HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-02-09The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, February 9, 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.
EDC Liaison Report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 26, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
January 26, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, January 28,
2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated December 1, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM TWO 16, INC., DBA THE OTHER SIDE OF
ESTES TO DEER RIDGE, INC., DBA THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT, 900
MORAINE AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
Prepared 2/1/16
* Revised 2/4/16
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. RIVERVIEW PINES TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & AMENDED
PLAT. Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest
Subdivision & Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue;
Frederick Kropp/Applicant. Planner Kleisler.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AGGREGATE STORAGE BUILDING FEE WAIVER. Planner Gonzales.
2. SCOTT POND DAM MODIFICATION DESIGN CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER.
Manager Ash.
3. RESOLUTION #03-16 REAPPROPRIATION OF 2015 ENCUMBERED FUNDS
“ROLLOVERS” TO 2016 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland.
4. POLICY #660 FUND BALANCE. Finance Officer McFarland.
5. POLICY #601 PURCHASING LIMITS. Finance Officer McFarland.
6. POLICY #602 LOCAL PREFERENCE. Finance Officer McFarland.
7. ORDINANCE #02-16 – FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
STANLEY PARK WITH THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT. Attorney White.
8. MAYOR RIGHT TO VOTE (CRS 31-4-302 – MAYOR - POWERS). Attorney White.
9. RESOLUTION #04-16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULES. Planning
Consultant Mallory Baker.
Development Review Fee Schedules.
Sign Permit Fee Schedule.
Floodplain Permit Fee Schedule.
10. ORDINANCE #03-16 BUILDING PERMIT FEE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION.
Planning Consultant Mallory Baker & Chief Building Official Birchfield.
11. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW TEAM APPOINTMENT.
Town Clerk Williamson
5. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 26, 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 26th day of January 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen read a prepared statement on expectations and heritage
related to the voter approved contract to sell Lot 4, Stanley Historic District to Grand
Heritage LLC (Stanley Hotel). She stated concern with the Estes Park Medical Center
building a Wellness Center on property they do not own, and stated a well thought out
business plan should have been developed prior to entering into the agreement. She
raised concerns that all aspects of the sell/contract can be changed, such as the lease
agreement with the hospital. The voters were deceived and what was approved has not
been upheld.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated Rocky Mountain National Park experienced record visitation in
2015 and continues to fill the parking lots on the weekends through the winter. The Visit
Estes Park Board would hold one meeting per quarter in the Board room. County
Commissioners held a meeting to receive additional public comment on vacation homes
with approximately 100 attending.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented Sister Cities would travel to Monte Verde to sign a
new 10 year Memorandum of Understanding with the Town confirming its intent to
continue the sister cities relationship. A Monte Verde contingent will visit Estes Park in
March for the Town’s formal signing of the agreement. The Venture Scouts are taking a
group to Monte Verde to participate in the ecosystem studies in March.
Trustee Phipps informed the public of a joint study session meeting of the County
Commissioners, Town Board and Planning Commission on February 2, 2016 to discuss
vacation homes. The February Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.
Trustee Nelson thanked staff for a successful Winterfest and congratulated the Mayor
on his 2nd place chili.
Trustee Ericson stated the Community Development and Community Services meeting
would be held on January 28, 2016. The Transportation Advisory Board has three
openings on the Board. He encouraged the citizens to be involved and apply for the
Board.
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 2
Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the 2016 election, stating the Mayoral
candidates included Christine Heiberger, Todd Jirsa and Chuck Levine, and the Trustee
candidates are Charley Dickey, Paul Fishman, Patrick Martchink, Jessica McGee, Ron
Norris, Joseph Placek and Cody Walker.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report – Administrator Lancaster reported compliance with
the financial budgeting with the exception of maintaining a 25% fund balance
because of flood related expenses. Current fund balance is approximately 17%
with an end of year budget estimate of 20%.
Larimer County Childcare Assistance Program – The County has agreed to
provide assistance completing CCAP applications and assist with other services
on the third Thursday of the month beginning February 18, 2016 at the Larimer
County Health and Human Services office on Brodie. He thanked Nancy Almond
of EVIC for bringing the request forward and the County for their support and
quick response in providing the service to the Estes Park community.
Downtown Plan Final Scope and Schedule – The consultant and staff have
completed a final scope for the Downtown Plan project, and staff would hold its
first meeting in February with the consultant and the steering committee.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
January 12, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee, January 14, 2016.
1. Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project Change Order #3 –
Fransworth Group, $6,460 – Street Improvement Fund.
2. 2013 Flood Repair Material Testing Change Orders #1, #2 and #3 –
Ground Engineering, $19,566, $4,000 and $5,000 - Street Fund.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated December 16, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated December 18, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Library Reappointment of Kaye Orten for a four year term
beginning January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. Correction to Bill
Gerritz’s appointment to complete Peter Plaut’s appointment to end
December 31, 2017.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. RIVERVIEW PINES TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & AMENDED
PLAT, Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest
Subdivision & Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue;
Frederick Kropp/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. Item Continued to February
9, 2016, at the applicant’s request. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Planning Commission Consent Item
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 3
with the findings an conditions recommended by the Estes Valley
Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2015-01, ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER, 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue; Estes Performance Inc./Applicant.
Planning Consultant Mallory Baker presented the application stating the
Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Amended Plat and Special Review
applications are intended to accommodate a mixed-use building comprised
of a 760-seat performing arts center, a 20-unit hotel and accessory space, a
bar, restaurant, and Winter Garden, and a spa. She pointed out the key
issues of the applications include the unique site characteristics, the
dedicated Riverwalk easement to the Town to provide future connectivity
along Fall River, and the need to mitigate parking congestions in the
downtown core. A portion of the building would be located on 7,775 square
feet of the Riverside parking lot owned by the Town for which an Option to
Purchase Real Estate Agreement has been entered into. Parking mitigation
strategies include shared parking agreements with downtown private
parking lots, the School District lots, a potential agreement with the Town for
use of parking lots near the property for a fee, and a potential capital
contribution to the Town for a future designed and approved public parking
structure. One or all of the strategies should be formalized in the
Development Agreement as a condition of approval. The Special Review
application requests three variances from the Board of Adjustment,
including a height variance, a river setback, and an exterior lighting
variance. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of
the Special Review and Amended Plat with conditions of approval at their
December 15, 2015 meeting. Construction of the project may begin within
the next three and half years and the facility, once commenced, would be
built in 18 months.
The Board provided comment and questions including the project has been
well conceived and the application has addressed the need for height,
mitigated parking concerns, and demonstrated how it would generate
revenue; the timeline for construction would be a significant disadvantage;
and questioned if spanning the river would be problematic in light of the
recent 2013 flooding of the area. Planner Baker stated the applicant would
be widening the channel and have mitigated staff’s concerns related to the
flow in through the area. A floodplain permit would be reviewed by a
number of agencies including the Town officials prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Stan Black/EPIC Board Chair stated the development would be consistent
with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, zoning district, Town Strategic
Plan and the EDC Strategic Plan. The Elkhorn frontage would allow for
commercial leases which would fund the operations of the theater with no
additional funds needed from the local government or other entities. To
further address parking issues outlined by staff, a valet would be onsite to
park hotel guest vehicles in the basement parking lot, consideration on the
time of day for scheduling shows, shuttles to offsite parking lots, and
relocation of employee parking offsite. Four neighborhood meetings were
held to address concerns related to parking, the exterior of the building, and
commercial uses within the building. Through site surveys it was
determined the neighboring structures encroached upon the site. The
exhaust fan on the side of the Carmel Crisp would be relocated to the roof
of the building at the applicant’s expense.
Tom Doherty/EPIC Vice President presented the economic impacts of the
project including the intrinsic value of the arts on the culture of the town, the
competition from other communities, and would provide the nearly 4 million
visitors to the area with additional entertainment options. The theater would
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 4
provide a year-round entertainment venue used by local performers as well
as talent from around the country. The theater would have an overall
economic impact of over $9 million to the local economy.
Roger Thorp/EPIC Member and Architect provided a review of the building
stating the Elkhorn frontage has been updated since the neighborhood
meetings to include a modern mountain structure with a brick façade on the
Rockwell frontage. The winter garden would be built along the river running
through the building in celebration of the river.
Those speaking in favor of the project included Jon Nicholas/EDC Executive
Director, Ron Wilcocks/Downtown business owner, Paul Fishman/Town
citizen, Pat Nelson and Craig Soderberg/Estes Arts District, Greg
Steiner/Town citizen, Scott Webermeier/Visit Estes Park, Kirby
Hazelton/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, Diane Muno/Downtown
business owner, and Adam Shake for Charley Dickey/Town citizen. The
EDC identified the performing art center as a key component in the
development of their strategic plan to aid the economy and brand the
community. The project would impact the downtown business views;
however, the economic impact outweighs the views and would bring new
jobs, new restaurants, and businesses. Studies have demonstrated the
cultivation of the arts would bolster the economy, provide jobs, vitalize the
town, and improve the quality of life for the residents of the town. The center
would aid in the Creative Arts in acquiring the designation from the State for
a Colorado Creative Arts District. The center would provide a year-around
economy and attract new visitors to the town. The project would provide a
positive redevelopment of a downtown site for the community.
Trustee Ericson congratulated the EPIC on the development of an
extraordinary project and thanked Sharon Seeley for providing the property
for the project. He questioned where EPIC stood on fundraising efforts.
Stan Black/EPIC Board Chair stated the fundraising efforts were placed on
hold after the flood as it was unknown if the project would receive approval
to be built over a river post flood. EPIC would begin fundraising efforts in
March to participate in an investor market place with the approval of the
project by the Town. The project can sustain low income loans because of
the income the property would generate. The project would require $14
million in fundraising to be built.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Holcomb)
the application substantially meets the review criteria, and moved to
approve the Special Review 2015-01 and the Amended Plat for the
Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
B. AMENDED PLAT, ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER;
Lots 17-19, Block 5, Town Of Estes Park & Lot 34 & A Portion Of Lot 33,
2nd Amended Plat Of Riverside Subdivision, And A Portion Of Land Within
The Banks Of Fall River; 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue; Estes Performance
Inc./Applicant. Action was taken for the item under the Special Review
2015-01.
C. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER,
Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, 520 Steamer Parkway. Attorney White
reviewed the promissory note between the Town and the Stanley for Lot 4,
Stanley Historic District. The contract for $1.65 million was approved by the
voters with $1 million transferred at closing on April 22, 2014 and a
promissory note for $650,000 if a Wellness Center building permit was not
in place within two years from closing. The note contained a provision to
forego $375,000 if the Medical Center began construction within 2 years
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 5
and not the Stanley Hotel. The conditions of the contract cannot be altered
without a vote of the citizens.
Betty Hull/Planning Commission Chair questioned why the revised project
design was not remanded back to the Planning Commission for review as a
new application. The Commission did not review or make a
recommendation on the new project design for a height variance of five-six
feet and the removal of the fourth floor. The Commission views this as a
procedural violation and would request the application be sent back to the
Commission for review. Attorney White stated no legal requirement exist
requiring the application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to
the Town Board.
Planning Consultant Mallory Baker reviewed the revised application which
includes a conversion of a portion of the Accommodation building currently
under construction to a wellness center use on the ground floor; addition of
two (2) ground floor exterior patios to be used for wellness center
programming; addition of a 3,560 square foot outdoor deck area on the
third-floor roof and 246 square foot walkway to said deck, to be used for
wellness center programming; authorization of a height greater than 30 feet
to accommodate two stair bump outs providing access to the third-floor roof
and proposed deck; and authorization to remove a previous condition of
approval that prohibited outdoor activities. The original application was
denied by the Planning Commission for a fourth story stating the application
did not comply with Special Review criteria to the maximum extent feasible,
alternatives were not fully reviewed and economics was an overriding factor.
Removal of the fourth floor resulted in a 93-95% reduction in volume of the
building over 30 feet. The revised request would require a maximum of six
and half feet for one of the two stairwell bump outs. By adding vertical
height rather than expanding the building footprint, the applicant’s proposal
effectively limits impervious coverage on the site and maximizes open
space. The third floor roof deck would be used for wellness programming
such as yoga and other outdoor fitness classes and gatherings. Staff
recommends a condition of approval to limit outdoor activity to wellness
center uses as articulated in the Statement of Intent and prohibit amplified
sound. The applicant’s current parking infrastructure would be insufficient
for wellness programming to be offered to clients not staying at the hotel.
Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a parking and shuttling
plan be reviewed should the programming change to include services to
clients off property.
Trustee Norris questioned the need for a height variance; what other
mitigating steps had been taken to address the need; and how the variance
was vital to the hotel or the wellness programming. He did not have
concern with the use request or the outside ground uses for the patio
requested in the application. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the need
for two stairwell access points. Staff stated the building code requires two
means for egress.
Lucia Lily/Stanley representative commented the applicant requested the
amendments to the Special Review to allow the wellness uses on the first
floor and fourth story of the accommodation building by the hospital. The
request was modified after the Planning Commission recommendation of
denial and with the recent decision of the Medical Center to renew their
fundraising campaign for a standalone wellness facility on Lot 4. The
applicant’s revised request removes the fourth floor and adds the use of the
third floor for wellness activities on the roof deck. The stairwell bump outs
are required to be enclosed per the building code. The stairwells have been
designed with a block design and an angle design for the Board’s
consideration. The Town’s consultant has recommended the block design
and one color design to minimize the impact of the bump outs. The removal
of the fourth floor significantly reduces the impact to the neighboring
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 6
properties. The first floor would be used to incubate a wellness program to
include research, consultation, lab services, testing, massage and recovery.
The rooftop deck may provide exercise, meditation and yoga activities. The
Medical Center could brand wellness and continue to work on their wellness
initiative. The program could help the Medical Center with their fundraising
efforts. It is anticipated the rooftop deck would be used 80 to 100 days a
year.
John Cullen/Stanley Hotel owner stated the rooftop deck would be a selling
feature because of the view and experience. The first floor wellness center
would be located in a 9 foot high basement. The original request for the
fourth floor would have allowed programming 365 days a year versus 100
days for an outdoor deck. The height variance request should be
considered de minimis. The surrounding landscaping would not impact the
view corridor as the fat boy spruces would only grow to 24 feet providing
privacy for the hotel guests.
Chuck Levine/EPMC Board of Director thanked John Cullen for his efforts to
ensure a wellness program in Estes Park. He confirmed the Medical Center
has retained a new fundraiser to raise the necessary funds to build a
standalone Wellness Center; however, the Center stands behind the efforts
of the Stanley to introduce a wellness program with a change in use within
the accommodation building. He presented a check for $325,000 for a 49
year ground lease on Lot 4 for the Wellness Center to be built by the
Medical Center.
Ken Teselle/Estes Park Medical Center Foundation President stated the
Foundation passed a resolution committing $325,000 in unrestricted funds
to the Estes Park Medical Center in support of the Wellness Center.
Those speaking against the Special Review included Ed Hayek/Town
citizen presented by Larry Allen/Town citizen, Jean McGuire/Town citizen,
Barb Davis/Town citizen presented by Jeanne Allen/Town citizen, Doug
Warner/Town citizen, Pat Blume/Town citizen, and Johanna Darden/Town
citizen. The voter intent would not be supported by the request for a height
variance and outdoor activities which would be detrimental to the
surrounding properties. The community has not been afforded time to
review the revised application. The Planning Commission should review the
application prior to consideration by the Town Board. The height variance
and outdoor deck would not be critical to the success of the accommodation
use. The applicant was aware of the development and building codes prior
to the purchase of the property. The applicant should build the initial plan
approved by the voters and not be allowed to exceed the 30 foot height
regulation. The Board should uphold the Planning Commission’s
recommendation of denial.
Those speaking in favor of the Special Review included Paul Fishman/Town
citizen, Frank Dumont/Town citizen, Jon Nicholas/EDC Executive Director,
Diane Muno/Town citizen and downtown business owner, and Craig
Soderberg/Town citizen. A destination wellness center would fuel
community wellness in Estes Park; however, with the delays the Medical
Center has moved forward in taking care of its employees through the CU
State of Slim Wellness program. This has provided data to use in the
development of a Wellness Center by the hospital in the future. These
services can be provided in the accommodation building now while the
Medical Center fundraises to build the standalone building. The Avalanche
report highlighted wellness as an economic driver for Estes Park. Local
support for wellness would allow the Medical Center to apply for a 25% tax
credit. The reduction of nearly 95% of the impact in the height request is
significant. The downtown theater project has requested a significant height
variance and there was no public comment against the request.
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 7
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the
continuation of the meeting past 10:00 p.m. until the agenda is
complete, and it passed unanimously.
Rebecca Urquhart/Ed & Marlene Hayek and Barbara Davis representative
officially objected to the Special Review. She questioned the third floor
activities on the accommodation building and stated the Medical Center can
provide the third floor activities on their standalone building. She asserted
the applicant has not demonstrated to the maximum extent possible they
have mitigated concerns to the fullest extent possible. The Board has
restricted outdoor uses twice during the development plan and the initial
change to the accommodation building. The stairwells and railings are
above the 30 foot height limit and would adverse impact her clients. She
stated the Special Review process is limited to uses and not to height
variances. The Development Code allows for a slope allowance not allowed
by the Stanley Historic District; however, the Development Code would
require a height variance through the Board of Adjustment. She stated she
has filed an appeal of the request and commented the public has not been
allowed due process to review the revised plan.
Lucia Lily stated the only process that could be used for a height variance in
the Stanley Historic District is a Special Review. The applicant has
removed the most contentious portion of the request by removing the fourth
floor. Mr. Cullen stated he needs the rooftop area to make the wellness
program work in Estes Park. If the plan does not receive approval he would
build additional rooms for the hotel.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Norris) to refer the application back
to the Planning Commission for review at their February meeting, and
the motion failed with Trustees Phipps, Koenig and Norris voting “Yes” and
Trustee Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson and Mayor Pinkham voting “No”.
It was moved by Trustee Norris the application substantially meets the
review criteria, and move to approve the Amended Special Review
2014-01C for the Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the
deletion of the third floor deck, removal of the stairwell bump outs and
remain at the 30 feet. The motion failed due to a lack of a second.
It was moved and seconded (Ward/Ericson) the application
substantially meets the review criteria, and move to approve the
Amended Special Review 2014-01C for the Aspire Wellness Complex
at the Stanley with the conditions recommended by staff, and the
motion passed with Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson and Pinkham voting
“Yes” and Trustee Koenig, Norris and Phipps voting “No”.
Mayor Pinkham called a break at 10:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #01-16 – AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.20 –
BUSINESS LICENSES AS IT RELATES TO VACATION HOMES AND FEE
SCHEDULE. Planner Kleisler presented Ordinance #01-16 amending the
Municipal Code to set a separate business license fee for vacation homes with
proceeds to offset administrative cost and proactive code enforcement directly
related to the use within Town limits. Staff conducted a fee structure analysis
and recommended a tiered fee structure of $200 per unit and $50 per bedroom
with no cap on the fee. The new fee structure would increase fee collection by
approximately $30,000. The additional funds would be used to hire a new
seasonal code enforcement officer to address compliance issues related to
vacation homes. Staff would assess the fee on the number of bedrooms
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 8
identified by the Larimer County Assessor, regardless if the number of
bedrooms would exceed the number of allowable guests. For example, a 5
bedroom house would be assessed a $450 business license fee but would be
limited to the maximum of eight guests.
Tony Schetzsle/Town citizen stated he moved into a residential and not a
commercial zoned district and would recommend a flat fee for vacation homes
with a limit of eight guests no matter the size of the home. He would not
support the proposed ordinance which would allow the Board to consider higher
occupancy in the future.
Attorney White read Ordinance #01-16. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #01-16 with an emergency clause
to allow the Clerk’s office to invoice vacation homes for 2016
immediately, and it passed unanimously.
2. MAYOR RIGHT TO VOTE (CRS 31-4-302 – MAYOR - POWERS).
Attorney White stated the voting right of the Mayor is set by state statute
Section 31-4-302 and allows the Town to adopt an ordinance to limit the
Mayor’s right to vote in cases of a tie only. This further allows the Mayor to
veto any ordinance adopted and all resolutions authorizing the expenditure of
money or the entering into of a contract approved by the Board. The Town has
operated since at least 1961 with the Mayor voting only in the case of a tie.
The state statute allows the ordinance to be amended or repealed only within
sixty days preceding an election of the mayor and would take effect upon the
elected Mayor taking office. If modified to allow the Mayor to vote on all issues,
the authority to veto would be eliminated.
