requirements of your bond counsel and/or attorney, must be met prior to loan
closing.
a. System for Award Management. You will be required to maintain a Dun and
Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and maintain an active
227
registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. Renewal can be
done on-line at: http://sam.gov. This registration must be renewed and revalidated every
twelve (12) months for as long as there are Agency funds to be expended. See Appendix
A.
To ensure the information is current, accurate and complete, and to prevent the SAM
account expiration, the review and updates must be performed within 365 days of the
activation date, commonly referred to as the expiration date. The registration process
may take up to 10 business days. (See 2 CFR Part 25 and the “Help” section at
http://sam.gov).
b.Litigation. You are required to notify the Agency within 30 days of receiving
notification of being involved in any type of litigation prior to loan closing or start of
construction, whichever occurs first. Additional documentation regarding the situation
and litigation may be requested by the Agency.
c.Certified Operator. Evidence must be provided that your system has or will have, as
defined by applicable State or Federal requirements, a certified operator available prior to
the system becoming operational, or that a suitable supervisory agreement with a certified
operator is in effect.
SECTION VI – REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND POST
CONSTRUCTION
33. Resident Inspector(s) – Full-time inspection is required unless you request an exception.
Such requests must be made in writing and the Agency must concur with the request. Inspection
services are to be provided by the consulting engineer unless other arrangements are requested in
writing and concurred with by the Agency. A resume of qualifications of any resident
inspector(s) will be submitted to the owner and Agency for review and concurrence prior to the
pre-construction conference. The resident inspector(s) must attend the pre-construction
conference.
34. Preconstruction Conference – A preconstruction conference will be held prior to the
issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The consulting engineer will review the planned development
with the Agency, owner, resident inspector, attorney, contractor, other funders, and other
interested parties, and will provide minutes of this meeting to the owner and Agency.
35. Inspections - The Agency requires a pre-construction conference, pre-final and final
inspections, and a warranty inspection. Your engineer will schedule a warranty inspection with
the contractor and the Agency before the end of the one-year warranty period to address and/or
resolve any warranty issues. The Agency will conduct an inspection with you of your records
management system at the same time, and will continue to inspect the facility and your records
system every three years for the life of the loan. See Section VII of this letter.
36. Change Orders – Prior Agency concurrence is required for all Change Orders.
228
37. Payments – Prior Agency concurrence is required for all Invoices and Partial Payment
Estimates before Agency funds will be released. Requests for payment related to a contract or
service agreement will be signed by the owner, project engineer, and contractor or service
provider prior to Agency concurrence. Invoices not related to a construction contract or service
agreement will include the owner’s written concurrence.
38. Use of Remaining Funds – Applicant contribution and connection or tap fees will be the
first funds expended in the project, followed by non-Agency sources of funds. Remaining funds
may be considered in direct proportion to the amounts obtained from each source and handled as
follows:
a.Remaining funds may be used for eligible loan and grant purposes, provided the use will
not result in major changes to the original scope of work and the purpose of the loan and
grant remains the same.
b. Grant funds not expended for authorized purposes will be cancelled (de-obligated) within
180 days of final completion of project. Prior to actual cancellation, you and your
attorney and engineer will be notified of the Agency’s intent to cancel the remaining
funds and given appropriate appeal rights.
c. Loan funds that are not needed will be cancelled (de-obligated) prior to loan closing.
39. Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity - It is required that members of the
Board of Directors, City Council members, trustees, commissioners and other governing
members possess the necessary technical, managerial, and financial capacity skills to
consistently comply with pertinent Federal and State laws and requirements. It is recommended
members receive training within one year of appointment or election to the governing board, and
a refresher training for all governing members on a routine basis. The content and amount of
training should be tailored to the needs of the particular individual and the utility system.
Technical assistance providers are available to provide this training for your organization, often
at no cost. Contact the Agency for information.
40. Reporting Requirements Related to Expenditure of Funds
a.Financial Audit– An annual audit under the Single Audit Act is required if you expend
$750,000 or more in Federal financial assistance per fiscal year. The total Federal funds
expended from all sources shall be used to determine Federal financial assistance
expended. Expenditures of interim financing are considered Federal expenditures.
All audits are to be performed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, as adopted by USDA
through 2 CFR Part 400. Further guidance on preparing an acceptable audit can be
obtained from the Agency. The audit must be prepared by an independent licensed
Certified Public Accountant, or a State or Federal auditor if allowed by State law, and
must be submitted within 9 months of your fiscal year end.
If an audit is required, you must enter into a written agreement with the auditor and
submit a copy to the Agency prior to the advertisement of bids. The audit agreement may
include terms and conditions that the borrower and auditor deem appropriate; however,
the agreement should include the type of audit to be completed, the time frame in which
the audit will be completed, and how irregularities will be reported.
229
b. Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation – You as a recipient of Federal
funds and your first-tier contractors are required by 2 CFR Part 170 to report
disbursements to subrecipients in accordance with Appendix B of this letter and
www.fsrs.gov. Your Agency processing office can provide more information.
SECTION VII – SERVICING REQUIREMENTS DURING THE TERM OF THE LOAN
41. Prepayment and Extra Payments - Prepayments of scheduled installments, or any
portion thereof, may be made at any time at the option of borrower, with no penalty.
Security instruments, including bonding documents, must contain the following language
regarding extra payments, unless prohibited by State statute:
Prepayments of scheduled installments, or any portion thereof, may be made at any time
at the option of borrower. Refunds, extra payments and loan proceeds obtained from
outside sources for the purpose of paying down the Agency debt, shall, after payment of
interest, be applied to the installments last to become due under this note and shall not
affect the obligation of borrower to pay the remaining installments as scheduled in your
security instruments.
42. Graduation - By accepting this loan, you are also agreeing to refinance (graduate) the
unpaid loan balance in whole, or in part, upon request of the Government. If at any time the
Agency determines you are able to obtain a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative
or private sources at reasonable rates and terms, you will be requested to refinance. Your ability
to refinance will be assessed every other year for those loans that are five years old or older.
