HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-03-08The 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, March 8, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PRESENTATION. CAFR Award.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 23, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
February 23, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, February 25,
2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated February 2, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Park Board of Appeals dated November 11, 2015 and January 14, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
6. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County Elections
Office for Assistance during the 2016 Election.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
Prepared 2/28/16
* Revised: 03/07/16
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. APPROVAL OF NEW BOND PARK EVENT – HANDMADE IN COLORADO.
Director Hinkle.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG-DR GRANT CLOSE OUT ITEMS.
Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project.
FHWA Cost Share for Community Drive.
FEMA Cost Share for Various Road Sites.
3. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD - DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION.
Manager Ash.
4. RESOLUTION #05-16 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE STREET
IMPROVEMENT, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS EXPANSION FUNDS. Finance
Officer McFarland.
5. ORDINANCE #06-16 VACATING A PORTION OF DRY GULCH ROAD. Director
Muhonen.
6. PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY OPERATIONS AGREEMENT.
Director Bergsten & Attorney White
7. ORDINANCE #07-16 - PUBLIC HEARING - WATER TAP FEE INCREASE.
Director Bergsten & Superintendent Boles.
8. POLICY 205 – NAMING OF TOWN FACILITIES. Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek.
9. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk
Williamson.
3. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. PRELIMINARY 2015 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer
McFarland.
2. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ADOPTION UPDATE. Chief Building
Official.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. – For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that
may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators. Community Center.
5. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 23, 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 23rd day of February 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.
PRESENTATION:
The 2015t Monte Verde Student Science Exchange, including Simone Paul, Ted
Dumont and Hannah Willis, provided an overview of their exchange. The students
participated in water quality testing, identified macro invertebrates, bird watching, trap
cameras, reviewed biodiversity, and identified animals during day and night hikes. The
students learned the cultural differences by attending school with the local students and
dinners with local families. The students stated ecotourism is extremely important to the
Monte Verde community and a number of the community work in the ecotourism field.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated Visit Estes Park would hold a strategic retreat. Rocky Mountain
National Park (RMPC) would hold a presentation on how the bears can live with 4
million visitors at the Beaver Meadows Visitor Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Western Heritage Committee is seeking new
members. She thanked the Estes Park Institute for their support in funding members of
the community to visit Monte Verde.
Trustee Ericson stated January visitation to RMPC was up 16%. The Community
Development/Community Services Committee meeting would be held on February 25,
2016. He reminded the citizens of the upcoming April 5th Municipal Election and
encouraged the voters to learn about the candidates running for mayor and trustee.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek reviewed the development of a revenue-based
budget model to create the 2017 budget with an expenditure ceiling. The current
General Fund has a structural imbalance even with a record-breaking 2015 sales tax
collection year and deferred funding to the Vehicle Replacement and IT funds. A deficit
spending of approximately $700,000 will occur in 2016. Balancing the budget can be
addressed by spending less (scale-back services, eliminate services, establish services
and partnerships) or increase revenues (create new revenue streams, enhance existing
revenues streams, raise existing fees which are not recovering costs) or the Town can
Board of Trustees – February 23, 2016 – Page 2
address a combination of the two methods. A revenue based model would require the
departments to develop costs for services and require a comprehensive review of costs
for services. The model would address key outcome areas established by the Town
Board, address citizen priorities as identified through the citizen survey, would not
exceed projected revenues, and would avoid across the board cuts. The new process
provides a more holistic approach to funding priority decisions, enhanced opportunity to
identify potential efficiencies and a team-based approach versus an individual
department approach.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 23, 2016 and Town Board Study
Session February 2, 2016 and February 23, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, February 11, 2016.
1. 2017 International 7400 4x4 Single Axle Dump Truck, Mccandless
Truck Center LLC - $95,238.00, Budgeted.
2. 2017 Freightliner M2106 4x4 Single Axle Dump Truck, Transwest
Trucks - $108,300.00, Budgeted.
3. Wildlife Resistant Trash Cans, Bearsaver - $58,916.00, Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 20, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 15, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 15, 2015 and a
Special Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 9, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
7. Motion scheduling the Public Hearing on March 22, 2016 for adoption of the
2015 International Building Codes Ordinance #05-16.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen commented the Town Board minutes dated February
23, 2016 contain a typo in her public comment. The word accept should read
except. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent
Agenda Items with the correction to the Town Board minutes dated February
23, 2016 as outlined, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
Kirby Hazelton/President provided an update on the activities of the EVPC,
stating the organization would move forward to be more proactive in lieu of
reactive. A day long retreat was conducted to discuss vision and strategic
planning. EVPC would continue to be involved in the Arts District, Economic
Development Council, Wellness, Stanley Campus, and Downtown Visioning.
Other activities of the EVPC include the development of a welcome business
packet, Explore Our Store on the 2nd Wednesday of the month, Business
After Hours meetings, membership dinners held quarterly, and regular board
meeting on the 3rd Tuesday of the month. The organization would hold a
Candidate Meet and Greet on March 15th for their membership in lieu of a
forum.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
Board of Trustees – February 23, 2016 – Page 3
1. RENEWAL LICENSE - THE BARREL, LLC, 112-120 E. ELKHORN AVENUE,
TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson stated the renewal has
been forwarded to the Town Board for review because an employee of the
liquor license establishment served to an underage person during a compliance
check conducted on August 24, 2015. The violation was handled by the State
Liquor Enforcement Division and a Stipulation Agreement was negotiated. The
licensee provided the Town Clerk’s office with a copy of the establishment’s
alcohol sales policy as well as a listing of three permanent employees, all of
whom have received TIPS training and are TIPS certified.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested the renewal of the license be denied.
She stated concern with the business failing a compliance check so soon after
opening.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve the renewal of
the Tavern Liquor License held by The Barrel LLC, dba The Barrel, and it
passed unanimously.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. WAPITI MINOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EXTENSION, Lots 1 & 2, Wapiti Minor Subdivision, 1041 S. St. Vrain
Avenue. Lexington Lane, LLC/Owner. Planner Kleisler. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Planning Commission
Consent Item with the findings and conditions recommended by the
Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE
WATER COMPANY PROJECT. Utilities Director Bergsten presented an
agreement for engineering services for the functional replacement of the Park
Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company drinking water distribution
system. The intent of the project would be to incorporate the water company
into the Town’s water system. A preliminary engineering report and
environmental report are required to obtain USDA project funding. A Request
for Proposals was completed and JVA Consulting Engineers was
recommended, as they have the most experience with USDA project funding.
JVA would complete the work by early June. The Colorado Department of
Local Affairs awarded the project a grant to cover 50% of the costs, with the
other 50% being funded by the owners of the current water company. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Nelson) to approve the contract for
engineering services with JVA Consulting Engineering as approved by
the USDA, and it passed with unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE #04-16 MAYOR’S RIGHT TO VOTE. Attorney White reviewed
the Ordinance which would eliminate Municipal Code Section 2.12.030 and
provide the Mayor the right to vote on all action items. Section 2.04.050 would
be amended to include the mayor as a member of the Board of Trustees as it
relates to a quorum. If adopted the Ordinance would remove the Mayor’s veto
power for any Ordinance adopted and all Resolutions authorizing the
expenditure of money or the entering into of contracts.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen stated the elected officials should vote on issues to
allow the citizens a better understanding of where the Mayor stands on issues
and why.
Board of Trustees – February 23, 2016 – Page 4
Johanna Darden/Town citizen questioned what would be the result of a motion
in which there was an even number of Board members voting, including the
Mayor, and tie vote occurred. Administrator Lancaster stated an item would fail
in the event of a tie vote.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen questioned if an item could be tabled at a meeting
if there is a tie vote on an item. He would support the Ordinance to allow the
Mayor the right to vote and better understand their position on topics. Kent
Smith/Town citizen agreed with Mr. Dickey. Staff clarified an item could be
tabled in the event of a tie vote.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: Trustee Ericson
commented he would be in favor of the Ordinance; Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
stated she would not be in favor as it would change the interaction the citizens
have with the mayor. The team building and ability to work together would be
enhanced by the mayor not voting; Trustee Norris and Holcomb would support
the Ordinance to allow the Mayor to state their opinion on issues. Two of the
three mayoral candidates are in favor of the Ordinance; and Trustee Nelson
stated the mayor remains neutral on topics if they do not vote on issue. He
would not support the Ordinance.
Attorney White read Ordinance #04-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #04-16, and it passed with Trustees
Ericson, Phipps, Holcomb and Norris voting “Yes” and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
and Trustee Nelson voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 23, 2016
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of February, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None.
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE SCOPE OF WORK AND TIMELINE.
Terry Gilbert/Larimer County Planning Director presented a Scope of Work and
Timeline for the Vacation Rental Task Force as requested by the Larimer County
Commissioners and the Town Board of Trustees at their February 2, 2016 meeting.
The Task Force would be charged with developing recommendations, concerning
vacation rentals accommodating nine (9) or more guests. The Boards requested the
final recommendations of the Task Force be considered by mid November 2016, with
possible Development Code amendments being adopted. The Task Force would
consist of eight (8) individuals (three (3) neighbors of existing vacation home rentals in
the unincorporated areas and three (3) from within Town limits, and one (1) vacation
home rental owner from the unincorporated area and one (1) from Town limits)
approved by the Town Board and the County Commissioners and six (6) individuals
from local organizations (one (1) member from each of the following Estes Area Lodging
Association, Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owner Association, Estes Park Board of
Realtors, Estes Park Central, Economic Development Corporation, and Visit Estes
Park). The members of the Task Force would be approved by both Boards the week of
April 11th.
Discussion followed and has been summarized: The Task Force should include local
residence representing local families and the retired population; Task Force members
should be full-time residents; should have knowledge of the Estes Valley Development
Code; questioned why the Estes Valley Planning Commission was not included as a
member of the Task Force; and representatives of the EDC and the VEP should be
members that do not sit on both boards.
Mr. Gilbert stated the EVPC would not participate in the Task Force as they would be
the recommending body to the County Commissioners and the Town Board. The Task
Force would be assisted by a group of Planners, Assessors, Building Officials, etc.
when reviewing the issues. Meetings would be held in the Museum meeting room and
meeting minutes would be posted online for the public. Throughout the process both
Boards would be briefed on the current status of the Task Force. An open house would
be held for the public as the Task Force narrows in on its recommendations. The
proposed timeline includes a joint meeting in September to review the
recommendations, consideration of the final recommendations by the Estes Valley
Planning Commission in October and consideration of the recommendations by the two
Boards in November.
Town Board Study Session – February 23, 2016 – Page 2
The Board raised concern with the need for consistent enforcement throughout the
valley and the need for the Larimer County Sheriff to be involved in the enforcement of
the regulations adopted.
Trustee Phipps requested the Board review the recommended code amendments for
vacation homes of eight (8) or less prior to the joint March 30th meeting. The Board
consensus was to bring the item forward for review at the March 8th study session.
NAMING OF TOWN FACILITIES POLICY.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek presented a policy that would establish a
process and criteria for the naming or re-naming of Town-owned property or facilities.
The policy would ensure the names are appropriate, aid in the identification and location
of property or facilities, and encourage the donation of lands, facilities, and funds to the
Town. The naming criteria would be reflective of at least one of the following criteria:
specific purpose of the facility, geographic location, prominent geographic feature or
local reference point, adjoining subdivision/community, historical feature, deceased
individual, or an individual or group via a donation or sponsorship agreement.
The naming process would include a public announcement to call for prospective
names for projects; an administrative review by the Leadership Team and
recommendation of at least two names to the Town Board for properties and facilities
and if a park or open space the recommendation would be forwarded to the Parks
Advisory Board for consideration and recommendation to the Town Board for final
approval; and a notice of recommendation would be published.
The Board raised concern with the Leadership Team bringing forward two possible
names, and the Board may have more historical knowledge when naming properties or
facilities. Staff suggested the Leadership Team would be removed from the process
and would only vet the names to ensure they meet one of the criteria. Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig suggested the policy address items such as memorial boards or other naming
options such as plaques or memorials.
The renaming of Town-owned properties and facilities are deemed to have historic
recognition and would not be changed without a compelling reason, thorough study and
public hearing, and a unanimous vote of the Town Board. Miscellaneous naming of
meeting rooms located on Town-owned properties or facilities may be named
administratively by the Town Administrator.
Staff would update the policy and bring it forward for consideration by the Town Board
at an upcoming meeting.
UPDATE ON TRANSIT GOING YEAR ROUND IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING. Brian Wells/Shuttle Coordinator proposed the expansion of the
Town’s shuttle service to include year-round service on fixed routes with ADA
accessibility in the Estes valley. The proposed service would cover an additional 40
weeks of service. The Federal Transportation Administration FTA) has grants available
that would match 50% of the local operational costs and 80% of the capital expenditure
costs, i.e. vehicle purchases, bus shelters, etc. if certain criteria are met. Other funding
options may include the State of Colorado FASTER funds, rider fares, sponsorships,
retail sales or other unidentified sources. To meet FTA grant qualifications, the routes
must be ADA, be Title IV compliant, information available on the exterior of buses, year-
round service, and have the ability to provide door-to-door service within ¾ mile of the
route. The projected operating expenses for 2016 are estimated at $434,395 and for
2017 the cost increases to $449,255. If the Town was successful in obtaining an FTA
grant 50% of the operational costs would be funded, thereby reducing the overall shuttle
costs for the Town. Staff proposes the addition of Friday and Saturday service with one
hour routes operating from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm by combining the red/blue route and
combining the silver/gold route. Sunday service would be the Gold route only starting at
11:00 am and ending at 6:00 pm. The next steps would include the formation of a focus
Town Board Study Session – February 23, 2016 – Page 3
group with citizens and businesses, finalize service offering and operational parameters,
review with Town Board, budget commitment and grant application, apply for the grant
by late May 2016, if awarded issue an RFP for service, prepare new materials, begin
promotional campaign and begin year-round service in the fall of 2017.
