HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-10-25The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 25, 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.
Policy 3.3 Governance Report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 11, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
October 11, 2016.
2.Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, October 13, 2016.
1. Membranes Replacement at Mary’s Lake Water Plant, $120,000
Unbudgeted.
4. Audit Committee Minutes dated October 12, 2016.
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 21, 2016
(acknowledgment only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated September 16, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
7. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
8. Acceptance of Policy Governance Compliance Report 3.3.
Prepared 10/14/16
* Revised:
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (outside entities):
1.ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town
Board Final Action.
1.CONSENT ITEMS:
A. FALL RIVER VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #1. Item
continued by staff to November 22nd.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2016-04, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC.
2.2015 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) AND SINGLE
AUDIT. Finance Director Hudson.
3.MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ENGINEERING DESIGN
CONTRACT. Manager Ash.
4.RESOLUTION #19-16 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2017
BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Lancaster.
5.RESOLUTION #20-16 SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM.
6.DOWNTOWN PLAN APPOINTMENT AND INTERVIEW TEAM. Town Clerk
Williamson.
5.ADJOURN.
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 25th, 2016
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires
quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from
statutory requirements.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I our budgeting practices and policies
comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado
towns.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes
Evidence:
1.The annual independent audit
2.The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3.All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town
Attorney.
4.State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance
notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under
statute.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the
Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any
budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific
spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to
mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any
Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the
objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing
circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s
control, as material deviations.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted
budget.
Evidence:
1.The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities.
2.Any substantial budget changes have been presented to the Board for review and
approval.
3.HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as
4
requested.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town
Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information
concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and
expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures
from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not
to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1.Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected an actual
revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events.
2.Actual revenue are not less than projected.
3.The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates
revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
4.Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board
during budget review sessions.
Evidence:
1.Currently our sales tax revenue to date is 8.89 % higher than in 2015 and 4.89 %
higher than projected.
2.Current revenue is not less than projected.
3.The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that
separates revenues, expenses and capital.
4.Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget
review sessions.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced.
This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all
sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have
5
been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of
saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed
year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific
reserve funds.
Evidence:
1.The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not allowed budgeting
which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are
conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise
available.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted
fund balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized
by the Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund
balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This
interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the
future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board
consideration, as directed in the September study session.)
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1.The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as
otherwise approved by the Town Board.
2.The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board..
Evidence:
1.The 2015 CAFR shows a 22.3% fund balance at the end of 2015
2.The 2016 budget anticipates a 19.7% fund balance at the end of 2016
3.The proposed 2017 budget anticipates a 27.3% fund balance at the end of 2017
Report: I report compliance
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
6
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a
fund balance of 20% or more in the general fund, and adequate fund balances in all
enterprise funds, including the required TABOR reserve.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater.
Evidence:
1. The 2015 CAFR shows a 22.3% fund balance at the end of 2015
2. The 2016 budget anticipates a 19.7% fund balance at the end of 2016
3. The proposed 2017 budget anticipates a 27.3% fund balance at the end of 2017
Report: I report compliance
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes
an independent audit annually.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. The 2015 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to
the State of Colorado.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result
any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund
balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all
revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5
2. Required bond coverage ratios are met.
7
Evidence:
1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20%
2. The required Bond coverage ratio is 125%. Our current coverage is 422%.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or
expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board
approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions
or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of
the board, with the exceptions noted above.
Evidence:
1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no
unapproved positions are shown.
Report: I report compliance
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 11, 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 11th day of October, 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Trustee Ward Nelson
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. to consider entering into Executive
Session
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to enter Executive Session for a
conference with the Town Attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions per Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S., and it passed
unanimously.
The Board entered Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. and concluded at 6:45 p.m. The
Board recessed.
Mayor Jirsa called the regular 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 questioned the general efficiency of the government’s
involvement with local entities such as the Economic Development Council, the Estes
Valley Partners for Commerce, etc. The Town should evaluate the interactions and
value with each group. He commented the Town should evaluate the value of studies
as well.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Holcomb provided an update on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
meeting in which they discussed recommendations to the Board, including the approval
of the parking garage financing for Phase II, approval of the Loop, and implementation
of paid parking in the downtown parking lots. The next TAB meeting would be held on
October 19, 2016 at noon.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig thanked the citizens that attended the Waste shed meeting held
at the library. The committee continues to hold meetings at the other Larimer County
communities to receive input and encourage different approaches such as composting
in Fort Collins. The committee recognizes Estes Park has challenges separate and
distinct from the other communities such as wildlife, environment and visitor population.
Trustee Walker commented the Town received five applications for the Town appointed
position on the Local Marketing District Board. The Board has submitted their 2017
Operating Plan for the Town Board’s review and approval at the October 25, 2016
meeting.
DRAFT9
Board of Trustees – October 11, 2016 – Page 2
Trustee Norris thanked the citizens that took the time to provide input and complete the
citizen survey. The Estes Valley Planning Commission would meet on October 18,
2016 to continue discussions on ADUs.
Mayor Jirsa requested approval from Attorney White to discuss the topic of the
Executive Session with the community and suggested he provide an overview of the
discussion.
Attorney White stated the TABOR amendment of 1992 requires a taxing entity
proposing a tax must estimate the taxes to be collected in the first full year of collection
and further stated any tax revenues collected in excess must be refunded. The City of
Fort Collins recently placed a ballot issue on the November election ballot to request the
revenues collected in excess should be retained by the City and not refunded. The
Town voters passed the 1A sales tax increase in 2014 and exceeded the estimated
revenues of $2 million established in the TABOR notice by $418,000. Later voter
approval was not defined in the amendment and may occur at any time after the issue
of exceedance of the estimate has been determined.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Larimer County Health department received a grant
to promote and expand the Communities that Care program throughout the County.
The County has requested a member of the Board to join the advisory Board. Trustee
Holcomb volunteered to be the Board’s representative.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 27, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
September 27, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes
dated, September 22, 2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 13, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Revising Town Board Policy 101 – Board Assignments to remove the
Creative Art District appointment.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to approve the Consent
Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE.
Finance Officer Hudson reviewed the RFP issued to fund Phase II of the
parking facility located south of the Visitor Center to establish an additional 202
parking spaces through a lease purchase agreement utilizing the golf course as
collateral. The Town received two proposals by the deadline. After evaluation
of the proposals, Saulsbury Hill Financial was selected as the best option with a
proposed loan of $4.5 million at 2.99% fixed rate for 15 years with an annual
payment of $377,000 and no early payoff penalty. The Town would be
responsible for all fees and costs to perfect the security interest and reimburse
the lender up to $18,000 in direct legal costs should the Town not complete the
loan process. Existing General Fund revenues would be used for the annual
payment through the redirection of the STIP funds of approximately $435,000
dedicated to street and transportation improvements. Postponing the
construction of the final Phase Two could cost the tax payers several million
dollars over the cost to do it now while interest rates are low and construction
costs are cheaper. Deferral would require another disruption caused by closing DRAFT10
Board of Trustees – October 11, 2016 – Page 3
down the parking structure during future construction. The current construction
inflation rate is 4% to 7% annually. Staff estimates the Town would have to
divert the STIP funds of $435,000 for approximately 26 years in order to pay for
Phase II rather than finance the project.
Due to restrictions and limitations in the Special Use Permit from the Bureau of
Reclamation, the parking structure itself was not eligible to be used as collateral
for financing. In researching funding options with lenders, three critical
characteristics guided and narrowed options for selecting collateral, including
sufficient value to cover the amount of the financing, clear title with no current
liens or encumbrances on the asset and the absence of an alternative use for
the asset that would be hindered if encumbered. Upon review of Town assets,
the 18-hole golf course was the only single asset meeting all three criteria.
Placing a lien on the golf course limits the Town’s future use of the property as
collateral for other unknown projects. In the event a future Town Board decides
to not budget for the repayment of the loan the golf course would be forfeited to
the lender.