43. Security/Operational Inspections – The Agency will inspect the facility and conduct a
review of your operations and records management system and conflict of interest policy every
three years for the life of the loan. You must participate in these inspections and provide the
required information.
44. Annual Financial Reporting/Audit Requirements – You are required to submit an
annual financial report at the end of each fiscal year. The annual report will be certified by the
appropriate organization official, and will consist of financial information and a rate schedule.
Financial statements must be prepared on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and must include at a minimum a balance
sheet and income and expense statement. The annual report will include separate reporting for
each water and waste disposal facility, and itemize cash accounts by type (debt service, short-
lived assets, etc.) under each facility. All records, books and supporting material are to be
retained for three years after the issuance of the annual report. Technical assistance is available
at no cost with preparing financial reports.
The type of financial information that must be submitted is specified below:
a.Audits – An annual audit under the Single Audit Act is required if you expend $750,000
or more in Federal financial assistance per fiscal year. The total Federal funds expended
230
from all sources shall be used to determine Federal financial assistance expended.
Expenditures of interim financing are considered Federal expenditures.
All audits are to be performed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, as adopted by USDA
through 2 CFR Part 400. Further guidance on preparing an acceptable audit can be
obtained from the Agency. It is not intended that audits required by this part be separate
and apart from audits performed in accordance with State and local laws. To the extent
feasible, the audit work should be done in conjunction with those audits. The audit must
be prepared by an independent licensed Certified Public Accountant, or a State or Federal
auditor if allowed by State law, and must be submitted within 9 months of your fiscal
year end.
If an audit is required, you must enter into a written agreement with the auditor and
submit a copy to the Agency prior to the advertisement of bids. The audit agreement may
include terms and conditions that the borrower and auditor deem appropriate; however,
the agreement should include the type of audit or financial statements to be completed,
the time frame in which the audit or financial statements will be completed, what type of
reports will be generated from the services provided, and how irregularities will be
reported.
b.Financial Statements – If you expend less than $750,000 in Federal financial assistance
per fiscal year, you may submit financial statements in lieu of an audit which include at a
minimum a balance sheet and an income and expense statement. You may use Form RD
442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” or
similar format to provide the financial information. The financial statements must be
signed by the appropriate borrower official and submitted within 60 days of your fiscal
year end.
c.Quarterly Reports – Quarterly Income and Expense Statements will be required until
the processing office waives this requirement. You may use Form RD 442-2 or similar
format to provide this information, and the reports are to be signed by the appropriate
borrower official and submitted within 30 days of each quarter’s end. The Agency will
notify you in writing when the quarterly reports are no longer required.
45. Annual Budget and Projected Cash Flow - Thirty days prior to the beginning of each
fiscal year, you will be required to submit an annual budget and projected cash flow to this
office. With the submission of the annual budget, you will be required to provide a current rate
schedule, and a current listing of the Board or Council members and their terms. The budget
must be signed by the appropriate borrower official. Form RD 442-2 or similar format may be
used.
Technical assistance is available at no cost to help you evaluate and complete a rate analysis on
your system, as well as completing the annual budget. If you are interested, please contact our
office for information.
46. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – You will be
required to submit a certification to the servicing office every three years that the VA/ERP is
current and covers all sites related to the facility. The documents themselves are not submitted
231
to the Agency. The VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other
emergency events. In particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in
areas where severe drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated
every three years at a minimum.
47. Insurance. You will be required to maintain insurance on the facility and employees as
previously described in this letter for the life of the loan.
48. Statutory and National Policy Requirements – As a recipient of Federal funding, you
are required to comply with U.S. statutory and public policy requirements, including but not
limited to:
a.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), no handicapped individual in the United States
shall, solely by reason of their handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Agency financial assistance.
b.Civil Rights Act of 1964 – All borrowers are subject to, and facilities must be operated
in accordance with, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.)
and 7 CFR 1901, Subpart E, particularly as it relates to conducting and reporting of
compliance reviews. Instruments of conveyance for loans and/or grants subject to the
Act must contain the covenant required by Paragraph 1901.202(e) of this Title.
c.The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 – This Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local
government services, public transportation, public accommodations, facilities, and
telecommunications.
d.Age Discrimination Act of 1975 – This Act (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) provides that no
person in the United States shall on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.
e.Limited English Proficiency (LEP) under Executive Order 13166 - LEP statutes and
authorities prohibit exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and
discrimination under Federally-assisted and/or conducted programs on the ground of
race, color, or national origin. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers program
access for LEP persons. LEP persons are individuals who do not speak English as their
primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand
English. These individuals may be entitled to language assistance, free of charge. You
must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons receive the language assistance
necessary to have meaningful access to USDA programs, services, and information your
organization provides. These protections are pursuant to Executive Order 13166 entitled,
“Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency” and further
affirmed in the USDA Departmental Regulation 4330-005, “Prohibition Against National
Origin Discrimination Affecting Persons with Limited English Proficiency in Programs
and Activities Conducted by USDA.”
232
Agency financial programs must be extended without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, marital status, age, or physical or mental handicap. You must display posters (provided
by the Agency) informing users of these requirements, and the Agency will monitor your
compliance with these requirements during regular compliance reviews.
49. Compliance Reviews and Data Collection – The Agency will conduct regular
compliance reviews of the borrower and its operation in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1901,
Subpart E, and 36
CFR 1191, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities; Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines. Compliance reviews will
typically be conducted in conjunction with the security inspections described in this letter. If
beneficiaries (users) are required to complete an application or screening for the use of the
facility or service that you provide, you must request and collect data by race (American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, White); ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino, Not
Hispanic or Latino); and by sex. The Agency will utilize this data as part of the required
compliance review.
SECTION VIII – REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Non-compliance with the conditions in this letter or requirements of your security documents
will be addressed under the provisions of 7 CFR 1782 and other applicable regulations, statutes,
and policies.
We look forward to working with you to complete this project. If you have any questions, please
contact Allison Trujillo at 720-544-2920 or by e-mail at allison.trujillo@co.usda.gov.