The Board stated support for a year-round transportation service as it would benefit the
community members as well as the guest. If the Town can secure FTA funding, it would
reduce the overall cost of the current shuttle system and expand the service at no
additional cost to the Town. Trustee Holcomb questioned if the summer shuttle system
could be expanded to begin in April or May.
UPDATE 2024 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Kelly Stallworth/Engineer provided a presentation on the proposed street improvements
utilizing the 1A sales tax funding through 2024 to bring all Town roadways to a minimum
70 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating. The current average PCI for Town roads is
65 and in 2008 the average rating was 81. The decline in pavement condition has
occurred due to a lack of maintenance (crack sealing, overlays, patching, etc.) over the
past 8 years. Implementation of the street improvement plan would result in improved
road conditions throughout Town; extensive preventative maintenance would impact a
larger percentage of roadways, as opposed to focusing on only major reconstruction
projects; and the entire road system PCI would be increased.
The projected revenue from the 1A sales tax has been estimated at $1.4 million. The
yearly allocation of funds for the program would include $200,000 for personnel,
equipment, etc., $124,150 for project contingencies, and $1,117,350 for construction
expenses. The annual construction costs would be broken down into structural repairs
(overlay, mill and overlay, reconstruction and in-place recycling) at a cost of $650,000
and $467,350 for pavement sealing and contracted patching (crack sealing, chip seal,
slurry seal and cape seal). The sales tax funding would be sufficient to raise the
system-wide PCI by 2024 and increase the number of streets falling into the “good”
category for road condition.
TRUSTEE AND ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
Town Clerk Williamson stated the Board has reviewed the compensation for the Board
during the biennial elections. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the
comparison communities. The Board requested staff bring the item forward for
consideration at the March 8th Town Board Study Session meeting.
Trustee Phipps stated he would work with Trustee Nelson on the Pride Award
Scholarship Committee.
Mayor Pinkham reminded the Board members to speak for themselves and not for the
entire Board when responding to questions from the press or writing letters to the editor.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
A review of the draft Sign Code would be added to the March 22, 2016 study session.
The Town and the Estes Park Housing Authority met to discuss the development of a
strategic action plan in March to address housing issues. The action plan would be
brought forward for the Board to consider and prioritize next steps.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 25, 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
25th day of February, 2016.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Attending: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Director Hinkle,
Interim Director Cumbo, Manager Mitchell, Coordinator
Jacobson, Manager Lynch, Director Fortini, and Deputy
Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
Chair Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
CULTURAL SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
2015 Senior Services Annual Report – Manager Mitchell reported an increase in
overall attendance for 2015. Services and programs were well-attended indicating a
good response to high-quality programming. She thanked Senior Services staff for
their ideas and planning efforts, volunteers for their service overall and for the
assistance they provide at the front desk, and Meals on Wheels drivers for their
commitment to the members of the community who rely on this service either full-
time or temporarily to address special circumstances or needs. She noted that she
and Jon Landkamer continue to work with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District (EVRPD) as members of the community center design advisory group to fine
tune conceptual plans and discuss program content and needs. A public meeting
will be held on February 29th to present recent renditions to floor plans. All bonds
have been sold and it is possible that construction of the community center may
begin in late summer 2016.
2016 Senior Services 1st Quarter Programs Update – Manager Mitchell provided the
Committee with a listing of programs scheduled for January through March 2016. A
variety of programs are planned including fitness, informational, cultural and social
events.
2015 Museum Annual Report – Director Fortini highlighted goals that were met in
2015 which included a change to the Museum’s vision and mission statement;
revisions to the collections management policy; increasing public program offerings;
the development of a strategic planning process; and deaccessioning of artifacts.
He said staff continues to brainstorm new ideas, stays apprised of what other
museums are offering to the public and monitors trends in the industry. He noted
that the Museum Friends group continues to be very active in their support of the
museum and is working to increase their membership numbers.
Verbal Updates –
o Senior Services and Estes Valley Community Center – The design has
changed significantly as costs and a variety of other factors have resulted
in changes to the previous floor plans. Final plans will be presented to the
public as well as brought forward to the Town Board prior to moving
forward. The February 29th public meeting will reveal the current changes
as part of the public education process. Discussion with the partners will
continue related to program offerings and the best use of space.
o Senior Services – Strategy for 2016 – Assistant Town Administrator
Community Development / Community Services – February 25, 2016 – Page 2
Machalek reported that staff is prioritizing the Senior Services offerings for
2016 to maintain high quality programs, determine where to spend time
and money to obtain the best bang for the buck, and reduce the possibility
of staff burnout.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
NEW EVENT BOND PARK – HANDMADE IN COLORADO.
Director Hinkle requested the Committee consider scheduling a new event in Bond Park
for the weekend of August 26-28, 2016. The event, Handmade in Colorado Expo, was
held last year at the Event Center; attendance at last year’s event was low. The
organizer of the expo noted that the event had previously been held in Bond Park in
2014 under the name of Rocky Mountain Bazaar. She noted that since that time the
quality of the event has been raised and said the event would be more successful if held
at an outdoor venue where more visitors are drawn to the event. The event showcases
Colorado made arts and crafts including hand blown glass items, wooden bowls, metal
sculptures, jewelry and paintings. The Committee recommended that the new event,
Handmade in Colorado, be brought before the Board as an action item at the March 8,
2016, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
March Event Report – Events recently held at the Events Complex include a
Quinceanera and the Estes Park Wedding Association Bridal Show. The Bridal
Show was described as successful and well-attended, with 345 brides participating.
Staff will evaluate social events such as the Quinceanera, wedding receptions, and
other private events related to number of attendees, condition of the facility, staffing
needs, etc. Coordinator Jacobson reported that the Whiskey Warm-Up will be held
in mid-March and that the 2016 Ride the Rockies route will be passing through Estes
Park in June with approximately 2,000 riders participating. Activities for the riders,
their families and fans will be scheduled.
Visitor Services Annual Report – Manager Salerno said 2015 was a banner year for
the Visitor Center with over 414,441 visits counted. She spoke to the stakeholder
documents and guides including Dining, Shopping, Things to Do, Services, Rentals,
Camping, and Happenings that are distributed to visitors in support of local
businesses. She noted that installation of kiosks in the Visitor Center would likely
occur in 2017 as research continues to find the model and technology that is best
suited to the situation and need. Manager Salerno reported that restroom
construction at the Visitor Center is expected to be complete by mid-March.
Shuttle Report – Coordinator Wells noted that logo and color recognition were
utilized during 2015, ridership was similar to the previous two years, and positive
feedback about the program was received. It was noted that local residents as well
as visitors use the shuttle service.
Estes Park Event Complex Annual Report – The Committee requested that
Coordinator Jacobson and Manager Lynch present this report at an upcoming Town
Board Study Session for the benefit of the full Board. Staff will work on scheduling
the report for an upcoming study session.
Verbal Updates –
o Staffing – Director Hinkle commended Special Event staff and said that
two positions, administrative assistant and special events coordinator are
currently vacant and being advertised, as well as approximately 15
positions for seasonal workers. He also noted that a strategic plan to
include marketing, staffing, fee structure, services, etc., is needed for the
event center to move forward into the future.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Community Development / Community Services – February 25, 2016 – Page 3
Verbal Updates –
o Interim Director for Community Development Department – Karen Cumbo
completed her third week as Interim Director and noted that the
department has a large number of projects, both large and routine,
currently ongoing. Examples include, but are not limited to: the
Downtown Plan, Downtown Plan Advisory Committee, the performing arts
project, revised fee structures for building services and development
review, building code adoption, code amendments, and a record number
of new application submittals for projects such as decks, rezoning,
boundary line adjustment, development plans, and employee housing.
Director Cumbo said she is looking at what can be handled internally and
what can be contracted out, and strategies and timetables to keep things
manageable.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:48 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 2, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith,
John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Darling
Also Attending: Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Members Smith, Newsom, Lynch, and Moreau
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Darling stated at the request of staff, today’s meeting has been continued to a future
date to be determined.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 a.m.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield,
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Senior Building Permit Technician Phillips
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were five members of the public in the audience.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from October 1, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously.
2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE (IEBC)
Chair Spooner stated today’s meeting is a review of the International Existing Building Code.
Significant Changes to the 2012 and 2015 Codes will be discussed.
CBO Birchfield stated in the previous editions of the IBC, Chapter 34 was dedicated to existing
buildings. In the 2015 codes, that chapter was deleted. The information is now contained solely in the
IEBC. The IEBC is very specific depending on the amount of change in the existing building. It is much
more flexible than the IBC for existing buildings, and also more flexible when dealing with different
scopes of work. It is a tiered system.
CBO Birchfield stated the IEBC classifies work on existing buildings. CBO Birchfield explained in detail
Chapter 5, Classification of Work. This one‐page chapter is included as Exhibit A with the meeting
minutes. Depending on the scope of the work, a classification level would be determined, which
would then determine which chapter(s) of the IEBC would apply. He stated sometimes the code
requirement may require you to work in a part of the building you had not originally planned on
disturbing. When using the IEBC, if the code requires you to work in an area not originally intended,
then that new area does not count towards the work area.
CBO Birchfield stated the Change of Occupancy section is the most difficult to grasp and understand.
Other codes are based on rules, which are based on the hazards and the hazards are determined by
the use. Changes of Occupancy involve life safety issues. Some requirements are driven by the use,
others by the type of construction (combustible, non‐combustible, fire resistive or non‐fire resistive
construction). When the use is changed, the requirements for the area changes. For example,
remodeling a garage to a living space changes the requirements. In conclusion, the scope of the work
defines which IEBC level the contractor is required to comply with in this tiered system. If the IEBC is
not adopted, the IBC will be used. Using the IBC for work in existing buildings can be much more
difficult than adopting and using the IEBC. CBO Birchfield stated some requirements are driven by the
others, while others are driven by the type of construction (combustible, non‐combustible, fire‐
resistive or non‐fire‐resistive).
In the building code there are occupancy classifications. Underneath those classifications are groups.
CBO Birchfield gave a brief explanation of the classifications and groups. The definition of Change of
Occupancy is: a change in the use of the building or of a portion of a building. A change of occupancy
shall include any change of occupancy classification, any change from one group to another group
within an occupancy classification or any change in use within a group for a specific occupancy
classification. If you change the character of how the space is being use, it is considered a change of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
occupancy. CBO Birchfield stated the identification of the scope of work is the most important, to
assist with determining the level of work applicable to the code. It was mentioned that you could
have a Change of Occupancy and another alteration level on the same project.
CBO Birchfield stated the IEBC also addresses additions to existing buildings. If buildings are on the
Federal or State Historic Registry, the IEBC recognizes that and has specific provisions for those cases.
The IEBC also addresses buildings moved from one jurisdiction to another.
To visually explain how the IEBC is designed, CBO Birchfield addressed Section 904 Fire Protection.
These provisions apply to Alterations‐Level 3 scopes of work. This provision would apply to work
covering more than 50% of the building. 904.1 states an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided
in a work area where required by Section 804.2 or this section. Section 804.2 states automatic
sprinkler systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 804.2.1 through
804.2.5. Installation requirements shall be in accordance with the International Building Code. Section
804 discusses fire exits in existing buildings, and takes in to account the occupant load, number of
tenants from multiple units, use in the units, etc. As the use changes, the occupant load changes, and
the requirements change. The use drives almost everything in the building codes. The IEBC makes
provisions for insufficient municipal water supply in a building.
CBO Birchfield stated Alteration Level 3 refers one to Chapter 9. This has the provisions for elevators,
boiler and equipment rooms, upholstered furniture, fire alarm and detection systems, means of
egress, accessibility, structural changes, and energy conservation.
CBO Birchfield stated the IEBC only applies to buildings constructed under the International Building
Code. This applies mostly to commercial buildings. It is very user friendly, although it takes a lot of
work to get through the maze of determining which triggers are tripped. The adoption of this code is
the reason we require permits for Change of Use. The Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is only valid for
the uses that were approved on the CO. For example, under the IRC, a CO is issued for a new home,
which does not grant the owners the right to take the house and turn it into a distillery, or something
with another use. Or, a retail building that was issued a CO with part of the building as storage cannot
take the storage area and convert it to retail space without obtaining a Change of Use permit.
CBO Birchfield explained how the IEBC works with additions (Chapter 11). It does not penalize
property owners for wanting to improve their buildings. The new additions must be built to the
current codes, but it does not require the entire building be brought up to code. However, the
addition cannot compromise the existing building, and must be examined to ensure safety. Chapter 11
also discusses smoke alarms and accessibility.