Those speaking against the financing of the project were heard from Bob
Butler/Town citizen and Ted Williams/County citizen. Comments have been
summarized: concern was raised on the use of the golf course as collateral and
the need to have a secure and adequate source of funds to repay the loan;
concerned the community would go in debt for a parking garage; a loss of an
asset such as the golf course would be a disservice to the community; and
during the 1A sales tax election the Town committed the $435,000 would be
used to improve roadways and now the funds are being diverted.
Those speaking in favor of financing the project including Bill Pinkham/Town
citizen, Christy Crosser/Pinewood Springs resident, Tony Schetzle/Town
citizen, Michelle Hiland/Town citizen, Art Messal/Town citizen, Kent
Smith/Town citizen, and Kimberly Campbell/Transportation Advisory Board
Chair. Comments heard have been summarized: the additional Phase would
address a huge shortage of parking in the community and help the Town meet
the needs outlined as the number one issue by guests; by financing the project
now the Town would realize efficiency and effectiveness in completing the
project during one construction phase; no concern utilizing a Town asset, the
golf course, to finance this important project; the project would begin to address
the traffic flow issues with the approval and completion of the Loop project to
meet the Town’s strategic goals; the project would support sustainable tourism
which funds the Town; the TAB continue to be supportive of the financing
option to complete both Phase I and Phase II at one time; the additional parking
spaces should provide additional sales tax to pay for the parking structure; and
the interest rates are anticipated to increase by the end of the year and
continue to increase each quarter for the next 2 years, therefore, the cost of the
project would continue to increase if the Town waits to construct Phase II at a
later date.
Trustee Holcomb stated the likelihood the Town would default on the loan
would be fairly small and the property could not be converted to condominiums
without first completing the development process. He would be supportive of a
lease purchase financing agreement utilizing the golf course as collateral.
Trustee Walker commented concern with the rising cost of construction;
however, he would not support the Town incurring debt to complete the project.
Trustee Martchink stated the Town has an adequate funding source and a
consistent funding stream to finance the parking structure. The project would
be vital to the community in addressing the parking needs of Estes Park.
Trustee Norris recognized parking as a key part of the Town’s strategic plan
and the completion of the project in one phase would be cheaper, faster and
better for the community. The return on investment for the community would DRAFT11
Board of Trustees – October 11, 2016 – Page 4
be significant. He stated concern with not moving forward and the potential of
the project never being complete if the Town does not move forward now.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Town has significant deferred
maintenance and has been discussing funding mechanisms to address the
issue. She stated the proposed project and financing option presented would
be fiscally sound and the 1A funds have eliminated the Town’s need to save for
years to complete large road projects such as Dry Gulch. She would be
supportive of moving forward.
Mayor Jirsa stated voters were told the current STIP funds of $435,000 would
be allocated toward road improvements if the 1A sales tax was approve. He
would not support the use of these funds to pay back the loan for the parking
structure. He further stated concern on creating a lack of voter trust with the
approval to use the funds for a parking structure rather than further street
improvements.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to award the financing to
Saulsbury Hill Financial contingent upon development of mutually
acceptable documentation using the golf course or other acceptable
assets as collateral with reimbursement of up to $18,000 in legal fees if
the Town Board turns down the final negotiated financing arrangement,
and it passed with Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting “No”.
Walker Parking Design Consultant Change Order for Phase II. Director
Muhonen stated the Town contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to
design a parking garage in the parking lot of the Visitor Center in 2013. Since
that time the Public Works department obtained the approval by the Town and
the Bureau of Reclamation to move the parking garage to the south parking lot
adjacent to the Visitor Center requiring additional services from Walker
Parking Consultants in the amount of $300,000 for new design drawings. With
the approval to move forward with Phase II of the parking structure, staff
requested an additional change order to completed the design of Phase II at a
cost of $153,030. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve
a Change Order to extend the Walking Parking Consultants design
services contract through December 31, 2017 and increase the price to
$1,122,117, contingent upon the terms and conditions described in the
staff memo, and it passed with the Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting
“No”.
2. 2017 STRATEGIC PLAN. Administrator Lancaster present the Board with the
final 2017 strategic plan for adoption. He stated the Board held a retreat earlier
in the year and several drafts of the document have been reviewed by the
Board. The plan provides a basis for everything the Town staff completes and
should tie back directly to one of the outcome areas outlined in the plan.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented the Board should use the plan as the
Town’s strategy and question how the item on the list fit together, how does it
impact the visitor experience, and stated the plan is missing a vision.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the 2017 Strategic
Plan, and it passed unanimously.
3. FPPA RETIREMENT PLAN OPTION FOR SWORN POLICE OFFICERS.
Director Williamson stated the sworn Police Officers currently have a defined
contribution, 401(a) pension replacement plan, through ICMA-RC because they
are covered by the Statewide Death and Disability Social Security
Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS) through FPPA. The passage of Senate Bill
15-028 in 2015 requires entities covered under the SWD&D-SS to affiliate with
FPPA for retirement, a Social Security supplemental defined benefit plan, by
December 31, 2016 in order to maintain the Death and Disability coverage. DRAFT12
Board of Trustees – October 11, 2016 – Page 5
The state statute requires a vote of the membership with a 65% approval in
order to establish FPPA retirement. If the vote fails, the sworn Police Officers
would lose their Death and Disability coverage through FPPA and the Police
Officer retirement plan would remain with ICMA. The Officers would continue
to be covered by the Town’s standard AD&D policy provided to all Town
employees. In order to maintain parity among the retirement plans for both
sworn Police Officers, PERA covered employees and Management employees
the following has been proposed for the FPPA retirement option: Sworn Police
Officer would continue to contribute a total of 8% into their retirement plans; i.e.
6% into FPPA Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security Supplemental Plan
(SWDB-SS) and 2% into the ICMA-RC defined contribution fund; the Town to
contribute 4% to the FPPA Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security
Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS), the Town to contribute 8.35% into the ICMA-
RC defined contribution fund; and maintain the SWD&D-SS at 2.7% in 2017
with the cost split 50/50 with the employees. This allows the Town to contribute
more to their ICMA retirement accounts while maintaining the same contribution
levels to all retirement plans.
Sergeant Life stated the sworn Police Officer would be losing a benefit of 2.7%
with the benefit package outlined for FPPA retirement just to bring the Police
retirement in line with the other retirement plans.
Director Williamson stated the Police Officer would have a reduction in the
overall retirement and Death and Disability benefit package; however, a survey
of the other entities in the Front Range demonstrated the Town offers the
richest retirement plan and Death and Disability plan compared to its
competitors. She also reiterated the Town has had a richer plan with the
inclusion of Social Security and the Death and Disability through FPPA. The
law requires a municipality to have Social Security or affiliate with FPPA for
Death and Disability. If the Police Officers vote to stay with ICMA and forego
the Death and Disability coverage with FPPA, they would still be covered by
Social Security and the Town’s AD&D plan.s
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Fire and
Police Pension Association retirement plan option as outlined and to
make any adjustments needed to the percentages at the time FPPA or
PERA increases or decreases percentages, and it passed with Mayor Pro
Tem Koenig voting “No”.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 2016 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS. Public Information Officer Rusch provided
an overview of the scientific results of the survey. The survey was mailed to a
random sampling of 1,500 households within Town limits with 701 households
responding. The overall quality of life and Estes as a place to live continue to
rate high. Key community characteristics included a similar rating for overall
image, a decrease in neighborhood, a decrease in a place to retire, and a
similar rating on overall appearance. A top priority for the community continues
to be the economy with the Town receiving the same ratings as 2014 for a
place to visit, a vibrant downtown, shopping opportunities, and businesses and
services available. Another key issue addressed was the quality of the natural
environment and the importance and positive feature of the community as it
relates to overall environment, air quality, cleanliness and drinking water. The
Town also received high marks as it related to overall quality of services
provided and customer services of the employees.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to enter into Executive Session
for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be
subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or DRAFT13
Board of Trustees – October 11, 2016 – Page 6
instructing negotiators regarding the Conference Center per Session 24-6-
402(4)(e) C.R.S., and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. to enter into Executive
Session.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:12 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 11, 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 11th day of October, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Norris and Walker
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Manager Fraundorf, and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Trustee Nelson
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRUSTEE E-MAILS.