Sincerely,
Allison Trujillo
Area Loan Specialist
Attachments
cc: Community Programs Director
Accountant
Attorney
Bond Counsel
Engineer
233
ACRONYMS:
ABA - Architectural Barriers Act
ACH – Automated Clearing House
AD – Agriculture Department
ADA – Age Discrimination Act
CFDA – Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations
CPAP – Commercial Programs Application Processing
DUNS – Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
EJCDC – Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee
ERP – Emergency Response Plan
GAAP – Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
LEP – Limited English Proficiency
OC – Owner Construction
OPS – Owner-Performed Services
O&M – Operation and Maintenance
PER – Preliminary Engineering Report
RD – Rural Development
RUS – Rural Utilities Service
SAM – System for Award Management
SF – Standard Form
UCC – Uniform Commercial Code
USC – United States Code
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
VA – Vulnerability Assessment
234
FORMS and BULLETINS:
Form AD-3031 “Assurance Regarding Felony Convictions or Tax Delinquent Status for
Corporate Applicants” – Item 29
Internal Revenue Service Form 1023, Appendix A, “Sample Conflict of Interest Policy” - Item
15
Form RD 440-22, “Promissory Note” – Item 5
Form RD 440-24, “Position Fidelity Schedule Bond” – Item 28
Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity” – Items 44 and 45
Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet” – Item 44
Form RD 442-7, “Operating Budget” – Item 21
Form RD 442-20, “Right-of-Way Easement” – Item 14
Form RD 442-21, “Right-of-Way Certificate” – Item 14
Form RD 442-22, “Opinion of Counsel Relative to Rights-of-Way” – Item 14
Form RD 1927-9, “Preliminary Title Opinion” – Item 14
Form RD 1927-10, “Final Title Opinion” – Item 27
Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” – Pages 1 and 2
Form RD 1942-8, “Resolution of Members or Stockholders” – Item 5
Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions” – Page 1
Form RD 3550-28, “Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments” – Items 6 and 30
Form UCC-1, “Financing Statement” – Item 5
Form UCC-1Ad, “UCC Financing Statement Addendum” – Item 5
SF 3881, “ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form” – Items 8 and 18
RUS Bulletin 1780-7, “Legal Services Agreement” – Item 13
RUS Bulletin 1780-9, “Water Users Agreement” - Items 15 and 19
RUS Bulletin 1780-12, “Water and Waste System Grant Agreement” – Page 1 and Item 5
RUS Bulletin 1780-26, “Guidance for the Use of EJCDC Documents on Water and Waste
Projects with RUS Financial Assistance” – Items 11 and 12
RUS Bulletin 1780-27, “Loan Resolution (Public Bodies)” – Item 5
RUS Bulletin 1780-28, “Loan Resolution Security Agreement” – Item 5
235
Appendix A
2 CFR Part 25
SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT AND UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER
REQUIREMENTS
A. Requirement for System for Award
Management
Unless you are exempted from this requirement under 2 CFR 25.110, you as the recipient
must maintain the currency of your information in the SAM until you submit the final
financial report required under this award or receive the final payment, whichever is later.
This requires that you review and update the information at least annually after the initial
registration, and more frequently if required by changes in your information or another
appendix.
B. Requirement for unique entity identifier
If you are authorized to make subawards under this award, you:
1. Must notify potential subrecipients that no entity (see definition in paragraph C of this
appendix) may receive a subaward from you unless the entity has provided its unique
entity identifier to you.
2. May not make a subaward to an entity unless the entity has provided its unique entity
identifier to you.
C. Definitions
For purposes of this appendix:
1. System for Award Management (SAM) means the Federal repository into which an
entity must provide information required for the conduct of business as a recipient.
Additional information about registration procedures may be found at the SAM
Internet site (currently at http://www.sam.gov).
2. Unique entity identifier means the identifier required for SAM registration to
uniquely identify business entities.
3. Entity, as it is used in this appendix, means all of the following, as defined at 2 CFR
part 25, subpart C:
a.A Governmental organization, which is a State, local government, or Indian
Tribe;
b. A foreign public entity;
c.A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization;
d. A domestic or foreign for-profit organization; and
236
e.A Federal agency, but only as a subrecipient under an award or subaward to a
non-Federal entity.
4. Subaward:
a.This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of
any portion of the substantive project or program for which you received this
award and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient.
b. The term does not include your procurement of property and services needed
to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see 2 CFR
200.330).
c.A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement, including an
agreement that you consider a contract.
5. Subrecipient means an entity that:
a.Receives a subaward from you under this award; and
b. Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward.
[75 FR 55673, Sept. 14, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014; 80 FR 54407, Sept.
10, 2015]
237
Appendix B
2 CFR Part 170
Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation
a. Reporting of first-tier subawards.
1. Applicability. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph d. of this appendix, you
must report each action that obligates $25,000 or more in Federal funds that does not
include Recovery funds (as defined in section 1512(a)(2) of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5) for a subaward to an entity (see definitions in
paragraph e. of this appendix).
2. Where and when to report.
i.You must report each obligating action described in paragraph a.1. of this
appendix to http://www.fsrs.gov.
ii.For subaward information, report no later than the end of the month following the
month in which the obligation was made. (For example, if the obligation was
made on November 7, 2010, the obligation must be reported by no later than
December 31, 2010.)
3. What to report. You must report the information about each obligating action listed in the
submission instructions posted at http://www.fsrs.gov.
b. Reporting Total Compensation of Recipient Executives.
1. Applicability and what to report. You must report total compensation for each of your
five most highly compensated executives for the preceding completed fiscal year, if—
i.the total Federal funding authorized to date under this award is $25,000 or more;
ii.in the preceding fiscal year, you received—
(A) 80 percent or more of your annual gross revenues from Federal procurement
contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the
Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
(B) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement
contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the
Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
iii.The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the
executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of
238
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the
compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total
compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)
2. Where and when to report. You must report executive total compensation described in
paragraph b.1. of this appendix:
i.As part of your registration profile at https://www.sam.gov.
ii.By the end of the month following the month in which this award is made, and
annually thereafter.
c. Reporting of Total Compensation of Subrecipient Executives.