CBO Birchfield stated many jurisdictions have never adopted the IEBC, and they will now be required
to do so. The way we are doing business in the Town will not change with the adoption of this code
because it has been an adopted code for eight years. CBO Birchfield stated there was not a
publication for Significant Changes for the IEBC.
Member Calvin stated the IEBC is a good code, and he uses it frequently in his work.
Board and Staff Discussion
CBO Birchfield stated this will be the last meeting the Board will have prior to him taking information
back to the Town Board. He stated if there are other changes that need to be made, the Board can
come back together to address them whenever necessary. He clarified the IBC adopts all the other
codes by reference. However, the IRC can stand alone as a separate code.
Outstanding Code Issues
CBO Birchfield stated it was his opinion the Board of Appeals agreed with the currently adopted local
amendments. Where applicable, those amendments would be carried over and applied to the 2015
codes.
International Property Maintenance Code
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Concerning the Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), this would be adopted by reference in the IBC.
The Board needs to make a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether or not to adopt it, and,
if adopted, whether or not to add local amendments. He took the previous input from the Board to
write the local amendments. The proposed local amendments will state the IPMC will apply only to
commercial buildings, and will exclude the perimeter of all buildings. Adopting the IPMC would give
the Chief Building Official authority to condemn buildings.
Sprinklers in one and two family dwellings. Pending any changes, CBO Birchfield stated one way to
consider adopting a sprinkler requirement would be to require sprinklers if a single‐family dwelling is
built in a wildfire hazard area, or does not have adequate access for emergency vehicles according to
the International Fire Code (IFC), does not have adequate water supply per the IFC, or is over 5000
square feet. The first criteria would be the wildfire hazard area. He explained if a home were built in a
wildfire hazard area and meets any other one criterion, sprinklers could be required. Fire Marshall
Robinson stated residential sprinklers are 13D systems, and there are several that can be installed off
the domestic water line, and could be installed by a plumber. Nationally, there are still problems with
fires and deaths in single family homes. In a high risk area that comes into play even more.
Throughout the country, residential sprinklers are becoming more of a standard. The community has
to decide if they are ready for it. There is enough data to show that they work and save lives. With the
increase in plastics and other petroleum‐based products in homes, today’s fires are burning hotter
and faster. If a residential system is designed to a NFPA 13 standard, that code will be reviewed by the
Fire District for compliance. If it is a P2904 system, it basically becomes part of the plumbing system.
Comments included but were not limited to: if you put a dollar amount on something, people will base
their decision on economics before safety; for example, a 5000 square foot home could cost one
million dollars, and the sprinkler system could add another fifty thousand to the cost, which would be
5% of the cost; as the square footage increases, the cost to sprinkle does not increase at the same
rate, so it could be less than 5% of the total cost; the trigger would most likely be adequate access,
because there are homes in Estes Park that are built in areas fairly difficult to access; lots in most of
the town limits are less likely to be in a wildfire hazard areas than those in the unincorporated Estes
Valley; the Board of Appeals does not have to make any changes to the current local amendment,
which is to not require sprinklers in all one‐ and two‐family homes; we can adopt the current local
amendment and continue the discussion; the important thing is we have to make a decision on a local
amendment to avoid sprinkling every new one‐ and two‐family home; at a minimum the Board of
Appeals is in agreement to not require sprinklers in all one‐ and two‐family homes, at a minimum the
Board of Appeals needs to be selective with raising the bar on all of the codes, as it would make it
more difficult to build here, while at the same time not be satisfied with using codes that were
adopted eight years ago; wildfire hazard areas have the potential of a greater negative impact on the
community than a flood due to the mountainous terrain, limited access, high fuel loads, and high
winds. The hazards increase as population becomes denser, so it is common that the code
requirements increase; sprinkler systems are installed to keep fires at bay so occupants and
emergency responders can escape from the home. Heat is greater from a home than from trees
burning around it. The fire risk in the downtown district is huge due to old wood construction, limited
access, zero lot lines, high winds, etc. A wildfire can occur anywhere at any time for any cause, and can
travel very quickly, as is what happened with the Woodland Heights fire several years ago; if a house
fire causes a wildfire it then effects the entire community by depleting all the resources of the
community to respond to the wildfire. The Board of Appeals and elected officials are responsible for
determining if they are going to continue to allow construction in high hazard areas without raising
the bar to protect all residents; Larimer County has a different perspective since they have a less
dense population and many more rural areas; many of today’s construction materials are more
flammable than in the past, homes with more open space burn faster, many floor joists are a mix of
wood and flammable glue, fire loading is much faster, failure rate is much quicker, and residential fires
burn a lot hotter than older homes; other options to reduce fire risk include installing class A shingles
on the roof, using a cement‐based siding, etc. It is important to remember that any code amendment
would apply only to new construction; fire sprinkler systems are designed to provide more time for
occupants to safely exit the burning building, then contain the fire within the immediate area inside
the building; any structure fire could start a wildfire with the right conditions; could we get a
requirement established by stating a sprinkler would be required depending on IFC access and water
supply requirements; some of the more specific fire code thresholds could be included in a local
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
amendment in order to better inform the public; the perspective of Marshall Robinson was very
helpful to the Board; the final decision would be up to the elected officials; the opinions of staff and
the Board of Appeals would be provided to the Town Board to assist in their decision‐making;
members of the Board were encouraged to attend and speak at the Town Board meeting to provide
more clarification to the Trustees; the elected officials will give a lot of credit to the Board and staff to
make informed recommendations. There was brief discussion concerning single‐family dwellings that
are nightly rentals, and the responsibility to protect the guests that visit Estes Park, whether they stay
in a hotel or a single‐family home. CBO Birchfield stated the way the code reads now is if it looks like a
single family dwelling, regardless of the use (owner occupied or nightly rentals) it is built under the
residential code. There is a big dilemma as to how to address nightly rentals in relationship to the
building codes. There was discussion concerning using zoning to determine which code to require for
building (IBC or IRC). For example, a one‐ or two‐family home built in an A‐Accommodations zone
district would be required to install sprinklers because the potential would exist that it could be
rented out on a nightly basis. Currently, regardless of the use, if it looks like a one‐ or two‐family
dwelling, it is built under the Residential Code and exempt from being sprinkled. CBO Birchfield stated
he and Marshall Robinson would be speaking to the Estes Area Lodging Association concerning the
adoption process of the building codes, and they would let them know the nightly rental concern is
being discussed by the Board. The Board of Appeals recommendation to the Town Board will be to
exempt one‐ and two‐family homes from being required to install automatic fire sprinkler systems,
with the understanding that more discussion and possible alterations to the proposed local
amendment could be forthcoming.
Wildlife Hazard Areas. CBO Birchfield stated he did not think the Larimer County standards were high
enough for Estes Park. Both he and Marshall Robinson agreed the Larimer County Wildfire Mitigation
Plan was not enforceable, and would not support adopting that code. He would like to review Boulder
County’s code for defensible space, Class A roof coverings, fire resistive siding, etc. This change could
cause conflict with the vegetation requirements of the EVDC, which would require conversation with
the Planning Division. Member Spooner preferred to align with Larimer County’s code when possible.
Designer Paul Brown stated Boulder County has a 100‐foot clear cut around buildings, with a required
gravel perimeter and under decks. There was general consensus from the Board to adopt the Larimer
County Wildfire Mitigation Plan by reference, but revisit the issue in the immediate future to make
sure it is adequate for Estes Park. Hopefully we can get more community input.
Condensate Pumps. The Board of Appeals recommendation is to not allow condensate pumps in
inhabitable spaces unless a floor drain can be installed in that space. This will apply only to new
construction. On existing construction, the condensate will have to be pumped to a floor drain in a
habitable space because p‐traps are no longer allowed in crawl spaces. When equipment is replaced
with high efficiency equipment, a floor drain will have to be installed. The condensate can also be
pumped outside to an approved location.
Fire Protection for Floors. The Board of Appeals recommendation for mechanical equipment located
in basements or crawl spaces is to enclose it inside a legally‐sized drywalled room. This applies only to
new construction.
Emergency Access Openings. CBO Birchfield stated if our records show undersized egress openings
were installed without permits, any replacement egress windows will need to come into compliance
with the appropriately‐sized opening. If we do not have records to show when the building was
constructed and what the requirements were at the time, as long as the applicant is not making
structural changes, size for size replacements would be allowed. Voluntary structural changes would
require compliance with the adopted code.
Electric Water Heaters. There was general consensus from the Board to require permits for electric
water heaters. Improper installation can lead to significant water damage if pipes freeze.
Zero Clearance Hoods. The Board of Appeals recommendation is to allow only zero clearance hoods.
No compensating hoods will be allowed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Reroofs. CBO Birchfield stated the current code has a high hail hazard area, of which Estes Park is right
on the edge. In high hail hazard areas, the code states composite shingled roofs cannot be overlayed.
This requirement was removed in the 2015 code. CBO Birchfield stated roofing contractors prefer to
remove all layers of shingles prior to reroofing a structure, but it does increase the total cost. He
added that the weight of new composite shingles is a big concern, as profiled types can weigh as much
as three hundred pounds per 100 square feet. The Board recommended allowing one layer of overlay
on all reroofing projects.
Snow Loads. CBO Birchfield stated the recommendation from the Structural Engineers Association of
Colorado (SEAC) is to increase snow loads from 45 to 60 pounds per square foot (psf), with an
adjustment for altitude. He has not discussed this with the county, but thinks they may come in with a
snow load of 65 psf for an elevation of 7500 feet above sea level. The Board of Appeals recommended
aligning with Larimer County regarding Snow Loads.
Wind Loads. Chair Spooner stated he did not think we need all the maps that were previously
discussed. He suggested coming up with one wind load for the entire town, rather than using different
loads for different locations within the town limits. When correction factors are used for elevation,
the difference between calculated wind loads in various parts of town is minimal. He recommended
using 160 mile per hour 3‐second gust for all areas within town limits, and use a table that specifies
risk factors for building categories rather than the maps that are in the 2015 codes. The IRC would use
one wind speed, and the IBC would use the table. Designers would be told they could correct to sea
level wind speed.
Lateral Deck Bracing. CBO Birchfield stated he has concerns about lateral bracing on some of the tall
decks that are completely cantilevered out from the building. It is currently an option in the code, and
we are currently not doing anything. We have not seen any deck failures. The code lists lateral deck
bracing as an option. There are a few options on how to address this: continue to ignore it, align with
Larimer County, leave it up to the designer, base it on wind loads, require only on new construction. If
it is left up to the designer, there would be issues if a homeowner without an engineering background
wanted to design his own deck. The Board of Appeals recommended to align with Larimer County on
this code change.
Board and Staff Discussion
Member Calvin stated a lot of discussion has occurred on many proposed amendments. He would
recommend a draft copy of the local amendments be available for the Board to review prior to going
before the Town Trustees. Member Darling recommended giving CBO Birchfield authority to take the
packet before the elected officials for the public meetings. Before the first public meeting, a packet
would be provided to the Board of Appeals for review, and if corrections needed to be made, the
Board would have the opportunity to make any changes prior to the second Town Board meeting.
CBO Birchfield stated the Town Board would also have the authority to make changes to the proposed
local amendments. Board of Appeals members could plan on attending the second public hearing,
which also includes the Town Board voting on the adoption of the codes and proposed local
amendments. Another Board of Appeals meeting will be held on December 3, 2015 from 4‐6 p.m. to
tie up any loose ends with the proposed local amendments or discuss any other codes prior to the
second Town Board meeting. There was general consensus to have CBO Birchfield present the
preliminary packet of the proposed local amendments to the Town Trustees on behalf of the Board of
Appeals. The Board of Appeals would provide a formal confirmation and recommendation for the
adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes, including the Property Maintenance Code, plus
local amendments prior to the second Town Board hearing, effective January 1, 2016. A few items
have been tabled to allow for further discussion.
CBO Birchfield stated there was a public meeting scheduled for November 12, 2015 at 4:30 at the
Estes Park Museum to discuss a new fee proposal. He stated the same fee schedule is being proposed,
with a change being made to base those fees on real world values. Using real world values is currently
used for over‐the‐counter permits and remodels, but different calculations are used for new square
footage. Real world values are not used on new construction, because by ordinance, CBO Birchfield
was directed to use the square footage formulas. CBO Birchfield would recommend to the elected
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 6
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
officials to use real world values on everything, which would make it an equitable system. Fees are not
being increased, but a level playing field would be created by using real world values. This change
would create a level playing field, so fees are calculated on actual valuation. Currently, high value
projects are calculated at a lower rate than smaller projects. Development review fees will also be
discussed. Floodplain permit fees will not be addressed until staff has more time to review them.
CBO Birchfield stated the Town would pay for Board members to attend one day of the Colorado
Chapter of the International Code Council training institute in Denver the first week of March, 2016.
Please let Karen Thompson know which day and class you would like to attend, and she will take care
of the reservation.
REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
January 14, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield,
Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Planner Mallory Baker,
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There was one person in attendance.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from November 11, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Darling/Calvin) to table approval of the minutes to the February, 2016
meeting and the motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION – BUILDING PERMIT FEE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION
Planner Mallory Baker reviewed the staff report. She stated she would be presenting the background
methodology to proposed changes to the fee process for the Division of Building Safety. In May, 2015,
the Community Development Department reviewed the current fee process and addressed the
inequality in valuation. Any new construction is based on a square footage model, while smaller
projects are based solely on actual valuation. There were a few public meetings to gain input from
stakeholders, and some valuable information was received, though public participation was low.