Manager Fraundorf provided an overview of the process used by the City of Fort
Collins, City of Loveland and Larimer County for public access to Council and
Commissioner emails. Each entity has a different approach that ranges from no staff
involvement to an employee reviewing and releasing each email. Those using the
software only approach have identified filters, i.e. key words to filter out emails that are
not released for viewing; however, the subject line would be displayed regardless of the
nature of the email which could be confidential, deliberative, etc. The Loveland website
provides instructions to the public on how to keep their emails private to the Council,
which the Town may consider adding if the Board moves forward with public access to
the Board’s emails. He stated the pros to implementing the software include the
relatively short implementation timeframe, low cost of $2,000/year for up to ten email
accounts, and robust search capability. The cons would include the public contacting
Town staff for assistance on using the software, misspellings would allow inappropriate
emails to be viewed, time involved in removing inappropriate emails, public access to all
subject lines, and the public may have the expectation that an email would remain
private or confidential.
Discussion followed and has been summarized: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the
goal of the software, i.e. to free up staff time to complete open records requests and
stated concern the public would not communicate as readily with the Board; Mayor Jirsa
stated public access to Trustee email would send the message the Board wants an
open and transparent government and other governmental entities are currently
providing public access to Board emails; Trustee Walker stated no concern with
allowing public access to his emails, however, he stated concern that some constituents
may not be as willing to communicate if their emails would be public, thereby
decreasing communication with the Board; Trustee Norris requested additional
information on the other community’s experience with the software, impact on workload,
and if the entity has found it beneficial; and Trustee Martchink stated he supports the
message the public access would send; however, the emails are accessible through the
open records act and would not be supportive of expending funds on the software.
After further discussion, the Board consensus was to move forward with an in house
test of the software for a couple of months, review the software and determine the
continued use and release to the public.
15
Town Board Study Session – October 11, 2016 – Page 2
EVALUATE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE.
Mayor Jirsa commented he has been reviewing evaluation options provided by CML for
both the Town Attorney and the Municipal Judge. In discussing the evaluation process
with other Mayors from Loveland and Johnston, it was determined the process can be
valuable in goal setting, succession planning, etc., especially for the Town Attorney.
Discussions have been held with both Attorney White and Judge Brown who are both
supportive of the evaluations. He proposed the Town use Fort Morgan’s example for
the Town Attorney evaluation as a starting base. A proposed review would be brought
back to the Board for final acceptance.
Mayor Jirsa suggested the Board members attend the October 19, 2016 Municipal
Court to get a sense of how the Judge runs the court. He proposed the Board hold the
evaluation for the Judge in early 2017 after the Judge provides his annual report.
Trustee Norris stated he would be supportive of a structured approach to the evaluation,
and would suggest a simplified evaluation that addressed ethics, communication,
timeliness of recommendations and goal setting tied to the Town’s strategic plan.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Mayor Jirsa presented a revised Resolution to support the funding of improvements to
the countries National Parks. The Board consensus was to add the Resolution to the
October 25, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Trustee Norris stated the School District continues to work on addressing issues such
as suicide prevention and other mental health issues. A handout was developed by the
counselors of the schools, and he requested a copy be provided to each of the Trustees
and appropriate staff.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated a final review of the 2016 strategic plan would be
added to the December 13, 2016 study session. The November 22, 2016 study session
would be cancelled.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
16
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 13, 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 13th day of October 2016.
Committee: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Attending: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Police Chief Kufeld,
Director Bergsten, Manager Fraundorf and Recording
Secretary Doering
Absent: Trustee Nelson and Town Administrator Lancaster
Chair Koenig called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY
None.
Reports
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Police Chief Kufeld updated the
committee on the Wildlife Protection Ordinance. There were 121 bear incidences,
including sightings, break-ins and ordinance violations. Seventeen of the calls
were outside of town limits in Larimer County or Rocky Mountain National Park
and forty-eight of the calls involved a violation of the Wildlife Ordinance and
summonses were issued. Body cams received one year ago are in service and
have been found to be very effective during arrest allegations to assist in
disproving them. Information storage for the body cams has become a concern
for IT because storage may be required for 75 years, depending on the type of
event and situation. Chief Kufeld reported the Police Department is one down in
the police officer ranks and in dispatch, interviews continue. He attended the
Women Club meeting to discuss various topics, including neighborhood watch,
vacation checks, dispatch and he would be available to attend other meetings if
contacted.
UTILITIES
Recommendation to the Town Board:
Membrane Replacement at Marys Lake Water Plant – Unbudgeted
Superintendent Boles stated this is an opportunity to purchase three new modules (the
first stage) at a lower price, as the modules currently used no longer exist. Additional
advantage would be the capability of programming all three modules at the same time.
Chair Koenig questioned the possibility of keeping the current membranes in use as
spares. Staff stated this would not be an option as the membranes are not compatible
with the new modules. The lower price would allow all three modules to be replaced for
an additional $120,000 over the budgeted cost of $160,000. Chair Koenig stated this
would be a transfer of funds from the large Maintenance policy and then asked about an
after market for the modules not in use. Superintendent Boles would check into the
option. The committee recommended the Membrane Replacement at Marys Lake
Water Plant, which is unbudgeted, be included as a Consent Item on the Agenda
at the October 25, 2016 Town Board meeting.
17
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – October 13, 2016 – Page 2
Reports
1. Axminister Lane Water Line Replacement Director Bergsten stated this was a
successful and economical project, completed by Town staff. Superintendent
Boles reported the cost was just over $100 per foot, with the average costs on
the last two projects at approximately $300 per foot.
2. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Director Bergsten stated USDA
funding for water projects has given the department the opportunity to review
capital projects at a different scale; however, there are too many projects at
significant cost. Discussion on project priority would be brought to the committee
to prioritize projects and discuss the possibility of rate increases.
PUBLIC WORKS
Reports
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Manager Ash updated the following
projects:
Dry Gulch sanitary sewer line, east of Sombrero, has been completed. Crews
are working to meet the October 26th ribbon cutting deadline for the trail
connection that runs along Highway 34.
Carriage Hills Dam repair should be completed by the end of October. The
department stayed within the grant funding for this project and was able to
push a change order through to dreg the east pond.
Brook Court and Moraine Avenue ditch construction has been completed,
ending the Towns miscellaneous 2013 Flood projects.
The Fish Creek project would start early this fall, run through spring and
summer 2017, with plans to start working on the culverts this winter with the
road and trail work completed next summer.
Brook Drive project continues with no completion date scheduled.
Scott Ponds Water Rights – Manager Ash has met with the water
commissioner and received permission to lower the water level in the east
pond. The augmentation plan should be completed in November 2016 and
allowing water to be added to the ponds.
Fall River Trail final design continues and should be completed by the end of
the year. Once in place the Town would apply for grant funding through Great
Outdoors Colorado. Included in the proposed 2017 budget are dedicated
funds from the 1A Trails Funds to match funds for a grant that would allow the
department to do large portions of the construction. Chair Koenig questioned
if the two bridge abutments that the Town currently has could be used in this
project. Manager Ash stated the consultant tried to retrofit them and found it
would not be cost effective to include the abutments.
Anderson Consultants started fieldwork on the Storm Water Master Plan and
are moving forward into modeling and evaluating the existing system before
making recommendations for improvements. The project is scheduled to go
until September of 2017.
There department received five proposals for the design of the Moraine
Avenue Bridge and a recommendation would be presented to the Town
Board at the October 25, 2016 meeting. The project would go into 2018 with
Moraine Avenue closed at times during construction.