Mayoral candidates Chuck Levine and Todd Jirsa both spoke in favor of
allowing the Mayor the right to vote on all issues.
Discussion followed amongst the Board with Mayor Pinkham stating concern
that an opinionated mayor may direct the vote of the rest of the Board; Trustees
Holcomb and Norris would support the Mayor’s right to vote on all issues;
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson would not support a change to the
ordinance. As a formal recommendation could not be reached the Board
requested the item be continued to the next meeting to allow further public
comment and consideration.
3. RESOLUTION #02-16 - BARNES DANCE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST TO
CDOT AT RIVERSIDE/ELKHORN AND ELKHORN/MORAINE. Director
Muhonen presented a request to CDOT to reinstate the Barnes Dance or
pedestrian scramble to the Elkhorn intersections at Riverside Drive and
Moraine Avenue. The two intersections were updated in 2010 to construct turn
lane, access ramp improvements and upgraded traffic signal controls
eliminating the Barnes Dance and allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection
side-streets by traveling parallel to the through-traffic during the green light
phases of the traffic signal program. During the 2015 season a study was
conducted a comparative measurement evaluation of traffic delay, traffic
volume, and vehicular backup of both the Barnes Dance and conventional
crossing operations. The study found the vehicular delays were increased by
22% and the pedestrian crossing was increased by 7%. The Police department
and the Transportation Advisory Board requested the Barnes Dance be
reinstated as it provides a safer environment for pedestrians and a unique
guest experience. CDOT has declined to reinstate the Barnes Dance as their
mission is to improve vehicular flow on the highway system, and further
consideration of the issue would need to be directed to the CDOT Region 4
Director. The PUP Committee requested the reinstatement of the Barnes
Dance be considered by the full Board at their January 14, 2016 meeting. Staff
recommended a Resolution to provide the Town Administrator the authority to
enter into discussions with CDOT to reinstate the Barnes Dance by May 27,
2016, and direct CDOT Traffic Operations staff to perform periodic evaluations
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 9
and adjustments to the signal timing plan to optimize service delivery to
vehicular and pedestrian users in the two intersections.
Police Chief Kufeld stated during his 20 plus years of service in Estes Park, he
has observed the Barnes Dance effectively move traffic and pedestrians
through the intersections in a safe manner. If approved the Police would place
a Community Service Officer (CSO) in the intersection during the peak hours of
the summer and fall seasons.
Kent Smith/Town citizen and Jenna MacGregor/Town citizen stated concern
with moving pedestrians in a safe manner and reducing the incidences of
potential accidents between vehicles and pedestrians. They would support the
reinstatement of the Barnes Dance to the intersections.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Resolution #02-
16 and authorize the Town Administrator to submit the Barnes Dance
reinstatement request to the CDOT Region 4 Director, and it passed with
Trustee Ericson voting “No”.
4. HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR FALL RIVER, UPPER BIG THOMPSON RIVER,
BLACK CANYON CREEK & DRY GULCH CONTRACT AWARD. The study
would refine the current, best available hydrology data from the post-flood
CDOT study for Fall River, Upper Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and
Dry Gulch allowing the Town to make informed decisions to protect the
community, infrastructure and environment. The project results would conform
to all federal, state standards including the modeling and mapping standards of
FEMA and CWCB. The results would be provided to the federal, state and
local agencies and used by the state to remap the regulatory floodplain
boundaries. A Request for Proposals was issued on December 8, 2015 and
five proposals were received and ranked by the selection committee. Wright
Water Engineering, Inc. was selected by the committee. If approved the
company would begin work in February with a completion date set for May 31,
2016. The project is 100% grant funded through a Community Development
Block Grant – Disaster Recovery through the Department of Local Affairs in the
amount of $105,800. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve a professional service contract for the Fall River, Upper Big
Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study
with Wright Water Engineers, Inc. with the project cost not to exceed
$105,800, and it passed unanimously.
5. LARIMER COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT. Administrator Lancaster stated the County requested a
member of the Town Board be appointed to the committee. Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig volunteered to sit on the committee. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Nelson) to approve the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Koenig to
serve on the Larimer County Waste Management Policy Committee, and it
passed unanimously.
6. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POSITION.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the growing number of community
planning projects, increased demand for planning and building services, and
the need for code amendments as outlined in the Avalanche report requires
more staffing. He requested the Board add a Senior Planner position.
Community Development Chilcott expressed an interest in the position if the
Board approves the position. If approved the Town would begin the search for
a new Director. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve
the addition of a Senior Planner position in Community Development, and
it passed with unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:56 p.m.
Board of Trustees – January 26, 2016 – Page 10
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 26, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of
January, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
FUND BALANCE POLICY.
Finance Officer McFarland presented a draft policy related to fund balance for discussion.
The draft policy proposes maintaining a 20% fund balance in the General Fund which
would include a 3% Tabor reserve; a 10% operating reserve in Fleet; a minimum of 15%
of the fleet replacement value in the Vehicle Replacement Fund; and approximately
$100,000 to $200,000 in the IT Fund. The policy recommends maintaining reserves of
30%-40% of the three-year rolling average of annual claims in the Medical Insurance
Fund. The Enterprise Funds, Light and Power and Water, have defined bond reserve
requirements and operations and maintenance requirements in addition to self-imposed
reserves for debt coverage and maintenance and replacement of infrastructure. The
Community Reinvestment Fund and Special Revenue Funds do not have minimum
reserve requirements and the Theater Fund is a fiduciary fund held by the Town.
Finance Officer McFarland explained the make-up of fund balance which includes non-
spendable fund balance, restricted fund balance, committed fund balance, assigned fund
balance and unassigned fund balance. These categories have different levels of
restriction and spendability. He noted that percentages are important, but it is also
important to monitor the actual dollar amount in each fund and said that adopting a fund
balance policy would facilitate making budget-related decisions.
The Board concurred with the proposed policy noting that 20% fund balance is a
reasonable target and noted that the Town’s revenues are sales tax-driven, creating a
level of uncertainty that does not exist in municipalities that are property tax-driven. The
Trustees noted that the repair work on Highway 34 over the next year or two may impact
the Town’s economy.
Staff will prepare to bring the fund balance policy forward to the Trustees at an upcoming
Town Board meeting.
PURCHASING POLICY.
A draft purchasing policy was brought forward to the Board by Finance Officer McFarland.
The purpose of the policy is to designate spending authority and limits, and to set financial
preference parameters for local contractors. Development of the purchasing policy has
been ongoing and has included input from the leadership team and a review of policy
governance to determine appropriate approval levels – either Board level or
administrative level. The Town Board currently approves budgets at the fund level and
often times re-approves expenditures over $30,000. The proposed draft policy delegates
pre-approved budgeted expenditures under $100,000 to the Town Administrator and
allows step-down levels of spending to specific staff positions. All procedures for
expending funds such as budget approval, RFPs, purchase orders, etc., would still be
required and maintained. The policy would allow for a more expedited spending process
Town Board Study Session – January 26, 2016 – Page 2
when all required criteria has been met. The Trustees discussed the purchasing limits
contained in the draft policy that were being proposed for particular job titles and said the
purchasing limits should not be defined by job title, but rather by the type of projects and
expenses that are incurred by individuals holding these particular positions. It was noted
that the spending limits are per contract per purchase.
The Board agreed that the policy would streamline the process and still retain the checks
and balances that are currently in place.
In regard to local purchasing preference, current policy allows for a local preference
discount when selecting vendors if the local contractor’s bid is within 2% of the out-of-
town vendor’s bid. Following discussion, the Board agreed with staff’s policy proposal to
increase the local preference percentage to 5%. It was noted that federal and state grants
do not allow for local preference discounts and that staff will need to keep this in mind
when utilizing grant funds so as not to violate grant guidelines.
The Purchasing Policy will be prepared for Town Board consideration at an upcoming
Town Board meeting.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 5:43 p.m.
BUILDING CODE LOCAL AMENDMENTS FOR VACATION RENTALS WITH
OCCUPANCY OVER EIGHT (8).
Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield provided the Board with options related to
regulating vacation home rentals. As a review from the January 12, 2016, Town Board
Study session, CBO Birchfield stated that the Board can choose to regulate vacation
homes either through the International Residential Code (IRC) or the International
Building Code (IBC). Options provided included:
1. No change – regulate to the IRC – vacation homes would continue to be licensed
with no inspections or additional safety requirements.
2. Regulate to the IBC – This would provide the greatest amount of protection to
renters, however, it would likely come at a sizable cost to the vacation home owner.
At a minimum sprinkler and accessibility requirements would be triggered.
3. Hybrid Approach – Adopt local code amendments to address critical needs of the
community. The Board would have the ability to tailor requirements to include life
safety surveys to address, for example, unpermitted work, verify street address,
verify proper egress, check CO and smoke alarms, and inspect existing gas
appliances. He stated a $200 fee in addition to the business licensing fee would
likely be required to pay for the cost of the safety survey. CBO Birchfield noted
that if violations were found during the safety survey, the owner would be required
to rectify the violations.
The Board’s discussion is summarized: Larimer County has not made a final decision as
to which code they will use to regulate vacation homes; strive for consistency with Larimer
County regulations; require surveys/inspections for all properties engaging in short term
rentals of less than 30 days; surveys/inspections would provide better safety for guests
and surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods; depending on findings, supplemental
surveys/inspections may be required; frequency of surveys/inspections would need to be
determined; don’t want to over-legislate but care about public safety; consider inspection
of long term rentals in the future; ADA standards are included in the IBC but are not
included in the IRC; schedule a survey/inspection during 2016 in order to be licensed as
a vacation home in 2017; and recommendation is to survey all vacation homes.
Staff will develop local amendments based on the hybrid model to bring forward to the
Board in conjunction with the adoption of the IRC, the IBC and the property maintenance
code.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Phipps noted that the action item at the subsequent Board meeting is about
vacation home fees and that discussion should be focused on that topic only.
Town Board Study Session – January 26, 2016 – Page 3
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster scheduled the following topics for discussion:
February 2, 2016 – Joint Meeting with the County Commissioners regarding
Vacation Homes. (A final follow-up meeting with the Commissioners is proposed
for March 1, 2016)
March 8, 2016 – Biennial Citizen Survey – Custom Questions
March 8, 2016 – Utility Metering Infrastructure
March 22, 2016 – Status report on Capital Improvement Plan Process
The following discussion topics have been approved for discussion but have not yet been
scheduled:
Annexation Philosophy
Work Plan for Code Changes
Personnel Policy Schedule
A discussion related to the Sister Cities program has been removed from the list of study
session agenda topics.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 28, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
28th day of January, 2016.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Absent: None
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Director Fortini,
Planners Chilcott, Gonzales and Kleisler, Chief Building
Official Birchfield, Coordinator Jacobson, Managers Salerno,
Lynch and Mitchell, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Trustee Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
AGGREGATE STORAGE BUILDING FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
Planner Gonzales presented the request to waive $3,913.55 in development application
and building permit fees for the construction of the aggregate storage building at 640
Elm Road. The fee waiver application remains consistent with the adopted Community
Development Fee Waiver Policy by supporting vital community needs such as public
funded government construction. The proposed building would provide a storage area
for pothole patching equipment, aggregate material and allow year round pothole
patching operations by the Public Works Department. The Committee recommended
the approval of the Aggregates Storage Building Fee Waiver Request to be
included as an Action Item at the February 9, 2016 Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Annual Report – Planner Chilcott provided an overview of the activities in each of the
core governmental services including Departmental Strategic Planning, Long Range
Planning, Developmental Review, Building Safety, Floodplain Management, Sign
Regulation, Code Compliance and Finance. Chilcott noted staff’s continued efforts
on the modernization of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Department’s
efforts to streamline many processes and head towards cost recovery on services
provided, updating the International Building Code with Local Amendments,
consideration of adopting the International Property Maintenance Code, estimated
flood insurance costs, grant activity, vacation home rental compliance and zoning.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Visitor Services Quarterly Report – Manager Salerno stated the Visitor Center
experienced the busiest fourth quarter since opening at the location in 2006. With
414,441 total visitors in 2015, this was the busiest year on record. Retail sales were
at an all-time high of $46,741. Phone calls increased by 9.1%. 68 Ambassadors are
on the roster who have helped outside of their weekend shifts to assist the counter
throughout the week.
Event Report – Coordinator Jacobson provided an overview of the Tinsel Tavern
Tour, Winter Festival, and the upcoming Whiskey Warm Up. The Tinsel Tavern Tour
Community Development / Community Services – October 22, 2015 – Page 2
and Winter Festival both saw an increase in attendance. Staff would continue to
evaluate the events to improve participation in 2016. The Whiskey Warm Up event
would see a new model in 2016. The kid’s component would be eliminated and
focus would be placed on the tasting element.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Manager Lynch provided an update on
rental income of the Events Complex. From the fourth quarter of 2015 to date
$41,600.00 has been billed, not including food or beverage. Several events have
been booked for 2016, including a Vintage Market, cheerleading and an equestrian
events. Several contracts are out for signatures. Lynch plans to work with Visit Estes
Park to co-sponsor the Meetings Industry Council trade show. Ads would be placed
in Mountain Meetings magazine in attempt to capture audiences in the neighboring
states.
CULTURAL SERVICES DIVISION.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Museum Quarterly Report – Director Fortini stated the Meet Me @ The Museum
programs are gaining popularity demonstrated by above average attendance during
the fourth quarter. Curator of Collections Mucci continues to process items
transferred from the Stanley Museum in Maine and anticipates completion by the
end of January 2016. Currently staff is working on a partnership with the MacGregor
Ranch Museum to offer a temporary art exhibit in 2016. Staff continues to work on
plans for remodeling the main building and the Estes Park Museum Friends &
Foundation is raising funds for a new storage facility.
Senior Center Quarterly Report – Manager Mitchell provided an overview of
activities during 2015. Increases were seen in number of visits, attendance at
programs, Meals on Wheels, and rentals. Staff continues to work closely with the
Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District on plans for the Community Center.
There being no further business, Trustee Ericson adjourned the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 1, 2015 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, Members Wayne Newsom,
John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Smith, Members Lynch, Newsom and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Darling
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were two people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
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 from the September 1, 2015.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 14, LITTLE VALLEY 2nd FILING, 3850 Star Way
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Jeff Legg, requests a variance
from the Estes V alley Development Code, Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow for a 23-foot
front yard setback in lieu of the required 50-foot setback required in the RE–Rural Estate
zone district. Staff has granted a staff-level Minor Modification for this site in order for the
partially-built outbuilding to encroach into the side setback up to 10%. The actual building
location encroaches into the side setback less than 10%. However, the front yard setback
encroachment cannot be granted by staff, therefore a variance has been requested.
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant began construction on the outbuilding without
permits. Larimer County placed a stop work order on the project, and it was then
determined a variance would be required to continue construction. The applicant was
quick to respond to the stop work order and submitted the variance application.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
December 1, 2015
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. Affected agencies had no comments. The applicant provided two letters
of support from adjacent property owners.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the lot is undersized (0.9 acres) for the RE–Rural Estate zone
district, which has a 2.5 acre minimum. The lot almost complies with the
minimum lot size for the E-1–Estate zone district, which has a one acre
minimum lot size. The subdivision was platted in 1968, before adoption of the
EVDC, with the existing home being built in 1983. A cul-de-sac was platted at
the terminus of Star Way. The 50-foot setback requirement in this zone district
is not only from property lines, but also from the edge of any dedicated right-of-
way. The cul-de-sac is platted as dedicated right-of-way. Having an unbuilt
platted cul-de-sac creates larger setback requirements. Also, other lots in the
Little Valley 2nd subdivision are much larger than this particular lot.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found the existing single-family use can continue but any addition to the
home or additional building on the site will be determined by the buildable
space. These building additions may occur on the site without a variance but
the practical location for them may be hindered by the physical attributes of the
land and setback requirements. The applicant has provided as part of the
application a site plan that depicts limits of steep rocky areas. These areas
reduce the buildable area of the lot by 50%. A septic tank and leach field also
limit where new buildings may be placed.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance was not substantial. The likelihood of the cul-de-sac
being built at this location is extremely low, therefore building in the required
setback is very minimal. The outbuilding is located approximately 65 feet from
the road.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Two neighbors provided
written comment supporting the variance request.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
Approval would not have any effect on public services such as utility lines,
drainage, or roads.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
December 1, 2015
The applicant purchased the property in 2009 and was not aware of the setback
requirement. The applicant stated the project was started by a builder who was
not knowledgeable of the existing setback and building permitting process. A
“stop work order” was placed on the job, pending outcome of this variance
request.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
An outbuilding could be built at a location that complies with the 50-foot
setback, at a site outside of the steep rocky area. This would involve demolition
of the current building already under construction.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations;
Building at this location has little effect on the neighbors and aims at preserving
natural features of the land and existing trees. The area in which the outbuilding
is placed was chosen to avoid cutting trees on the site.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots…
No recommended conditions. Because the structure is already half-built, staff
has required a setback certificate to verify the exact location of the structure.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request, with the
findings recommended by staff. A setback certificate has already been requested.
Public comment
Jeff Legg/applicant stated the builder will be LJ Davis. The person previously involved is
no longer working on the project. He stated there are really no other practical options;
further south would be above septic tank, north would be the leach field, and other areas
were difficult due to the topography. Mr. Legg stated it is very unlikely the cul-de-sac will
ever be completed.
Howard Foster/ adjacent property owner stated this project is a non-event for him due to
the remoteness of the property.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
December 1, 2015
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau) to approve the variance request for Lot
14, Little Valley 2nd Filing with the findings determined by staff and the motion
passed unanimously.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chair Smith stated the Chair for 2016 needs to be a County resident, and the Vice-Chair
needs to be a Town resident.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to nominate Member Darling for the
Chair position and the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to nominate Member Newsom for the
Vice-Chair position and the motion passed unanimously.
4. REPORTS
Secretary Thompson reported receiving several phone calls and emails concerning the
Board of Adjustment and its relationship to the Stanley Hotel’s Accommodations
Building/Wellness Center height variance request. She stated the Stanley Hotel property
is governed by the Stanley Historic District regulations in the Estes Park Municipal Code.
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is governed by the Estes Valley Development
Code. Therefore, the Town Board is the decision-making body for the current project on
the Stanley Hotel campus.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.
___________________________________
Pete Smith, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Two 16, Inc., dba The
Other Side of Estes, to Deer Ridge, Inc., dba The Other Side Restaurant,
900 Moraine Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 900 Moraine Avenue to the applicant, Deer
Ridge, Inc.
Present Situation:
A Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced
above by Two 16, Inc., dba THE OTHER SIDE OF ESTES. The applicant is requesting
a transfer of the license and submitted a complete application to the Town Clerk’s office
on December 22, 2015. A temporary permit was issued on December 22, 2015, upon
acceptance of the completed application. The temporary permit authorizes the
transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent
license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Deer Ridge, Inc., dba THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License to Deer Ridge,
Inc.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License
transfer is $1319. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the
application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee
payable to the Town for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License is $869 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor
License filed by Deer Ridge, Inc., dba THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT.
April 2003
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed December 22, 2015 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Deer Ridge, Inc. doing business as
THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT for a Hotel and Restaurant License be
approved/denied.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: March 24, 2015
RE: Riverview Pines Townhomes Development Plan & Amended Plat
Objective:
The consideration of a recommendation by the Estes Valley Planning Commission to
conditionally approve the Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat application.
Present Situation:
The project site is accessed directly from West Elkhorn Avenue, approximately 300 feet
east of the Fall River Road intersection. The applicant also owns the accommodations
property along the northern boundary (“Riverview Pines Condos”). The site borders
similar accommodation uses along the west, south and a portion to the east. Roughly
120 feet of the site borders multi-family housing.
The applicant applied for development approval for 23 accommodations and multi-
family units in 2007. At that time the Planning Commission denied that application due
in part to excessive site disturbance. The proposed application decreases the number of
units, attempts to avoid existing significant trees and minimize grading.
Proposal:
This is a request to redevelop an accommodations property roughly one (1) mile west of
downtown. The property is currently developed with four detached structures: an office
with an attached dwelling unit, a garage/shop, a 6-plex motel and a 12-plex motel. With
the exception of the garage/shop, all existing structures are proposed to be demolished.
The applicant proposes to reduce the overall density on the lot by replacing the
aforementioned buildings with eight (8) townhome units intended for long-term
residential or short-term accommodation use (depending on market demand). The site
is accessed via an internal, private driveway from West Elkhorn Avenue, and general
vehicle circulation will remain largely unchanged. Enhancements to the site include the
widening of the bridge to accommodate pedestrian traffic, a sidewalk connecting
individual units to West Elkhorn Avenue, widening of the drive aisle to meet public street
standards and a secondary emergency access point to the west to ensure adequate fire
protection.