Basically, people were receptive to an equal process for all projects. Additionally, stakeholders did not
think the Division of Building Safety should be totally self‐supporting, which would result in a higher
increases in fees. There was public concern about the increase of fees and the subsequent adverse
impact to affordable housing and other similar projects. Planner Baker stated fees for those projects
are typically waived and would not be affected by this proposed fee change.
Planner Baker stated the current cost recovery through fees is 56%, which is good for a governmental
agency. The issue is inequality between calculating fees for new construction and smaller projects.
Staff is proposing changing the method of valuation, to use actual construction costs, no matter the
type of project. Staff is also proposing the plan review fee be collected when the application is
submitted. Currently, all fees are collected after the review has been completed. If the applicant
decides not to follow through with the project, the Town struggles to collect the review fees incurred.
Staff is proposing to reduce the plan review fee to 50% of the building permit feet, down from the
current 65%, because wind and snow loads have already been reviewed by the engineer stamping the
plans. The department wants to incentivize complete and code compliant submittals, and proposes to
provide discounts in plan review fees for these submittals. Fees would be added to those submittals
that are incomplete and/or not code compliant. This would encourage complete applications the first
time. A proposal of up to 50% reduction could occur. Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield would
prefer to add language regarding this proposal in the local code amendments, so this would go to the
Town Board for final approval prior to implementation.
Planner Baker showed examples of how fees are currently calculated and how they are being
proposed. Staff would come up with average costs, and if these fell significantly below what was
calculated, an audit would be conducted. Different types of homes cost varying amounts per square
foot. CBO Birchfield stated the Division of Building Safety has real world data to use for comparisons.
We always start with the valuation the applicant provides, except with new square footage. When
something comes in below the averages, it will be an automatic audit. The audit will be completed
after the job is finished, and in most cases, the applicant will know beforehand whether or not the
project will be audited. Details regarding the audit still need to be worked out, but it would be a fair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
January 14, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
process. CBO Birchfield stated he came up with averages based on information received during
conversations with local contractors. He will take the contractors word for the valuation, but it may
be changed during construction if it looks like it may be undervalued. We will refine the model by
getting actual value on projects during random audits. Audits will help staff refine the value of
projects.
Planner Baker stated it is important to make the public aware of the proposed changes. The applicant
would not be charged additional fees for the audit, but the valuation may change and additional
building permit fees may apply. CBO Birchfield stated project fees have not changed since 1998.
Values of those projects have increased, so the bottom line fee has increased due to increased
valuation. The biggest problem is applicants paying full valuation cost on small jobs and only 65% of
valuation on new construction. The percentage of the fee assessed gets smaller as the job gets larger.
Planner Baker stated fees will not be increased without prior public notification. A customer guide,
information on the Town website, etc. will be provided once the elected officials approve the
proposal. There was discussion among staff and the Board regarding the history of how the fees have
been imposed. The last fee schedule in the International Building Code was in 1997, which the Town
adopted in 1998 and has not changed. It comes down to new construction being subsidized because
of the formulas used to calculate fees. CBO Birchfield stated this topic is a very political decision, as
the elected officials have to decide how much they are willing to subsidize the Division of Building
Safety. When the 2003 Codes were adopted, a 35% increase in the square foot unit cost was
implemented for new construction. When the 2009 codes were adopted, the Town Trustees chose to
not increase those same fees another 35%. Planner Baker added the Town Trustees are now willing to
adopt this model with an annual review to see how it’s working, and changes may be made.
CBO Birchfield explained that low value projects typically do not require plan reviews, and the current
fee table would be continued to be used for those projects. Change would occur when determining
valuation on new construction. To offset the increase, the plan review fees would be reduced from
65% to 50%, and applications submitted correctly the first time would receive an additional discount.
The more expensive the house per square foot, the higher the fees will be. CBO Birchfield stated if the
plans are correct on the original submittal, spec homes would increase an average of 9%, and custom
homes would increase an average of 27%.
CBO Birchfield stated the 50% plan review discount would be based on a checklist that would be
available to the applicant during the application process. If everything on the checklist is on the plans,
and the application can be approved on the first review, the applicant would receive the 50%
discount. Chair Spooner would like to see the checklist. CBO Birchfield has already responded to some
of the designer’s concerns about requiring too much on the plans. The goal is to set applicants up for
success, not for failure. Other comments included but were not limited to: there will always be room
for improvement and staff is willing to listen and make appropriate changes, we are reaching out via
the building contractor email distribution lists; public outreach was extensive, but response was
minimal; a customer guide will be created to make people aware of the changes; disappointment that
the local amendments were not available on the Town website; next step is to accept feedback, then
take the proposal to the Town board for adoption; contractor will be passing the increase in fees to
the property owner; time seems to be more important to contactors than the amount of the fees.
It was moved and seconded (Darling/Schiaffo) to recommend adoption of the proposed fee
structure to the Town Board and the motion passed unanimously.
2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES
CBO Birchfield stated we have reviewed all the proposals for the local amendments. He asked for
feedback as to how the Board wanted the document formatted. There was general consensus from
the Board to provide the local amendments as digital documents. For the final approved version, the
Board requested only the actual amendment be in the document, leaving out the entire code
language and commentary. The Board prefers the shortest version.
CBO Birchfield stated the County Building Department presented their proposed local amendments to
the Commissioners earlier in the week. He distributed to Board members copies of the county’s
proposed local amendments.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
January 14, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated the Town Trustees have directed him to prepare draft local code amendments
regarding vacation homes and life safety inspections. Larimer County is working on the same topic,
with no decisions to date. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is considering
regulating vacation rentals that house more than eight (8) people with the International Building Code
(IBC) rather than the International Residential Code (IRC), where houses are usually regulated. Estes
Park currently regulates all single family homes by the IRC. While CBO Birchfield believes it is
important to align with the county on this issue, using the IBC would require automatic sprinklers,
ADA accessibility, etc. The building code is currently not involved where vacation homes within the
town limits are concerned, as regulation of such is considered a land use issue, not a building code
issue. Current regulations in the Estes Valley Development Code state any property in a residential
zone district can rent their single‐family home on a nightly basis. CBO Birchfield stated the County
Commissioners and Town Board are both looking at changing the regulations. Up to this point, it has
always been his opinion that a house built as a single family home is regulated by the IRC as long as it’s
used as a residential dwelling. However, the County Commissioners are considering adopting
regulations retroactively to require vacation homes for more than eight people to comply with the
IBC. CBO Birchfield has discussed this issue with several jurisdictions, with a 50‐50 split. There are no
occupant factors in the IRC and no changes of uses, so it’s either a dwelling or not a dwelling. There
are significant implications to this, and it will be difficult to regulate if the Town and County are not
aligned. CBO Birchfield suggested three options: (1) make no changes to vacation homes as they
relate to the building code, and let the land use code continue to be the regulator; (2) take vacation
homes out of the IRC and put them in the IBC; or (3) create a hybrid of the two by coming up with
some safety items that can be checked and approved prior to issuing a business license. CBO Birchfield
cautioned the Board to understand the implications of going from the IRC to the IBC prior to making
recommendations to the Town Trustees on this topic. According to the IRC, the definition of dwelling
is: “DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be
built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes.”
The IRC definition for dwelling unit is: “DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete independent
living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation.” It is CBO Birchfield’s opinion that vacation homes are a land use issue. If
provided the opportunity for safety surveys, some of the items on the checklist could be carbon
monoxide detectors, smoke alarms, egress windows, unpermitted work, etc. He stated he would need
a local amendments to implement changes regarding vacation homes, because his interpretation of
the code as it is now written would be changed. Chair Spooner stated he supports the idea of a safety
survey prior to rental as a vacation home. There was general consensus from the Board to prepare
draft local amendments to perform safety surveys of vacation homes.
REPORTS
CBO Birchfield stated he is still hoping to have the local amendments ready to present to Town Board
for an April 1, 2016 adoption date. The County may be able to get theirs adopted prior to April 1st.
CBO Birchfield reminded the Board to let Karen Thompson know if you are able to attend one day of
the ICC Training Institute in Denver in March.
CBO Birchfield stated the International Energy Conservation Code training was well attended. If there
was interest in another topic, he would try to get additional training here in Estes Park. Member Calvin
would be interested in a commercial class.
CBO Birchfield stated he would like to see set fees for certain permits (hot water heaters, furnaces,
roofs, etc.). He asked for assistance from the Board to create a sub‐committee to determine
appropriate fees for these types of permits. His idea would be to charge a flat fee, which would
include the permit and two inspections. Additional inspections would be $100 each. Members
Schiaffo, Klein, and Darling agreed to serve on this sub‐committee. Karen Thompson will send out an
invitation to meet.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
January 14, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 7, 2016
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County
Elections Office for Assistance during the 2016 Election.
Objective:
To approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Election office to support the
Town during the April 5, 2016 Municipal Election.
Present Situation:
The Larimer County Election office has been supporting the Town Clerk’s office in the
completion of the April 5, 2016 Municipal Election. The County Election staff has assisted in the
preparation of the ballot layout, programming of the Accuvote machines and provided voter
registration lists. They have been instrumental in coordinating with Runbeck, the company hired
to complete the printing and mailing of the ballots. The Town will also be renting election
equipment from the County to complete the counting of the ballots.
Proposal:
The County has prepared an IGA outlining the support and the associated cost.
Advantages:
To secure the County’s assistance for the Town’s 2016 Municipal Election.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the IGA between the County and the Town.
Budget:
Election costs are budgeted in the Administrative Services 1400 fund. Total cost of support and
equipment rental is estimated at $1,066.15.
Level of Public Interest: Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the IGA between Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and the Town of
Estes Park for their assistance during the 2016 Municipal Election.
Attachments: Intergovernmental Agreement
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SUPPORT
This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (“County Clerk”) and the Town of Estes Park
(“Entity”). This Agreement is made effective upon the signature of the Entity and the
County Clerk.
Amendments or strikethroughs to this Agreement are not allowed without consent of the
County Clerk.
The Town of Estes Park, pursuant to Resolution #25-15 has set a Regular Municipal
Election on Tuesday, April 5, 2016; and
The County Clerk has agreed to perform certain election services set forth herein in
consideration of the performance by the Entity of its obligations and payment of a fee as
set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
I. Duties of the County Clerk
The County Clerk has designated Doreen Bellfy, whose telephone number is (970) 498-
7941, as the “Contact Officer” to act as the primary liaison between the County Clerk
and the Entity for the purposes of the Election. The Contact Officer shall act under the
authority of the County Clerk.
The County Clerk agrees to perform the following duties, or such other duties as may be
mutually agreed upon by the parties in writing, in connection with the Election:
A. Preparation for the Election
1. Provide the Entity a street locator file, which lists the street addresses located
in the Entity within the County Clerk’s voter registration system by February
19, 2016.
2. Provide an initial Voter Registration List by March 4, 2016 (31-10-910(1)(a),
supplemental list on March 16, 2016.
3. Provide Election setup, ballot artwork, proofing, memory card setup,
equipment testing, ballot testing and files to vendor by February 3, 2016.
B. Election Costs
1. Keep an accurate account of all Election costs including, but not limited to,
supplies, staff and temporary labor, and other expenses attributable to the
County Clerk’s support.
2. The County Clerk will provide election equipment as requested by the Entity
at a cost outlined in Exhibit A and per the Larimer County Equipment Rental
Agreement outlined in Exhibit B.
II. Duties of the Entity
The Entity shall perform the following duties in connection with the Election:
A. Preparation for the Election
1. Be solely responsible for determining whether the ballot question is properly
placed before the voters.
2. Proofread and approve the Entity’s ballot content for printing.
B. Election Costs
1. The Entity’s cost shall be based on County expenditures relative to the Election
and costs including, but not limited to, supplies, staff and temporary labor, and
other expenses attributable to the County Clerk’s support.
2. The Entity avers that it has sufficient funds available in its approved budget to
pay its Election expenses.
3. Upon receipt of the invoice, pay to the County Clerk within thirty days a fee which
shall be an amount determined in accordance with the formula set forth on
Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Pay any additional or unique election costs resulting from delays, recounts,
special preparations and/or cancellations.
III. Additional Agreements
1. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction finds the Election for the Entity was
void or otherwise fatally defective as a result of the sole breach or failure of the
County Clerk to perform in accordance with this Agreement or laws applicable to
the election, the Entity shall be entitled to recover expenses or losses caused by
such breach or failure up to the maximum amount paid by the Entity to the
County Clerk under this Agreement. The County Clerk shall in no event be liable
for any expenses, damages or losses in excess of the amounts paid under this
Agreement. This remedy shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach
available to the Entity under this Agreement.
2. No portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a cause of action with
respect to anyone not a party to this Agreement, nor is this Agreement intended
to waive any privileges, immunities to the parties, their officers or employees may
possess, except as expressly stated in this Agreement.
3. Time is of the essence under this Agreement. The statutory time frames or
requirements of the Code and the Rules shall apply to the completion of any
duties or tasks required under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be
effective upon the date signed by both parties.