1. Applicability and what to report. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph d. of
this appendix, for each first-tier subrecipient under this award, you shall report the names
and total compensation of each of the subrecipient's five most highly compensated
executives for the subrecipient's preceding completed fiscal year, if—
i.in the subrecipient's preceding fiscal year, the subrecipient received—
(A) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement
contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the
Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
(B) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement
contracts (and subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance subject to the
Transparency Act (and subawards); and
ii.The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the
executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the
compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total
compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)
2. Where and when to report. You must report subrecipient executive total compensation
described in paragraph c.1. of this appendix:
i.To the recipient.
ii.By the end of the month following the month during which you make the
subaward. For example, if a subaward is obligated on any date during the month
of October of a given year (i.e., between October 1 and 31), you must report any
required compensation information of the subrecipient by November 30 of that
year.
d. Exemptions
239
If, in the previous tax year, you had gross income, from all sources, under $300,000, you are
exempt from the requirements to report:
i.Subawards, and
ii.The total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of any
subrecipient.
e. Definitions. For purposes of this appendix:
1. Entity means all of the following, as defined in 2 CFR part 25:
i.A Governmental organization, which is a State, local government, or Indian tribe;
ii.A foreign public entity;
iii.A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization;
iv. A domestic or foreign for-profit organization;
v. A Federal agency, but only as a subrecipient under an award or subaward to a
non-Federal entity.
2. Executive means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management
positions.
3. Subaward:
i.This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of any
portion of the substantive project or program for which you received this award
and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient.
ii.The term does not include your procurement of property and services needed to
carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see Sec. __ .210 of the
attachment to OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and
Non-Profit Organizations”).
iii.A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement, including an
agreement that you or a subrecipient considers a contract.
4. Subrecipient means an entity that:
i.Receives a subaward from you (the recipient) under this award; and
ii.Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward.
240
5. Total compensation means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executive
during the recipient's or subrecipient's preceding fiscal year and includes the following
(for more information see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2)):
i.Salary and bonus.
ii.Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar
amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the
fiscal year in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123 (Revised 2004) (FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments.
iii.Earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans. This does not include
group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not
discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried
employees.
iv. Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit
and actuarial pension plans.
v. Above-market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax-qualified.
vi. Other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g.
severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the
employee, perquisites or property) for the executive exceeds $10,000.
[75 FR 55669, Sept. 14, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014]
241
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I - PROJECT DETAIL
1. Project Description
2. Project Funding
3. Project Budget
SECTION II – LOAN AND GRANT TERMS
4. Repayment
5. Security
6. Electronic Payments
7. Construction Completion Timeframe
8. Disbursement of Agency Funds
9. Reserves
SECTION III –REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ADVERTISING FOR BIDS
10. Environmental Requirements
11. Engineering Services
12. Contract Documents, Final Plans and Specifications
13. Legal Services
14. Property Rights
15. System Policies, Procedures, Contracts, and Agreements
16. Closing Instructions
17. Interim Financing
18. Construction Account
19. System Users
20. Other Funding
21. Proposed Operating Budget
22. Permits
23. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP)
24. Bid Authorization
SECTION IV - REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION
25. Bid Tabulation
26. Contract Review
27. Final Rights-of-Way
28. Insurance and Bonding Requirements
29. Form AD-3031
30. Initial Compliance Review
242
SECTION V – REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING
31. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP)
32. Other Requirements
SECTION VI – REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND POST
CONSTRUCTION
33. Resident Inspector(s)
34. Preconstruction Conference
35. Inspections
36. Change Orders
37. Payments
38. Use of Remaining Funds
39. Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity
40. Reporting Requirements Related to Expenditure of Funds
SECTION VII – SERVICING REQUIREMENTS DURING THE TERM OF THE LOAN
41. Prepayment and Extra Payments
42. Graduation
43. Security/Operational Inspections
44. Annual Financial Reporting/Audit Requirements
45. Annual Budget and Projected Cash Flow
46. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP)
47. Insurance
48. Statutory and National Policy Requirements
49. Compliance Reviews and Data Collection
SECTION VIII – REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Acronyms
Forms and Bulletins
Appendix A - System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements
Appendix B – Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation
Table of Contents
Topical Cross-Reference
243
TOPICAL CROSS-REFERENCE
Keyword Item
Number Section
Age Discrimination Act 48 VII
Agreement, Engineering 11 III
Agreement, Lease 15 III
Agreement, Legal Services 13 III
Agreement, Other 15 III
Agreement, Parity / Intercreditor 5 II
Agreement, Parity / Intercreditor 15 III
Agreement, Water / Sewer User 15 III
Americans with Disabilities Act 48, 49 VII
Annual Operating Budget and Projected Cash Flow 45 VII
Annual Financial Reporting/Audit Requirements 44 VII
Audit (Construction) 40 VI
Audit (Servicing) 44 VII
Bid Authorization 24 III
Bid Tabulation 25 IV
Bond, Fidelity 28 IV
Bond, Fidelity 47 VII
Bond, Revenue and General Obligation 5 II
Budget and Projected Cash Flow, Annual Operating
(Servicing)
45 VII
Budget, Project 3 I
Budget, Proposed Operating (Prior to Bid) 21 III
Certified Operator 32 V
Change Order 36 VI
Civil Rights Act of 1964 48 VII
Closing Instructions 16 III
Compliance Review (Initial) 30 IV
Compliance Review (Servicing) 48, 49 VII
Conflict of Interest 15 III