The application package includes two components: a Preliminary Townhome Plat and
Development Plan. This application is unusual in that while the Preliminary Plat
application is ultimately approved by the Town Board, the Development Plan is
reviewed and approved by staff.
Advantages:
Redevelopment of an accommodations property.
Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
Disadvantages:
Decrease of accommodation units.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on
December 15, 2015. During that hearing the Commission made the following findings:
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies,
as delineated in the Staff report.
2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as
described in the Review Discussion in the staff report.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat
application. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the
Preliminary Plat.
5. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition
precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the
January 26th Town Board agenda requires a January 15th submittal of a revised
Preliminary Plat application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
The Planning Commissions voted unanimously 5-0 (two commissioners absent) to
recommend CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Riverview Pines Preliminary Plat
application. The recommended conditions of approval are:
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated June 9, 2015;
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated October 13, 2015;
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated October 21, 2015;
d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated October 23,
2015;
e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated October 22,
2015; and
f. CDOT email dated September 30, 2015.
2. Emergency access easement shall be submitted prior to or with the Final Plat
application.
3. Resolution of Code Compliance Case Number 2015-0055.
4. Compliance with the submitted wildlife report.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest is low. An adjacent property owner expressed concerns
during the Planning Commission hearing relating to post-flood runoff and impacts to
neighboring views. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant and
neighbor meet in an effort to resolve these and other issues. Planning Division staff has
hosted two meetings with the property owners. The concerned neighbor did not attend
the first meeting on the advice of legal counsel. The second meeting was coordinated
by Restorative Community Mediation. On the advice of legal counsel, the concerned
neighbor terminated the second meeting prior to any discussion.
Numerous staff from Community Development and Public Works has visited the site
and has determined that the proposed development complies with the Estes Valley
Development Code. Any Party-In-Interest may appeal a staff or Board decision within
30 days of the final action.
Sample Motion:
I move to Approve (of deny) the River Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat application,
with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Statement of Intent
2. Site Plan
3. Agency Comments
4. Planning Commission Minutes (unapproved due to January meeting cancelation)
5. Public Comment
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines
Attachment 1: Statement of Intent
Riverview Pines Attachment 2: Site Plan
Riverview Pines Attachment 2: Site Plan
Riverview Pines Attachment 2: Site Plan
Riverview Pines Attachment 2: Site Plan
Riverview Pines Attachment 2: Site Plan
From:Karen Thompson
To:Phil Kleisler
Subject:Fwd: Replat of T56, Amd Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Sub & T 56 & 57, Fall River Add - 1150 W Elkhorn Ave -
Riverview Pines DP 2015-07 & Townhome Sub
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2015 9:27:26 AM
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hice-Idler, Gloria <gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us>
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:07 AM
Subject: Replat of T56, Amd Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Sub & T 56 & 57, Fall River Add -
1150 W Elkhorn Ave - Riverview Pines DP 2015-07 & Townhome Sub
To: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Cc: fnpkropp@hotmail.com, jreetz@ces0ccc.com
Since it appears that the traffic volume proposed for this redevelopment will decrease the historical volumes, CDOT
has no comment.
Gloria Hice-Idler
Region 4 Permits Manager
Region 4 Permits Unit - Traffic
P 970.350.2148 | C 970.381.2475 | F 970.350.2198
1420 2nd Street, Greeley, CO 80631
gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us | www.coloradodot.info | www.cotrip.org
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> wrote:
Attached please find the guidelines for commenting on the COMPLETENESS of the
projects listed above - the Development Plan and the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
Plat. All necessary review documents are also attached for your convenience. Please note
this is a resubmittal from earlier this summer. In addition to the site plan and statement of
intent, we also have a Wildlife Impact Assessment and Wetland Study. Please let me know
if you need copies of those.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Comments concerning completeness of both the Development Plan and the Preliminary
Subdivision Plat are due on or before Friday, October 2, 2015. Many of you received hard
copies of this project at the team meeting on September 26th. Please be sure to include the
owner, Fred Kropp (fnpkropp@hotmail.com) and the applicant, Jes Reetz (jreetz@ces-
ccc.com) on your comments.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
To: Phil Kleisler
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue – Riverview Pines Townhome Subdivision &
Development Plan
Phil – Public Works offers the following conditions on the Riverview Pines Development
Plan application as submitted.
Transportation:
1. TIA (Cornerstone 1/21/15) demonstrates that the proposed improvements
decrease the traffic impacts that currently exist. No Conditions.
2. Pedestrian access sidewalk and path should be provided from Units 5, 6, and 7
to the parking area and sidewalk on the West side of Kropp Court.
3. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans
before construction of any transportation related infrastructure.
Drainage:
1. Preliminary Drainage Report (Cornerstone 1/21/15).
2. The developed drainage flow should be routed through the proposed stormwater
filtration pond prior to release from the site. The current site plan needs to
demonstrate how developed runoff will be conveyed to this pond
(swale/pipe/etc).
3. Proposed flow arrows, slopes and spot elevations should be provided for parking
areas, driveways and curb.
4. Off-Site flows from the south Basin A are indicated in the drainage report to route
through a swale along the south side of the property and then through a 15”
culvert to the river. The submitted site plan contours should define this swale
and stormwater routing. Grading should reflect a swale that provides adequate
capacity as determined in the drainage report. The 15” pipe should have
elevations at the beginning and end. Pipe material should be identified. A
manhole should be installed at the bend of the pipe.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
5. Water Quality detail needs to be provided. The report indicates filtration and
wetlands will provide this water quality. The site plan should indicate where this
is located.
6. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans
before construction of any storm drainage related infrastructure.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Estes Park Sanitation District
PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phil Kleisler, Planner II, Town of Estes Park
RE: Riverview Pines Townhomes, Minor Modification and Development Plan
6/9/15 Follow up comments:
• The proposed minor modification has no impact on the District.
• The District has replaced the main line on the north side of Fall River as de-
scribed below. A new sewer line river crossing will be required for the proposed
development. The crossing is also part of the Streamside Resort development
requirements. Both parties will need to work together to accomplish the crossing
and the extension of the main line on the south side of Fall River to the
Streamside development. As per previous meetings with the Streamside owners
the main extension was delayed until this fall of 2015. The District encourages
Fred Kropp and Jess Reetz to discuss the main extension with Streamside Re-
sorts to better facilitate the project for both parties.
• The construction drawings that show the proposed sewer line has not been up-
dated to reflect our comments that were provided on 1/19/15.
2/20/15 Follow up comments:
• As mentioned previous, Riverview Pines infrastructure improvements were to be
included in the improvements that were part of the Sanctuary Development.
Since the Sanctuary has withdrawn their development application there is uncer-
tainty in the process that will go forward. Main improvements were part of our
comments for future development.
• The office/ residential unit currently under construction can make grade to their
existing service line.
• The District has started the replacement of the sewer main on the north side of
the river at Riverview Pines. The completion of our work will enable the im-
provements to happen that were included in the Sanctuary project. The District
encourages the two remaining developments (Riverview Pines and Streamside)
to continue their portion of the improvements.
1/29/15 Comments: As per review of the Riverview Pines Townhomes site plan we have
the following comments:
• The project will participate in the improvements associated with the Sanctuary
Development to the west. The District will replace a section of main sewer line
that will allow the extension of a new sewer main that this property will access.
Not shown on the drawings are manholes that will be installed at all points of
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
bend in the extension. We would recommend connecting service lines to the new
manholes if feasible.
• Separate service line connections for the townhomes are shown with six inch
PVC. This is not necessary as four inch PVC for separate service lines on resi-
dential units are adequate.
• Service lines from two residential properties south of this property extend through
this lot. Service lines for 1152/ 1154 W. Elkhorn and 1250 Fall River Rd must be
located and extended down the new driveway and reconnected to the main line.
The path of the existing lines is not acceptable as shown. A fixture count has
been taken of all buildings. As units are demolished the credits can be applied to
the new construction.
If you have questions, please call me at (970) 586-2866.
Thank you - James Duell
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Date: October 13, 2015
Project Identification: Riverview Pines Townhomes Development
Location: 1150 W Elkhorn Ave.
Referral: Riverview Pines Development Plan
The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the
proposed project referenced above, and approves those plans contingent on compliance with
the following requirements:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following requirements shall be met:
1. Construction plans (access / roads, water line system design) shall be reviewed and must
meet approval of the Fire District.
2. The new required fire hydrant shall be installed. The hydrant shall be maintained operational
at all times thereafter, unless alternate previsions for water supply are approved by the fire
District. The Town of Estes Park must approve the installation and oversee the testing of
water mains and hydrants.
3. In accordance with IFC Chapters 5 and 14, approved fire department access shall be
provided during all phases of construction, as well as to completed buildings. The criteria
for fire department access roads shall be as follows:
A. Permanent asphalt or concrete roads shall be installed unless a temporary road
surface, such as recycled asphalt or concrete, is approved.
B. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus.
C. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20
feet.
D. Turning radii of a fire department access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside
and 50 feet outside.
E. All dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with provisions
for the turning around of fire apparatus.
Fire Marshal will conduct an inspection of the on-site fire apparatus access roads and fire
hydrant(s) prior to the issuance of the building permit. Please schedule this inspection at least
two (2) business days in advance.
All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International
Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009 Edition) and Town of Estes Park
Code and Standards.
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does
not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will
require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc W. Robinson
Fire Marshal
970-577-3689
mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
To: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: October 23, 2015
RE: Riverview Pines – Findings of Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC)
This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development
proposal. The following are a list of comments which must be addressed in order for staff to
determine that the application complies with the EVDC. Please make the necessary corrections
by November 11, 2015. Fifteen copies, along with a written summary of plan changes, must be
submitted by November 11, 2015 for the Planning Commission hearing (full size plans).
1. Code Enforcement
a. A Notice and Order was issued for this property (case number 2015-0055). A
Floodplain Permit must be submitted by November 1, 2015. To date no permit
application has been received. Please contact Code Compliance Officer Linda
Hardin at 970.577.3723 to discuss this further. Failure to submit this permit may
result in a continuance of your development application.
2. Zoning Use
a. The application proposed residential uses (single family, duplex). Therefore,
short-term accommodation use, such as a Resort Lodge/Cabin, will not be
allowed in on the site. Confirm that long-term residential use is proposed. Staff
will need to perform an additional review is short-term use is anticipated. As an
example, Resort Lodge/Cabins may require some additional employee parking.
3. Pedestrian Connections
a. Per our recent conversation, include pedestrian connection to Units 4-6 (EVDC
Table 4-8)
b. Describe how the proposed sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk along
Fall River Road.
4. Landscaping
a. 75 shrubs are required for the impervious coverage calculation (§7.5.E.1)
5. Wildlife Considerations
a. Should development occur between April 1st and August 1st, a detailed wildlife
assessment of bird nesting and elk and deer calving/fawning activities within and
immediately around (within 100 meters) the proposed construction site shall be
Community Development Memo
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
carried out by a qualified biologist prior to any construction-related activities
(Section 4.1 of submitted wildlife report dated November 10, 2014).
b. All future fencing shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development
staff to be reviewed in accordance with section 4.2 of the submitted wildlife
report.
c. Reference Ordinance 12-15 (“Wildlife Ordinance”) for new information
concerning trash enclosure design.
6. Operational Performance Standards (§7.10)
a. While staff appreciates the location of the proposed trash enclosure (rear of lot),
we have concerns about the capacity of a single dumpster servicing this number
of units and the location (e.g. roughly 300 feet from Unit 1). Provide additional
information about how you came to the decision for the current design and
confirmation that this with function adequately (e.g. is does one dumpster serve
the current units?).
7. Parking and Circulation (§7.11)
a. Confirm that each unit will have one parking space inside the garage and one in
the driveway (or if double car garages and driveways are proposed).
b. The parking space numbering appears to be incorrect for units 5-7 (labeled as
eight spaces).
c. The proposed lot north of the office building requires one additional space. Four
spaces are required for units three and four, with an additional three required for
the office building. Please either amend the parking lot or request a Minor
Modification for the Planning Commission to consider. If a Minor Modification is
requested also include a summary of the building’s use and the anticipated
number of employees.
d. Confirm where employees will park on the site and how many employees will be
on site during a typical business day.
e. Per our discussion, include a turnaround for backing cars in the lot servicing units
one and two.
8. Preliminary Subdivision Plat
a. Include draft HOA declarations with the final plat application.
b. Per our conversation, include a Limits of Disturbance that will include riparian
habitat and wetlands to the west.
Construction Plans Must Address:
1. Table 4-8 regarding internal pedestrian walkways being designed to be visually attractive
and distinguishable from driving surfaces through use of durable, low-maintenance
surface materials such as pavers, brick or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety
and comfort. Indicate sidewalk materials.
2. §7.2.B Grading Standards.
3. 7.2.C Restoration of Disturbed Areas
4. Following natural contours
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
5. Revegetation methods
6. Topsoil stockpiling
7. 7.2.D.3 Limits of Disturbance – Development Standards and Guidelines.
8. 7.2.D.5 Standards for Protection During Construction.
9. §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection.
10. §7.5 Irrigation. Automatic drip irrigation.
11. §7.9 Exterior Lighting. Provide cut sheet, address hours of operation
12. §7.11.O.2 Surfacing and Maintenance
13. 7.11 – parking lot striping and markings
14. 7.11 ADA signs and markings (and slope of parking space and access aisle)
15. §7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment.
16. Trash enclosure materials, colors and design of screening walls or fences shall conform
to those used as predominant materials and colors of the buildings. If such areas are to
be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and
colors on the building.
17. §10.5.G.2 Restoration of Disturbed Roadside Areas.
18. §10.I. Restoration of monuments.
19. Appendix D.III.B.10 Driveway Construction Standards.
20. Appendix D.V Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails
21. Appendix D.VI Erosion Control
22. Appendix D.VII Tree and Vegetation Protection During Construction and Grading
Activities
23. Appendix D.VIII Other Requirements, regarding construction plan approval, quality
control, etc.
24. Address signs.
25. Minimization of construction impacts as outlined in the wildlife report.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
To: Community Development
From: Steve Rusch
Date: 10/21/2015
Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL REVIEW - Replat of T56, Amd
Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Sub & T 56 & 57, Fall River Add - 1150 W Elkhorn
Ave - Riverview Pines DP 2015-07 & Townhome Sub
The Utilities Department has the following Review comments for the above
application:
The above application is accepted but not approved as construction drawings for
the line installation or issuance of any building permits.
Water:
Should project design or scope change during the review process the Water
Division reserves the right to request additional information as needed.
Water Division fees will be calculated based on the number of water fixtures to
be installed. These fees will be calculated at the time of the permit application
process.
A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including Fire Protection.
This infrastructure must be installed; testing performed/passed and accepted by
the Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Any project phasing of the
infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior
to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to
issuance of any building permits within the phase.
Construction Drawings are required and must be submitted for review, approval
and signatures by the Utilities Director or his designated representative. No
installation of any project infrastructure is allowed until the Construction Drawings
have been signed. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the
Town of Estes Park. Along with the submission of the construction drawings
provide the contact information of the firm or person acting as Utility Construction
Manager for the project.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Construction drawings must include:
• Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other
utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is
not in Road Right of Way.
• Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations and sizes,
water meter locations and sizes, and buildings served by each.
• Show waterline protection at all sanitary and storm sewer conflicts
All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility
Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to
the Town of Estes Park.
All domestic water service lines are required to have a pressure reducing valve
installed at the point of entry to the building. Applicant must contact the Water
Division (970)577-3625 to discuss additional plumbing requirements.
All water mainlines are required to have a minimum of 10 ft. horizontal separation
from both sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Additionally, water mainlines are
required to have a minimum 4 ft. horizontal separation from all other utilities.
Applicant must schedule a Water Fixture/Dwelling Unit Count with a
representative of the Water Division prior to demolition and/or construction to
ensure any applicable credit toward additional water fees. Contact the division at
970-577-3625 for scheduling. Any demolition done prior to the fixture count will
result in forfeiture of any applicable water tap credits.
Each building on this property, new and existing, including commercial
properties, fire suppression lines, multi-family dwellings and irrigation are
required to have backflow prevention devices installed on the water service lines,
contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or srusch@estes.org with any questions
regarding the backflow devices or requirements.
A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations,
tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water
Division prior to issuance of any building permits.
Engineering must contact the Water Division at 577-3625 for details regarding
final tap and service line sizing prior to any construction.
All existing water service lines must be abandoned at their taps when new
proposed fire sprinkler and/or domestic water lines are placed in service. This
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
includes the service to the building to be demoed that has a service crossing the
river to the north.
For all structures required to have a Fire Suppression System, a detailed
drawing must be turned in to the Water Division noting:
• Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s)
• Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system, pipe size
based on NFPA Table 10.10.2.1.3, Fire flow produced at a maximum
velocity of 10ft/sec.
Pipe Size Flow Rate
2" 100 gpm
4" 390 gpm
6" 880 gpm
8" 1560 gpm
10" 2440 gpm
12" 3520 gpm
Spill control method must be shown for proper disposal of discharge from the
relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of
accommodating the discharge that could occur.
Fire suppression lines require both a chlorination and pressure test, conducted
by a representative of the Water Division prior to acceptance. Any Fire
suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service
line and must be noted as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision
Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole
responsibility of the property owner. Fire suppression lines require a state
certified fire line installer and must have the appropriate forms completed and
submitted to the Estes Valley Fire Marshall.
All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
International Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009
Edition) and Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards.
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this
project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any
change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the
Town of Estes Park Water Division.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Light & Power:
It is assumed that the electric line heading east (outside of the proposed
easement) is indeed a service line to be owned by the property owner. If that is
not the case, additional easement will be needed. Utilities Department is to meet
with the Engineer this week to discuss.
• Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line
Superintendent at (970)577-3613.
• All infrastructure must be paid in advance to the Town of Estes Park. No
Building permits will be approved by Light & Power until such time.
• All new construction must be underground. Trenching & conduit to be
provided and installed by developer to Town specifications.
• All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes
Park.
• All Town of Estes Park Light and Power lines, (Primary/Secondary) must
have a 20 ft. utility easement. This easement can be shared by water,
phone and cable.
• Water must be at least 4ft from electric.
• All services must be on the owner’s property.
• The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings.
• All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings.
• Transformers/pen cells must be in an easement, or if possible on the
property line.
• All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft.
• All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer.
• All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4
pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack.
• Town must have ownership of all road crossings.
• On underground electric services, it will be the electrician’s responsibility
to dig them into the transformers or pedestals.
• The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open
transformers or pedestals.
• All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light &
Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees
are paid.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
• Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or
unit number.
• All spare conduits will be provided by Light and Power and to be installed
by the developer at their cost. Light and Power will not reimburse
contractor or developer for conduit obtained elsewhere.
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this
project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any
change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the
Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 3: Agency Comments
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ
Schneider, and Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Schneider, and White
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Phil Kleisler, Planner Mallory Baker, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Board
Liaison John Phipps, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent Commissioners Hills and Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. Each
Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. 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.
2. RIVERVIEW PINES PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Frederick Kropp/Applicant
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The subject property is located approximately one mile
west of downtown area, and currently contains an office with an attached dwelling unit, a
garage/shop, a six-plex and a 12-plex motel.. The property is surrounded on all sides except for a
section of the east property line, which is zoned RM–Multi-Family Residential.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposal is to demolish the existing structures except for the
garage/shop, and build three single-family dwellings and two duplexes, for a total of seven units.
The site would be accessed from an internal private driveway. The duplexes will connect to the
main office via sidewalks, and there are currenlty no planned sidewalks from the single-family
dwellings. Planner Kleisler stated staff would recommend a condition of approval to include a
sidewalk connection for the single-family dwellings. He stated the existing bridge would be
widened to contain a pedestrian trail, and an emergency access road connecting Streamside
Condominiums through this property would be created. The site design include the rotation of
some of the buildings in order to minimize the limits of disturbance.
Planner Kleisler stated townhome subdivisions are unique as they relate to tradditional
subdivisions. There is one parent parcel mainainted by the homeowner’s association, which
includes commonly used items such as parking lots, utilities, etc. Individual lots within the parent
lot are individually owned. Planner Kleisler stated the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
submitted complies with the Estes Valley Develoment Code. A legal notice was published, and
notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. The application was routed to affected
Riverview Pines
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes
agencies, and many have provided comments listed in the staff report. The Planning Commission
is the recommending body to the Estes Park Town Board, who will hear this item in January, 2016.