Manager Landkamer provided an update of the RFP issued for the upgrading
and replacing of the Town Hall camera system. Quotes are expected back at
the end of the month, with a possible recommendation in November.
There being no further business, Chair Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:39 a.m.
Tami Doering, Recording Secretary
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 12, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of October, 2016.
Committee: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Holcomb,
Town Administrator Lancaster, and Finance Director
Hudson, and Assistant Finance Officer McDougall
Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Holcomb,
Town Administrator Lancaster, and Finance Director
Hudson; Clifton Larson LLC representatives Paul
Neidermuller and Eric Miller, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Assistant Finance Officer McDougall
Chair Jirsa called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
2015 CAFR AND SINGLE AUDIT REVIEW.
The meeting began with a discussion on what measures could be taken in 2017 to
ensure completion of the CAFR on time and presented to the Board for review and
approval. The Committee suggested a pre-meeting in 2017 be held to outline the audit
process.
Paul Neidermuller/CliftonLarsonAllen reviewed the Independent Auditor’s report for the
2015 audit and single audit in accordance with the auditing standards and the standards
applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards. The
auditing firm of CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP conducted an independent audit of the Town of
Estes Park’s financial statements as of December 31, 2015 and have expressed an
unmodified opinion (clean) that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Discussion followed on the need to include the Estes Park Local Marketing District
(LMD) in the Town’s annual audit under Other Governmental Funds because the District
provides services almost exclusively to the Town, the Town Board approves their
operating budget, and the Town appoints five members of the LMD Board. The auditors
provide a review of governmental accounting practices that begin with expenses
because the entities mission consists of providing services, whereas businesses such
as L&P or Water provide a service for a fee.
The Town adopted GASB 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and
GASB 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement
Date. These standards require the Town to include in its financial statement the liability
of the Town contributing to PERA for the defined benefit pension (net pension liability)
to ensure the Town has funds to offset the unfunded liability. These numbers would
change from year to year; however, the audit demonstrated the Town’s position with the
inclusion of the net pension liability continues to be positive. The majority of
municipalities have seen their positions go negative with the inclusion of the unfunded
liability.
The Town was required to complete a single audit because the Town received more
than $750,000 in federal grant funds. The audit ensures the Town maintains
compliance with all federal guidelines and requirements outlined in the grant
19
Audit Committee – October 12, 2016 – Page 2
requirements. The auditors provided the Town with a clean opinion; however, the
auditors found eight material weaknesses, significant deficiencies or deficiencies:
Journal entries were recorded to the Town’s general ledger in error during the
prior period and in the current year. The Town would review its journal entry
review process.
The Town did not properly record transactions to receivables, unearned revenue
or revenue during the last two fiscal years. Recommend the Town review and
amend its existing procedures to more accurately track grant expenditures and
adjust for the related receivables, unearned revenues, and revenue when
expenditures are incurred.
Capital asset activity was not properly recorded and accounted for related to
donated assets – donated street at a value of approximately $550,000.
Recommend the Town implement a process and procedures for capital asset
additions to ensure all donated assets are properly recorded and a procedure for
removing assets which are no longer used or in service.
Purchases are made by Town departments prior to the Town approving the
related purchase order. Recommend the Town prepare and issue purchase
orders at the time of purchase to ensure the Town remains compliant with
Finance policies and procedures.
Town employees switch positions within Town and their user access to the
financial software has not be revised to reflect their new responsibilities.
Recommend the Town implements procedures to periodically review the user
access rights of all Town employees to ensure unnecessary access rights are
restricted and monitored.
The Town has not followed the Provision of Annual Reports requiring annual
financial reports to be filed as part of continuing disclosures with EMMA within 6
months of the end of the Town’s fiscal year. Recommend the Town review and
implement procedures to ensure the CAFR is filed as part of the continuing
disclosures with EMMA.
The Town did not record $108,000 in liability for maintenance and replacement of
water capital assets by December 31, 2015 as required under GASB 62.
Recommend the Town review its financial closing procedures to ensure all
journal entries are recorded and go through the proper controls prior to posting to
the Town’s general ledger.
The Town’s controls over the review of federal expenditures were not conducted
properly because the Town understood only expenditures for reimbursement
were to be reported on the SEFA; however, under FEMA, expenditures must be
included on the SEFA if FEMA has approved the project worksheet and the Town
has incurred the eligible expenditures. Recommend management strengthen
policies and procedures to address the proper recording on the SEFA.
Other items addressed in the management letter included the control procedures for
offsite locations, especially fairgrounds; yearend financial reporting was not properly
reflected and accounted for with regard to compensated absences and self-insurance
liability balances from 2014 to 2015; financial statement preparation must be completed
internally with proper internal controls in place; capital asset review should include
procedures to address the annual review of depreciation and capital asset schedule;
payroll control procedures should be in place to ensure all hourly employee time sheets
are reviewed and employees are paid the correct amount based on hours worked; the
Town should review its five year contract with Light and Power customers for service
line extensions to ensure all refunds due customers are properly paid and recorded; and
the Town paid excessive overtime to an employee in 2015 which should be monitored in
the future.
Finance Director Hudson stated the number of issues outlined during the audit would be
addressed but may not be fully implemented by the end of 2016 with three-fourths of the
year already complete.
20
Audit Committee – October 12, 2016 – Page 3
After further discussion the Audit Committee recommended the final CAFR and single
audit be forwarded to the Town Board at their October 25, 2016 Town Board meeting.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
21
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 21, 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 21st day of September, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Tom Street
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Cody Walker, Town Board Liaison
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Ann Finley
Brian Wells, Shuttle Director
Belle Morris
Gregg Rounds
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded to approve the August meeting minutes as well as the
minutes of the Special Meeting held on 9/07/16 (Slack/Black) and the motion passed
unanimously.
ESTES VALLEY TRAILS COMMITTEE: Amy Plummer, President. The Public Works
Department shared that they expect to receive $351K in 2017 Open Lands funds and
$440K from 2017 1A Trail Expansion funds. The Estes Valley Recreation and Parks
District Trails Committee has accumulated approximately $800K for work to be
performed on the trails as part of the associated Master Plan. The group discussed
funding options/opportunities to reach the established goals.
1. MacGregor Avenue Trail – The plan discussed is to have a paved trail (multi-
modal) with curb & gutter. The preference would be for 10’ sidewalks with a
gravel shoulder for horses. One idea is for the Town to fund the first mile (within
town limits) and the EV Trails Committee can complete the connection to the
Lumpy Ridge trail head.
2. Fall River Trail – It will require approximately $6M to have this trail connected to
RMNP. One idea is to build the trail in smaller increments – potentially three (3).
If this occurs, there may be an opportunity to earmark/save $200K for the local
match using Open Space funds. The EV Trails Committee could match this for a
22
Transportation Advisory Board – August 17th, 2016 – Page 2
total of $400K. This would provide a 20% local match for a future $1.6M grant
application for each $2M phase.
Chair Campbell expressed concern about the usage for the amount of funds
required for a ¾ mile trail. The primary concern is surrounding citizen perception.
Per EV Trails Committee President, Amy Plummer, the following is how the Committee
prioritized trails for 2017:
x Fish Creek Trail
x Fall River Trail
x Otie’s Trail
x School Zone Improvements
As the Town goes into budget sessions/reviews, they’d like to go to the Town Board
with a level of certainty/decision. The EV Trails Committee will have this information
confirmed in early October (prior to November budget review).
Both entities will draft letters for “team” submittal to Town Board.
PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure:
x The Town has contracted with Heath Construction to be the CM/GC for the
Transit Facility Parking Structure. Heath has valuable local experience in addition
to having close relationships with local contractors. The Town would be
attempting to fund a 4-level structure with a tentative completion date of July
2017.
x Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) Contract – Awarding this contract ensures fair
market value. Company selected is the same company that CDOT hired for the
Highway 34 project as well as multiple other CDOT projects. They have local
pricing experience and will negotiation on owner’s behalf.