Conflict of Interest 43 VII
Construction Account 18 III
Construction Completion Timeframe 7 II
Contract Documents 12 III
Contract Documents 26 IV
Contract Review 26 IV
Contract - Water Purchase / Sewage Treatment 15 III
Contracts for Other Services 15 III
244
Cost Overruns 25 IV
Data Collection 49 VII
Debt Service Reserve 9 II
Disbursement of Agency Funds 5, 7, 8 II
Disbursement of Agency Funds 17, 18 III
Disbursement of Agency Funds 40 VI
Disbursement of Agency Funds Appendix
B
NA
Electronic Payments 4, 6 II
Electronic Payments 17, 18 III
Electronic Payments 30 V
English Proficiency, Limited 48 VII
Engineering Agreement 11 III
Engineering Fees 3 II
Engineering Services 11 III
Environmental Requirements 10 III
Excess Funds 25 IV
Extra Payments 38 VI
Extra Payments 41 VII
Felony Convictions or Tax Delinquent Status for
Corporate Applicants, Assurance Regarding (Form AD-
3031)
29 IV
Final Plans 12 III
Final Plans 22 III
Final Title Work (Rights-of-Way) 27 IV
Financial Statements 44 VII
Financial Statements Appendix
B
NA
Financing Statement 5 II
Graduation (Refinancing) 5 II
Graduation (Refinancing) 42 VII
Inspections (Construction) 35 VI
Inspections (Security/Operational) 43, 49 VII
Inspector, Resident 33 IV
Insurance and Bonding Requirements (Project) 28 IV
Insurance (Servicing) 47 VII
Insurance (Servicing) Appendix
B
NA
Insurance, Title 14 III
Insurance, Title 27 IV
Intercreditor Agreement 5 II
Intercreditor Agreement 15 III
245
Interest 3 I
Interest Rate 4 II
Interest Rate 17 III
Interim Financing 3 I
Interim Financing 8 II
Interim Financing 17 III
Interim Financing 30 V
Interim Financing 38, 40 VI
Interim Financing 44 VII
Lease Agreement 15 III
Legal Services 13 III
Limited English Proficiency 48 VII
Litigation 32 V
Loan Term 4 II
Non-Compliance NA VIII
Operating Budget, Proposed (Prior to Bid) 21 III
Operator, Certified 32 V
Other Funding SUBJECT
LINE
NA
Other Funding 2 I
Other Funding 8 II
Other Funding 20 III
Parity / Intercreditor Agreement 5 II
Parity / Intercreditor Agreement 15 III
Payments 4, 6 II
Payments 30 V
Payments 37 VI
Payments 41 VII
Payments Appendix
B
NA
Permits 10 II
Permits 22 III
Plans, Final 12 III
Plans, Final 22 III
Positive Program to Encourage Connections 19 III
Preconstruction Conference 34 VI
Preliminary Engineering Report 1 I
Preliminary Engineering Report 3, 9 II
Preliminary Engineering Report 25 IV
Preliminary Title Work (Rights-of-Way) 14 III
Prepayment 41 VII
246
Project Budget 3 I
Project Description 1 I
Project Funding 2 I
Property Rights 14 III
Refinancing (Graduation) 5 II
Refinancing (Graduation) 42 VII
Repayment 4 II
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 48 VII
Remaining Funds, Use of 38 VI
Remedies for Non-Compliance NA VIII
Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Appendix
B
NA
Reserves 9 II
Reserves 19, 21 III
Resident Inspector 34 VI
Rights-of-Way, Final 27 IV
Rights-of-Way, Preliminary 14 III
Quarterly Reports 44 VII
Security 5 II
Security/Operational Inspections 43, 49 VII
Service Declination Statement 19 III
Sewage Treatment Contract 15 III
Short-Lived Assets Reserve 9 II
Specifications 12, 22 III
Statutory and National Policy Requirements 48 VII
System for Award Management 33 V
System for Award Management Appendix
A
NA
System Policies, Procedures, Contracts, and Agreements 15 III
Technical Assistance 15 III
Technical Assistance 21 III
Technical Assistance 23 III
Technical Assistance 31 V
Technical Assistance 39 VI
Technical Assistance 44, 45 VII
Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity 39 VI
Title Work, Preliminary 14 III
Title Work, Final 27 IV
Universal Identifier Appendix
A
NA
User Agreement, Water / Sewer 15 III
Users, System 19 III
247
Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan 23 III
Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan 31 V
Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan 46 VII
Water Purchase Contract 15 III
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil
rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and
institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from
discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including
gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status,
income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation
for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not
all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program
or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program
information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should
contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally,
program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination
Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a
letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the
form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed
form or letter to USDA by:
(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;
(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or
(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
248
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date: August 23, 2016
RE: Hondius Water Users Voluntary Water System Transfer
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Objective:
•To obtain the Town Board’s support for a voluntary water system transfer project with
Hondius Water Users Association which will allow access to low interest loans.
•To improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of delivering drinking water to our
citizens.
Present Situation:
Small drinking water systems were once simple enough to own and operate. Increasing
regulatory requirements and aging systems require a much larger effort and level of
expertise. Consolidation of smaller systems makes financial and operational sense. The
residents currently served by Hondius Water Users Association have requested the Town
initiate the process for a voluntary water system transfer.
The attached MOU provides the Town authority to apply for project financing, assist with
project execution and devolution of the system to the Town.
Staff is open to this so long as the existing Town customers do not subsidize the project.
Transfer of ownership to the Town is contingent on the Hondius distribution system being
brought up to Town standards. The design and construction is costly and must be paid
for by the property owners served by Hondius.
At the time of writing this memo the MOU has not been signed by Hondius; however, we
anticipate it will have been signed before it is presented to the Town Board.
Proposal:
To solidify the arrangement, we request the Town Board approve the attached MOU
with Hondius.
249
Advantages:
This project supports the Town’s mission to provide high-quality, reliable services for the
benefit of our citizens while being good stewards of public resources. All project funding
obligations will be covered by the Hondius Water Users Association.
Disadvantages:
Staff workload will increase; however, hours and costs will be logged and included for
reimbursement through the project.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the MOU.
Budget:
All project related costs will be funded by Hondius members. The Utilities budget will
provide payments with reimbursements to follow. Cash outlay will be minimal.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate. Other neighborhoods are looking to follow this same process.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve proposed Memorandum of Understanding.