Date: _____________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA MYERS
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
CLERK AND RECORDER
ENTITY:
NAME OF ENTITY:
Date: _____________________________ _______________________________
By: ____________________________
__________________________________ ________________________________
Entity phone number Title of Authorized Representative
signing on behalf of Entity
Exhibit A
UNIT COST HOURS LABOR DAYS TOTAL
Labor $526.15
SCORE (Address library) $30.95 1 1 1 $30.95
GEMS (Election setup, ballot artwork,
proofing, memory card setup, equipment
testing, ballot testing and files to vendor) $30.95 8 2 1 $495.20
UNIT COST NUMBER TOTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL $540.00
AccuVote ($250.00 x 2) $500.00
Ballot boxes (small, $10.00 x 2) $20.00
Voting Booths ($10.00 x 2) $20.00
Total $1066.15
Exhibit B
This agreement is made effective this 4th day of March, 2016, between the COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO (“County”), and the Town of Estes Park ("Entity").
The County hereby rents to the Entity and the Entity rents from the County the following equipment for
use in the Entity’s election on April 5, 2016:
1. 2 AccuVote units, seals, ender card, spare printer tape, seal log and ribbon for each unit. Rental
fee is $250.00 per voting unit.
73968 73969
2. 2 small ballot boxes. Rental fee is $10.00 per ballot box.
3. 2 voting booths. (1 Handicap accessible.) Rental fee is $10.00 per voting booth.
4. The Entity agrees to pick up the equipment from the County on March 16, 2016.
5. The Entity agrees to return the equipment to the County within five working days after the election
to be held on April 5, 2016.
6. The Entity agrees to pay for any repair or replacement cost for damages to the equipment incurred
during the rental period.
The replacement cost of each voting unit is $6,500.00.
The replacement cost of each small ballot box is $60.00.
The replacement cost of each voting booth is $250.00.
In accordance with Secretary of State Rule 20.15.3(c), the designated election official appointed as a
deputy for the purposes of supervising the voting equipment is .
The designated election official affirms the following:
1. Ensure the security and integrity of the certified voting equipment at all times.
2. The use of the certified voting equipment will be conducted in accordance with Secretary of State
Rule 20, the specific Conditions for Use of the voting equipment; and
3. Maintain all chain-of-custody logs for the voting device(s).
AGREED:
Angela Myers
CLERK AND RECORDER
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Date: Date:
To: Town Board
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Rob Hinkle, Fairgrounds and Events Director
Date: March 4, 2016
RE: New Event – Bond Park
Objective: Receive approval for new Event
Town Policy: Per Town Policy, all new events in Bond Park must be approved by
Town Board.
Event: “Handmade in Colorado Expo” in Bond Park on August 27 -28, 2016. This is the
8th year in Colorado, and the 2nd year in Estes Park. Last year this event was held at
the Estes Park Events Complex.
Organizer: Colorado Events is a Boulder, CO based non-profit organization that has
been producing events since 2002. They have produced over 600 different event dates
in several different cities throughout Colorado over the last 15 years. Their mission is to
organize community events that increase public knowledge and appreciation for visual
arts and fine crafts, by creating opportunities that connect artists and local businesses,
with the community and the general public for their mutual benefit. All events are free to
the public.
Proposal:
They are seeking to move the event from the Estes Park Event Complex to Bond Park
in 2016, as they feel the event would be more successful outdoors and believe that the
location will draw more visitors to the event. Their goal for the event is to create a high
quality showcase of Colorado made arts and crafts that will draw people to Estes Park
for an experience that is mutually beneficial for the attending public, participating
exhibitors, and local business community.
Memo
Community Services
This event is a multi-city event that is also scheduled to happen in Downtown Denver in
Skyline Park and also in Boulder on the Pearl Street Mall. All merchandise displayed at
this juried show is handmade in Colorado and sold direct by the artist or crafter. Artists
are selected to participate through a jurying process, with criteria focused on
craftsmanship, originality, diversity and artistic professionalism. There will be no
exceptions to the artist criteria and we will not admit any commercial vendors or
exhibitors that do not fit the theme of the event, as we will only allow merchandise to be
sold that is handmade in Colorado. They would also like to schedule background live
music performed by local musicians, pending approval.
The Handmade in Colorado Expo also serves as a fundraiser for the Imagine!
Foundation, which provides extensive support for the more than 2,600 people with
developmental disabilities and their families in Colorado.
Target Audience: Target audience will be families, art collectors, and individuals with
an appreciation for visual arts and handcrafted items.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Handmade in Colorado
Expo to the Town Board.
Public Works Department
Community Development
Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager, Public Works Department
Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner, Community Development Department
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Public Hearing – Close Out for 3 CDBG-DR Projects
Objective:
To conduct a public hearing as required by the grant agreements for HUD Community
Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funded projects:
1. Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project
(D5DR 1-40-EP5)
2. FHWA cost share for Community Drive (M405-018-20074, R1-40-EP2)
3. FEMA cost share for various road sites (FEMA PW#69, R1-60-EP1 .2)
The purpose of this hearing is to allow citizens to review and comment on the
performance of these three projects. Written comments are also welcomed and must be
received by Thursday, March 10, 2016, at Town of Estes Park, P.O. Box 1200, Estes
Park, CO 80517.
For information concerning the public hearing, contact the following Town
representatives:
Town Clerks Office, townclerk@estes.org; subject line: "CDBG-DR Project Close out
Public Hearing" and specify which project.
Present Situation:
The reach of Fall River between the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary through
550 feet downstream of the Fish Hatchery Road bridge was severely damaged during
the 2013 flood. This damage included streambank erosion and channel degregation.
CDBG-DR funds supported a design-build project for stream bank stabilization and
channel restoration.
Community Drive was heavily used during the 2013 flood emergency response and
recovery with trucks running road base material to and from the fairgrounds stockpile.
As a result, this critical road with access to the schools was severely damaged requiring
road repair and restoration. CDBG-DR funds support the Town’s cost share for FHWA,
8.605%.
FEMA Project Worksheet #69 includes 13 sites, each was damaged during the 2013
flood. CDBG-DR funds have been requested to support the Town’s cost share, 12.5%.
The sites are located along Fall River (Fall River Court, Fall River Drive, Pedestrian
Trail off Fall River Road, Pedestrian Bridge off West Elkhorn, Spruce Drive Bridge,
Cherokee Road, Heinz Parkway, Grey Fox Drive, Lexington Lane and Grand Estates).
Proposal:
A public hearing is required for CDBG-DR funded projects when projects are complete
or nearly complete.
Advantages:
This public hearing offers the citizens an opportunity to comment on these projects.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
No Board action required.
Budget:
Hydroplant: $150,000; design-build project
FHWA Community Drive CDBG-DR cost share: $39,972.73
FEMA PW#69 cost share: $44,680.00
Level of Public Interest
Medium
Sample Motion:
Not applicable
Attachments:
None
General Information:
A public hearing will be opened for these three projects; however, comments will be
taken in order of the projects listed in this memo. The Mayor will close each project
following public comments and then request comments on the next project.
This public hearing is being conducted at the Town Hall which is a handicapped
accessible building. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids
and services) are asked to contract the Town Clerk's office at least five (5) business
days prior to this public hearing to request special accommodations. Hearing devices
are available for this public meeting upon request. Those with limited English proficiency
planning to attend this public hearing are asked to contact the Town Clerk's office at
least five (5) business days prior to this meeting and accommodations will be made
available upon requests. The Town Clerk's office contact information:
TownClerk@estes.org; 970-577-4777; 170 MacGregor Avenue, PO Box 1200, Estes
Park, Colorado 80517.
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: March 8, 2016
RE: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval of a construction contract with SEMA Construction for the
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project. To meet the requested 5 month construction
schedule that runs from March 21st to August 26th, Public Works needs contract
approval at this March 8th Town Board Meeting.
Present Situation:
In a May 12, 2015 Town Board Study Session, Public Works received direction to
proceed with a Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project that included:
• Road reconstruction for one mile of 2-lane road repair (without on-street bike
lanes;
• An 8’ pedestrian walk/trail on the west side of Dry Gulch Road;
• Realignment of the Dry Gulch/Hwy 34 intersection;
• A trail connection along Hwy 34 to the east of Dry Gulch Road traversing under
the existing CDOT bridge on Hwy 34 and connecting with the Lake Estes Trail.
The project was advertised for construction bids on June 12, 2015. At the bid opening
on July 2, 2015, no bids were submitted. The bid documents were updated and on
February 4, 2016 the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project the project was
readvertised for bids. A well-attended Pre-Bid meeting was held on February 10th.
Twelve different contractors, Public Works staff, Upper Thompson Sanitation District
staff, and the project design engineers from Farnsworth Group attended. On February
25, 2016, Public Works held a bid opening for the project and received one bid from
SEMA Construction. This bid was for $3,968,604.17.
This bid is 25% (around one million dollars) above the proposed project amount
presented to the Board back in May. Public Works and its consultant met with SEMA
and brainstormed multiple ways to subtract various improvement items from the scope
to meet a $3 million dollar budget. After removal of all of the Highway 34 trail and turn
lane improvements, and removal of the walk surface along Dry Gulch, we were only
able to get the project cost down to $3.4 million. SEMA indicated they are not a paving
contractor, so removal of any more items would eliminate their interest in constructing
this job. A slight reduction of the bid price for the full project was negotiated with SEMA
and is reflected in the attachments.
Upon further evaluation, the Public Works staff concluded that eliminating the necessary
pieces of this project to reduce the cost to the original budgeted amount unduly
compromise the purpose and benefit of the project. Phasing the project road, drainage,
and trail components into separate future projects will result in increased traffic
disruptions during the multiple construction events and increase the total project
delivery costs. Another rescoping and rebidding of the project will be required if only the
road repair work (Option 3 on attached Bid Award Decision Matrix) will be built.
SEMA is a General Contractor headquartered out of Centennial, Colorado. They are a
full-service, heavy civil construction company. They have been in business for 24 years
and over 80% of their construction services are for government entities. They have a
solid reputation and are very capable to perform all aspects of this project. There were
no local subcontractors submitted on their project team list. Public Works does believe
this contractor has the ability to deliver a completed project, as proposed, by the August
26th completion date.
Proposal:
SEMA did commit to the following schedule and milestones:
• March 8th - Contract award;
• March 9th – March 16th – Public notifications and meetings with impacted
businesses and residents;
• March 17th – Pre-Construction Meeting;
• March 21st – Notice to Proceed with construction;
• August 5th – Substantial Completion;
• August 26th – Final Completion
This project was identified as a top priority road reconstruction project when the 2012
road assessment update was presented to the Board. Money has been set aside
annually from the Community Reinvestment Fund since 2012 for this project. Additional
funding for this project will come from the 1A Street Improvement Fund and a
reallocation of $673,000 from the 1A Trails Expansion Fund and $416,000 from the
Open Space Fund. Public Works staff will manage the construction of the project.
Currently Pavement Manager Kelly Stallworth is assigned to manage the day to day
progress of the project with support from Kevin Ash and Greg Muhonen.
Advantages:
• Dry Gulch Road is one of the poorest condition roads on our network. The
Pavement Condition Index value is below 30. This project will be bring the road’s
PCI rating back up to100. The additional funding to complete this project will still
allow the Town to achieve an overall street network PCI value of 73 by 2024
which exceeds the Town goal of 70.
• This project is identified in the Town of Estes Park 2024 Street Improvement
Program presented to the Board at February 23rd Study Session. This is a
recommended 2016 road reconstruction project.
• By implementation of this project, the Town is meeting 7 of the 2016 Strategic
Plan Transportation goals, including:
o Complete the Reconstruction of Dry Gulch;
o Include bike/pedestrian lanes wherever possible along with the street
improvements.
• Realignment of the Dry Gulch/Hwy 34 intersection improves the safety, reduces
congestion, and improves parking in this area.
• A safe pedestrian trail connection across Highway 34 is created for the residents
and businesses along Dry Gulch.
• Improved drainage facilities will be provided along the Dry Gulch public right-of-
way.
• The use of existing street, trail and Open Space funds can pay for the full project
will still leaving 35% ending fund balances.
• No new General Funds or diminishment in preventative maintenance work is
required to complete the project.
• The adjacent property owner is willing to provide the necessary easements at no
cost to the Town (contingent upon vacation of a portion of the unused right of
way).
Disadvantages:
• The proposed work is expensive. Project funds could be used for other street
improvement to push the street system average PCI value to 77 by 2024 (at the
expense of omitting important drainage and multi-modal improvements).
• The balance of accrued, undesignated trail and Open Space funds is reduced.
• Full closure of the Dry Gulch roadway during construction will cause residents
and businesses to modify their travel patterns for a few months. Although this is
an impact, public comment supports a quicker schedule and a reduced project
cost that results from closing the road fully versus the congestion and confusion
of alternating one lane traffic for several months.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends award of the construction contract in full. This project has been bid
twice and we have now have a contractor that is willing to meet our project scope and
schedule. Four variants of this project were evaluated and the results are shown in the
attached Bid Award Decision Matrix. We have evaluated cost-saving options, but have
determined that only a complete removal of either the drainage or trail improvements
would create sufficient savings to deliver a project within the original budget estimated
in 2015. Multi-modal and storm drainage alternatives have strong public support and
should be built now even though they increase the cost of this project.