Director Muhonen elaborated on the financing RFP for the second phase of the Transit
Facility Parking Structure and explained the Golf Course being used as collateral. Other
questions and ideas came to the table and were discussed with Director Muhonen.
Dynamic Message Board: Director Muhonen’s stated that the Town received another
grant for 2 additional DMB’s:
23
Transportation Advisory Board – August 17th, 2016 – Page 3
x The first sign will be placed on Hwy. 34 near Summit Dr. or on Mall Road off Hwy.
36. It needs to be a place that will allow proper reaction time: 1) identify sign, 2)
read the sign, and 3) react to sign’s message. It will be installed prior to the next
visitor season.
DOWNTOWN LOOP RECOMMENDATONS:
There were two versions of a Memo to the Mayor/Board of Trustees handed out to TAB
– one with more historical discussion and another more concise version for TAB
members to review and comment.
Trustee Walker stated it would be best to remove the paragraph from Version 1 that
suggests the Board proceed with the Loop without a public vote. He commented that
this paragraph directs the Town Board on how to perform their duties as Board
Members. He stated that TAB’s responsibility is to offer guidance to the Trustees
regarding transportation matters, not political processes. The TAB agreed to remove the
paragraph as suggested.
A motion to accept the memo with changes was made and seconded (Hamrick/Zornes),
and the TAB voted 5-2 in favor of sending a memo supporting the Loop to the Town
Board.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:37 pm.
24
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 16, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203, in said Town of Estes Park
on the 16th day of September, 2016.
Present: Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin
Vicki Papineau
Merle Moore
Ronna Boles
Also Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Present: Patrick Martchink, Trustee Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Lars Sage, Arts District
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Porter Florence, Scout
Absent: Carlie Bangs
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:01 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the August meeting minutes
with corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
ARTS DISTRICT UPDATE
Lars Sage updated the PAB that Fun Junkies will not occur this month. He also
informed us of current happenings and upcoming events for the Arts District.
PIKAS IN THE PARK – AIPP:
Town Administrator Lancaster has been working on this proposal for quite some time.
The addition of the bronze pikas in select locations around town will provide fun,
interactive art and will help contribute to a viable downtown keeping kids/families happy.
25
This is to be a family activity – not a revenue stream. Estes Park would be the unique
location in Colorado that has this type of activity. Pikas are unique to alpine regions.
Providing a list of the names and locations of these pikas to visitors, along with a geo-
cache option will take families all over town. Some of the proposed locations may
require private property agreements as they’ll be placed throughout the downtown core
(Kind Coffee to Tregent Park). Once an individual/family has found all pikas, some type
of award will be provided.
Town Administrator Lancaster also provided samples of artwork from a gentleman in
Loveland. All pikas will be different. It is hoped these sculpts will be installed by April,
2017 and Lancaster would like to have it implemented alongside the Centennial work to
occur. There will be annual maintenance work that the Town will adopt as part of its
existing sculpture maintenance.
Terry Rustin made a motion that the PAB encourage Frank to move forward to complete
paperwork and take to town board. The motion was seconded. (Rustin/Lockwood)
Porter Florence Eagle Scout Proposal:
Porter Florence, 16, of Estes Park High School presented his Eagle Scout Project to the
PAB. His project involves work at Carriage Hills Park. He noticed that when he went
down there with his family during the warmer weather that there is no shade and it
became quite hot. His thought is if he plants trees it will help provide the needed shade.
Porter brought it up to his dad then the Town. Based on his discussions, the plan is to
plant ponderosas, cottonwoods, aspens around the perimeter of the playground for
shade as well as a windbreak. Upon approval, his plan for funding is to create a
Facebook ‘Go Fund Me’ page utilizing the Boy Scout emblem. The Scouts will also put
up notifications/flyers, etc.
The initial plan for irrigation is to utilize 55-gallon water drums with gravity feed. There
was heavy group discussion regarding placement of 55-gallon drums and the
aesthetics.
Planting in the spring is best for survival. The Town has agreed to take over the
watering later on if things get dry, etc. Brian Berg suggested going to the Forest
Service (less expensive) to purchase the trees.
Porter also asked if it would be possible to install a water fountain (requiring a tap into
the water main) to allow dogs/kids/parents to get a drink during playground activities.
The PAB agreed it would be a great idea and would help with the watering of the trees.
The problem is the cost to tap into the main (approx. $5,000). Director Muhonen
26
encouraged Porter to continue to pursue this by having discussions with the Utilities
Department about the tap.
PAB agreed this was a great idea and EVRPD is supportive as well. Porter will continue
discussions with the Town of Estes Parks Department to determine the tree species to
be planted. All purchases are dependent on funding.
RIVERWALK INSTRUMENTS VIDEO:
Member Rustin presented YouTube videos of the local high school band members
playing the instruments on the Town’s musical walkway.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE:
Willow Knolls Renaming/Maintenance Goals:
Member Papineau expressed concern about the re-naming of the Willow Knolls
(announced in Town Bugle) to Centennial Park as part of the 2017 Centennial
celebration. Supervisor Berg is aware of this concern and stated that this was simply an
idea and the name change has not happened. Member Papineau provided other name
ideas: ‘Centennial Open Space’ or ‘Centennial Natural Area’. Papineau stated,“It’s not a
football field to be sold. . .” The word “park” depicts playground equipment, etc. which
causes confusion for visitors. She agrees, however, that maintenance needs to take
place in that area. Supervisor Berg will be taking these concerns/ideas to the Centennial
Committee before anything is finalized, and public comment will be solicited as well.
Division of Parks/Museum will present ideas on Centennial purchases (with logo)
contributing 5% to the new natural area.
Other Parks Activities:
The Parks Division removed 2 picnic tables by Kind Coffee due to the decrepit
state of the tables. The tables have been replaced by adirondack chairs.
Flowers around town are being removed due to the seasonal change.
Keri Kelly and Suzanna Simpson are attending the America In Bloom
Symposium in California. The Parks Division is feeling hopeful and confident that
Estes Park will be receiving another award.
Supervisor Berg will be attending the Communities In Bloom/Healthy
Communities Symposium in Regina, Saskatchewan.
27
Tunnel Tile Project: Kristin has received private funding for tile project and 10
boxes of tiles were discovered in storage.
Boot Pump – Owner of this fountain is supportive of it being moved to a better
location. Her only condition is that it must run!
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.
28
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott,
Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison
Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately eight people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, August 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Staff requests to continue this item to the October 18, 2016 Planning
Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment to the
October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS
Planner Chilcott reviewed the data gathering process conducted by staff. Staff inquired with
Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Park Sanitation District, the Town Water Department,
and the Larimer County Assessor regarding data they might be willing to share. The County
Assessor had the most complete data, as other entities did not collect systematic data. Larimer
County collects the following information for each building on a parcel: numbers of bedrooms,
bathrooms, sinks, wet bars, and kitchens (not a complete list). Staff collected data on the
numbers of second kitchen sinks and wet bar sinks in single‐family dwellings. She showed a graph
indicating the number of second kitchen sinks/wet bars by zone district, explaining these numbers
29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
account only for permitted kitchens/wet bars. The breakdown for second kitchen sinks/wet bars
by zone district is as follows: R‐1 = 1, R = 36, E = 95, E‐1 = 120, RE = 45, RE‐1 = 36. Out of
approximately 7,000 parcels, staff determined about five percent (5%) of the housing stock in the
Estes Valley has a single‐family dwelling with a second kitchen sink and/or a wet bar. Planner
Chilcott clarified this does not mean any or all of these homes have accessory dwelling units
(ADUs). The definition of an ADU includes the requirement of a kitchen.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Chilcott stated ADUs tend to be fairly evenly spread across the Estes Valley. There are
approximately 330 dwellings in the valley with second kitchen sinks/wet bars, but there is no way
to determine if they are associated with an ADU. Discussion included, but was not limited to:
Planner Chilcott recalled the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) definition of a kitchen is an
oven, sink, and a refrigerator; the restrictions regarding rentals of ADUs was adopted when the
EVDC was adopted in 2000; an ADU is defined as having living, sanitary, and cooking facilities;
many times ADUs are discovered when the property owner wants to make improvements to
them and applies for a building permit; many people do not realize the rental of ADUs is not
allowed; every community has different regulations, with college towns typically having tighter
restrictions regarding rentals than other communities
Commissioner Moon was concerned about the relaxation of the size requirement, and he would
prefer to leave size out of the discussion when we are trying to collect data. He thought the only
incentive for people to come forward with the knowledge of having an ADU would be the promise
to be grandfathered in if there was a sunset clause. He liked the way it was stated now if a sunset
clause was going to be involved, and 800 square feet seemed acceptable.