Planner Kleisler stated the adverse impacts to wildfife would be minimal. However, there were
some items to consider: construction timing, limiting fencing on site, limiting landscaping, and
installing bear-proof containers. Staff recommends limiting additional landscaping, as the existing
trees and shrubs provide adequate screening from adjacent properties and the public right-of-
way.
Planner Kleisler stated today’s review is only for the preliminary townhome subdivision plat.
There is also a development plan being reviewed at staff level, and an active code compliance
case. One of the conditions of approval is to resolve the code compliance issue (unpermitted work
in the floodplain and river setback) prior to final approval. The applicant is aware of these issues
and is working with an engineer to resolve them.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policities, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicatin advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff
report.
2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
Review Discussion in the staff report.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat application.
The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Preliminary Plat.
5. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 26, 2016 Town
Board agenda requires a January 15, 2016 submittal of a revised Preliminary Plat
application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval, with conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Fred Kropp, applicant, was available to answer questions.
Chris Levering/Town resident and owner of adjacent property (4 Seasons Inn), stated he was not
against the development but had concerns with other issues on the property. He stated he has
had ongoing post-flood runoff onto his property from the applicant’s property, and thinks this is
related to the post-flood work that was done without proper floodplain permits. He has also had
issues with floodplain permits on his own property, and is working to get them resolved. Mr.
Levering stated the proposed development will block the river view of five of his accommodations
units, which is of significant financial impact. He showed photos of his and the neighbor’s
property during the height of the flood. He believes spring runoff has the potential to create a
Riverview Pines
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes
substantial problem for him, as well as during future flood events. He would recommend
requesting the applicant move the riverfront buildings back from the river so he can maintain the
views on his property and the buildings will be further out of the floodplain.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has received two notices of violation on the property. One
was for construction of a fence in the river setback, and the other was for work done in the river
without a floodplain permit. The applicant has been working with an engineer to resolve the
issue. Floodplain permits must show no impact to neighboring properties, both upstream and
downstream. The Community Development Director has the authority to deny issuance of any
permit if there is a violation on a property. One of the conditions of approval is to have the matter
fully resolved prior to staff signing off on the development plan.
Chair Hull recommended both parties meet together with staff to help resolve the issues.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider had concerns about the drainage. Planner Kleisler stated the
development meets the drainage requirements, and any floodplain issues pertaining to drainage
will be addressed at the floodplain permit level.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated June 9, 2015;
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated October 13, 2015;
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated October 21, 2015;
d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated October 23, 2015;
e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated October 22, 2015;
f. CDOT email dated September 30, 2015
2. Additional Conditions requested by Commissioner White, regarding Wildlife Habitat:
a. Timing restrictions on certain development activities to further reduce potential
impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning;
b. Removing or modifying the design of existing or future fencing to facilitate wildlife
movement;
c. Avoid planting any new trees; and
d. Installing bear-proof enclosures and/or dumpsters.
Planner Kleisler stated his notes reflect a recommendation of approval conditional to the
resolution of the code compliance cases as referenced in the presentation, as well as compliance
with the submitted wildlife report.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to recommend approval of the preliminary
townhome subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended
Riverview Pines
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes
by staff, with the additional condition regarding wildlife habitat, and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
Riverview Pines
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes
Riverview Pines Attachment 5: Public Comment
Riverview Pines Attachment 5: Public Comment
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat ApplicationI. Summary of ProjectII. Process and Review CriteriaIII. Key IssuesIV. Planning Commission FindingsV. Planning Commission Recommendation
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Summary of Project
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Summary of Project
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Process and Review CriteriaI. Estes Valley Comprehensive PlanII. Estes Valley Development CodeIII. Planning Commission RecommendationIV. Motion by Town Board
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Key Issues – Site Improvements
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Key Issues – Site Improvements
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Key Issues – Floodplain Permit and Stormwater Management
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Staff Findings1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report.2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report.4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat application. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the Preliminary Plat. 5. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 26thTown Board agenda requires a January 15thsubmittal of a revised Preliminary Plat application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
Riverview Pines Preliminary Townhome Plat; Estes Park Town Board, February 9, 2016Planning Commission RecommendationUnanimous APPROVALof Riverview Pines Preliminary Homehome Plat Application, subject to the following conditions; 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated June 9, 2015;b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated October 13, 2015;c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated October 21, 2015;d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated October 23, 2015;e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated October 22, 2015; andf. CDOT email dated September 30, 2015.2. Emergency access easement shall be submitted prior to or with the Final Plat application.3. Resolution of Code Compliance Case Number 2015-0055.4. Compliance with the submitted wildlife report.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner I
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Public Works Department Fee Waiver Request
Background:
The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department is requesting a waiver of $3,913.55 in
development application fees associated with review of a development plan and building
permits. The development plan was for a 3,200 sq. ft. steel and fabric aggregate storage
building located on the landfill site at 640 Elm Road, property owned by the Town of Estes
Park. The proposed building will provide storage area for pothole patching operation
aggregate in order for Public Works to operate year-round, weather permitting. The
development plan was approved at Staff level on January 22, 2016.
Pre-Application Meeting $500.00
Development Plan $2,000.00
Building Permit Fees $1,413.55
Total $3,913.55
The attached letter from Public Works further describes the request. The fee waiver policy
adopted by Town Board is also attached. Since the amount is greater than $3,000.00, the
Town Board is the decision-making body.
Budget:
Approval of the request would decrease Community Development Department fee
revenue. Overall there will not be an impact to the General Fund.
Recommendation
On January 28th, the Community Development/Community Services Committee
recommended this request be included as an Action Item at the February 9th Town Board
meeting.
Community Development
Memo
Page 2
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department fee waiver
request.
Attachments:
1. Written request from the applicant.
2. Community Development Fee Waiver Policy.
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification: Hazard Classification
and Consulting Engineering Services
Objective:
Public Works looks to receive approval of a change order from Cornerstone Engineering
and Surveying to update the current Carriage Hills Dam modification submittal to the
State Engineer’s Office to reflect current site conditions and future design
considerations.
Present Situation:
In November 2015, Public Works was able to obtain approval from the State Engineer’s
Office for a dam modification plan that mitigated flood risk and met current dam
requirements. However, during bid negotiations, Public Works was not able to come to
an agreement with the contractor to deliver a complete project within a March 2016
schedule and within the approved funding dollars. It was then determined by the Town
Board at the November 10, 2015 meeting, that the risk of not completing the project by
the March 2016 grant funding date, and potentially losing all the funding dollars, was too
great a risk and the project was put on hold.
Since that time the funding agency, Department of Homeland Security Emergency
Management (DHSEM), has found a program that they are now able to re-allocate the
previously approved funding dollars to, that will allow an extended schedule for
construction completion. Moving the project forward in this direction allows the current
environmental assessment, current design and funding dollar amounts to remain in
place.
Public Works has asked the design consultant, Cornerstone, to make revisions to the
design package submitted to the State Engineer’s Office. The modified package would
return the design to the one originally presented to the public. This would include a
jurisdictional dam that creates a pond that would sustain fishable habitat and an east
dam that would have grading, spillway and outlet works that would impound a lower
volume of water. Public Works received a change order from Cornerstone to modify the
design of the project and resubmit plans to the State.
Proposal:
January 5, 2016, Public Works received a Change Order from Cornerstone with the
following proposed modifications:
1. Revise the Hazard Classification Study that will determine the design parameters
for jurisdictional compliance with the State Engineer’s Office.
2. Re-survey the Carriage Hills Dam area and revise the base mapping to reflect
modifications made by Town Staff during the site clean-up.
3. Redesign of the Carriage Hills dam #2 to include a spillway, pipe outlet works
and submittal to the State as a non-jurisdictional dam structure.
4. Update to the Carriage Hills Dam Design Report to account for design
modifications to the east dam.
5. Revise the bidding documents to reflect a modified construction package and
new schedules. Additional time to address bidding questions, meeting
attendance and review of proposals.
Public Works staff have met with Cornerstone and discussed the items identified on the
Change Order request. We feel the scope is accurate and the fee is equitable.
A total Change Order cost (including contingency) not to exceed $20,000 has been
determined.
Advantages:
Change Order approval allows design work to complete and provides a
construction ready project that will be in compliance with the mandate of the
State Engineer’s Office.
The State Engineer’s Office has previously reviewed the submittal and
modifications are minor.
Approval of the Change Order will allow design to be complete by May and allow
construction to complete in 2016.
Disadvantages:
Construction during the summer/fall months will limit active recreational activities
during this time.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification Project and meet goals of a
final project completion date of November 15, 2016, Staff recommends approval of
Change Order #2 to Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying.
Budget:
Design services for this project were previously funded from the Larimer County Open
Space Fund. Public Works proposes an additional $20,000 for this Change Order come
out of the Capital line item within that fund.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project is expected to be moderate. This project directly impacts
property owners surrounding the Scott Ponds Natural Area and has impacts to
downstream property owners, infrastructure along Fish Creek and the community trail
system.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of a Change Order Request #2 to the professional services
contract for the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification: Hazard Classification and
Consulting Engineering Services for a cost not to exceed $20,000.00.
Attachments:
Cornerstone Requested Change Order
Cornerstone Proposed Schedule
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
a draft Ordinance prepared and included with the Committee packet.
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Resolution #03-16; Re-appropriation of 2015 encumbered funds into 2016
Budget
Objective:
Staff is seeking approval of rolling over “open” purchase orders from the 2015 Budget,
into the 2016 Budget. This is an annual budgetary housekeeping process.
Present situation:
Certain Town departments have entered into contracts for goods and/or services that were
not fulfilled by year-end December 31, 2015. When this occurs, it becomes necessary to
“roll over” expenditures from one year to the next, because in governmental accounting,
expenditures are not recognized until they are incurred/received. In essence, the budgeted
amounts of the rollovers are lifted from the current budget year and placed into the next
budget year. Fund balance is not affected – the expenditures are merely moved. It is staff’s
intention to keep rollovers to a minimum, but projects are often affected by weather, and by
the availability of product/contractor. In recent history, the 2013 Flood has caused a great
deal of large projects to remain unfinished, contributed to both the number and volume of
rollovers. There are still several large flood-related rollovers, but the volume did decrease
from 2014-15 rollovers to 2015-16 rollovers:
2014 rollovers into 2015: 68 rollovers totaling $4,432,023.65.
2015 rollovers into 2016: 48 rollovers totaling $2,663,504.89.
Attached is the list of those encumbrances that remain outstanding at the end of 2015. As
stated, there are 48 rollovers totaling $2,663,504.89, affecting 9 Funds (General, Community
Reinvestment, Open Space, Trails, Streets, Light & Power, Water, IT and Vehicle
Replacement. Larger areas of rollovers for 2015-16 include:
1. Community Reinvestment Fund – Rollovers totaling $1,000,865, primarily relating
to the Transit Hub (Parking Structure), Elm Road Landfill mitigation, and Visitor
Center and Conference Center repairs/remodelings. There remains $22,705 for
MPEC closeout.
2. General Fund – Rollovers totaling $170,756 (a decrease from over $1,000,000
last year), including body cameras (Police), Floodplain management, and Fish
Creek corridor work.
3. Open Space – $55,984 - Fish Creek corridor.
4. Trails – $208,275 - Fall River Trail work
5. Streets – $71,523 - Aggregate storage building, paving and asphalt.
6. L&P - $650,466 – Flood repair items, L&P shop remodel, smart meter project,
GIS equipment.
7. Water - $161,969 – Flood repair items, GIS equipment
8. IT – $7,000 – keypad supplies, broadband survey
9. Vehicle replacement – $336,668, for vehicles ordered, but not yet delivered.
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of rolling over “open” purchase orders from the 2015 Budget to
the 2016 Budget. This is accomplished annually through Resolution (attached).
Advantages:
Approval of Rollover Resolution #03-16 allows seamless transition of in-progress
projects from the 2015 to 2016 Budget. Fund balance is not affected.
Disadvantages:
Non-approval will cause the 2016 Budget to need widespread amendments to the 9
aforementioned funds, and will stop ongoing projects until approval would be attained.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed 2015 rollovers into the 2016 Budget.
Budget:
There is no long term affect to Town Budgets, but the 2015 Budget will be decreased by
$2,663,505, whereas the 2016 Budget will be increased by the same amount. Fund
balance over the 2015-16 period will not be affected.
Level of Public Interest:
As there are 48 rollovers totaling $2,663,504.89, there is a possibility that various
members of the public, or specific groups, may be interested in any number of purchase
orders being rolled over.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #03-16, which re-appropriates the 2015
encumbered funds into the 2016 Budget.
RESOLUTION NO. #03-16
A RESOLUTION RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS ENCUMBERED
IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK’S
2015 BUDGET TO THE 2016 BUDGET YEAR
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park’s accounting system incorporates a purchase order
system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for the purchase of goods
or services are made; and
WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015, are reserved from the ending fund balances; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park intends to appropriate funds in the budget for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, to satisfy the commitments for the outstanding
encumbrances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT:
I. The following 2016 budgets are increased for appropriations for outstanding 2015
budget encumbrances.
2015 2016 2016 2016
ENCUMBRANCE O&M TRANSFERS REVISED
FUND (PO Rollovers) EXPENSES OUT BUDGET
General $170,756.15 $15,081,065.00 $955,000.00 $16,206,821.15
Community
Reinvestment 1,000,864.81 2,803,754.00 325,000.00 4,129,618.81
Open Space 55,983.17 261,440.00 0.00 317,423.17
Trails 208,275.13 500,000.00 0.00 708,275.13
Streets 71,522.96 4,084,381.00 0.00 4,155,903.96
Light & Power 650,466.04 16,383,325.00 1,519,500.00 18,553,291.04
Water 161,968.99 5,247,666.00 56,261.00 5,465,895.99
IT 7,000.00 677,127.00 0.00 684,127.00
Vehicle Replacement 336,667.64 819,839.00 0.00 1,156,506.64
$2,663,504.89 $45,858,597.00 $2,855,761.00 $51,377,862.89
II. The ending fund balance from the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, will be the
source of funds for the budget amendments.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Fund Balance Policy (#660)
Objective:
To adopt the Fund Balance Policy that was discussed at the January 26, 2016, Study
Session.
Present Situation:
The attached Fund Balance Policy attempts to clarify:
1. Fund balance policies for each Fund type, and
2. Fund Balance classifications (levels of restriction) as prescribed by GAAP/GFOA.
Proposal:
Following discussion/input at the January 26, 2016, Study Session, Staff is asking that
Town Board adopt the attached Fund Balance Policy
Advantages:
Established fund balance thresholds within Funds will help the Town during creation of
Budget documents, and will also provide long-term financial continuity/stability. A Fund
Balance Policy would allow fund balance targets to drive the Budget process and other
financial decisions, rather than vice versa.
Disadvantages:
Without set guidelines, trending and prevailing events will continue to affect Fund
balances. Lack of set policy will allow for interpretation/opinion as to what level Funds
may be spent.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends adoption of the Fund Balance Policy (#660).
Attachments:
Fund Balance Policy #660
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 8
Effective Period:
Review Schedule:
Effective Date:
References:
FINANCE
660
Fund Balance Policy
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish appropriate levels of reserves (fund balance) for
each fund within the Town’s operations, recognizing the unique needs and differing
situations for the various funds.
2. POLICY
1. Definitions:
a. Fund balance is the net position of a governmental fund (difference between
assets, liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows of
resources), 2012 GAAFR, p1066. Fund balance is the cumulative
difference over time of all revenues and expenditures. Fund balance is
accumulated when revenues exceed expenditures and decreased when
revenues are less than expenditures. It serves as a measure of financial
resources available for current operations. Available fund balance can be
dramatically affected by levels of restriction on a fund (see Supplementary
Information section of policy).
b. Fund balance percentage is defined as “unassigned fund balance divided
by total expenditures”. TABOR reserves may be used as part of the
calculation (added to numerator).
2. Specific Fund Balance policies
a. Governmental Fund Types
i. General Fund – Town Board has established that fund balance
percentage should not fall below 20%. This provides a minimum of
3% as the Tabor reserve and 17% for economic downturns and other
financial emergencies that may result from unanticipated disasters.
General Fund fund balance percentage can be dramatically affected
by timing resulting from grant-related incomes and expenditures.
Grant income/expenditures may be taken into account when
internally calculating fund balance percentage.
ii. Capital Fund (Community Reinvestment) – In general, no minimum
reserve requirement. Funds can be spent to zero balance annually.
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 2 of 8
Fund balance should never be less than the total of funds collected,
but not yet spent, that are restricted for a specific purpose (bond
proceeds, grants, donations).
iii. Special Revenue Funds (Conservation Trust, Open Space,
Emergency Response, Community Center, Trails, Streets) – In
general, no minimum reserve requirement. Funds can be spent to a
zero balance annually. Fund balance should never be less than the
total of funds collected, but not yet spent, that are restricted for a
specific purpose.
b. Proprietary Fund Types – Enterprise
i. Light and Power Fund –
1. The L&P Fund has bond reserve requirements (restricted
funds) of 1.25 ((total revenues – total expenditures + capital +
future vehicle replacement + capital-related engineering
costs)/debt service). The Town also seeks to maintain a self-
imposed 90-day operating coverage ratio of > 1.00, as defined
by ((fund balance / ((total expenditures – capital – future
vehicle replacement – capital-related engineering costs) x
.25).
2. The L&P Fund seeks to maintain and replace its
infrastructure, through rate studies/implementation, at a pace
that at least matches asset depreciation rates.
ii. Water Fund –
1. The Water Fund has operations and maintenance (O&M)
requirements (restricted funds) as defined by the Water Loan
covenants. The Town also seeks to maintain a self-imposed
debt coverage ratio of 1.10 (same definition as in L&P Fund).
2. The Water Fund seeks to maintain and replace its
infrastructure, through rate studies/implementation, at a pace
that at least matches asset depreciation rates.
c. Proprietary Fund Types – Internal Service
i. Medical Insurance Fund – This fund is designed to cover premiums,
claims and other operating expenses related to the Town’s self-
funded plan to provide employees medical and dental insurance.
Employees and user departments are charged appropriately to cover
these costs. Reserves shall be maintained at between 30%-40% of
the 3-year rolling average of annual claims.
ii. Fleet Fund – This fund is designed to provide for ongoing
maintenance and repair of the Town (and other contracted) fleet of
vehicles. The fund is designed to cover its operating and capital
costs annually through charges for services to the user departments.
Due to potential fluctuations in operating costs for fuel and
unexpected repairs, etc., the Fleet Fund shall maintain an operating
reserve of at least 10%. The Fleet Fund should also maintain a
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 3 of 8
capital replacement program commensurate with the rate of
depreciation within the Fund.
iii. IT Fund – The IT fund is designed to provide ongoing upgrades and
maintenance to the Town’s IT infrastructure and operating systems.
The fund is designed to cover its operating and capital costs annually
through charges for services to the user departments. Reserves
shall be maintained between $100,000-$200,000 to allow for
emergencies or unanticipated technology needs. Additional funds
may be reserved in recognition of reserved/restricted broadband
monies received. The IT Fund should also maintain a capital
replacement program commensurate with the estimated
replacement costs of existing equipment.
iv. Vehicle Replacement Fund – This fund is designed to provide
replacement vehicles to appropriate user departments. Funds are
accumulated at depreciation rates equal to 3% per yr / 25%
maximum for life of vehicle, of purchase price of the vehicle.
Reserves will fluctuate based on the replacement schedule, but the
unrestricted reserve balance should maintain a balance of at least
15% of the fleet replacement value.
d. Fiduciary Fund (Theater Fund) – These funds are held by the Town in a
fiduciary capacity and are available for the purpose of the construction of a
performing arts facility.
Supplementary information:
3. Fund Balance Classifications: The appropriate fund balance classifications
shall be included in each governmental fund as necessary or required by GAAP.