Budget:
See the attached Budget Summary table. Sufficient 1A Street, Community
Reinvestment, 1A Trail, and Open Space funds exist to pay for this project. A
supplemental budget appropriation is required to authorize spending the
unrestricted/unallocated trail and Open Space funds.
Level of Public Interest
Level of public interest is high. This is a major project of the voter approved 1A sales
tax money. This project involves many pieces of valued public infrastructure—road
repairs, trail expansion, drainage improvements, sanitary sewer realignment, and new
retaining walls.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract
with SEMA Construction for the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project in the amount of
$3,931,800. Public Works staff is authorized to spend an additional 5% contingency of
$196,590 if needed for unanticipated changes encountered during construction.
Attachments:
1. Dry Gulch Phasing Exhibit
2. Trail Connection Exhibit
3. 2016 Budget Summary
4. Bid Award Decision Matrix
5. Annual Condition PCI Comparison Graph
6. SEMA Bid Breakout
7. Construction Contract
10
8
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
Budget Summary (07 Mar 2016)
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION
Budget
Amount
Yr End Fund
Balance
2016 Street Improvement Program Revenue
1 Beginning Fund Balance $6,931,099 $504,949
2 Sales Tax 1A STIP 2016 Projected $1,441,500
3 Interest Earnings on RAMP funds $8,000
5 CRF 2016 Transfer In $435,000
Subtotal Street Improvement Program Funds $8,815,599
6 Sales Tax 1A Trail Expansion Fund 2016 Unrestricted $673,000 $104,895
7 Open Space Fund 2016 Unrestricted $430,000 $295,448
Total Revenue Available $9,918,599
2016 Street Improvement Program Expenses
1 FLAP expense for Downtown Estes Loop $4,064,608
2 Personnel Salaries & Benefits (Pvmt Mgr + Eq Oper)$123,841
3 Annualized Cost Spray Patcher $47,040
4 Pavement Mgmt Software Training & Data Collection $22,950
5 Aggregate, Emulsion, Storage for Spray Patcher $33,500
6 Crack Seal Contract $200,000
7 Seal Coat Contract $200,000
8 Overlay & Patching Contract $513,172
9 Spray Patcher Aggregate Storage Tent $49,593
10 Ending Fund Balance (contingency/margin)$504,949
Total Committed STIP Expenses $5,759,653
Funds Available for Dry Gulch Road Street & Trail $4,158,946
Dry Gulch Project Budget
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION
Contract
Amount Road Work Drainage Work Trail Work
1 Schedule A SEMA Bid Amount $3,079,318 $886,379 $873,121 $1,319,818
2 Schedule B SEMA Bid Amount $852,482 $49,396 $307,200 $495,886
Subtotal Construction Bid Cost $3,931,800 $935,775 $1,180,321 $1,815,704
3 Construction Contingency (5%)$196,590 $46,789 $59,016 $90,785
4 Farnsworth Design Engineering 2016 Costs $10,000 $2,400 $3,000 $4,600
5 Material Testing $20,000 $4,800 $6,000 $9,200
Total Project Cost $4,158,390 $989,764 $1,248,337 $1,920,289
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
Project Construction Options Screening Summary (rev 01 Mar 2016)
Item No.Evaluation Criteria Option 1
Full Scope Award
Option 2
No US34 Trail
Option 3
Redesign No C/G/Trail
Option 4
Do Nothing on DG Road
1 Project Construction Cost $3,931,800 $3,435,914 $886,379 $0
2 Road Construction Cost $935,775 $935,775 $886,379 $0
3 Stormwater Impvts Construction Cost $1,180,321 $1,180,321 $0 $0
4 Trail Construction Cost $1,815,704 $1,319,818 $0 $0
5 Trail and Open Space Funds Used $1,089,000 $489,000 $0 $0
6 Extra Design Cost $0 $0 $75,000 $0
7 Construction Cost Inflation Risk none increased cost for U34trail Could be 25% more/year rebuild will be reqd someday
8 10 yr maintenance effort on DG Road crack seal + one chip seal crack seal + one chip seal periodic potholes poor drainage frequent pothole repairs reqd
9 2017 Dry Gulch Rd PCI Value 100 100 100 28
10 Ped & Cyclist Safety along DG Road 8' trail attached west side 8' trail attached west side no ped or bike facilities provided no ped or bike facilities provided
11 Parking Safety Improvement parking expanded parking expanded no parking improvements no parking improvements
12 Motorist Safety at DG/US34 intersection WB Rt Turn Lane provided WB Rt Turn Lane provided no intersection realignment no intersection realignment
13 Safe user access to trails underpass future underpass possible unsafe crossing US 34 unsafe crossing US34
14 Develop trail connectivity Connects to Lake Tr future connection possible no connectivity funded no connectivity funded
15 2024 St System Ave PCI Value (>70) 73 71 77.2 76.7
16 Complete the Const of DG Road in 2016 Accomplished Partially Accomplished Delay a year or more Project postponed indefinately
17 Fund Preventative Maintenance on roads $900,000 $300,000 $3,013,621 $3,900,000
18 Include bike/ped lane w/ st impts Accomplished Partially Accomplished goal not met goal not met
19
Community Trust in Town's Ability to
Set & Meet Goals 2016 goals accomplished
2016 goals partially
accomplished 2016 goals not met 2016 goals not met
20 PW Staff Ranking 1
21 Trustee Ranking
$4M $4M
Road Construction Cost
Stormwater Impvts Construction Cost $2M $2M
Trail Construction Cost
Road Preventative Maint & Repair Cost
$0M $0M
NOTES:
1 2016 Dry Gulch Rd approved const budget amount = $2.7m + $300k (11% contingency) =$3,000,000
2 $673,000 available from undesignated 1A Trail Expansion Funds plus $754,000 available in Open Space Funds.
3 Option 3 assumes starting over. Road milled up and repaved with no curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm inlets, or drainage pipes. Many variations available.
4 No new Gen Funds required. Budget supplements come from 1A Sales Tax street & trail revenue.
5 Must determine if improved PCI values >70 for Options 3 & 4 are worth the loss of proposed bike, ped, and storm drainage improvements.
6 2024 Ave PCI values assume flat 1A Sales Tax revenue stream at $1.4m per year for preventative maintenance & repair work on streets.
LEGEND:Good
Tolerable/Neutral
Poor
2016 Strategic Plan Goals
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024PCI Weighted AverageYear
Annual Condition Plot (Area Weighted Average)
Option 1 - Current proposed budget which includes $3 million for Dry Gulch Road and $900,000 for other maintenance in the 2016 budget. This is the
2024 STIP plan presented 2/23/16.
Option 2 - Dry Gulch Road partially funded from 2016 STIP preventive maintenance funds, which reduces the 2016 STIP preventive maintenance budget
from $900,000 to $300,000. The annual budget returns to the proposed $1.2 million for the following years.
Option 3 - Dry Gulch Road improvements only performed in 2017. No drainage or trail improvements. Includes an extra $1 million in 2017 and $1.5
million in 2018, then returns to the proposed annual budget of $1.2 million.
Option 4 - No major construction on Dry Gulch through 2024. Includes an extra $1.5 million per year in 2017 and 2018, and returns to the proposed
annual budget of $1.2 million for the following years.
U:\Engineering\PROJECT FILES\Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements 2015\02 Financial\Budget\Budget 1/4
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
2ND BID: FEBRUARY 2016
DATE PREPARED: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
Average Total For
Farnsworth Group
Road Const Cost Drainage Const Cost Trail Const Cost
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL
BID SCHEDULE A: DRY GULCH ROAD
GENERAL
0.5 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 344,500.00 $ 344,500.00 $ 96,460.00 $ 96,460.00 $ 151,580.00
1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 13,750.00 $ 13,750.00 $ 31,700.00 $ 31,700.00 $ 8,876.00 $ 8,876.00 $ 13,948.00
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 41,100.00 $ 41,100.00 $ 32,200.00 $ 32,200.00 $ 9,016.00 $ 9,016.00 $ 14,168.00
2.5 Flagging 150 HR $ - $ 64.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 2,688.00 $ 2,688.00 $ 4,224.00
3 Remove Bollards and Concrete Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 3,520.00
4 Remove Storm Trench Inlet and Storm Pipe 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 560.00 $ 560.00 $ 880.00
5 Remove CMP Culverts 420 LF $ 23.35 $ 9,807.00 $ 36.00 $ 15,120.00 $ 4,233.60 $ 4,233.60 $ 6,652.80
6 Remove Trees 30 EA $ 775.00 $ 23,250.00 $ 310.00 $ 9,300.00 $ 2,604.00 $ 2,604.00 $ 4,092.00
7 Misc. Demolition 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 18,200.00 $ 18,200.00 $ 5,096.00 $ 5,096.00 $ 8,008.00
8 Asphalt Pavement Sawing 580 LF $ 4.50 $ 2,610.00 $ 3.60 $ 2,088.00 $ 584.64 $ 584.64 $ 918.72
9 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 40,800.00 $ 40,800.00 $ 11,424.00 $ 11,424.00 $ 17,952.00
$ 152,017.00 $ 513,508.00 $ 143,782.24 $ 143,782.24 $ 225,943.52
EARTHWORK
10 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 42,400.00 $ 42,400.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00
11 Retaining Wall - Precast Modular Block 2150 LF $ 425.00 $ 913,750.00 $ 280.00 $ 602,000.00 $ 602,000.00
11.5 Emergency Access Road 1100 SY $ 31.25 $ 34,375.00 $ 58.00 $ 63,800.00 $ 63,800.00
$ 990,525.00 $ 845,800.00 $ 63,800.00 $ - $ 782,000.00
STORM SEWER
12 30" ADS N-12 ST IB 319 LF $ 104.00 $ 33,176.00 $ 210.00 $ 66,990.00 $ 66,990.00
13 24" ADS N-12 ST IB 250 LF $ 85.00 $ 21,250.00 $ 220.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00
14 18" ADS N-12 ST IB 250 LF $ 69.00 $ 17,250.00 $ 170.00 $ 42,500.00 $ 42,500.00
15 Type R Inlet (5' Increments)37 EA $ 4,250.00 $ 157,250.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 255,300.00 $ 255,300.00
16 Type C Inlet 9 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 30,600.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 31,500.00
17 Rip Rap 193 TON $ 175.00 $ 33,775.00 $ 84.00 $ 16,212.00 $ 16,212.00
18 Tie Existing Storm CMP into New Curb Inlet 1 LS $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
$ 294,551.00 $ 469,502.00 $ - $ 469,502.00 $ -
ROADWORK
19 Asphalt Cold Milling 17010 SY $ 6.00 $ 102,060.00 $ 7.60 $ 129,276.00 $ 129,276.00
20 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 3020 TON $ 31.20 $ 94,224.00 $ 35.00 $ 105,700.00 $ 105,700.00
21 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 or 64-22 1658 TON $ 105.00 $ 174,090.00 $ 79.00 $ 130,982.00 $ 130,982.00
22 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 or 64-22 2380 TON $ 105.00 $ 249,900.00 $ 81.00 $ 192,780.00 $ 192,780.00
22.5 Driveways 425 SF $ - $ 23.00 $ 9,775.00 $ 9,775.00
23 Epoxy Paint Centerline and Parking Striping 100 GAL $ 125.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 210.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 21,000.00
24 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 100 SF $ 19.95 $ 1,995.00 $ 14.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
25 Curb and Gutter 9872 LF $ 20.25 $ 199,908.00 $ 21.00 $ 207,312.00 $ 207,312.00
SEMA Construction
GENERAL SUBTOTAL:
Average Unit Price for
Farnsworth Group
EARTHWORK
SUBTOTAL:
STORM SEWER
SUBTOTAL:
U:\Engineering\PROJECT FILES\Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements 2015\02 Financial\Budget\Budget 2/4
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
2ND BID: FEBRUARY 2016
DATE PREPARED: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
Average Total For
Farnsworth Group
Road Const Cost Drainage Const Cost Trail Const Cost
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL
SEMA Construction
Average Unit Price for
Farnsworth Group
26 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)1675 SF $ 23.95 $ 40,116.25 $ 10.00 $ 16,750.00 $ 16,750.00
27 Concrete Trail 4361 SY $ 48.60 $ 211,944.60 $ 59.00 $ 257,299.00 $ 257,299.00
27.5 Handicap Ramps 8 EA $ - $ 1,800.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 14,400.00
$ 1,086,737.85 $ 1,086,674.00 $ 590,913.00 $ 224,062.00 $ 271,699.00
SANITARY SEWER
28 Raise Existing Sewer Manhole Covers 15 EA $ 475.00 $ 7,125.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 19,500.00
29 Rotate Top of Existing Manholes 15 EA $ 425.00 $ 6,375.00 $ 700.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00
30 Precast Concrete Barrel Section (5') Diameter 8 EA $ 1,950.00 $ 15,600.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 10,400.00
31 Precast Concrete Barrel Section (4') Diameter 7 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 10,150.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 7,700.00 $ 7,700.00
$ 39,250.00 $ 48,100.00 $ 48,100.00 $ - $ -
WATER SYSTEM
32 Waterline Lowering and Relocation 14 LF $ 375.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 700.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 9,800.00
33 Raise Existing Water Valve Boxes 11 EA $ 275.00 $ 3,025.00 $ 540.00 $ 5,940.00 $ 5,940.00
34 Relocate Fire Hydrants 4 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800.00
35 Waterline Disinfection 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 4,300.00
$ 24,775.00 $ 48,840.00 $ 5,940.00 $ 14,100.00 $ 28,800.00
MISCELLANEOUS
36 Relocation of Street Lamp at Red Tail Hawk Drive 1 LS $ 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00
37 Relocation of Telephone and Fiber Optic Boxes 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 10,300.00
38 Pipe Edge Drain 594 LF $ 24.50 $ 14,553.00 $ 26.00 $ 15,444.00 $ 15,444.00
39 Barbed Wire Fence (4-Wire) Replacement 3500 LF $ 3.25 $ 11,375.00 $ 6.50 $ 22,750.00 $ 11,375.00 $ 11,375.00
40 Signs 1 LS $ 1,425.00 $ 1,425.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00
41 Seeding 3 AC $ 2,050.00 $ 6,150.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 8,400.00
$ 43,753.00 $ 66,894.00 $ 33,844.00 $ 21,675.00 $ 11,375.00
TOTAL BID SCHEDULE A 2,631,608.85$ 3,079,318.00$ 886,379.24$ 873,121.24$ 1,319,817.52$