Commissioner White stated she was in favor of limiting the size of an ADU to 800 square feet, and
keeping the minimum lot size to 1.33 times the minimum lot size for the zone district. She was
concerned about blanket zoning of ADUs to all zones and lot sizes, stating it would create greater
density in neighborhoods, more parking issues, etc. She was concerned about enforcement. She
stated anything under one acre could be problematic, but would require additional study. She
reminded the Commission the data collected was about sinks, not ADUs.
Director Hunt stated this agenda item could be continued to next month if the Commissioners so
desired. There are currently five zone districts that allow ADUs, and staff could determine how
many potential ADUs could be on parcels that are sized one acre or greater, using the statistics
provided by Planner Chilcott. He stated the data provided today was most likely as much as we
would be able to collect.
County Liaison Michael Whitley stated Larimer County has ADU regulations in the County Land
Use Code. The County Commissioners have concerns about intertwining the ADU issue with
workforce housing and vacation rentals. He has heard there would not be support from at least
two of the County Commissioners unless there were changes to regulations on vacation homes,
including a cap on the number of vacation homes allowed in the Estes Valley. Timelines on
30
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
vacation homes are moving forward, and this and the ADU timeline will converge at some point.
The County Commissioners consider vacation homes and ADUs as being connected. Director Hunt
stated there would be some additional County information available at the October study session.
Public Comment
Pat Newsom/town resident stated single‐family residential zone districts should remain single‐
family, and was concerned about the increased density ADUs could create. There are additions in
town with strict HOA covenants, and other areas built before HOAs were formed, making it
difficult for some neighborhoods to have restrictions.
Jay Heineman/county resident agreed with Mrs. Newsom on the increased density in single‐family
zone districts. There is zoning for a reason, and ADUs should be located in multi‐family zone
districts. He stated it was unfair to the property owners that live here year‐round, the unintended
consequences are numerous and would have a negative impact on single‐family residential
neighborhoods.
John Phipps/town resident agreed with Mr. Heineman. The word “workforce” continues to be
used. The determination of whether or not a member of the “workforce” is living in an ADU is
non‐enforceable. He thought the word “workforce” should not be used. He was concerned about
making a drastic zoning change by changing the uses allowed. This is what happened with
vacation rentals, and he foresees the same issues coming up with ADUs. He stated there is no
distinction between an ADU and a duplex. He encourage the Commissioners to read EVDC 4.3 A,
which lists the purposes of each zone district. It was his opinion any amendment regarding ADUs
would violate these paragraphs. Mr. Phipps asked the Commission to consider the EVDC
definition of a family, and what might happen if the occupancy limit between vacation rentals and
ADUs was greater. He also wondered if it would be possible to have a home with an ADU used as
both a vacation rental and a long‐term rental. He thanked the Commission for their hard work
and effort.
Paul Brown/town resident stated he purchased his lot (in the town limits) in 1994. At that time,
ADUs were allowed on lots the size of his, which was one of the reasons he purchased it. In 2000
that right was removed, and he thinks that resulted in devaluation of his property. He would like
to have that right back so he could build an ADU so his children would have a place to stay. When
he purchased his lot, Larimer County did not allow ADUs. Two months following the purchase, the
County changed their regulations to allow attached ADUs and came through with detached ADU
allowances a few years later. He supports accessory dwelling units. He did extensive research on
ADUs a couple of years ago, and remembered there were approximately 400 attached and
detached ADUs in the Estes Valley. He submitted his research to the Community Development
Department at the time. As a designer and builder, he often receives requests from property
owners for ADUs.
Rita Kurelja/Housing authority stated there is a need for additional housing. The Town
participated with the Housing authority on a community‐wide Housing Needs Assessment, which
31
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
brought about eleven recommendations. One of those was to adopt ADU regulations for
workforce rentals. There are many mountain communities that allow rental of ADUs, and she
stated there are ways workforce housing can be regulated. The housing situation is not going to
be improved with one large step, but rather needs to be done step‐by‐step. Allowing the rental of
ADUs is a small piece of the puzzle. This has been discussed for many years.
Mary Murphy/county resident stated as a realtor, she is very diligent about going on tour of the
new properties on the market to have a good understanding of what the housing inventory is. In
almost 14 years, she has seen very few home with second sinks that also have other kitchen parts
to make them an ADU. One cannot assume that the higher priced homes have attached ADUs,
and stated the majority of second sinks are in wet bars.
Fred Mares/town resident thanked the Commission for the discussion at study session. He was
opposed to this specific issue as a matter of principal; it would change the zone districts, with the
end result being no single‐family zone districts. He thought it was a nice idea, but there was not
much behind the implementation or enforcement. He had many questions: How do you limit
ADUs to long‐term rentals to the local workforce? How do you enforce that? How many are there
in the Estes Valley? If they are already rented, how will they help workforce housing? How will we
collect data? How will we control or limit new ADUs being built, and do we need to keep a limit
on them? He was supportive of workforce housing, but did not see how this will help. He stated
he has been involved with the vacation rental issue and thinks ADUs are totally related to
vacation rentals. He provided some statistics from the Town Clerk’s office regarding vacation
rentals, stating the majority are 2‐4 bedroom homes, which are also where the majority of the
workforce housing needs to live. He stated 12% of those 2‐4 bedroom houses in the Estes Valley
are being rented as vacation rentals. These number directly affect ADUs and workforce housing.
If we really want to be a community, we really need neighborhoods and not just accommodations
zones.
Matthew Heiser/town resident lived in two ADUs when he first moved to the Estes Valley. He did
not attack his neighborhood, and being able to live in an ADU was what made it possible for him
to live here. As a current business owner with eight employees, there are people willing to live at
a camp site in order to work at his business. There is a definite need for workforce housing.
Joe Coop/county resident stated ADUs are already allowed, but only 20% of the properties qualify
to have a legal ADU. There needs to be some way to loosen up the code to allow ADUs. Removing
the minimum lot size is one step towards that change. On a regular basis, Van Horn Engineering
receives requests to design ADUs (mainly detached) for customers. There is a current proposed
project for small units with attached garages on ¼ acre lots with ADUs above the garages. He
stated he would like to add an ADU above his detached garage, but is unable to do so with the
current regulations.
Public comment closed.
32
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to: Attached ADUs are currently allowed, but cannot be
rented; zoning is in place for a reason, and this could have an impact on zoning; people are
shifting to smaller houses; zoning and density are concerns; unintended consequences could have
negative impacts; the sunset clause would not be enforceable; lack of enforcement and increased
density were concerns; concerns about de facto rezoning; concerns about how vacation rentals
will be intertwined with ADUs.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Schneider) to continue this agenda item to the October
Planning Commission meeting, after the Commissioners will have received more information
about the vacation rentals issue and the motion passed 5‐0 with one absent, and Commission
Murphy being absent from the dais at the time of voting.
Director Hunt stated the October Planning Commission Study Session will include discussion
regarding vacation rentals, with an additional Study Session to occur prior to the November
Planning Commission meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Director Hunt reported the County Commissioners voted to approve a code amendment to
the EVDC regarding the sequencing of when a Variance application is reviewed. This will allow
variances to be reviewed at the appropriate places during the review process. Formerly,
variances were always reviewed following final action by the appropriate decision‐making
body.