In the CAFR, all governmental funds report various fund classifications that
comprise a hierarchy primarily based on the extent to which the Town is bound to
honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can
be spent. The Town may or may not report all fund balance types in any given
reporting period, based on actual circumstances and activity. It is not expected or
required that all funds report all possible fund balance classifications. Provisions
of GASB 54 need not be applied to immaterial items. Policy cannot consider every
situation that could occur; therefore, the Finance Director or designee shall have
discretion to deviate should circumstances warrant. However, the following
descriptions are a guideline of what can be expected to be appropriate in each
fund balance classification. The categories within each classification will be
reported in alphabetical order and not listed in any other order of significance.
a. Non-spendable Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance that cannot be
spent because it is either not in a spendable form (not expected to be
converted to cash) or is legally or contractually required to be maintained
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 4 of 8
intact (corpus or principal of a permanent fund). Non-spendable amounts
should not be reported in a fund if the proceeds from the collection,
conversion or sale of the asset are restricted, committed, or assigned. In
such a situation, they should be included in the appropriate fund balance
classification (restricted, committed or assigned) rather than as non-
spendable.
i. Advances to Other Town Funds – The amount any Town fund owes
the General Fund since the payments back to the General Fund will
be available for immediate appropriation by the Board for any
purpose.
ii. Inventories – The value of inventories that are not expected to be
converted into cash.
iii. Long-term Receivables – Long-term receivables for loans and notes,
if not setup with an offsetting liability.
iv. Prepaid Items – The value of prepaid assets.
v. Property Acquired for Resale – The value of property acquired for
resale.
b. Restricted Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance constrained for a
specific purpose by external parties (creditors-debt covenants, grantors,
contributors, or laws and regulations of other governments), constitutional
provisions, or enabling legislation. Effectively, restrictions on fund balance
may only be changed or lifted with the consent of the resource providers.
i. Capital Projects – Any amounts restricted by federal, state, or local
governments or by enabling legislation for capital projects.
ii. Citizen Initiatives – Any amounts restricted by citizens through
enabling legislation.
iii. Debt Service – Any amounts required to be held according to creditor
requirements.
iv. Intergovernmental Agreements - Unspent intergovernmental
grant/allocation/contract funding that must be used for specific
programs as stipulated by the agreement. This includes any
matching funds needed to spend the funds. If a deferred revenue
amount has been recorded for any unearned revenue, this would
result in no fund balance to report.
v. Legislative Restrictions – Any amounts restricted by federal, state, or
local governments or by enabling legislation other than citizen
initiatives or restrictions for capital projects.
vi. TABOR Reserves – As set forth in the Town’s Budget Preparation
and Management Policies 180.1D, Section III (reference B),
Amendment One to the state constitution (Article X, Section 20
Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights), passed by voters in 1992, requires that
reserves equal to 3% of the fiscal year spending be established for
declared emergencies.
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 5 of 8
c. Committed Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance that can only be
used for specific purposes according to limitations imposed by the Town
Board by majority vote at a public meeting prior to the end of the fiscal year.
The Board’s commitment will therefore constitute “committed funds,” a
designation which will follow the funds even when transferred to another
special revenue fund. If the actual amount of the commitment is not
available by the end of the fiscal year, the actual amount should be
calculated as soon as information is available but no later than March 1st of
the subsequent year. The constraint may be removed or changed only by
the same formal action of the Town Board. The restricted or committed
proceeds of specific revenue sources should be expected to continue to
comprise a substantial portion of the inflows reported in the fund. Other
resources (eg. investment earnings, transfers in) also may be reported in
the fund if those resources are restricted, committed, or assigned to the
specified purpose of the fund. The Town should discontinue reporting a
special revenue fund, and instead report the fund’s remaining resources in
the General Fund, if the Town no longer expects that a substantial portion
of the inflows will derive from restricted or committed revenue sources.
i. Capital Projects - Any unspent funds for a Board approved ongoing
capital project that remain at fiscal year-end. This does not
necessarily mean the assets will be capitalized.
ii. Other Commitments – Any other funds approved by the Board using
fund balance reserves. These will be reported by functions: general
government, health and human services, judicial and public safety,
recreation, or streets and highways.
d. Assigned Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance set aside for planned
or intended actions. The intended use may be expressed by the Board of
Town Trustees or other individuals delegated by the Board (Town Manager,
Budget Manager, or Financial Services Director) to assign funds to be used
for a specific purpose. Fund balance may be assigned after the end of the
reporting period any time prior to March 1st of the subsequent year. In
governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance
represents the amount that is not non-spendable, restricted, or committed.
This indicates that resources in these funds are, at a minimum, intended to
be used for the purpose of that fund. Assigned funds cannot cause a deficit
in the unassigned fund balance.
i. Advances to Other Town Funds – The amount any Town fund owes
another Town fund besides the General Fund for an advance.
Advances to other Town funds should be reported as Assigned since
the payments back to those funds will be used for the purpose of that
fund.
ii. Capital Projects – The estimated cost of planned or desired, but not
approved, specific projects as requested by the Board of Town
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 6 of 8
Trustees or other authorized individuals. This does not necessarily
mean the assets will be capitalized
iii. Subsequent Year Expenditures – Appropriation of existing fund
balance to eliminate a projected budgetary deficit in the subsequent
year’s budget. This includes any carry-over funds which are
intended to be used for a specific purpose.
iv. The adopted budget resolution generally authorizes a government to
spend budgeted revenues and other financing sources and,
therefore, does not impose constraints on the use of existing
resources. However, if a portion of existing fund balance is included
as a budgetary resource in the subsequent year’s budget to eliminate
a projected excess of expected expenditures over expected
revenues, then that portion of fund balance (in an amount no greater
than is necessary to eliminate the excess) should be classified as
assigned. The amount should not be classified as committed
because the Board of Town Trustees does not have to take formal
action to remove or modify that specific use – the purpose of the
assignment expires with the appropriation.
e. Unassigned Fund Balance – This is the residual portion of General Fund
balance that does not meet any of the above criteria. It represents
resources available for immediate appropriation by the Board for any
purpose. The Town will only report a positive unassigned fund balance in
the General Fund. Although there is generally no set spending plan for the
unassigned portion, there is a need to maintain a certain funding level to
cover unexpected expenditures and revenue shortfalls. In other funds, the
unassigned classification should be used only to report a deficit balance.
4. Order of Fund Balance Use - When multiple categories of fund balance are
available for expenditure, the Town will start with the most restricted category and
spend those funds first before moving down to the next category with available
funds. Therefore, fund balance is generally depleted in the order of restricted,
committed, assigned, and unassigned. For example, if a construction project was
being funded by bond proceeds and assigned fund balance, the Town would first
use the bond proceeds to pay expenditures since use of bond proceeds is more
restrictive than use of assigned fund balance. One exception is if the restricted
funds have legal requirements that disallow it being spent first.
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 7 of 8
3. PROCEDURE
Funds are reviewed annually for policy compliance following production of the CAFR.
Fund balance policy compliance is a required component of the annual Budget process.
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Document Title Draft 1 2/4/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX 1 - FORMS
a. Form 1
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits)
Objective:
Following discussion at the January 26, 2016, Study session, Staff asks that Town Board
adopt Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits.
Present Situation:
Staff is making every effort employ Policy Governance concepts to separate Board-level
policies from Administrative policies/procedural manuals. The revision of the March 2011
Finance Policies and Procedures Manual is an excellent illustration of this strategy. The
2011 version is 35 pages long. The in-progress draft revisions to just the purchasing-
related policies and manuals are themselves over 12,000 words, meaning that the total
revisions when complete will far exceed the original 35 pages. It is not practical to have
the Board approve every change that may occur in these documents. Therefore, Staff
has attempted to separate the high level of directives into Board-approved policies.
The Town currently follows the Finance Policies and Procedures Manual, last officially
updated on March 22, 2011. Many aspects of the existing policy are unclear, inadequate
and/or outdated. Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits specifies levels of spending
appropriate to staff position. The policy is used in conjunction with the Draft Finance
Manual – Purchasing Procedures - Administrative (pp 9-11), and outlines types of, and
required documentation for, each level of expenditure.
The Board approves Budgets at the Fund Level (total expenditures). The Board currently
then again approves many expenditures over $30,000 (vehicles, capital), duplicating
effort and taking up Committee and Board time. The new policy does not change the
Board’s fund-level expenditure approval, but delegates pre-approved Budgeted
expenditures under $100,000 to the Town Administrator, with step down levels of
authority as listed.
Proposal:
Staff asks that Town Board adopt Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits.
Advantages:
Implementation of Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits will delegate set levels of
spending authority and responsibilities throughout Staff, while allowing Town Board to
maintain high levels of authority and review of expenditures.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantage will be continued use of outdated and unclear (in some areas) policies.
Action Recommended:
Staff asks that Town Board adopt Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits.
Budget:
There will be no additional expenditures associated with this policy. However, this
policy delegates how the Budget will be managed.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of adoption of Purchasing Policy #601 – Purchasing Limits.
Attachments:
Purchasing Policy #601 – Spending Authority & Limits
DRAFT Finance Manual – Purchasing Policies & Procedures - Administrative
Document Title Draft 1 01/14/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 3
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: 02/01/2016
References: Financial Policies Manual 6xx
FINANCE
601
Purchasing Policy – Spending Authority & Limits
1. PURPOSE
a. To ensure that the best values for goods and services are obtained when using Town Funds.
b. To efficiently delegate spending authority/responsibilities to Town Staff so that Purpose “a”
can be achieved.
2. POLICY
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees authorizes the Town Administrator, Department
Directors, Managers and Supervisors with purchasing limits as set forth in this policy (Table 1).
Exceptions to spending limits include expenditures approved by the Board through the annual
budget process for insurance claims and premiums, debt obligations, utility supply payments, and
other Board approved expenditures.
3. PROCEDURE
Administrative procedural guides have been developed to outline processes for Town purchases.
These are outlined under the Purchasing Policies, which are approved under the authority of the
Town Administrator.
Document Title Draft 1 01/14/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 2 of 3
Table 1: Purchasing Authority by Title & Amounts
Department Town Job Title/Role Purchasing Limit
Admin Town Administrator $100,000
Admin Assistant Town Administrator $50,000
Admin Public Information Officer $5,000
Admin Serv Administrative Services Director $50,000
Comm Dev Community Development Director $50,000
Comm Dev Chief Building Official $5,000
Comm Serv Community Services Director $50,000
Comm Serv Visitor Services Manager $5,000
Comm Serv Events Maintenance Supervisor $5,000
Comm Serv Sales & Marketing Manager $5,000
Cultural Serv Museum Director $5,000
Cultural Serv Senior Center Manager $5,000
Finance Finance Officer $50,000
Finance Assistant Finance Officer $5,000
Police Chief of Police $50,000
Police Police Commander $30,000
Police Police Sergeant $5,000
Public Works Public Works Director $50,000
Public Works Facilities Manager $30,000
Public Works Public Work Engineering Manager $30,000
Public Works Public Works Operations Manager $30,000
Public Works Civil Engineer I (EIT) $5,000
Public Works Civil Engineer II (PE) $5,000
Public Works Fleet Supervisor $5,000
Public Works Parks Maintenance Supervisor $5,000
Public Works Streets Supervisor $5,000
Utilities Utilities Director $50,000
Utilities IT Manager $30,000
Utilities Line Superintendent $30,000
Utilities Water Superintendent $30,000
Utilities Laboratory & Water Quality Supervisor $10,000
Utilities Line Crew Chief $10,000
Utilities Water Distribution Supervisor $10,000
Utilities Water Plant Supervisor $10,000
Utilities Utilities Engineer $5,000
Document Title Draft 1 01/14/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 3 of 3
Approved:
Mayor, Town of Estes Park
Date
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
FINANCE MANUAL
6XX
Purchasing Policies & Procedures – Administrative
General Information
(Application to all purchases)
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Purpose
3. Initials, acronyms and definitions
4. Code of ethics
5. Responsibilities by departments
6. Purchasing procedures
Table 1 new vendor set up
7. Purchasing limits, procedures and documentation
Table 2 purchase type material, supplies, equipment and construction
Table 3 purchase type professional services
Table 4 exceptions
Table Purchasing authority & amounts by position titles (with policy)
8. Purchase orders
9. Processing invoices
10. Noncompetitive purchases
11. Cost and price reasonableness and analysis
12. Insurance and bonding
13. Blanket purchase agreements and prequalifying vendors
14. Year-end purchases
15. PERA
16. Alcoholic beverages
17. Tax exemption
18. Related Town policies and reference documents
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2
Effective Period:
Review Schedule:
Effective Date:
References:
FINANCE MANUAL
6XX
Purchasing Procedures – General Information
(Application to all purchases)
1. Introduction
It is not the intent of these procedures to cover every possible situation; rather it is to give
Town employees enough information so they are in a better position to make reasonable
purchasing decisions that best serve the Town and its citizens. Purchases are associated with
risks, especially large purchases for construction, professional services, and equipment and
materials depending on their use. Town employees with purchasing authority are expected to
make decisions in the best interest of the Town and to limit risks. There are many purchases
with very low risk (office supplies and materials in small amounts and used routinely and
frequently) in which the process is as simple as obtaining an invoices that is approved and
processed. Other purchases may require significant processes to ensure full and open
competition.
Purchases and/or payments may be placed on hold if the purchasing policies are not
followed. Town employees that do not follow the Purchasing Policies may be subject to
disciplinary action.
2. Purpose
The purpose of these procedures is to provide Town employees with instructions and
guidelines on how to purchase goods and services in a responsible manner.
To ensure that the best values for goods and services are obtained when using Town funds.
To achieve this goal, the Town shall employ efficient, effective and consistent purchasing
procedures.
3. Initials, acronyms, definitions
Capital outlay (also known as Fixed Assets): Includes Personal Property and Real
Property that has a useful life greater than one year and costs $5,000.00 or more per item.
Contracts are promises enforceable by law. Required if using State funds. Written
contracts are always best in any event as it is often difficult to prove the provisions of
oral agreements. Contracts include the Town templates, vendor-generated (such as for
copier leases, utilities services, vehicle purchases and rentals). Not all purchases require a
contract. Construction and professional services require a contract; materials and supplies
may not depending on the amount. Purchase Orders (POs) are not considered contracts.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
3
Cost analysis – conducted to perform an opinion on the degree to which the proposed
cost, including profit, represents what the performance of the contract ‘should cost’,
assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. This is conducted when full and open
competition is not conducted and the Town must ensure that costs are fair and reasonable;
that the Town is getting the best deal possible when there was no competition. To prove
costs are fair and reasonable costs are evaluated by comparing price lists, previous
invoices, or POs for the same or similar goods or services, or costs other municipalities
paid for the same or similar goods and services. A cost analysis is conducted whenever a
price analysis cannot be performed.
Cost reasonableness – a method of evaluating that costs are fair and not out of line. This
is accomplished through a full and open competition. If a full and open competition was
not conducted then other assessments include price lists, previous invoices or POs for the
same or similar supplies or services or costs other municipalities paid for the same or
similar goods and services.
Invitation for bids (IFB) – formal solicitation process for fulfilling a need for specific
product or service; requires receiving and evaluating contractor responses, often used for
construction projects
Liquidated damages – a specific sum provided for in contracts which are agreed upon to
be a fair and reasonable estimation of actual damages which would be incurred in the
event of contractual breach by the Town or the vendor. Liquidated damages replace
actual damages when it is too difficult to determine the amount of actual damages.
Contracts that include liquidated damage clause must establish the actions or omissions
that constitute a breach.
Payment bond – bonds which assure payment to all persons supplying labor or material
for the completion of a project under a contract. A bond executed in connection with a
contract secures the payment requirements of a vendor. It is a written promise to pay if
certain circumstances occur or certain time elapses. The bond is given by a Surety to
cover any amounts that are not paid to subs or suppliers.
Performance bond – are executed subsequent to award by successful bidder to protect the
Town from loss due to bidders inability to complete the project as agreed. Secures
fulfillment of the contractual obligations and ranges from 2%-5% of the value of the
performance secured.
Purchase Order – are used to encumber funds. Are not considered contracts.
Price analysis – examination of a proposal by comparing with outside criteria such as
internal estimates, other proposals prices or established market prices and does not
evaluate separate cost elements. Conducted following a competitive. An evaluation of the
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
4
offeror’s price relative to the prices being offered by other contractors and being paid by
the general public for the same or similar goods or services.
Request for proposals (RFP) – formal solicitation process for fulfilling a need for specific
product or service; requires receiving and evaluating contractor responses
Request for qualifications (RFQ) – formal solicitation process for fulfilling a need for
specific product or service; requires receiving and evaluating contractor responses;
focuses on qualification and price if often negotiated following selection based on
qualifications
Responsive bidder – bids are determined to be in substantial conformance with the
conditions, completion or delivery requirements
Responsible bidder – a bidder who has the capability to fully perform all contract
requirements, and has the experience, integrity, capacity, facilities, equipment and credit
assuring good faith performance. Past performance, financial capabilities and business
management are included in the criteria for determining if a bidder is capable of
satisfying the contract requirements.
Quotes – informal solicitation process for fulfilling a need for a specific product or
service; requires receiving and evaluating responses from contractors
Vendor, supplier and contractor – may be used interchangeably; the new OMB Federal
Grant Guide eliminated the term vendor and only uses contractor.
4. Code of Ethics related to purchasing
Employees with purchasing authority are held to a high degree of trust and shall be bound
to the Code of Ethics as follows:
A. Avoid the intent and appearance of unethical or compromising practice in
relationships, actions and communications.
B. Demonstrate loyalty to the Town of Estes Park by diligently following policies and
procedures while using professional judgment, reasonable care and exercising only
the authority granted.
C. Conduct all purchase activities in accordance with applicable laws and Town policies
and procedures.
D. Refrain from any private or professional activity that would create a conflict of
interest or the appearance of a conflict between personal interest and the best interest
of the Town.
E. Gifts, entertainment, or favors from present and potential contractors to Town
employees are subject to Colorado State Constitution Amendment 41.
F. Promote positive contractor relationships through impartiality.
G. Display integrity in all public and professional relationships in order to merit respect
and confidence of the Town and the public served.
H. Provide an environment where all businesses, including small and minority owned
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
5
and operated businesses, are afforded an equal opportunity to compete.
I. Offer equal assistance to all contractors and suppliers.
J. Ensure that the contract follows what was stated in the invitation to bid or request for
proposals.
K. Do not favor certain contractors and suppliers over others without appropriate
justification.
5. Responsibilities
A. Finance and Accounting
1) Instruct employees on procurement policies and procedures
2) Instruct employees on purchase order (PO) processing
3) Provide assistance to employees making purchases
4) Maintain files, including but not limited to, POs, contracts, invoices, contractor
payment, proof of payment, and grant documentation as required
5) Maintain all grant files
6) Provide guidance on purchasing process during declared emergencies
7) Guide purchasing activities to ensure federal and state compliance
8) Monitor credit card activity as described in credit card policy
9) Template management – suggested edits to the standard clauses shall be
submitted to Finance. Finance is responsible for presenting suggested edits to the
Town attorney.
B. Administrative Services
10) Maintain official documents pertaining to purchases including but not limited to
fully executed contracts, change orders and solicitation supporting documents (bid
packet, RFP).
C. Departments (making purchases)
11) Department directors are required to ensure that employees are properly trained
on purchasing processes.
12) Plan for procurement in advance to allow for adequate time properly complete
purchasing requirements.
13) Before making purchases of goods and services, check existing inventory, current
Town vendor accounts, and existing contractors and consultants to avoid
duplication of purchases and unnecessary purchasing efforts.
14) Make every effort to ensure quotes, invitation for bids (IFB), request for
qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP) meet the legal and ethical
standards required to protect the Town, and ensure full and open competition that
is free from bias.
15) The Town participates in the Rocky Mountain e-Purchasing online system to
advertise and manage solicitations. Using this system is required for bids and
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
6
proposals ≥ $50,000; and employees are encouraged to use this for quotes (˂
$50,000).
16) Fully participate in the selection of contractors. The Town is responsible for the
selection of contractors and reserves the right to engage citizens in an advisory
capacity during the review of proposals and bids.
17) Facilitate proposal and bid evaluation processes to ensure compliance with this
policy and any required regulations that lead to a justifiable decision.
18) Document procurement selection processes; include reasons for the selection of
one vendor over others; reference criteria used to evaluate responders.
19) Notify contractors following evaluation process of the selection decision; issue
notice of award as appropriate.
20) Work with the Town attorney to develop, review and implement contracts as
indicated. Utilize Town templates.
21) Submit fully executed copies of contracts and change orders to Administrative
Services with solicitation support documentation for RFPs and IFBs (≥ $50,000).
22) If contracting with a vendor new to the Town, work with accounting on new
vendor set up.
23) Notify Finance in case of substitute signatory authority (i.e., department directors
on vacation).
24) Initiate the purchase order process for all purchases in accordance with this
policy. Issue appropriate purchase orders before invoices are received
25) Maintain complete and accurate purchasing files.
26) Maintain good contractor relations and address contractor and subcontractor
complaints, including protests, in a timely manner.