Attachments:
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
250
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is dated this ____ day of ____________, 2016
by and between the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”) and the Hondius Water Users
Association Inc. (the “Association”).
WHERAS, the Town owns and operates its Water Utility; and
WHEREAS, the Association owns the distribution system which provides water to
properties north of High Drive located outside the Town Limits; and
WHEREAS, the Association is receiving potable drinking water from the Town as a
bulk water customer; and
WHEREAS, the Association’s distribution system is in bad repair and needs
replacement; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County Health Department and the Association have obtained
professional engineering and environmental services related to the reconstruction of the
water distribution system including the water distribution system being brought up to Town
standards (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Association has requested that the Town accept transfer of the
reconstructed distribution system (the “New System”); and
WHEREAS, the Town and Association will work together to secure financing from
USDA Rural Development for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Town will create a new water utility rate assigned to the participating
Association properties and participating non-association properties for repayment of
administration, financing, design and construction costs of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree to the terms and conditions as set forth herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises stated
herein, the parties agree as follows:
I. Project Outline.
The parties understand funding currently exists through USDA’s Rural Development group
for the Project. The parties have determined that to provide funds for the Project, the
preferred method is to have the Town apply for project financing and repay such financing
251
through a water utility rate on the utility bills for those properties in the Association’s
boundary currently receiving water service and participating non-association properties.
Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, are the basic steps
needed to apply for and receive a USDA Rural Development loan. This MOU is divided
into two parts. Phase 1 states the terms and conditions necessary to make an informed
decision to proceed or not proceed with the Project. Phase 2 starts if the Association and
the majority of its members agree to proceed with the Project, and the Town receiving
approval of the loan application to fund detailed design and specifications and construction
of the Project.
PHASE 1
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Report (PER and ER). The Association
has worked with the County to produce a PER and ER:
1.Upon receipt of the PER and ER, the parties shall review the report for compliance
with Town standards.
2.The Association and County will work with their engineer to gain USDA approval of
the PER and ER.
3.The Town will require a petition be signed by a majority of the Association
properties approving the Project.
4.The Association Board must formally approve and enter into an agreement with the
Town to proceed with the Project, transfer of the New System to the Town and
creation of a new water rate for those properties within the Hondius service area
receiving water service.
5.The Association shall be responsible for filing with the Town the necessary petition
and documentation requesting the Town to proceed with the USDA loan
application.
6.In the event that the loan is not approved, this MOU shall terminate.
PHASE 2
1.Phase 2 shall consist of all tasks required after USDA approval of the loan
application is obtained by the Town: Upon receipt of the approval of the funding
from the USDA, the Town shall proceed with detailed design and competitive
bidding for construction of the Project. The Town shall contract with the selected
construction firm for the Project.
2.The Town shall consult with the Association during the design and construction
process.
3.It is understood by the parties that reconstruction of the system may include the
need to obtain easements from property owners. The Association shall be
252
responsible for obtaining and providing easements to the Town for the location and
installation of the system.
4.The Association shall be responsible for reimbursing the Town for all its
administrative, legal, including bond attorney if applicable, financing and any other
costs incurred by the Town in performing its duties and responsibilities for the
Project. This obligation to reimburse the Town shall include all costs incurred by
the Town in the event of any termination of this MOU.
5.The Town shall provide the Association with periodic reports of all expenses
incurred by the Town.
6.Following construction of the Project and transfer of the New System to the Town,
the Town shall own and be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
New System.
7.Association properties receiving water service and participating non-association
properties shall become customers of the Town’s existing water utility and shall be
responsible for payment of the administration, design, construction and financing
costs of the Project through the new water rate.
II.Abandoned Assets.
There may be abandoned assets currently owned by the Association or assets abandoned
after construction. The parties understand and agree that the Town is not interested in, nor
will accept, any responsibility for the Association’s abandoned assets.
III.System Development and Water Rights Fees.
The parties understand and agree that all lots currently receiving service from the
Association have been credited with the appropriate amount of the bulk water rate
surcharge for the Town’s System Development Fee and Water Rights Fee (a water tap fee)
for a residential customer of the Town. All additional and future connections to the water
system shall require payment of the Town’s then current water development fee and water
rights fee (tap fee).
Signed by the parties the ___ day of ____________, 2016.
Town of Estes Park Hondius Water Users
Association Incorporated
By: ____________________________ By: ____________________________
Title:____________________________ Title: ___________________________
Print Name: ______________________ Print Name: _____________________
253
Hondius Water Users Association, Inc.
Date: August 17, 2016
To: Estes Park Town Clerk
(via email - TownClerk@Estes.org)
From: Jim Redman, Board Member
Hondius Water Users Association, Inc.
Subject: Hondius Water Project and Level of Support
The Hondius Water Users Association, Inc. (“HWUA”) has expressed interest in entering into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Estes Park, Colorado in order to work together
with the Town to replace the HWUA’s current drinking water system. The plan, to be funded
via a USDA loan, calls for replacement of the current system with a new system for which the
Town would take ownership and provide ongoing maintenance and management responsibilities
after completion of the project. The Preliminary Engineering Report for the project has been
prepared (by Landmark Engineering, Ltd.) and estimated the cost of the project to be
approximately $3.4 million. This estimated cost and the project design were presented at an
advertised public meeting on August 1, 2016 to current property owners in the HWUA, as well
as to other interested parties that are not currently members of the HWUA (many have their own
water wells) but may have an interest in the project and whose properties are along the projected
design route of the new system.