B. Director Hunt reported the Downtown Plan has been on hold for several months, due to a
transition in consultants. The new consultant’s contract award is on the Town Board agenda
for next Tuesday. The Steering Committee has reviewed the new scope of work with the new
consultant. The new target date for completion of the plan is December, 2017. The results will
be fine‐tuned in‐house, so the presentation to the public will be delayed by a few months. He
stated the goal is to have the Downtown Plan adopted into the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan in the Spring of 2018. Town Attorney White stated the previous consultant’s contract was
terminated for failure to comply with the terms of the contract.
C. Director Hunt reported the Temple residence and Bruell residence variances were approved at
the September Board of Adjustment meeting. A variance request for Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers loading area location was disapproved.
D. Director Hunt reported Rex Poggenpohl was appointed by the County Commissioners as the
newest member of the Board of Adjustment.
E. Commissioner Schneider stated as the Commission prepares for any sessions and discussions,
he did not like surprises. He was not aware of the Brownfield Report (Habitat for Humanity
Development Plan) and did not appreciate being made aware of it during the public hearing.
Director Hunt stated the essence of planning is predictability, and staff would do their best to
alert the Commissioners of all the information in the file. Commissioner White stated it would
have been nice to have known about the erroneous statement made at the Planning
33
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
September 20, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission meeting regarding the Brownfield Report, instead of finding out about it at the
Town Board meeting.
F. Commissioner White stated many times when Planning Commission is the recommending body
to the Town Board, staff presents a lengthy staff report to the Planning Commission, but does
not always present the same, elaborate information to the Town Board. She requested the
Planner making the presentation elaborate more on the Planning Commission decision in the
public hearing. Town Board Liaison Ron Norris stated when there is a difference of opinion, he
generally discusses the matter during the Town Board Study Session, but not at the regular
meeting. He stated it may be more important to bring out those comments during the regular
meeting, not just at study sessions. Director Hunt stated staff is looking to improve internal
procedures and would like to consider adopting “findings of fact” with any motions, which are
different than staff recommendations.
G. Director Hunt stated he is always willing to hear additional feedback from the Commissioners.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
34
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: October 25, 2016
RE: Appeal of decision to approve Development Plan 2016-04 (Habitat for
Humanity and Plan de Salud Del Valley, Inc.):
Background Information and Sample Motions
Background Information:
Three items are attached for background information:
1.The Development Plan approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on
August 16, 2016.
2.Minutes from the August 16, 2016 meeting of the Estes Valley Planning
Commission.
3.Letter from Dennis and Dena Sohocki (et al.) to Estes Park Town Board of
Trustees: “Appeal of the Estes Park Planning Commission and Town Trustee
Decisions…” (September 4, 2016)
Sample Motions:
1.I move to DENY the appeal, affirming the findings of the Estes Valley Planning
Commission and the Commission’s decision to approve Development Plan 2016-14, and
to affirm a Town Board of Trustees finding that the Planning Commission’s determinations
in this matter as identified in the August 16, 2016 Minutes are appropriate and applicable
under the Estes Valley Development Code.
2.I move to APPROVE the appeal, finding that…
[state reasons for approval]
Community Development
Memo
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: 10-25-16
RE: 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Objective: Acceptance of the audit report and the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR), including the Single Audit Report, for the year ended December 31,
2015.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park has an annual audit of its financial statements as required by
State Statute CRS 29-1-603 and, if applicable, the Federal Single Audit Act. These two
bound reports were distributed separately from this packet as well as posted online.
This audit focusses on both the CAFR and the Town’s compliance with federal grant
requirements.
CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, the Town’s auditors, met with the audit committee on October
12, 2016 and went over the CAFR and Single Audit Report for the year ended
December 31, 2015. The independent auditor’s report expressed an unmodified
(“clean”) opinion that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Historically, the CAFR was completed much earlier in the year but due to complications
in some of the year end accounting entries and vacancies within the Finance
Department, completion of the audit, including the single audit compliance work, was
delayed.
These difficulties lead to some of the audit comments found on pages 9-14 of the Single
Audit Report. Areas of concern or suggested improvement include misposted entries;
tracking and recording of grant receivables, unearned revenues and revenues; certain
capital asset entries; purchasing procedure compliance; system access monitoring; long
term debt disclosures; and year end entries. Management is working to address the
concerns and issues noted and these plans were discussed in more detail during the
Audit Committee meeting.
55
To comply with State Statute filing deadlines and also the Single Audit filing deadlines,
the CAFR and Single Audit report have already been filed with the appropriate
agencies. This action item is to formally acknowledge the receipt of the audit by the
Town Board.
Action Recommended:
The audit committee referred the acceptance of the audit report and CAFR for the year
ended Dec 31, 2015 to the Town Board for consideration.
Level of Public Interest
Limited public interest has been expressed to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of accepting the audit report and Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Attachments:
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – Hard copy distributed separately
Federal Awards Report in Accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Grant
Guidance – Hard copy distributed separately
Both of the above are also available online at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensive-annual-
financial-report
56
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: October 25, 2016
RE: Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement – Engineering Design Contract Award
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval for a professional services contract to develop final
engineering plans and specifications and bid documents to redesign the existing box
culvert structure and improve the flow capacity under the Riverwalk crossing of Moraine
Avenue.
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 $2.0
million-dollar bridge replacement in downtown Estes Park could consume a project
manager nearly full time for the duration of the project. Public Works received
additional grant funding for a project manager and in August 2016, the Town contracted
with Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying. Now we look forward and take the next
step and that is to proceed with development of engineering plans, specifications and
bid documents for construction of the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.
In addition to providing increased flow capacity, the concept of integrating a pedestrian
underpass will be considered during the design.
Proposal:
On September 13, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Proposal and five firms
responded. A review team that included Public Works Engineering Manager Kevin Ash,
Project Manager Mike Todd, Town Floodplain Manager Tina Kurtz and Public Works
Flood Recovery Associate Samantha Phillips rated each of these 5 firms to select the
most qualified. Proposals were rated on 5 categories:
1. Project Team Qualifications (30 pts);
2. Relative Project Examples/References (30 pts);
3. Responsiveness to Project Schedule/Project Approach (30 pts);
4. Proposal Accuracy/Completeness/Presentation (5 pts);
5. Budget Adherence (5 pts);
The following chart contains the ratings for each of the firms:
57
Firm Name City Ranking (Avg Score)
RockSol Consulting Group, Inc. Westminster 1 (88.5)
Lamp Rynearson Fort Collins 2 (84.4)
JUB Engineers, Inc Fort Collins 3 (83.5)
EST Denver 4 (82.4)
Matrix Design Group Denver 5 (79.6)
After the evaluations were complete, RockSol Consulting Group, Inc. out of
Westminster was the highest ranked firm out of the 5 review categories. RockSol
ranked either #1 or #2 on all 4 of the reviewer scoresheets. All 5 firms showed
adequate expertise to complete the design, but what separated RockSol from the other
4 was the level of detail in the Project Approach. They provided a concept plan that
demonstrated a thorough understanding of the “project’s critical issues”. Their proposal
showed an understanding of the in-progress hydrology study and they proposed a
preliminary design that could convey the 50-year storm. Their proposal considered
impacts to adjacent property during construction. They conceptually considered how a
pedestrian walkway could be integrated into the final structure. Their team also
included a subconsultant to address aesthetic treatments for the bridge structure.
The RockSol proposal showed favorably with the inclusion of subconsultant Anderson
Consulting Engineers who was recently awarded the Town’s Stormwater Master Plan
contract. RockSol is familiar with the area and currently an active subconsultant with
both the Highway 34 and Highway 7 projects. The schedule delivered in their proposal
will have final approved engineering plans and bid documents complete by July 2017.