27) Work with contractors to ensure that invoices are sufficiently detailed and include
itemized list of goods or services (description), service or delivery date, invoice
date, PO number, location, quantities, contractor identification and contact
information.
28) Submit invoices according to the vendor check run dates which are provided to
departments from accounting annually.
29) Process and submit invoices to Finance……reference Colorado Revised Statute
6. Purchasing procedures
In accordance with the Tables 2 & 3, purchase transactions shall be conducted in a
manner providing full and open competition to be good stewards of public funds.
A. Purchases shall not be subdivided or split using multiple invoices to avoid purchasing
limits set forth in these procedures. This includes dividing orders, splitting
requirements for a job or project, and repetitive purchases of the same or similar
items.
B. Careful consideration must be used before using an existing contractor for work that
is outside the contract scope and would generally require a competitive purchasing
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
7
process (for example, if there is a contract for engineering and design, and
construction management is needed, this service should go through a purchase
process).
C. Exception to purchasing processes may be made during declared emergencies, as
outlined under the Emergency Purchasing Procedures, and under appropriate
governance policies.
D. Three (3) quotes, proposals or bids are standard practice to ensure cost
reasonableness.
E. Document vendors or contractors interested but decided not the respond.
F. Avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items.
G. Participate in intergovernmental agreements when appropriate.
H. Those with purchasing authority must be aware of possible conflicts of interest such
as contractors who develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work,
and invitations for bids or requests for proposals. These contractors might have an
unfair advantage over other contractors when it comes to responding to purchasing
opportunities.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
8
Table 1: New Vendor Set-up Process
√ Tasks Responsible File
1 Purchasing documentation Department Department
2 Signed contracts as required Department
Department
Admin Services-original for
formal bids & proposals
Finance-copy
3 Vendor number Department obtain from
HTE On HTE
4 W-9 & PERA verification Department Accounting
5 Purchase order Department generate
prior to 1st invoice Accounting
6 Town business license Department refer vendor
to Town Clerk Admin Services
7. Purchasing Limits, Procedures and Documentation
The purchasing type tables (2 & 3)included in this policy outlines purchase type, amount
limits, procedures and required documentation. Supervisors, managers and their
equivalent have purchasing authority as designated by the department director.
Employees with purchasing authority are listed by position title (Table).
Department Directors are authorized to adjust purchasing limits by position staying
within the designated purchasing limits as per Table Purchasing Authority & Limits by
Position Titles.
Signatory authority mirrors purchasing authority, and follows the purchasing limits.
If both purchasing type tables apply (example: design-build project), the most stringent
requirements must be followed.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
9
Table 2: Purchase type: Materials, Supplies, Equipment, Construction
Purchasing authority by position title see table with policy
Amount Procedures Procedures Detail Documentation
≤ $5,000 Discretionary
Discretionary use of cost conscious
practices; distribute equitably among
qualified suppliers; with or without
soliciting quotes, as long as prices are
reasonable
Detailed invoices
> $5,000 -
$30,000
Written quotes
required
Minimum of 3 quotes from qualified
sources
Document quotes (email)
Document selection process
Town contract (exceptions
may include supplies,
materials & services)
PO
Detailed invoices
e-Purchasing option
> $30,000 -
$50,000
Written quotes
required
Minimum of 3 written quotes from
qualified sources. Document non-
responses.
Witten quotes from vendors
Document selection process
Town Contract
PO
Detailed invoices
e-Purchasing option
> $50,000 -
$100,000
Formal bid
process
Minimum of 3 bids from qualified sources.
Lowest responsive and responsible bid that
meets qualifications and/or criteria. Use
this process for construction projects.
Document non-responses.
Document bid process
Advertise, e-Purchasing
Document selection process
Bid tabulation
Town Contract
Construction bonds
PO
Detailed invoices
Document no bid responses
> $100,000 Formal bid
process
Minimum of 3 bids from qualified sources.
Lowest responsive and responsible bid that
meets qualifications and/or criteria. Use
this process for construction projects.
Document non-responses.
Document bid process
Advertise, e-Purchasing
Document selection process
Bid tabulation
Town Contract
Construction bonds
PO
Detailed invoices
Document no bid responses
Note exceptions listed in Table 4.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
10
Table 3: Purchase Type: Professional Services (Architecture, Engineering, Other)
Purchasing authority by position title see table with policy
Amount Procedures Procedures Detail Documentation
≤ $5,000 Discretionary Discretionary use of cost conscious
practices Detailed invoices
>$5,000 -
$30,000
Written quotes
required
Minimum of 3 quotes from qualified
sources
Document quotes
Itemized scope of work
Statement of qualifications
Town professional services contract
PO
Detailed invoices
>$30,000 -
$50,000
Written quotes
required
Minimum of 3 written quotes from
qualified sources
Itemized scope of work
Written quotes from vendors
Statement of qualifications
Document selection process
Town professional services contract
PO
Detailed invoices
e-Purchasing option
Document non-responses
>$50,000 -
$100,000
Advertised
Request for
Proposals
(RFP)
required
Minimum of 3 proposals from
qualified sources (qualification
based). Price negotiated with best
responsive and responsible proposer.
Itemized scope of work
Statement of qualifications
Document solicitation process
Advertise, e-Purchasing
Document selection process
Document responsive & responsible
proposal
Town professional services contract
PO
Detailed invoices
Document no proposals received
>$100,000
Advertised
Request for
Proposal
(RFP)
required
Minimum of 3 proposals from
qualified sources (qualification
based). Price negotiated with best
responsive and responsible proposer.
Itemized scope of work
Statement of qualifications
Document solicitation process
Advertise, e-Purchasing
Document selection process
Document responsive & responsible
proposal
Proposal review & tabulation
Town professional services contract
PO
Detailed invoices
Document no proposal received
Note exceptions listed in Table 4.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
11
8. Purchase orders
1) Purchase orders are required for purchases in the amount of $5,000 and greater.
2) No employee shall make purchases without verifying that funding is allocated in the
Board adopted budget.
3) Purchase orders shall be issued at the time of purchase or contract execution.
4) Purchase order creation and entry is the responsibility of the department that incurs
the expenditure.
5) Purchase orders shall be written in a manner to be clear, concise and contain
sufficient detail so as to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings. Consult with the
Finance Department for assistance in itemizing purchase orders and understanding
appropriate line items to be used.
6) Purchase orders involving multiple departments may be issued by the Finance
Department.
7) PO numbers should be shared with the vendor so this number is included on invoices.
8) Departments issuing purchase orders are responsible for communicating purchase orders
(numbers) to vendors, so that the vendor may include the purchase order number on their
invoices.
9) Purchase orders must be signed and returned to the Finance Department prior to
receipt of the first invoice.
Table 4: Purchase Order Exception and Alternative Purchasing Process
Purchase Orders not required Alternative Purchasing Process Allowed (see
Finance Dept. for allowed processes)
Bond payments
Collection services
Community Service Grants
Escrow payments
Land, water rights, right of ways & easements
Insurance claims such as for property damage
Insurance premiums
Legal services (Town attorney)
Medical services
Mileage and meal allowances, employee travel
Utilities
Utility deposit refunds
Subsidies
Hardware maintenance
Insurance claims such as for property damage
Insurance premiums
Land, water rights, right of ways & easements
Legal services
Marketing surveys
Medical services, prescriptions
Membership dues
Mileage and meal allowances, employee travel
Platte River Power Authority
Postage
Purchases required by regulatory statutes
Software maintenance
Utilities (paid by Town)
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
12
9. Processing Invoices
The following outlines the process for approving and paying invoices.
A. Purchase orders (POs) are produced at the time of purchase and before invoices are
received.
B. Invoices are sent directly to or routed to the Town department responsible for the
purchase.
C. Invoices must be sufficiently detailed including itemized list of goods or services
(description), service or delivery date, invoice date, PO number, location, quantities,
vendor/ contractor identification and contact information.
D. Purchases shall not be subdivided or split using multiple invoices to avoid any purchasing
limits in the Town’s Purchasing Policy including dividing orders, splitting requirement
for a job or project, and repetitive purchases of the same or similar items.
E. Invoices must be reviewed employees responsible and/or knowledgeable about the
purchase.
F. Invoices must be approved by employees who have purchasing authority for their respect
level. Approval is indicated by signatures.
G. Approved and signed invoices must include the following information:
1) Project code as appropriate (used for tracking grants and/or projects)
2) Accounting number
3) Signature or initial
H. Approved and signed invoices are routed to accounts payable.
I. Invoices are entered into the Town’s accounting system.
J. Payments are scheduled to coincide with the Town Board meeting (twice monthly).
K. Checks require two (2) signatures. The Mayor’s signature is preprinted and the Finance
Officer signs each check.
L. Payments are mailed to (or held) for vendors/ contractors following the Town board
meeting after the Board approves expenditures.
10. Noncompetitive Purchases
Single (or sole) source purchases are a request for a purchase exempted from the Town’s
purchasing procedures. The Town provides for and prefers full and open competition
when soliciting bids and proposals.
Full and open competition provides for cost reasonableness which serves as a risk
management tool for the Town to ensure value purchasing. However, the Town
acknowledges that under certain circumstances, purchases may be made without a full
and open competition.
Non-competitive purchasing requires that at least one of the following:
A. After adequate solicitation processes are followed and only one bid or proposal is
received, the Town may determine the competition to be adequate. A cost
analysis must be performed and documented.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
13
B. When the Town requires supplies or services available from only one responsible
source, and no other supplies or services will satisfy the requirements.
C. If the Town requires a contractor to make an extensive, significant, or cumulative
change to the scope of an existing contract, the Town has made a sole source
award that must be justified.
D. Patent or data rights restrictions
Non-competitive purchases may be subject to cost analysis and must be approved by
the Town Administrator.
11. Cost and Price Reasonableness and Analysis
A. Cost reasonableness should be performed on all purchases made that did not follow this
policy and its procedures. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the
particular procurement situation and a starting point is the Town must make independent
estimates before receiving bids or proposals.
B. In certain circumstances, the Town may use design-build projects or other construction
methods in which it must negotiate profit as a separate element (line item).
C. To establish a fair and reasonable profit the following must be considered:
1) Complexity of the work to be performed
2) Risk borne by the contractor
3) Contractor’s investment
4) Amount/ percent of subcontracting
5) Quality of its record of past performance
6) Industry profit rates in the surrounding geographical area for similar work
Determining reasonableness can be as simple as reviewing past invoices or comparing
pricing/scope with other vendors. Rocky Mountain e-Purchasing is a resource for this.
Departments are responsible for estimating costs
12. Insurance and Bonding
Successful bidders requiring insurance will submit evidence of insurance documents in
writing to the attention of the Town Administration Department attention Assistance
Town Administrator. Types and levels of insurance coverage are necessitated by the size
and scope of the project being bid, changes to relevant laws, etc. No work shall
commence on any Town project until all such proof of insurance has been submitted to
the Town. All construction projects require the Town to be named as an additional
insured. Amount of required insurance may be commensurate with the scope and value
of the project, and shall be determined by the Town prior to beginning the project.
A. Bonding requirements
Minimum bonding requirements are as follows:
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
14
1) A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to five percent of the bid price. The
‘‘bid guarantee’’ must consist of a firm commitment such as a bid bond, certified
check, or other negotiable instrument accompanying a bid as assurance that the
bidder will, upon acceptance of the bid, execute such contractual documents as
may be required within the time specified.
2) A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract
price. A ‘‘performance bond’’ is one executed in connection with a contract to
secure fulfillment of all the contractor’s obligations under such contract.
3) A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract price.
A ‘‘payment bond’’ is one executed in connection with a contract to assure
payment as required by law of all persons supplying labor and material in the
execution of the work provided for in the contract.
13. Blanket purchase agreements and prequalifying vendors
The Town has the option of participating in the creation of blanket purchase agreements
(BPAs). The advantages include:
a) Simplify meeting recurring needs for supplies, materials and services, while
leveraging buying power and taking advantage of quantity discounts, saving
administrative time, reducing paperwork, and stabilizing a source of supply
b) Especially useful during emergencies when short-term notices are needed
Process for blanket purchase contracts
c) Contractors and suppliers must have been procured following the Town purchasing
policies and procedures
d) The Town must not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the full and
open solicitation period
e) Contracts are renewed each year on or before the contract expiration date
f) Contract renewals shall not exceed five (5) years
Departments should evaluate particular categories of goods or services that would be
most advantageous from a BPA.
g) Encouraged for repetitive services and supplies; not for one-time purchases
h) Some factors that may determine the need for blanket purchase agreements include
reoccurring orders, long lead time, high volume usage, custom items, indefinite
delivery and quantity
i) An existing contract may be renewed if the vendor was properly procured, goods and
services delivered are satisfactory and the department is renewing for the same goods
and service. May discuss with Town Administrator.
Prequalifying vendors – another efficient and effective purchasing method is to pre-
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
15
qualified vendors. The process is similar to the BPA; however, rather than contracting
with only one (1) vendor, a department may have several vendors available that can be
contracted for goods and services. For substantial purchases, the Town may open a
bidding or proposal process to only these prequalified vendors. Failure of a contractor to
perform will eliminate the contractor from the list of pre-qualified contractors. The Town
must ensure that all prequalified lists of persons, firms, or products which are used in
acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure
maximum open and full competition
14. Year End Information
a) All appropriations lapse at the end of each fiscal year.
b) If the goods or services were received by December 31, an encumbrance can be
liquidated if the invoice for the goods or services has been received and paid. The
month of January is for processing all invoices still related to the prior year. The
intent is to roll over encumbrances for projects are for multiple years. Town can
liquidate encumbrances any time prior to the rollover of purchase orders which is
presented to the board in February.
c) Expenses budgeted in the current year and a purchase order produced, the
encumbrance may be rolled over at the discretion of the Finance Officer to be used to
pay for those services or goods once received or delivered. Otherwise, the
expenditure will be paid for out of the next fiscal year's expenditures, budgeted or
not.
d) All purchase orders outstanding at the end of December should be reviewed by
departments to determine which, if any, should be closed. Contact the Purchasing
Department to get your purchase order closed.
e) Nothing contained herein is intended to restrict the timely procurement of operational and
emergency requirements for which funds have been appropriated.
15. PERA
For all PERA retirees performing services as an independent contractor or as an employee
performing work for a Town contractor, the Town will remit the working retiree
contributions in the same manner as is currently done for members. For all PERA
retirees performing services as an independent contractor or a PERA retiree working for a
Town contractor, the Town is responsible for notifying PERA of such arrangements and
PERA will offset the retiree’s retirement benefit to collect the working retiree
contributions.
The Town will conform to IRS definitions for status/determination of employee versus
independent contractors.
16. Alcoholic beverages
The Town will neither pay for, nor reimburse, employees for monies expended on
alcoholic beverages.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
16
17. Tax exemption
The Town is exempt from paying Colorado sales tax. The Finance Department will provide
appropriate purchasers (employees, approved contractors) with Federal and State exemption
certificates or numbers.
Contractors using the Town exemption status shall make every effort to have sales tax
excluded from purchases by completing a DR0172 form.
18. Related Town policies and reference documents
Other Town policies that should be referenced when making purchases include the
following. (review which Town polices, procedures and other docs should be referenced
here)
1) Policy governance – Town Clerk
2) Conflicts of interest, HR policy – Administration Services
3) Nondiscrimination – adopted by Administration for grant management
4) Credit card use – Finance
5) Charge accounts with local vendors?
6) Invoice processing document – Finance
7) Document retention – Administration Services
8) Petty cash – Finance
9) Purchase orders – Finance - separate from this purchasing policy?
10) Tax exemption – Finance
11) Town logo – Administration
12) Record request – Administration Services
13) Travel – Finance
Administrative Policy & Procedures
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: February 9, 2016
RE: Purchasing Policy #602 – Local Preference
Objective:
Following discussion at the January 26, 2016, Study Session, Staff is asking that the
Town Board adopt Purchasing Policy #602 – Local Preference.
Present Situation:
Staff is making every effort employ Policy Governance concepts to separate Board-level
policies from Administrative policies/procedural manuals. The ongoing revision of the
March 2011 Finance Policies and Procedures Manual is an excellent illustration of this
strategy. The 2011 version is 35 pages long. The in-progress draft revisions to just the
purchasing-related policies and manuals are themselves over 12,000 words, meaning
that the total revisions, when complete, will far exceed the original 35 pages. It is not
practical to have the Board approve every change that may occur in these documents.
Therefore, Staff has attempted to separate the high level of directives into Board-
approved policies.
As stated, the Town currently follows the Finance Policies and Procedures Manual, last
officially updated on March 22, 2011. The current local preference section of the Policy
(item 3.4.10, page 17) allows for a 2% local preference discount when selecting vendors.
That is, local vendors (all else being equal) are selectable when their bids are within 2%
of out-of-town bids. The discount is capped at $37,500. Because this is largely a policy
more of Board preference than of Statute or Financial Best Practice, Staff is seeking to
move this topic into a separate policy. A cursory review of historical bids shows that 5%
may be a more material level of discount. Further procedural definitions and clarifications
have been added. The $37,500 cap has also been removed.
Proposal:
Staff asks that Town Board adopt Purchasing Policy #602 – Local Preference.
Advantages:
Implementation will provide guidelines for preference for local contractors and vendors.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantage will be continued use of an outdated and unclear local preference
policy.
Action Recommended:
Staff asks that Town Board adopt Purchasing Policy #602 – Local Preference.
Budget:
Affected projects/expenditures will be part of the Town’s Budget.
Level of Public Interest
Some members of the public, specifically those that conduct business with the Town, may
have moderate to considerable interest in this policy.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of adoption of Purchasing Policy #602 – Local
Preference.
Attachments:
Purchasing Policy #602 – Local Preference
Document Title Draft 1 01/14/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 1
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: 02/01/2016
References: Financial Policies Manual 6xx
FINANCE
#602
Purchasing Policy – Local Preference
1. PURPOSE
To support local, the Town offers local vendors an advantage in public contracting.
2. POLICY
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees authorizes a local business (geographical) preference.
3. PROCEDURE
a. “Local” is defined as a business headquartered within the boundaries of the Light & Power
service area.
b. Quotes for purchases less than $50,000: When the quote is within 5% of the lowest quote,
Department Directors may use their discretion in deciding if the written quote should be
awarded locally.
c. Proposals and bids for purchases between $50,000 and $100,000: When the proposal or bid
price is within 5% of the lowest bid, the Town Administrator may use his/her discretion in
deciding if the proposer or bidder should be awarded locally.
d. Proposals and bids for purchases over $100,000: When the proposal or bid price is within 5%
of the lowest bid, the Town Board may use their discretion in deciding if the proposer or bidder
should be awarded locally.
e. Federal and State grants prohibit geographical preferences; confirm this when using grant
funds.
f. Prior project/work history with the Town will be considered.
g. Must be a business in good standing and hold a current Town business license.
Approved:
Mayor, Town of Estes Park
Date
Ordinance #02-16 - First Amendment To The Lease Agreement For Stanley Park With The Estes Valley
Recreation And Park District.
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: February 5, 2016
RE: Ordinance #02-16 - First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for Stanley
Park with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
Objective:
To approve an amendment to the lease for Stanley Park, adding the Youth Center and
associated facilities operated by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
Present Situation:
The Town has entered into two separate agreements with the District for the use of the
Stanley Park and the Youth Center. A lease agreement for the use of Stanley Park was
entered into on March 30, 2010 for a ten (10) year term.
The Town entered into the Youth Center agreement with the District on April 26, 2005, a
First Amendment to the IGA effective June 8, 2010, and approved a Second
Amendment in June 2015 for the operation of the Youth Center through December 31,
2015. The Youth Center is currently being operated by the District without a lease
agreement.
Proposal:
Town staff, Attorney White, and District staff have been working to combine the two
separate lease agreements into one, as the Youth Center is located on a portion of the
Stanley Park. The new agreement addresses insurance and liability concerns raised
over the past several years by CIRSA, the Town’s property and liability insurance, as it
relates to the uses on the property. Other items addressed with the amendment include
identifying the Youth Center as a recreational facility, increase insurance requirements,
increase in the governmental immunity act limits, an indemnity provision and a
termination provision.
Advantages:
Clarify operational issues on the Stanley Park property.
Reduce the number of agreements between the two entities.
Outlines proper insurance requirements.
Provides a termination provision for both entities.
Addresses concerns outlined by CIRSA.
Ordinance #02-16 - First Amendment To The Lease Agreement For Stanley Park With The Estes
Valley Recreation And Park District.
2
Disadvantages:
No formal agreement would be in place for the operation of the Youth Center.