There are approximately 78 current properties included in the HWUA. There were
approximately 31 of these HWUA properties represented by attendance at the August 1, 2016
public meeting and of those owners in attendance at the meeting, 29 have provided their signed
Petition (which is a form prepared by the Town of Estes Park). Additionally, after the public
meeting, we have attempted to contact the remaining HWUA members using email addresses
and/or the U.S. mail service and as of today, we have received an additional 15 signed petitions
from current HWUA members. As a result, as of the current date, we have received signed
Petitions from 44 of the 78 HWUA properties. We have also received signed Petitions from 3
property owners that are not currently part of the HWUA. It is our understanding that these
owners would be allowed to also participate in the project, in addition to all current HWUA
properties, but would likely have to pay a tap fee to the Town. Of the 34 remaining HWUA
members for which we have not yet obtained a signed Petition, a few have indicated hesitancy
due to the level of the estimated cost of the project. This hesitancy could possibly be lowered
with a grant from the USDA, but such a grant has not been considered as a reduction in the cost
estimate made public, as it is too early to determine the amount of any such grant. Most of the
remaining HWUA owners have simply not been heard from at this point.
254
EXHIBIT A
Phase 1
Preliminary Engineering Report / Environmental Report / Public Presentations.
Hondius Water Users Association Inc. (HWUA) votes in a new Board.
HWUA Board and a majority of its water customers agree to the Voluntary
Water System Transfer Agreement.
Town Board votes and approves the Voluntary Water System Transfer
Agreement.
Phase 2:
USDA application for financing is approved and loan is received.
Town will perform bidding process for detailed design and reconstruction.
Reconstruction completed.
255
256
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner
Date: August 23, 2016 (Public Hearing Date)
RE: Ordinance 21-16
Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code:
Concurrent Review – Timing of Board of Adjustment Review
Objective:
Review of a proposed text amendment to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) for
compliance with EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Present Situation:
Prior to applying for and obtaining building permits, many development projects are
reviewed through a public entitlement process. An entitlement is “the legal method for
obtaining approvals for the right to develop property for a particular use.” (Pair, 2008)
Examples of entitlements are development plan, variance, and rezoning approvals.
Some projects require a combination of entitlement approvals, e.g. both a development
plan and variance approval.
In 2014 the Town Board and County Commission amended the Estes Valley
Development Code to require that in all cases variance approvals through the Board of
Adjustment (BOA) must be the last entitlement approval obtained. Specifically, the code
was amended to state, “The Community Development Director shall require that BOA
review occur after final action on related development applications by the Decision-
Making Body. . .”
This requirement was placed in the Estes Development Code at the direction of Town
Board in 2014 and was in direct response to Town Board concerns about the
processing schedule Town staff established for a specific project in which a variance
was processed prior to submittal of related development applications, e.g. development
plan.
During the January 28, 2014 Town Board Study Session a Trustee suggested that the
process be reviewed in 18-24 months to determine if the code was working.
Based on a couple years of administering this code requirement, staff finds that the
disadvantages of the code requirement outweigh advantages. Specifically, the
requirement creates longer review times for non-complex and/or non-controversial
projects, and can place a significant financial burden on applicants with complex and/or
257
controversial projects. In many cases engineering and design expenses can be reduced
if the requirement to obtain all approvals prior to BOA is removed from the code. There
may still be circumstances in which the Community Development Director determines
BOA review should come last and Director will retain the ability to require that BOA
review occur last.
Legal notices for the public hearing were published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on
July 1, 2016.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section 3.1.E to remove the requirement for Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment review to occur after review and approval of related development
applications by the Planning Commission and/or Boards.
Planning Commission Findings
Planning Commission found that the proposed text amendment complies with EVDC
§3.3.D. Code Amendments, Standards for Review, which states “All rezonings and text
amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1.“The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. Over the past couple years, staff has received verbal comments from a
number of developers and the local engineering firms that this code amendment
places an unnecessary burden on developers about the burden this code
requirement places on developers.
2.“The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley;”
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley. A development plan is not required.
3.“The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application
were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Not applicable.
Advantages:
258
•Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
•Reduces development risk.
•Provides the Community Development Director with flexibility to determine the
appropriate review schedule for each project.
•Improves efficiency in processing development application packages.
•The Town Board may think that review of the special review application by Town
Board is premature because the Board of Adjustment has not approved the variance
request.
Disadvantages:
•The Board of Adjustment may think that review of a variance require prior to special
review by Town Board is premature because the Town Board has not approved the
overall project.
Action Recommended:
On July 19, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed text
amendment and recommended Town Board and County Commission approve the text
amendment.
Review draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and move to approve or deny
the text amendment.
Budget:
Text Amendment – Staff time and publishing costs, estimated to be under $5,000
Level of Public Interest:
High: Efficient processing of development application packages and reducing
development risk
Low: Code amendment
Sample Motion:
I move the approval/denial of Ordinance 21-16.
Attachments:
Ordinance 21-16
July 19 2016 Planning Commission minutes are included in the Town Board packet
259
ORDINANCE NO. 21-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
CONCURRENT SUBMITTAL AND TIMING OF REVIEWS
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2016 the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed test amendment to Estes Valley Development Code, Section 3.1.E
“Concurrent Submittal, and Timing of Review,” found that the text amendment complies with Estes
Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, and recommended
approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendments
comply with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and
has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the proposed amendm ents to the Estes
Valley Development Code set forth on Exhibit “A” be approved.
WHEREAS, said text amendments are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth
on Exhibit “A.”
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of
, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
260
Exhibit A August 23, 2016
ORDINANCE 21-16
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 3 REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
§3.1 General Provisions
§3.1.E Concurrent Submittal, and Timing of Reviews
At the election of the Applicant and with the approval of the Staff,
applications for different types of development approvals may be
processed concurrently whenever possible to expedite total review and
processing time for a project., except as follows:
The Community Development Director shall require that BOA review occur
after final action on related development applications by the Decision-
Making Body, e.g., the EVPC/Boards. Related development applications
include, but are not limited to, rezoning, subdivision, development plan,
and special review applications.
261
262
Administrative Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Director
Date: August 19, 2016
RE: Resolution #15-16 - To Affiliate the Estes Park Police Officers with the Fire
and Police Pension Association (FPPA) for Retirement
Objective:
To approve Resolution #15-16 allowing discussions with FPPA to continue on the
possibility of affiliating the Town’s sworn Police Officers for FPPA retirement.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park Police Officers and Dispatchers have been covered by the
Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS) since
the 1980s. This program provided death and disability benefits only and does not
provide retirement benefits to the employees. Therefore, the Town established a
defined contribution ICMA retirement plan for all Police department personnel because
they did not qualify for PERA under state statute due to their affiliation with FPPA.