3,079,318.00$ 886,379.24$ 873,121.24$ 1,319,817.52$
BID SCHEDULE B: U.S. 34 IMPROVEMENTS AND SOMBRERO PARKING 29%28%43%
GENERAL
0.5 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 236,000.00 $ 236,000.00 $ 16,520.00 $ 84,960.00 $ 134,520.00
1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 24,500.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 15,800.00 $ 15,800.00 $ 1,106.00 $ 5,688.00 $ 9,006.00
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 31,800.00 $ 31,800.00 $ 17,700.00 $ 17,700.00 $ 1,239.00 $ 6,372.00 $ 10,089.00
2.5 Flagging 250 HR $ - $ 64.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 5,760.00 $ 9,120.00
3 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,385.00 $ 3,385.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 721.00 $ 3,708.00 $ 5,871.00
MISCELLANEOUS
SUBTOTAL:
ROAD WORK
SUBTOTAL:
SANITARY SEWER
SUBTOTAL:
WATER SYSTEM
SUBTOTAL:
U:\Engineering\PROJECT FILES\Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements 2015\02 Financial\Budget\Budget 3/4
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
2ND BID: FEBRUARY 2016
DATE PREPARED: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
Average Total For
Farnsworth Group
Road Const Cost Drainage Const Cost Trail Const Cost
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL
SEMA Construction
Average Unit Price for
Farnsworth Group
$ 77,185.00 $ 77,185.00 $ 295,800.00 $ 20,706.00 $ 106,488.00 $ 168,606.00
EARTHWORK
4 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 10,150.00 $ 10,150.00 $ 35,500.00 $ 35,500.00 $ 35,500.00
$ 10,150.00 $ 10,150.00 $ 35,500.00 $ - $ - $ 35,500.00
STORMSEWER
5 Stormsewer Manholes (5')3 EA $ 1,950.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 9,600.00
6 24" ADS N-12 ST IB Pipe 706 LF $ 85.00 $ 60,010.00 $ 220.00 $ 155,320.00 $ 155,320.00
7 18" ADS N-12 ST IB Pipe 40 LF $ 69.00 $ 2,760.00 $ 290.00 $ 11,600.00 $ 11,600.00
8 Type R Inlet 1 EA $ 4,250.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 6,900.00
9 Type C Inlet 2 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
10 Placement of Rip Rap 8 Ton $ 175.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 170.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 1,360.00
$ 81,070.00 $ 191,780.00 $ - $ 191,780.00 $ -
ROADWORK
11 CDOT Class 6 Aggregate Base Course 750 TON $ 31.20 $ 23,400.00 $ - $ - $ -
12 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 or 64-22 55 TON $ 105.00 $ 5,775.00 $ 79.00 $ 4,345.00 $ 4,345.00
13 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 or 64-22 155 TON $ 105.00 $ 16,275.00 $ 81.00 $ 12,555.00 $ 12,555.00
14 Epoxy Pavement Striping 3 GAL $ 125.00 $ 375.00 $ 210.00 $ 630.00 $ 630.00
15 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 200 SF $ 19.95 $ 3,990.00 $ 14.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00
16 Parking Blocks 19 EA $ 175.00 $ 3,325.00 $ 440.00 $ 8,360.00 $ 8,360.00
17 Curb and Gutter 406 LF $ 20.25 $ 8,221.50 $ 22.00 $ 8,932.00 $ 8,932.00
$ 61,361.50 $ 37,622.00 $ 28,690.00 $ 8,932.00 $ -
TRAIL and SIDEWALK
17.5 Handicapped Ramps 2 EA $ 1,550.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00
18 Concrete Trail 960 SY $ 48.60 $ 46,656.00 $ 63.00 $ 60,480.00 $ 60,480.00
18.5 Asphalt Trail Demolition 230 SY $ 22.50 $ 5,175.00 $ 18.00 $ 4,140.00 $ 4,140.00
$ 51,831.00 $ 68,220.00 $ - $ - $ 68,220.00
SANITARY SEWER
19 Sanitary Sewer Aerial Crossing 1 LS $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 34,300.00 $ 34,300.00 $ 34,300.00
20 30" DIP Sanitary Sewer 352 LF $ 100.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 150.00 $ 52,800.00 $ 52,800.00
20.5 30" Restrained DIP Sanitary Sewer 171 LF $ 135.00 $ 23,085.00 $ 220.00 $ 37,620.00 $ 37,620.00
21 Sanitary Manholes (6')5 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 26,500.00 $ 26,500.00
22 Remove 30" DIP Sanitary Sewer 518 LF $ 27.50 $ 14,245.00 $ 29.00 $ 15,022.00 $ 15,022.00
23 Bypass Pumpng During Sanaitary Sewer Construction 1 LS $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 43,900.00 $ 43,900.00 $ 43,900.00
24 Sanitary Sewer System Testing 1 LS $ 4,250.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 8,200.00 $ 8,200.00 $ 8,200.00
$ 163,280.00 $ 218,342.00 $ - $ - $ 218,342.00
GENERAL SUBTOTAL:
EARTHWORK
SUBTOTAL:
STORM SEWER
SUBTOTAL:
ROAD WORK
SUBTOTAL:
TRAIL & SIDEWALK
SUBTOTAL:
SANITARY SEWER
SUBTOTAL:
U:\Engineering\PROJECT FILES\Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements 2015\02 Financial\Budget\Budget 4/4
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
2ND BID: FEBRUARY 2016
DATE PREPARED: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
Average Total For
Farnsworth Group
Road Const Cost Drainage Const Cost Trail Const Cost
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL ITEM TOTAL
SEMA Construction
Average Unit Price for
Farnsworth Group
MISCELLANEOUS
25 Signs 1 LS $ 450.00 $ 450.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00
26 Seeding 0.5 AC $ 1,750.00 $ 875.00 $ 7,236.34 $ 3,618.17 $ 3,618.17
$ 1,325.00 $ 5,218.17 $ - $ - $ 5,218.17
TOTAL BID SCHEDULE B 446,202.50$ 852,482.17$ 49,396.00$ 307,200.00$ 495,886.17$
TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B 3,077,811.35$ 3,931,800.17$ 935,775.24$ 1,180,321.24$ 1,815,703.69$
MISCELLANEOUS
SUBTOTAL:
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the day of , 201 6 by and between the
Town of Estes Park (TOEP), a body corporate and political, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado, 80517, (hereinafter called OWNER) and (hereinafter called
CONTRACTOR).
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as
follows:
Article 1. WORK
CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work
is generally described as follows:
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
Approximate quantities for the major items are as follows:
1) 37 Type R inlets, (Using 5’ increments).
2) 9 Type C inlets.
3) 290 lf 18” ADS N-12 ST IB.
4) 956 lf of 24” ADS N-12 ST IB.
5) 319 lf of 30” ADS N-12 ST IB.
6) 2729 Tons of Rip Rap.
7) 10,278 lf of concrete curb and gutter.
8) 5,345 sy of concrete sidewalk.
9) 17,010 sy asphalt milling.
10) 3315 tons CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course
11) 4068 tons hot mix asphalt
12) 10,820 sf of retaining wall
13) 518 lf 30” DIP sanitary sewer
Article 2. PROJECT MANAGER
The Project Manager shall be Kevin Ash, P.E. who is hereinafter called PROJECT MANAGER and who
is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and
authority assigned to PROJECT MANAGER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion
of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
2
Article 3. CONTRACT TIMES
The Work must be substantially completed by August 5, 2016, and ready for final payment in accordance
with the General Conditions subject to applicable laws regarding final payment by August 26, 2016.
Article 4. CONTRACTOR PRICE
OWNER shall pay the CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordanc e with the Contract
Documents an amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts determined pursuant to the unit
prices times the quantities of work actually completed. Unit prices are those shown in the Proposal and
Quantities of work actually completed will be determined by the PROJECT MANAGER.
Article 5. PAYMENT PROCEDURES
CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with the General Conditions.
Applications for Payment will be processed by the PROJECT MANAGER as provided in the General
Conditions.
5.1 Progress Payments; Retainage. OWNER shall make progress payments per the Town’s Annual
Vendor Payment Schedule on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's
applications for Payment as recommended by PROJECT MANAGER, as provided by the
General Conditions during construction as provided in paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.2 below.
5.1.1 Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to the
percentage indicated below, but, in each case, less the aggregate of payments previously made
and less such amounts as PROJECT MANAGER shall determine, or OWNER may withhold, in
accordance with the General Conditions.
a. Ninety percent (90%) of Work completed (with the balance being Retainage). If Work
has been 50% completed as determined by PROJECT MANAGER, and if the character
and progress of the Work have been satisfactory to OWNER and PROJECT MANAGER,
then the OWNER, on recommendation of PROJECT MANAGER, may determine that as
long as the character and progress of the Work remains satisfactory to them, there will be
no additional Retainage except as provided by the General Conditions, or state law.
b. Ninety percent (90%) with the balance being Retainage of materials and equipment not
incorporated in the Work (but delivered, suitably stored and accompanied by
documentation satisfactory to OWNER as provided in the General Conditions).
5.2 Final Payment. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with the
General Conditions, OWNER will publically advertise the Project Completion for two weeks.
Should no liens be officially posted the Owner shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as
recommended by PROJECT MANAGER as provided in the General Conditions.
Article 6. INTEREST
Following settlement of any claims posted again this Contract; final payment will be made in accordance
with the Town’s Annual Vendor Payment Schedule. All moneys not paid when due as provided in
paragraph 27 of the General Conditions shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum compounded
monthly.
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
3
Article 7. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
In order to induce OWNER to enter into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR makes the following
representations:
7.1 CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents (including any
Addenda(s)) and the other related data identified in the Bidding Documents including "technical
data".
7.2 CONTRACTOR has reviewed the site, and become familiar with, and is satisfied as to the general,
local, and site conditions that may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing the Work.
7.3 CONTRACTOR acknowledges he knows, understands, and accepts all plans, specifications, and
design intent of the Work.
7.4 CONTRACTOR acknowledges he has met with the Project Manager and has been in
correspondence with the Project Manager and has sought and received clarification of all issues
concerning construction and design.
7.5 CONTRACTOR assumes full responsibility and obligation for safety, high quality workmanship,
and timely completion of this project as illustrated by the plans, drawings, and specifications.
Contractors are required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local safety and health laws,
regulations and ordinances
7.6 CONTRACTOR understands that he may make on-site layout and grading and construction
modifications to achieve the desired intent. Such modifications/grading changes and layout cost
are already included in the Contract Documents.
7.7 CONTRACTOR understands and acknowledges that this Agreement is a performance based
Agreement, either based on: 1) unit prices 2) maximum lump sum amount 3) price quote:
totaling $ that shall not be exceeded or increased, except for contract changes
allowed, agreed, and approved in writing by Change Order.
7.8 CONTRACTOR will work cooperatively with the PROJECT MANAGER to mutually achieve a
final product acceptable to OWNER.
7.9 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the OWNER from all damages, claims,
and judgments whatsoever (including costs, legal fees, and expenses incurred by the OWNER
related to such damages or claims) to the OWNER or claimed by third parties against the OWNER,
arising directly or indirectly out of CONTRACTOR'S negligent performance of any of the
requirements, provisions, or services furnished under this Agreement.
7.10 CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for obtaining and
carefully studying) all examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies which
pertain to the subsurface or physical conditions at or contiguous to the site or otherwise may affect
the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work as CONTRACTOR considers necessary
for the performance of furnishing the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in
accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically
the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the General Conditions; and no additional examinations,
investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
4
required by the CONTRACTOR for such purposes.
7.11 CONTRACTOR has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated on the
Contract Documents with respect to existing underground faciliti es at or contiguous to the site
and assumes responsibility for the accurate location of said underground facilities. No additional
examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data in
respect of said underground facilities are or will be required by CONTRACTOR in order to
perform and furnish the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance
with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the
prov isions of the General Conditions.
7.12 CONTRACTOR has correlated the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations,
tests, reports, and data with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
7.13 CONTRACTOR has given PROJECT MANAGER written notice of all conflicts, errors, or
discrepancies that he has discovered in the Contract Documents and the written resolution thereof
by PROJECT MANAGER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR.