Exposes the Town to potential liability.
Action Recommended:
Approve the First Amendment to the lease agreement for the Stanley Park.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance #02-16.
Attachment
Ordinance #02-16
First Amendment to the lease agreement.
ORDINANCE NO. 02-16
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT FOR STANLEY PARK WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is appropriate to enter into the first amendment to the lease
agreement with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District for Stanley Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for Stanley Park between the
Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Exhibit
A, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
is hereby approved. The officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby
authorized to execute the Lease.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,
2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
Deleted: Draft #2, 01/11/2016
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT is effective the 1st day
of _____________, 2016, between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
(Lessor) and ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (Lessee).
RECITALS
1. The Lessor and Lessee are the parties to an Intergovernmental Agreement
dated April 26, 2005, First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated
June 8, 2010, and the Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
dated July 21, 2015 (collectively the “Intergovernmental Agreement”).
2. The Intergovernmental Agreement provides for the operation of the Youth
Center.
3. The term of the Intergovernmental Agreement expired December 31, 2015.
4. The Youth Center is located on the premises described in the Lease
Agreement effective March 30, 2010 between the Lessor and Lessee.
5. The parties desire to incorporate certain provisions of the expired
Intergovernmental Agreement into the Lease Agreement and amend other
provisions of the Lease Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, the
Lessor and Lessee amend the Lease Agreement as follows:
1. The Youth Center shall be a recreational facility as provided in the Lease
Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement.
2. Section 3 of the Lease Agreement provides that the Term of the Lease
Agreement shall extend for ten (10) years, “commencing on the first day of
January 2010 and ending on the 31st day of December 2020.” However, a ten
(10) year term commencing on January 1, 2010 would end on December 31,
2019, not December 31, 2020. Therefore, the Lessor and Lessee hereby
desire to correct this error and agree that the Lease Agreement, pursuant to
Section 3, shall terminate on December 31, 2019, unless sooner terminated in
accordance with the terms of this First Amendment to Lease Agreement.
Commented [b1]: Don’t have copies of these amendments.
Did they extend the term to December 31, 2015? Is that were
the expiration date below comes from?
Commented [b2]: Which provisions are we incorporating?
It appears this document simply amends the lease agreement.
2
3. Section 5 shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:
a. Lessee shall maintain in full force and effect, at Lessee’s sole expense, a
policy or policies of general liability and auto liability insurance in the
amount of no less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per
claim/occurrence covering the premises, all structures thereon, and all
uses therein. Lessee shall have Lessor included as an “Additional
Insured” on said policy. Within thirty days after execution of this First
Amendment to Lease Agreement and annually thereafter within thirty days
of the renewal of said policy or policies, Lessee shall cause to be provided
to Lessor a Certificate of Insurance evidencing such coverage and such
“Additional Insured” status. Lessee shall also require any sublessee of the
premises, or of any structures thereon of any portion thereof, to meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
b. Lessee shall carry Property Coverage for all structures and contents within
the premises. Lessee shall include Lessor as a loss payee on such
coverage as the respective interests of Lessor and Lessee may appear.
Within thirty days after execution of this First Amendment to Lease
Agreement and annually thereafter, within thirty days of the renewal of
said policy or policies, Lessee shall cause to be provided to Lessor a
Certificate of Insurance evidencing such coverage and such loss payee
status. Lessee shall also require any sublessee within the Youth Center to
meet the requirements of this paragraph.
c. Lessee shall maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage during
the term of this Agreement in compliance with the Colorado Workers’
Compensation Law. Lessee shall also require that all independent
contractors providing any labor or services with respect to the premises
and structures thereon maintain workers’ compensation insurance
coverage in accordance with the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Law.
4. Section 6 shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:
The parties understand and agree that the parties are relying on, and do not
waive or intend to waive, by any provision of this Lease, the monetary
limitations (presently $350,000 per person and $990,000 per occurrence) or
any rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq. C.R.S., as from time
to time amended or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers,
agent or employees.
5. Section 7 shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:
3
To the extent permitted by law, each Party agrees to indemnify, hold
harmless, and defend the other Party, its officers, agents and employees,
from and against all liability for any and all claims, liens, suits, demands or
action for damages, injuries to persons, including death, property damage,
including loss of use, and expenses, including court costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees arising out of or resulting from the other Party’s intentional or
negligent actions and/or omissions with respect to the premises and
structures thereon and/or uses thereof under the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Lessee shall include in any sublease of any portion of the
premises or structures thereof or portions thereof an indemnification
requirement reflecting the requirements of this paragraph.
6. Section 9 shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Lessee, for whatever reason it determines in its sole and absolute discretion,
may terminate this Lease by giving Lessor notice in writing of its intent to
terminate on or before October 1 of any calendar year with the termination
effective December 31 of that calendar year. Upon termination of this lease,
Lessee shall be entitled to remove all of its personal property including all
structures erected on the premises if the same can be removed without
damaging Lessor’s underlying property. In the event that any structure
erected on the premises cannot be removed by Lessee without damage to
Lessor’s underlying property, said structure shall remain on the premises
upon termination of the lease.
7. All other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, not otherwise
amended by this First Amendment to Lease Agreement, shall remain in full
force and effect.
4
LESSOR:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
___________________________
By: Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Town Clerk,
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_______________, 2016, by William Pinkham, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ______________________
_______________________
Notary Public
5
LESSEE:
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT
___________________________
By: Executive Director
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_______________, 2016, by Tom Carosello, Executive Director of the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ______________________
_______________________
Notary Public
Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers).
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: January 22, 2016
RE: Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers).
Objective:
To review the Mayor’s right to vote as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statute 31-4-302.
Present Situation:
The Town Board last reviewed the Mayor’s right to vote during the February 14, 2012
study session. At that meeting the consensus of the Board was to maintain the current
mayor’s right to vote (tie breaking vote only) because it allows the mayor to hear all sides
of an issue in the event a tie breaking vote becomes necessary.
Per Municipal Code §2.12.030 the Mayor shall have no vote upon any question except in
the case of a tie vote. Current state statue indicates that a mayor shall preside at all
meetings of the board of trustees and shall have the same voting powers as any member
of the board. However, a town may provide by ordinance that the mayor shall not be
entitled to vote on any matter before the board, except in the case of a tie vote.
The Clerk’s Office completed research in the past illustrating the Mayor’s right to vote
has been in existence since at least 1961 as referenced in the 1961 Municipal Code
attached for your review. A 2012 survey demonstrated municipalities are equally divided
on allowing the mayor a vote on all issues.
Proposal:
At the January 12, 2016 study session, the Board agreed to review the Mayor’s right to
vote at the January 26, 2016 meeting. The item is being reviewed as an action item to
allow public comment on the topic and to provide staff direction.
The state statute allows the Mayor’s right to vote to be reviewed by the Board within 60
days of the Municipal Election for mayor. Attorney White has provided a written review
of the state statute. Questions regarding the state statute will be addressed during the
Town Board meeting.
Advantages:
To allow public comment on the Mayor’s right to vote prior to the upcoming Municipal
Election for mayor.
Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers).
2
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
To provide staff with direction on developing an Ordinance to allow the Mayor the right to
vote on all issues.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny staff prepare an Ordinance to allow the Mayor the right to vote
on all issues coming before the Board of Trustees for consideration at an upcoming
Town Board meeting prior to the April 5, 2016 election.
Attachments:
1961 Estes Park Municipal Code §4.8
C.R.S. §31-4-302
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: January 21, 2016
RE: Voting Rights of the Mayor
This Memo provides a summary of the voting rights of the Mayor. Section 2.12.030 of
the Municipal Code Vote Required states as follows:
“The Mayor shall have no vote upon any question except in the case of a
tie vote. All ordinances and resolutions adopted authorizing the
expenditure of money or the entering into a contract require the approval
and signature of the Mayor before they can become valid.”
Section 31-4-302 C.R.S. Mayor – Powers provides in part as follows:
“….However, a town may provide by ordinance that the mayor shall not be
entitled to vote on any matter before the board, except in the case of a tie
vote. If such an ordinance is adopted, it shall also provide that any
ordinance adopted and all resolutions authorizing the expenditure of
money or the entering into of a contract shall be subject to disapproval by
the mayor as provided in section 31-16-104. Such an ordinance may
provide or may be amended to provide that the mayor shall not be
counted for purposes of determining a quorum or for the requisite majority
on any matter to be voted on by the board of trustees. Any such
ordinance may be adopted, amended, or repealed only within the sixty
days preceding any election of a mayor, to take effect upon such mayor’s
assumption of office.”
The Town Board may change Section 2.12.030 by adopting an ordinance between
February 5, 2016 through April 4, 2016, to provide that the Mayor shall be a voting
member of the Board of Trustees. In the event of adoption of such an ordinance, the
authorization for the mayor to disapprove any ordinance adopted and all resolut ions
authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into of contract, would also be
removed from the Mayor’s powers.
Please note that in the event the Mayor fails to approve an adopted ordinance or a
resolution for the expenditure of money or the entering into of a contract, Section 31-16-
104 C.R.S. provides that in said event the ordinance or resolution shall be re turned to
the Board of Trustees at the next regular meeting with the Mayor’s objections in writing.
The Board of Trustees, at said meeting or subsequent meeting, shall consider the
question “Shall the ordinance or resolution notwithstanding the Mayor’s objections be
passed?” If two-thirds of the Trustees (five Trustees) vote in the affirmative, such
resolution or ordinance shall become law.
Page 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant
Date: February 4, 2016
RE: Development Review Fee Schedule
Building Permit Fee Assessment and Collection
Floodplain Permit Fee Schedule
Sign Permit Fee Schedule
Objective:
1. To consider a resolution (Resolution #04-16) adopting revised fee schedules for the
Community Development Department, Planning Division.
2. To consider an ordinance (Ordinance #03-16) adopting revised building permit fee
schedules for the Community Development Department, Building Division.
3. To consider a motion to include a revision to Section 109.3, Building Permit
Valuations, in the International Building Code local amendments.
Present Situation:
Over the summer of 2015, the Community Development Department initiated an
analysis of its revenue, expenses, and fee assessment processes in order to determine
best practices for levying service fees. Following the data gathering phase, the
Department conducted a public participation process, hosting stakeholder and public
meetings, as well as an online forum for discussion. With the direction of the Town
Board, the Department has identified new processes for assessing and levying Planning
Division development review fees, Building Division permit fees, floodplain development
permit fees, and sign permit fees. These new processes will improve cost recovery and
customer service levels in the Department while ensuring an equitable system for all
applicants.
For the information of the Board, the proposals recommended by the Community
Development Department Staff do not account for Public Works or Utility Department
costs associated with Development Review or Building Permit Review. A typical
approach to recouping such expenses is levying an impact fee for new development.
Impact fees generally cover costs associated with service provision, as well as
administrative and technical review fees.
Page 2
Proposal: Planning Division Development Review Fee Schedule
Combination Model at 50% Cost Recovery
The Combination Model at 50% Cost Recovery proposed by staff will improve
development review expense coverage by an estimated 16%. This model utilizes a
combination of two separate fee assessment processes: review deposit, in which time
spent on a project is tracked and invoiced up to the deposit amount, and standard, in
which a standard fee is charged based on the type of project or service rendered (See
Exhibit A, Review Deposit Fee Schedule, and Exhibit B, Standard Fee Schedule).
In addition, Staff has incorporated data analysis to eliminate or reduce some application
review costs to reflect actual department expenditures and community input. For
example, the previous model charged a standard pre-application meeting fee of $500
for all project types, regardless of complexity or the number of meeting attendees.
Conversely, the proposed new model does not charge a pre-application meeting fee for
the majority of application types and services because of the minimal time and
resources spent by staff on such meetings.
Finally, Staff acknowledges that certain reviews require outsourcing, based on the
complexity and nature of the project and Department workload, among other factors. As
such, Staff proposes that the Community Development Director have the authority to
outsource certain development review applications. For these types of applications, the
fees would be assessed and charged to the applicant based on the reviewer’s rate.
Advantages:
Improves departmental cost recovery by an estimated 16% annually.
Reflects public feedback by eliminating or reducing some costs to accurately mirror
actual department expenditure.
Offers an organic opportunity for intradepartmental data collection and assessment.
Incentivizes complete applications and efficient use of staff time by applicants.
Disadvantages:
Requires development and implementation of new processes for review deposit
collection and tracking. Staff has already made strides to determine best technology
practices, coordinate interdepartmental process with the Finance department, and
develop outreach materials for applicants.
Proposal: Building Permit Fee Assessment and Collection
Locally-Based Valuation Model
The Locally-Based Valuation Model proposed by Staff involves using actual per square
foot construction costs to assess project valuations for all project types, including new
construction. Valuations that fall outside of the range of average per square foot
construction costs in the Town of Estes Park will be audited following completion of the
project.
Page 3
Plan Review Fees
Changes to Collection: In the current system, plan review fees are assessed at 65% of
the permit fee and paid upon permit pickup. This has resulted in an average of $15,000
in annual departmental cost recovery losses due to unpaid plan review fees, which
occur when projects are reviewed by the department but are abandoned by the
applicant prior to permit pickup. As such, Staff proposes that the plan review fee be
collected upon application submittal.
Changes to Assessment: Because of design wind speeds and snow loads required in
the Town of Estes Park, structural details must be stamped by an architect or engineer,
which negates the need for a full structural review. As the current assessment
percentage of 65% of the permit fee assumes full structural review, Staff proposes that
the plan review fee be reduced to 50%. This assessment level will reduce plan review
fees collected by 23%. For example, in the current system, a permit fee of $1,000 would
yield a plan review fee of $650. In the proposed system, a permit fee of $1,000 wo uld
yield a plan review fee of $500, or a 23% reduction.
Incentives and Penalties: Staff proposes that applicants in compliance with all minimum
submittal checklist requirements upon first review receive a 50% reduction in the plan
review fee charged for the project. Staff further proposes that applicants not in
compliance with all minimum submittal checklist requirements upon first review will be
assessed additional plan review fees at a rate of $100 per hour after the second review.
Finally, when plan reviews must be outsourced at the discretion of the Chief Building
Official, such reviews will be assessed and charged at the reviewer’s rate.
Dwelling Life Safety Survey Fee: Staff proposes the addition of a Vacation Home Rental
Inspection (Dwelling Life Safety Survey) Fee of $200 per survey (See Exhibit C, Pg. 2).
Advantages:
Improves equity across all project types.
Improves division cost recovery through up-front plan review fee collection and
accurate valuation assessment.
Incentivizes complete submittals.
Reflects community feedback.
Disadvantages:
Requires staff training with Larimer County to implement standardized audit
procedure
Proposal: Floodplain Development Permit Fee Schedule
Ensuring that development in the floodplain complies with local, state, and federal
regulations is an increasingly important issue in the Town of Estes Park. As a result,
floodplain development permit reviews have increased in complexity, leading the
Department to outsource the majority of reviews. Presently, the floodplain development
permit fee of $50 covers only 5% to 10%, on average, of review exp enses. As such,
Staff proposes charging applicants at-cost for floodplain development permits in order to
Page 4
improve cost recovery and account f or the complexity of developing in the floodplain.
This change is reflected in Exhibit B.
Advantages:
Improves cost recovery.
Accurately reflects the time and resources spent on floodplain development permit
reviews.
Requires minimal implementation, as outsourced reviews are already tracked per-
project.
Disadvantages:
Significant departure from current system.
Proposal: Sign Permit Fee Schedule
Presently, sign permits in the Town, except for temporary banners, can be obtained for
$75. Staff proposes reducing this fee to $50 to accurately reflect time and resources
spent on sign permit reviews. This change is reflected in Exhibit B.
Advantages:
Accurately reflects the time and resources spent on sign permit reviews.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Community Development Department Staff recommend that the Board adopt the
proposals for development review fees, building permit fee asses sment, floodplain
development permit fees, and sign permit fees as outlined in this memorandum.
Budget:
Changes to the Development Review Fee Schedule would impact Account Number
101-1600. Changes to the Building Permit Valuation and Audit Procedures would
impact Account Number 101-2300. New account numbers will be established for
floodplain permit revenue and expenses.
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest of the general citizenry is perceived to be low, particularly
considering the amount of participation received to-date on this topic. However, Staff
anticipates that any changes will yield an increased level of public interest for some
time after implementation. Public comment after the fact will be handled through
customer guides dedicated to these issues, as well as general education and
information provided by Staff as applicants learn about the new processes.
Page 5
Sample Motions:
1. Development Review Fee Schedules: Changes to the development review fee
schedule, including floodplain development permit reviews and sign permit reviews,
may be adopted by resolution (Resolution #04 -16). The fee schedules, revised
pursuant to the proposals outlined in this memorandum, ar e attached as Exhibits A
and B. Below are the Board’s options:
a. I move to APPROVE Resolution #04-16, as recommended by Staff.
b. I move to APPROVE Resolution #04-16 with the following
changes/conditions (list changes and/or conditions).
c. I move to DENY Resolution #04-16.
d. I move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to allow for further study.
2. Building Permit Fee Schedules: Changes to the building permit fee schedules may
be adopted by ordinance (Ordinance #03-16). The fee schedules, if adopted by the
Board, will be referenced in the International Building Code Local Amendments (See
Exhibit C). If the fee schedules are not adopted, the Board must establish and
approve another fee schedule. Below are the Board’s options:
a. I move to APPROVE Ordinance #03-16, as recommended by Staff.
b. I move to APPROVE Ordinance #03-16 with the following
changes/conditions (list changes and/or conditions).
c. I move to DENY Ordinance #03-16.
d. I move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to allow for further study.
3. Building Permit Valuation Assessment: The Board can move to approve, deny, or
continue the inclusion of the revised Building Permit Valuation Assessment
methodology in the International Building Code Local Amendments. Below are the
Board’s options:
a. I move to APPROVE the inclusion of revised subsection 109.3 in the
International Building Code Local Amendments, as recommended by Staff.
b. I move to APPROVE the inclusion of revised subsection 103.9 in the
International Building Code Local Amendments with the following
changes/conditions (list changes and/or conditions).
c. I move to DENY the inclusion of revised subsection 103.9 in the International
Building Code Local Amendments.
d. I move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to allow for further study.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Review Deposit Fee Schedule
Exhibit B: Standard Fee Schedule
Exhibit C: Significant Changes, International Building Code Local Amendments
170 MACGREGOR AVE. • P.O. BOX 1200 • ESTES PARK, CO • 80517 • PH. 970-577-3721 • FAX 970-586-0249 • www.estes.org 1
EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 1, 2016REVIEW DEPOSIT FEES
Type of Application Review Deposit
Development Plan: Staff Level $1,250
Development Plan: Commission-Level $3,250
Conditional Use Permit $4,500
Special Review $4,500
Planned Unit Development $4,500
Development Plan Amendment:
Commission-Level
$1,500
Development Agreement Modification $1,250
Preliminary Subdivision Plat $4,500
Final Subdivision Plat $3,000
Minor Land Subdivision $1,500
Annexation $2,500
Code Amendment (e.g. Rezoning)$4,500
The Review Deposit Fee Policy will
improve levels of customer service for
the most complex development review
services provided by the Community
Development Department. This new
policy provides a number of benefits to
applicants, including:
• Incentives for complete
submittals. Applicants are able
to reduce their review costs by
following development review
requirements.
• Elimination of certain pre-
application meeting fees. No pre-
application meeting fee is required
for simpler application types, such
as Amended Plats.
• Quantified review process.
Applicants will be provided with
a list of tasks completed and time
spent on their project each month
during the review process.
GENERAL POLICIES
• Submittals will not be accepted
until the applicable fee has been
paid.
• Certain project types are eligible for
fee waivers. For more information
on the department’s fee waiver
policy, contact the Community
Development Director.
• Application reviews may be
outsourced at the discretion of the
Community Development Director.
Outsourced reviews will be charged
at total cost of the review.
• For information on County fees,
visit www.larimer.org.
ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
Land use application types requiring the most staff time and
resources will require a review deposit collected at the pre-
application meeting. Project expenses, including, but not
limited to, staff time, legal time, and overhead costs such as
printing and public noticing, will be tracked by the department
and issued to the applicant on the last business day of each month.
Expenses will be tracked until such time that the
application is approved by the decision-making body and/or
recorded, or the application is officially withdrawn by the applicant.
Should a project’s expenses be less than the collected deposit
amount, the applicant shall be refunded the difference. The deposit
amount indicates the maximum amount that will be charged to
the applicant, even if the project expenses exceed that amount.