This will schedule
Advantages:
• Redesign and capacity improvement of this bridge is a key piece to improving the
flow of Fall River through downtown.
• The Grant Agreement for funding this project has been executed.
• To ease staff workload, Grant funding for Project Management was obtained and
contracts executed.
• Potential pedestrian underpass would provide a safe corridor to minimize
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
Disadvantages:
• While providing a needed benefit to convey a larger flow under Moraine Avenue,
construction of this project through the winter months will impact vehicular traffic
and pedestrian traffic through the downtown business district.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, and meet funding
requirement goals of final engineering completion by August, 2017, Staff recommends
awarding a professional services contract for the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement–
Engineering Design Project to RockSol Consulting Engineers in the amount of
$240,000. This contract will be managed by Cornerstone Engineering, administered
through the Public Works Department by Engineering Manager Kevin Ash.
58
Budget:
The Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project will be funded from a $2,000,000
CDBG-DR grant awarded to the Town through a Community Development Block Grant
–Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR). The initial encumbrance of federal funds obligated is
$240,000 – which is designated for engineering design. Funding dollars for the project
will reside in the Community Reinvestment Fund 204 Budget.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project is expected to be high. This project has direct impacts to
traffic flow, pedestrian flow and downtown activity.
Sample Motion:
I move to for approval/denial of a professional services contract for the Moraine Avenue
Bridge Replacement–Engineering Design Contract, to RockSol Consulting Group, Inc
for a project cost not to exceed $240,000.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Project Concept Map
Other References:
Exhibit B – Professional Services Contract
Exhibit C – Town Issued Request for Proposal
Exhibit D – RockSol submitted proposal
59
MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT APPROACH | PAGE 22 PROJECT CRITICAL ISSUES RockSol has identified several critical issues which must be considered during the design. Our team is adept at anticipating and evaluating factors impacting project goals. Hydraulic Opening Constraint Our solution to the problem of the hydraulic opening constraint is to drop the structure to lower the channel and design the width of the box culvert to match the channel upstream and downstream. This option achieves a larger hydraulic opening. CLEAVE STREET W. ELKHORN AVENUEPedestrian Trail We do not anticipate any impact to the pedestrian walk on the south side of Fall River. Detour Plans We understand the need for clear detour plans since the project is located in the downtown area of Estes. Our goal is to detour traffic off Moraine Avenue to increase construction efficiency and minimize the Moraine Avenue closure. Height and Width Constraints We understand there are height and width constraints associated with this bridge design. Our solution is to design a post-tension top slab to achieve minimum depth for the 23-foot wide single-cell box culvert. Adjacent Property One challenge associated with a constrained hydraulic opening is the potential for flooding adjacent properties. Our solution is to increase the hydraulic opening which will then accommodate the 100-year flood. We will also work to avoid any additional impacts to property within the project site. 60
RESOLUTION # 19-16
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Local Marketing District has filed with the Town Clerk
the Estes Park Local Marketing Business and Operating Plan for 2017 along with its
proposed budget for the 2017 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29-25-110 C.R.S. and the applicable provision
of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 26, 2008, between the Town of
Estes Park and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, the Town
Board shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan within thirty (30) days after
receipt of said Plan, the proposed budget and all additional documentation
requested by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Operating Plan and proposed
budget and has determined that the Operating Plan will provide efficient and cost
effective marketing and promotion services for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1.The Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2017
as filed with the Town Clerk is hereby approved.
Dated this___________________________, 2016.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
61
62
RESOLUTION NO. 20-16
A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CONGRESS TO CREATE A RELIABLE,
PREDICTABLE STREAM OF RESOURCES AND PROMOTE 21st CENTURY
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS IN AMERICA’S
NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, America’s National Park System is a living testament to our citizen’s
valor, our nation’s hardships, our victories, and our traditions as Americans, and has been
called "America’s Best Idea;” and
WHEREAS, the National Park System preserves the diversity, culture, and heritage
of all Americans, and serves as a living classroom for future generations; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the National Park Service is celebrating its centennial and
currently manages more than 400 nationally significant sites and an invaluable collection of
more than 75,000 natural and cultural assets that span 84 million acres across all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories and insular areas; and
WHEREAS, Colorado is home to 13 national park units, including Rocky Mountain
National Park, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, as well as monuments like
Dinosaur and Florissant Fossil Beds. The Town of Estes Park is a gateway community to
Rocky Mountain National Park and benefits greatly from the tourism associated with
visitors to the park; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service’s mission is to “to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations;” and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the National Park System had more than 307 million visitors
with 7.07 million of them going to national parks in Colorado, and over 4.1 million to Rocky
Mountain National Park; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, National Park Service estimates indicate that park visitors
spent more than $450 million in Colorado at the sites and local communities adjacent to
national parks, including over $268 million in the Estes Park-area; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service has the obligation to preserve our nation’s
history; promote access to national parks for all citizens; stimulate revenue to sustain itself
and nearby communities; educate the public about America’s natural, cultural and
historical resources, and provide safe facilities and environs to enjoy these resources; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the National Park Service estimated a deferred maintenance
backlog of nearly $12 billion, over $200 million in Colorado, and $63 million at Rocky
Mountain National Park, which includes repairs to aging historical structures, trails, sewers,
63
drainage, thousands of miles of roads, bridges, tunnels, and other vital infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of Congress to maintain America’s national parks
to ensure our natural places and our history is preserved and documented for future
generations, and for the adjacent communities that rely on the direct and indirect economic
benefits generated by visits to national park sites; and
WHEREAS, reliable, dedicated funding from Congress will enable the National Park
Service to plan for the maintenance and management of the more than 75,000 assets
under its care; and
WHEREAS, common-sense policy reforms, such as expanded opportunities for
public-private partnerships and innovative cost-saving measures, can complement
dedicated funding and enable the National Park Service to address the repair backlog.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK do hereby urge Congress to create a reliable, predictable
stream of resources and consider 21st century policy reforms and solutions to address
deferred maintenance needs in America’s National Park System.
DATED this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
64
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 21, 2016
RE: Downtown Plan Appointment and Interview Team
Objective:
To consider the need to appoint an eleventh member to the Downtown Plan Committee
because of a resignation, and if the Board decides to fill the position the Board would
need to appoint 2 members to the interview team.
Present Situation:
The Downtown Plan Steering Committee was formed with the passage of Resolution
#16-15 by the Town Board at the October 13, 2015 meeting. The committee was to
consist of no more than eleven (11) committee members appointed by the Town Board
and four (4) members appointed by staff. The Board appointed eleven (11) members to
the committee in January 2016 and since that time one member of the committee has
resigned because they were not able to make the meetings. Staff did not appoint the
four (4) additional members.
Proposal:
With new staff in Community Development, a new consultant hired to complete the
project, and six Steering Committee meetings already held, both staff and the Committee
would recommend moving forward with the current ten (10) members that have been
working together for the past 9 months. It is staff’s opinion the committee size is
appropriate and an even number of members should not be a concern as voting would
not take place, rather consensus on issues would be reached. The committee
consensus was to move forward with the current ten (10) members because there was
concern on the burden of bringing a new member up to speed on the issues already
addressed by the committee.
If the Board would like to advertise and appoint the eleventh member, staff would
advertise the open position, hold interviews and bring forward a recommendation to the
Board at the November 8, 2016 meeting. This would allow the new member to attend
the November 9, 2016 committee meeting. Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants
for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee.
Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board. Therefore, the Board would need to
approve the appointment of two (2) Board members to the interview team.
65
Advantages:
•To clarify the need to appoint the eleventh member to the Committee,and if needed,
to appoint a qualified individual to the committee to move the Downtown Plan process
forward.
Disadvantages:
•None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Downtown Plan Committee continue without the appointment of
the eleventh member and move forward with the completing the Downtown Plan with the
current ten members.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Downtown Plan Committee’s eleventh member not be
replaced and the Downtown Plan Committee move forward with ten members.
or
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to
the Downtown Plan Committee interview panel.
66