In May 2013, staff became aware the Dispatchers did not qualify for FPPA’s SWD&D-
SS program and would not be eligible to receive benefits from the plan. Staff was able
to determine from discussions with long term employees that the Dispatchers use to
perform tasks such as the processing of prisoners and pat downs of female prisoners
which qualified them at the time to belong to FPPA. Once these tasks were removed
from their job description they were no longer eligible for FPPA coverage. The Town
removed the Dispatchers from FPPA in May 2013 which then made them eligible for
PERA retirement. All new Dispatchers are enrolled in PERA for retirement and have no
affiliation with FPPA.
A notice from FPPA followed in August 2015 stating the SWD&D-SS coverage would
not continue for the Town’s sworn Police Officers unless the Town elected to join the
FPPA retirement plan. Normally FPPA requires an agency to belong to the retirement
plan in order to elect the SWD&D-SS plan. The Town of Estes Park in one of only four
agencies in the State that belongs to just the SWD&D-SS plan. FPPA will discontinue
the Town's participation in the SWD&D-SS plan on December 31, 2016 unless the
Town elects to join the FPPA retirement plan by the end of the year. The Town staff
has met with FPPA and has determined it would be beneficial to continue the
To Affiliate the Estes Park Police Officers with the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) for
Retirement
263
discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of affiliating with FPPA for
retirement.
Proposal:
The process for continuing to review and assess the FPPA retirement plan requires the
Town to adopt a Resolution to join the FPPA retirement plan. The next steps will
include employee meetings with HR and FPPA to understand the FPPA retirement plan
and how the Town would structure the sworn Police Officer retirement plan moving
forward. The state statute requires a vote of the membership with a 65% approval in
order to establish FPPA retirement. If it is determined by the Town and/or the sworn
Police Officers through the vote not to join FPPA retirement, the officers will lose their
SWD&D-SS coverage on December 31, 2016.
If the Board approves the Resolution, informational meetings with HR and FPPA will be
established in the next few weeks to outline the retirement plan and the benefits the
Police Officers are eligible to receive through the SWD&D-SS plan.
Advantages:
•To continue the discussions with FPPA on the benefits of affiliating.
•Provide the sworn Police Officer with the option to join FPPA retirement.
Disadvantages:
•The automatic loss of the SWD&D-SS coverage for the sworn Police Officer on
December 31, 2016.
Action Recommended:
Approve the proposed Resolution to continue exploring the advantages and
disadvantages to affiliating with FPPA for retirement.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low for the public and high for the Police department sworn personnel.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #15-16.
Attachment
Resolution #15-16
To Affiliate the Estes Park Police Officers with the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) for
Retirement
264
RESOLUTION #15-16
TO AFFILIATE THE ESTES PARK POLICE OFFICERS WITH THE FIRE AND POLICE
PENSION ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO (FPPA) AND FOR RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park covers its law enforcement officers/police officers
under the federal Social Security Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 31-31-704.5 C.R.S., the Town of Este Park desires to affiliate
with the Fire and Police Pension Association for purposes coverage under the Statewide
Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS) under § 31-31-704.6 et
seq., C.R.S.
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, in addition to Social Security benefits, currently
provides a defined contribution plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK THAT:
1.The Town of Estes Park does hereby intend to cover its sworn police officers whose
duties are directly involved with the provision of police protection under the
Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS)
established pursuant to §31-31-704.6 C.R.S. and retain coverage under the
Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS)
established pursuant to §31-31-704.7, C.R.S., and part 8 of Title 31, Article 31,
C.R.S).
2.Such supplemental retirement benefits shall be funded by contributions as
established in §31-31-704.6(3) C.R.S. for the Statewide Defined Benefit Social
Security Supplemental (SWDB-SS) and §31-31-811(4) C.R.S. for the Statewide
Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS).
3.Coverage under the Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan
(SWDB-SS) shall be subject to the approval of at least 65% of all active Members
employed by the Employer prior to approval of the application by FPPA.
4.If approved, coverage shall become effective on January 1, 2017, assuming all
necessary forms, procedures, election of the membership, if required, and other
relevant work is completed.
5.If not approved, the coverage under the Statewide Death and Disability Social
Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS) shall terminate effective December 31,
2016.
6.The Employer makes the following certifications:
a.If approved by 65% of the active Members in the plan, all active sworn police
officers will become participants in the Statewide Defined Benefit Social
265
Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS), and retain coverage under the
Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan.
b.If not approved by 65% of the active Members in the plan, all active sworn
police officer’s membership in the Statewide Death and Disability Social
Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS) will cease on the effective date of
December 31, 2016. Benefits previously granted to Members under the
Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-
SS) are not affected by the decision to discontinue coverage, and that the
statutory provisions that apply to the Employer with respect to benefits
previously awarded still apply.
c.The Employer acknowledges that the department’s election to participate in the
Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS) and
the Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan
(SWD&D-SS) is irrevocable.
d.The Employer agrees to participate in the Statewide Defined Benefit Social
Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS) as described herein and to be bound
by the terms of the plan and the decisions and actions of the board with respect
to the plan.
7.The Employer acknowledges that if it offers pension benefits under the Statewide
Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS), a locally
administered Money Purchase Plan or another plan, there are limits under the
Internal Revenue Code on the total contributions which may be made annually.
8.This affiliation resolution shall be revocable at any time prior to the commencement
of the withholding of contributions from the Members’ salaries for the Statewide
Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS). If the Employer
does not revoke the resolution prior to the withholding of contributions, affiliation
becomes irrevocable.
9.The Town Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Fire and
Police Pension Association as soon as is practicable and Employer’s staff is
directed to take all other actions necessary to implement the coverage.
Approved this ___ day of _________, 20__, by the Town of Estes Park.
APPROVED:
______________________________
Mayor Jirsa
ATTEST:
____________________________
Town Clerk
266