Outsourced reviews are not subject to a maximum. Should an
applicant be submitting multiple applications concurrently, the
largest application deposit shall be collected. For example, if an
applicant submits a Rezoning application and a Commission-Level
Development Plan, a $4,500 review deposit shall be collected.
170 MACGREGOR AVE. • P.O. BOX 1200 • ESTES PARK, CO • 80517 • PH. 970-577-3721 • FAX 970-586-0249 • www.estes.org 1
EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 1, 2016
STANDARD FEES
Type of Application Fee
Improvement Agreement/ LOC 0.5% of Credit Amount
Cell-Towers: Administrative Review $1,300
Administrative Appeal
(Board/Commission Level)
$500
Amended Plat/ Boundary Line Adjustment/
Lot Consolidation
$1,250
Easement Vacation $500
Legal Lot Determination $500
Temporary Use Permit $75
BOA Variance: Prior to Construction $725
BOA Variance: After Construction $1,275
Development Plan Amendment:
Staff Level
$870
Preliminary Plat Time Extension $500
Final Plat Time Extension $500
Final Condominium Map $500
Supplemental Condominium Map $300
Amended Condominium Map $500
Staff Minor Modification (EVDC 3.7):
Prior to Construction
$150
Staff Minor Modification (EVDC 3.7):
After Construction
$300
Certificate of Occupancy Inspection $0 for first, $50 for each sub-
sequent inspection
Sign Permit (Except for Banners)$50
Temporary Banner Permit $35
Floodplain Development Permit At Total Cost of Review*
General policies for land use
applications and services requiring
a standard fee collected at the time
of application submittal or delivery
of service are as follows:
• Submittals will not be accepted
until the applicable fee has been
paid.
• Additional fees equal to 20% of
the original application fee will
be charged for all incomplete
applications or for multiple
requests for plan review.
• Certain project types are eligible
for fee waivers. For more
information on the department’s
fee waiver policy, please contact
the Community Development
Director.
• Application reviews may be
outsourced at the discretion of
the Community Development
Director. Outsourced reviews
will be charged at total cost of
the review.
• For information on County
Fees, visit www.larimer.org
*Pursuant to Section 17.28.090 of
the Estes Park Municipal Zoning
Code.
ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
The majority of land use applications and services require a standard fee, collect-
ed at the time of application submittal or delivery of service. Fees are intended
to cover 50% of expenses incurred by the department during the review process,
such as staff time and administrative expenses.
1
START SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Table 1-A – Building Permit Fees
TOTAL VALUATIONl FEE2
$1.00 to $500.00 $23.50
$501.00 to $2,000.00
$23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each
additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
$69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
$391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00
$643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.00
$100.001.00 to $500,000.00
$993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00
$3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75
for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up
$5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65
for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof
1Valuations shall be determined per Section 109.3 of this code.
2 A fee for combination building permits shall be paid to the building official as set forth in
Table 1-A, except as specified in Table 1-B. A plan review fee shall be paid equal to 50
percent of the building permit fee as shown in Table 1-A. A 50% discount in review fees will
be given for plans which are approved on first review. The plan review fees specified in this
section are separate fees from the permit fees specified in Section 109.2 and are in addition to
the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require
additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items, an additional
plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Table 1-B. Plans that cannot be
reviewed by building division staff due to their complexity will be charged the full review fee
of the outside agency used by the division of building safety for the plan review.
2
Table 1-B - Fee Schedule
1. Inspections outside of normal business
hours. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under
provisions of Section 109.8
$100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
3. Inspections for which no fee is
specifically indicated. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
4. Additional plan review required by
changes, additions or revisions to plans. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
5. For use of outside consultants for plan
checking and inspections or both. Actual costs2
6. Demolition permits.
$50.00 OTC.
$100.00 per structure requiring review by
other departments/agencies.
$200.00 per structure with utility
connections.
7. Temporary use permits. $50.00 each
8. Certificates of occupancy. $100.00 each
9. Temporary certificates of occupancy. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
10. Appeals to the Board of Appeals. $50.00 each
11. Wildfire Fees
The most recent wildfire fees table adopted
by Larimer County, which is hereby adopted
by reference.
12. Dwelling Life Safety Survey $200.00 each
1Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall
include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the
employees involved.
2Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. 20% of standard permit fees and
plan review fees shall be collected as general administrative overhead costs. These fees are
separate from and are in addition to fees paid to outside consultants.
3
Table 1-C – Grading Plan Review Fees
50 cubic yards (38.2m³) or less No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5 m³) $27.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m³ to 764.6 m³) $45.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 764.6 m³) $58.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 m³ to 76,455 m³) = $58.00 for the first 10,000 cubic
yards (7,645.5 m³), plus $28.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or
fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,455 m³ to 152,911 m³) = $310.00 for the first 100,000
cubic yards (76,455 m³), plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or
fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards (152,912 m³) or more = $460.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards
(152,911 m³) plus $8.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction
thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approved plans
$100.00/hour*
(minimum
charge = one
half hour)
* Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
4
Table J-2 – Grading Permit Fees1
50 cubic yards (38.2m³) or less $27.00
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5 m³) $45.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m³ to 764.6 m³) = $45.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³),
plus $20.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 764.6 m³) = $225.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards
(764.6 m³), plus $16.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m³) or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 m³ to 76,455 m³) = $369.00 for the first 10,000 cubic
yards (7,645.5 m³), plus $76.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction
thereof.
100,001 cubic yards (76,455 m³) or more = $1,053.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455
m³), plus $42.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Section
108.8
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
$100.00/hour²
(minimum charge = two
hours)
$100.00/hour²
$50.50/hour²
(minimum charge = one
hour)
1 The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be
the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire
project.
2 Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
This amendment shall be applicable to, and is an amendment to each of the International Codes
adopted and enforced by the Town of Estes Park.
5
109.3 Building permit valuations. REVISE this subsection as follows:
The applicant for a permit shall provide the actual project value at time of application. Project
valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit
is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.
If, in the opinion of the building official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the
permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of
the building official. Final project valuation shall be set by the building official.
Valuations for all projects shall be actual project values. The schedule of permit fees shall be
reviewed and approved annually by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park.
This amendment shall be applicable to, and is an amendment to each of the International Codes
adopted and enforced by the Town of Estes Park.
109.3 Building permit valuations.
The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated permit the actual project value at time of
application. Permit Project valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and
labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing
equipment and permanent systems. If, in the opinion of the building official, the valuation is
underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show
detailed estimates to meet the approval of the building official. Final building permit project
valuation shall be set by the building official.
Valuations for all projects shall be actual project values. The schedule of permit fees shall be
reviewed and approved annually by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park.
This amendment shall be applicable to, and is an amendment to each of the International Codes
adopted and enforced by the Town of Estes Park.
The fee Tables 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D use project valuations to directly determine permit fees.
To ensure equity and consistency in assessing fees, it is essential to establish a clear and specific
method of determining project valuations. Increasing a project valuation will result in increased
permit fees. The increase in permit fees is not directly proportionate to the increase in valuation,
because the percentage of project valuation assessed as fees, decreases as the project valuation
increases. The above proposed amendment clearly specifies the process by which the building
official is to determine valuations. It is not the current process and will become part of the code
if approved for adoption. Fees and how they are determined have been discussed by the Board
of Appeals at multiple public meetings. The Board of Appeals supports using actual project
valuations to assess fees. This proposed amendment is intended to be applicable to and is a
proposed amendment to each of the International Codes adopted and enforced by the Town of
Estes Park.
END SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
RESOLUTION NO. 04-16
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE
SCHEDULES FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed its current
development fee schedules and proposes to revise its fee schedules to improve cost
recovery and customer service levels in the Department while ensuring an equitable
system for all applicants; and
WHEREAS, the revised Community Development Department fee schedules
also include revised fees for sign and temporary banner permits and floodplain
development review permits.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
1. The Community Development Department fee schedules set forth on Exhibit
A attached hereto are hereby adopted.
2. The fee schedules set forth on Exhibit A shall be effective April 1, 2016.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this 9th day of February, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Town Clerk
170 MACGREGOR AVE. • P.O. BOX 1200 • ESTES PARK, CO • 80517 • PH. 970-577-3721 • FAX 970-586-0249 • www.estes.org 1
EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 1, 2016REVIEW DEPOSIT FEES
Type of Application Review Deposit
Development Plan: Staff Level $1,250
Development Plan: Commission-Level $3,250
Conditional Use Permit $4,500
Special Review $4,500
Planned Unit Development $4,500
Development Plan Amendment:
Commission-Level
$1,500
Development Agreement Modification $1,250
Preliminary Subdivision Plat $4,500
Final Subdivision Plat $3,000
Minor Land Subdivision $1,500
Annexation $2,500
Code Amendment (e.g. Rezoning)$4,500
The Review Deposit Fee Policy will
improve levels of customer service for
the most complex development review
services provided by the Community
Development Department. This new
policy provides a number of benefits to
applicants, including:
• Incentives for complete
submittals. Applicants are able
to reduce their review costs by
following development review
requirements.
• Elimination of certain pre-
application meeting fees. No pre-
application meeting fee is required
for simpler application types, such
as Amended Plats.
• Quantified review process.
Applicants will be provided with
a list of tasks completed and time
spent on their project each month
during the review process.
GENERAL POLICIES
• Submittals will not be accepted
until the applicable fee has been
paid.
• Certain project types are eligible for
fee waivers. For more information
on the department’s fee waiver
policy, contact the Community
Development Director.
• Application reviews may be
outsourced at the discretion of the
Community Development Director.
Outsourced reviews will be charged
at total cost of the review.
• For information on County fees,
visit www.larimer.org.
ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
Land use application types requiring the most staff time and
resources will require a review deposit collected at the pre-
application meeting. Project expenses, including, but not
limited to, staff time, legal time, and overhead costs such as
printing and public noticing, will be tracked by the department
and issued to the applicant on the last business day of each month.
Expenses will be tracked until such time that the
application is approved by the decision-making body and/or
recorded, or the application is officially withdrawn by the applicant.
Should a project’s expenses be less than the collected deposit
amount, the applicant shall be refunded the difference. The deposit
amount indicates the maximum amount that will be charged to
the applicant, even if the project expenses exceed that amount.
Outsourced reviews are not subject to a maximum. Should an
applicant be submitting multiple applications concurrently, the
largest application deposit shall be collected. For example, if an
applicant submits a Rezoning application and a Commission-Level
Development Plan, a $4,500 review deposit shall be collected.
170 MACGREGOR AVE. • P.O. BOX 1200 • ESTES PARK, CO • 80517 • PH. 970-577-3721 • FAX 970-586-0249 • www.estes.org 1
EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 1, 2016
STANDARD FEES
Type of Application Fee
Improvement Agreement/ LOC 0.5% of Credit Amount
Cell-Towers: Administrative Review $1,300
Administrative Appeal
(Board/Commission Level)
$500
Amended Plat/ Boundary Line Adjustment/
Lot Consolidation
$1,250
Easement Vacation $500
Legal Lot Determination $500
Temporary Use Permit $75
BOA Variance: Prior to Construction $725
BOA Variance: After Construction $1,275
Development Plan Amendment:
Staff Level
$870
Preliminary Plat Time Extension $500
Final Plat Time Extension $500
Final Condominium Map $500
Supplemental Condominium Map $300
Amended Condominium Map $500
Staff Minor Modification (EVDC 3.7):
Prior to Construction
$150
Staff Minor Modification (EVDC 3.7):
After Construction
$300
Certificate of Occupancy Inspection $0 for first, $50 for each sub-
sequent inspection
Sign Permit (Except for Banners)$50
Temporary Banner Permit $35
Floodplain Development Permit At Total Cost of Review*
General policies for land use
applications and services requiring
a standard fee collected at the time
of application submittal or delivery
of service are as follows:
• Submittals will not be accepted
until the applicable fee has been
paid.
• Additional fees equal to 20% of
the original application fee will
be charged for all incomplete
applications or for multiple
requests for plan review.
• Certain project types are eligible
for fee waivers. For more
information on the department’s
fee waiver policy, please contact
the Community Development
Director.
• Application reviews may be
outsourced at the discretion of
the Community Development
Director. Outsourced reviews
will be charged at total cost of
the review.
• For information on County
Fees, visit www.larimer.org
*Pursuant to Section 17.28.090 of
the Estes Park Municipal Zoning
Code.
ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
The majority of land use applications and services require a standard fee, collect-
ed at the time of application submittal or delivery of service. Fees are intended
to cover 50% of expenses incurred by the department during the review process,
such as staff time and administrative expenses.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 03-16
AN ORDINANCE REVISING BUILDING PERMIT FEES, FEE SCHEDULES, AND
GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEES, AND AMENDING SECTION 109.3 OF
THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 08-11, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park adopted the 2009 International Building Code (the “IBC”) including building permit
fees, fee schedules, and grading plan review and permit fees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to adopt new building permit fees, fee
schedules, and grading plan review and permit fees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees also desires to amend Section 109.3 of the
IBC regarding building permit valuations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Table 1-A Building Permit Fees, Table 1-B Fee Schedule, Table J-1 Grading
Plan Review Fees, and Table J-2 Grading Permit Fees of the 2009 International
Building Code shall be amended as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 109.3 of the 2009 International Building Code shall be amended to read
as follows:
Section 109.3 Building permit valuations.
The applicant for a permit shall provide the actual project value at time of
application. Project valuations shall include total value of work, including
materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas,
mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems. If, in the opinion of
the building official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit
shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the
approval of the building official. Final project valuation shall be set by the
building official.
3. The revisions to the 2009 International Building Code set forth in Sections 1 and
2 above shall be effective May 1, 2016.
2
4. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado,
on the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
1
START SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Table 1-A – Building Permit Fees
TOTAL VALUATIONl FEE2
$1.00 to $500.00 $23.50
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each
additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.00
$100.001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for
each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75
for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65
for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof
1Valuations shall be determined per Section 109.3 of this code.
2 A fee for combination building permits shall be paid to the building official as set forth in
Table 1-A, except as specified in Table 1-B. A plan review fee shall be paid equal to 50
percent of the building permit fee as shown in Table 1-A. A 50% discount in review fees will
be given for plans which are approved on first review. The plan review fees specified in this
section are separate fees from the permit fees specified in Section 109.2 and are in addition to
the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require
additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items, an additional
plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Table 1-B. Plans that cannot be
reviewed by building division staff due to their complexity will be charged the full review fee
of the outside agency used by the division of building safety for the plan review.
Exhibit A
2
Table 1-B - Fee Schedule
1. Inspections outside of normal business
hours. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under
provisions of Section 109.8
$100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
3. Inspections for which no fee is
specifically indicated. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
4. Additional plan review required by
changes, additions or revisions to plans. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
5. For use of outside consultants for plan
checking and inspections or both. Actual costs2
6. Demolition permits.
$50.00 OTC.
$100.00 per structure requiring review by
other departments/agencies.
$200.00 per structure with utility
connections.
7. Temporary use permits. $50.00 each
8. Certificates of occupancy. $100.00 each
9. Temporary certificates of occupancy. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour)
10. Appeals to the Board of Appeals. $50.00 each
11. Wildfire Fees
The most recent wildfire fees table adopted
by Larimer County, which is hereby adopted
by reference.
12. Dwelling Life Safety Survey $200.00 each
1Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall
include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the
employees involved.
2Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. 20% of standard permit fees and
plan review fees shall be collected as general administrative overhead costs. These fees are
separate from and are in addition to fees paid to outside consultants.
3
Table 1-C – Grading Plan Review Fees
50 cubic yards (38.2m³) or less No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5 m³) $27.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m³ to 764.6 m³) $45.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 764.6 m³) $58.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 m³ to 76,455 m³) = $58.00 for the first 10,000 cubic
yards (7,645.5 m³), plus $28.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or
fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,455 m³ to 152,911 m³) = $310.00 for the first 100,000
cubic yards (76,455 m³), plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or
fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards (152,912 m³) or more = $460.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards
(152,911 m³) plus $8.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction
thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approved plans
$100.00/hour*
(minimum
charge = one
half hour)
* Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
4
Table J-2 – Grading Permit Fees1
50 cubic yards (38.2m³) or less $27.00
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5 m³) $45.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 m³ to 764.6 m³) = $45.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³),
plus $20.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 764.6 m³) = $225.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards
(764.6 m³), plus $16.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m³) or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 m³ to 76,455 m³) = $369.00 for the first 10,000 cubic
yards (7,645.5 m³), plus $76.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction
thereof.
100,001 cubic yards (76,455 m³) or more = $1,053.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455
m³), plus $42.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Section
108.8
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
$100.00/hour²
(minimum charge = two
hours)
$100.00/hour²
$50.50/hour²
(minimum charge = one
hour)
1 The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be
the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire
project.
2 Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
This amendment shall be applicable to, and is an amendment to each of the International Codes
adopted and enforced by the Town of Estes Park.
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees Regular MeetingFebruary 9, 2016PROPOSALS:DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE SCHEDULEBUILDING PERMIT FEE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTIONFLOODPLAIN PERMIT FEE SCHEDULESIGN PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Meeting AgendaI. Today’s Objectives II. Process To-DateIII.Development Review Fees–Staff Proposal–Project Implementation Process–Town Board OptionsIV.Building Permit Review– Staff Proposal–Project Implementation Process–Town Board Options
Today’s Objectives1. To consider a resolution adopting revised fee schedules for the Community Development Department, Planning Division. 2. To consider a motion to include a revision to Section 109.3, Building Permit Valuations, in the International Building Code local amendments. 3. To consider a resolution adopting revised building permit fee schedules for the Community Development, Building Division.
Process To-DateSummer 2015: Data Gathering and Analysis Fall 2015: Public Participation Winter 2016: Adoption and Implementation
Development ReviewKey Objective: Better Customer Service through Improved Cost Recovery
Staff Proposal•Primarily employing a Combination Model(Review Deposit and Standard Fee) at 50% cost recovery. •Eliminating or reducing some coststo reflect actual department expenditure and community input. •Amending collection proceduresto accurately track time spent. •Charging applicants at-cost for floodplain development permits.
Project Implementation Process•Customer guides and organic outreach to applicant base.•Interdepartmental or other cost effective software and/or internet-based systemto implement time tracking and invoicing.•Interdepartmental coordination with the Finance department.•Annual review focusing on analysis and necessary changes or updates.•June 1recommended effective date.
Board Options1. ApproveResolution #04-16, as recommended by Staff. 2. ApproveResolution #04-16 with the following changes/conditions (list). 3. DenyResolution #04-16.4.Continue the hearingto allow for further study.
Building Permit ReviewKey Objective: More Equitable Fee Collection
Staff Proposal•Employing actual construction costs to evaluate valuations for all projects, including new construction. •Reducing plan review feesto reflect actual department expenditure.•Amending collection proceduresto improve cost recovery. •Incentivizing complete submittals. •Adding a fee for vacation home rental inspection (Dwelling Life Safety Survey).
Project Implementation Process•Customer guides and organic outreach to applicant base.•Ongoing refinementof actual construction costs based on real data. •Audit training for division staff with Larimer County. •May 1 effective date (concurrent with Local Amendments)
Board of Appeals RecommendationOn January 14, 2016, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously to recommend approval of the staff proposal.
Board Options: Fee Schedules1. ApproveOrdinance #03-16, as recommended by Staff. 2. ApproveOrdinance #03-16 with the following changes/conditions (list). 3. DenyOrdinance #03-16. 4. Continue the hearingto allow for further study.
Board Options: Valuation Method1. Approvea motion to include a revision to Section 109.3, Building Permit Valuations, in the International Building Code local amendments.2. Approvea motion to include a revision to Section 109.3, Building Permit Valuations, in the International Building Code local amendments with the following changes/conditions (list). 3. Denya motion to include a revision to Section 109.3, Building Permit Valuations, in the International Building Code local amendments. 4. Continue the hearingto allow for further study.
Transportation Advisory Board Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: February 5, 2016
RE: Interview Committee for the Transportation Advisory Board
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the three positions open on the
Transportation Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Transportation Advisory Board is currently made up of nine volunteer community members.
The Board will have three positions expiring on March 31, 2016 currently held by Bryon Holmes,
Tom Widawski and Amy Hamrick. Administrative Services has posted the positions and will
continue to receive applications through February 15, 2016. The intent is to hold interviews
during the week of February 22nd for appointment at the first meeting in March.
Proposal:
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, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments at the Study
Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the Board meeting for
approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Transportation Advisory Board openings.
Trustees interested in serving would be identified at the Study Session and recommended for
Board approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Transportation Advisory Board interview panel.