Article 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR
concerning the Work, consisting of the following:
8.1 This Agreement
8.2 Exhibits to this Agreement.
8.3 Notice of Award
8.4 Notice to Proceed.
8.5 Information for Bidders.
8.6 Special Conditions.
8.7 General Conditions.
8.8 Drawings bearing the title: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
8.9 Addenda (s).
8.10 Contractor’s Bid. (Bid Proposal, Price Quote, Bid sheet & Appendix)
8.11 Bid Bond
8.12 Performance & Payment Bond
8.13 Drawings, Plans, Details (including all CDOT and Larimer County documents as referenced)
8.14 Technical Specifications and Details.
8.15 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award.
8.16 Change Orders (post approval signatures)
8.17 Insurance Certificate, Business License, Tax Certification.
8.18 The following which may be delivered or issued after the Effective Date of the Agreement and
are not attached hereto:
All Written Amendments and other documents amending, modifying, or supplementing
the Contract Documents pursuant to the General Conditions.
The documents composing the Contract Documents are attached to this Agreement and made part hereof
(except as expressly noted otherwise above).
There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above. The Contract Documents may only be
amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in the General Conditions.
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
5
In case of conflicting provisions, requirements or discrepancies the order of application of the Contract
Documents is as follows:
1. Change Orders for clarification of drawings
2. This Agreement
3. Addenda
4. Drawings
5. Special Conditions
6. General Conditions
Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Reference to the General Conditions shall include modification thereto by any Supplementary
Conditions issued.
9.2 No assignments by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract Documents will
be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound;
and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due
may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction
may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an
assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility
under the Contract Documents.
9.3 Except for the intended beneficiaries of any "Labor and Material Payment Bond" executed in
conjunction with this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights
or benefits by virtue of this Agreement to anyone other than OWNER and CONTRACTOR, and
all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sale and
exclusive benefit of OWNER and CONTRACTOR and not for the benefit of any other party.
9.4 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal
representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives
in respect to all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.
9.5 In the event of default of any of the provisions of this Agreement by either party which shall
require the party not in default to commence legal actions against the defaulting party, the
defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's
reasonable attorney fees and costs, including fees of experts, incurred because of the default.
Additionally, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify the OWNER for legal expenses and costs incurred
by the OWNER by reason of claims filed by suppliers, subcontractors or other parties, against the
Retainage held by the OWNER where the OWNER has paid such sums to the CONTRACTOR.
9.6 The OWNER has allocated sufficient funds to pay the contract price.
9.7 Any provisions or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any
Law or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be
valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACT OR, who agree that the Contract Documents
shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable
provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
6
9.8 The Contractor certifies that the Contractor shall comply with the provisions of CRS 8-17.5-101,
et seq. The Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform
work under this contract or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that knowingly employs or
contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract. The Contractor represents,
warrants, and agrees that:
· it (i) has verified that it does not employ any illegal aliens, through participation in the
Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by the Social Security
Administration and the Department of Homeland Security,
· or (ii) otherwise will comply with the requirements of CRS 8-17.5 -102(2)(b)(I). The
Contractor shall comply with all rea sonable requests made in the course of an investigation
by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If the Contractor fails to comply
with any requirement of this provision or CRS 8 -17.5-101, et seq., the Town may terminate
this contract for breach of contract, and the Contractor shall be liable for actual and
consequential damages to the Town.
If the Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this contract
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Contractor shall:(a.) Notify the
subcontractor and the Town within three days that the Contractor has actual knowledge that the
subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (b.) terminate the subcontract
with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to sub -paragraph
(a) above, the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien, unless the
subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed
or contracted with an illegal alien.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One
counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR, and PROJECT MANAGER. All
portions of the Contract Documents have been signed, initialed or identified by OWNER and
CONTRACTOR or identified by PROJECT MANAGER on their behalf.
Dry Gulch Road 1/11/2016
7
This Agreement will be effective as provided on the first page hereof.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By: ______________________________ By: __________________________
William C. Pinkham
Title: ____________________________ Title: ________________________
(If CONTRACTOR is a corporation attach evidence of authority to sign.)
Attest: __________________________ Attest: ______________________
Address for giving notices: Address for giving notices:
170 MacGregor Avenue
P. O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
970-577-3586, kash@estes.org
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Resolution #05-16 Supplemental Budget Appropriation to the Open
Space, Trails Expansion and Street Improvement Funds.
Objective:
This memo requests approval of the 2016 Supplemental Budget Appropriation of the
Open Space, Trails Expansion and Street Improvement Funds.
Present Situation:
The 2016 Budgets for the Open Space, Trails Expansion and Street Improvement Funds
no longer accurately portray anticipated 2016 activity, especially if the Board approves
the construction contract award for the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project in the March
8, 2016 Agenda action item. Further, the Town cannot sign the Dry Gulch Rehabilitation
contract without sufficient amounts of money in each of the named Funds. The requested
action with provide a more accurate portrayal of the current condition of said Funds, and
will allow the Town to enter into a contract for the Dry Gulch Rehabilitation project.
Proposal:
Staff requests approval of the 2016 Budget amendments to the named Funds so that the
Dry Gulch Rehabilitation contract can be executed.
Advantages:
Said Funds will be updated with more accurate 2016 Budget forecasts than existed during
the initial 2016 Budget process in November 2015. Further, the Dry Gulch Road
Rehabilitation project contract can be executed following amendments to said Budgets.
Disadvantages:
The Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project cannot move forward in its present form
without these Budget amendments.
Action Recommended:
Assuming approval of March 8, 2016, Town Board Agenda action item (Construction
Contract Award – Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation), Staff requests approval of the 2016
Supplemental Budget appropriation for the Open Space (Fund #220), Trails Expansion
(Fund #244) and Street Improvement (Fund #260) Funds.
Budget:
The Open Space (Fund #220), Trails Expansion (Fund #244) and Street Improvement
(Fund #260) Funds are being amended for 2016.
Level of Public Interest
There is likely to be at least a moderate level of interest in the Dry Gulch Road
Rehabilitation project, but less interest in the supplemental budget appropriations of the
Open Space, Trails Expansion and Street Improvement Funds.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #05-16, which supplementally appropriates
2016 Budget revisions for the Open Space, Trails Expansion and Street Improvement
Funds.
Attachments:
Resolution #05-16
Open Space Fund Budget Revision 2016
Trails Expansion Fund Budget Revision 2016
Street Improvement Fund Budget Revision 2016
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 05-16
A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS
TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES
IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS
SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE
FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2016, AND
ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the
annual 2016 budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on
December 8th, 2015; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016, the
estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to more accurately
represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate the government;
and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the
revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to
impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of
each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
ABC2016 Budget 2016 Revised BudgetIncrease/(2016 Approved Budget)8‐Mar‐16(Decrease)220 Larimer Cty Open Space 635,0001,600,501 965,501244 Trails Expansion 538,312538,312 0260 Streets 1,884,5001,884,500 0 Total 3,057,8124,023,313 965,501includes all sources of money inflow: revenues, proceeds from debt, transfers inABBDEOriginal 2016 Budgetsupplemental supplemental 2016 RevisedDecrease/appropriation appropriation(Res #03‐16, 02/09/16)(Res #05‐16, 03/08/16)(Increase)(Rollovers) Ending expenditures(C ‐ D)220 Larimer Cty Open Space 261,440 55,983 1,611,440 1,667,423(1,350,000)244 Trails Expansion 500,000 208,275 673,000 881,275(173,000)260 Streets 4,084,381 71,523 4,747,881 4,846,042(690,138) Totals 4,845,821 335,781 7,032,321 7,394,740(2,213,138)includes all sources of money outflow: expenditures, deb service, transfers outINFORMATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION (RESOULITON #05‐16) TO 2016 BUDGETREVENUES/TRANSFER INEXPENDITURES/TRANSFERS OUT
*
Original Budget Revised Budget Ending Budget
2014 2015 2015 2015 2016
Revenues
Federal Grant 13 0 237,619 122,118 398,501
Scott Ponds Grant moved to 2016 0 850,000 0 850,000
State Government Grant 00000
County Shared Revenues 343,180 290,000 350,000 367,428 350,000
Interest Earnings 459 500 2,000 1,526 2,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 130 03838 0
Total Revenues $343,782 $290,500 $1,439,657 $491,110 $1,600,501
Expenses
Personnel Services
Salaries 31,028 27,608 28,460 27,685 19,828
Benefits 11,794 12,497 11,761 11,219 8,257
42,822 40,105 40,221 38,904 28,085
Operations & Maintenance 360 355 561,330 477,668 233,355
Additional O&M 000070,000
Total Current Expenses 43,182 40,460 601,551 516,572 331,440
Capital 0 500,000 850,000 25,000 1,280,000
Total Expenses 43,182 540,460 1,451,551 541,572 1,611,440
Rollovers (approved 02/16/16 Board m 000055,983
Excess (deficiency) of revenues 300,600 (249,960) (11,894) (50,463) (66,922)
over expenditures
Beginning Fund balance 112,233 412,833 412,833 412,833 362,370
Ending Fund balance $412,833 $162,873 $400,939 $362,370 $295,448
REVENUES
Federal Grant 1,087,619 122,118 1,248,501
CDBG‐DR Scott Ponds (moved to 2016) 850,000 850,000
CDBG‐DR Hydroplant River Restoration 150,000
CDBG‐DR Offset to Water Augmentation Scott Ponds 133,000
Reimb on PW195 Trails (HDR/LaCo) 237,619 122,118 115,501
EXPENSES
O&M ‐ Engineering 535,649 477,038 303,000
Scott ponds contract modification ‐ 02/09/16 Board meeting 20,000
Scott Ponds contract modification ‐ 5/12/15 Board meeting 204,494 207,238 133,000
PW195 HDR/LaCo 237,619 226,272
Hydroplant Riverbank Stabilization 38,752 38,744 100,000
Hydroplant Riverbank Stabilization grant not used in 2015 50,000 50,000
Capital 850,000 0 1,280,000
Scott Ponds (moved to 2016) 850,000 850,000
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project 430,000
In 1996, Larimer County voters approved a one‐quarter of one percent sales tax increase to be used for trails and open space
purchases through 2018. This fund accounts for the Town's portion of the tax.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
OPEN SPACE FUND
Original Budget Revised Budget Ending Budget
2014 2015 2015 2015 2016
General Sales Tax 168,769 262,500 288,750 302,973 300,312
Federal Grant 0 0 100,000 123,218 237,000
Interest Earnings 34 263 805 454 1,000
Total Revenues $168,803 $262,763 $389,555 $426,645 $538,312
Expenses
Personnel Services
Salaries 000 0
Benefits 000 0
00000
Operations & Maintenance 0 0 10,048 10,048 0
Total Current Expenses 0 0 10,048 10,048 0
Capital 0 0 337,000 137,542 500,000
Increased Capital to Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project 0 0 0 173,000
Total Expenses 0 0 347,048 147,590 673,000
Rollovers 0000208,275
Excess (deficiency) of revenues 168,803 262,763 42,507 279,056 (342,963)
over expenditures
Beginning Fund balance 0 168,803 168,803 168,803 447,859
Ending Fund balance $168,803 $431,566 $211,310 $447,859 $104,895
12.5% of the new 1% sales tax increase for "the construction and expansion of public trails within the Estes Valley planning
TRAILS FUND
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Original Budget Revised Budget Ending Budget
2014 2015 2015 2015 2016
General Sales Tax 810,089 1,260,000 1,386,000 1,454,273 1,441,500
State Grants (RAMP)0 0 4,200,000 4,200,000 0
Interest Earnings ‐ 1A 0 0 0 3,081 0
Interest Earnings ‐ (RAMP)163 1,260 10,287 5,842 8,000
Total Revenues $810,252 $1,261,260 $5,596,287 $5,663,196 $1,449,500
Expenses
Personnel Services
Salaries 0 90,595 27,916 48,017 87,670
Benefits 0 56,429 18,944 17,952 36,171
0 147,024 46,860 65,969 123,841
Operations & Maintenance*382 1,152,040 321,558 432,682 960,540
Additional O&M as listed below 0 0 0 664,138
Total Current Expenses 382 1,299,064 368,418 498,651 1,748,519
Capital 0 1,600,000 325,000 249,843 3,000,000
Increased Capital to Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project 0 0 0 26,000
Total Expenses*382 2,899,064 693,418 748,494 4,774,519
Rollovers 000071,523
Excess (deficiency) of revenues 809,870 (1,637,804)4,902,869 4,914,701 (3,396,542)
over expenditures
Other financing sources (transfers in)
General Fund 771,528 435,000 435,000 435,000 435,000
Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance 1,581,398 (1,202,804)5,337,869 5,349,701 (2,961,542)
Beginning Fund balance 0 1,581,398 1,581,398 1,581,398 6,931,099
Ending Fund balance $1,581,398 $378,594 $6,919,267 $6,931,099 $3,969,558
Restricted for RAMP/FLAP* $0 $0 $4,200,000 $4,064,608 $3,464,608
Unrestricted (Street) $1,581,398 $378,594 $2,719,267 $2,866,491 $504,949
*$141,234 of total expenses are RAMP/FLAP related
Additions to 2016:
O&M: 664,138
Crack seal material, aggregate and emulsion for pot hole truck 30,000
Farnsworth ‐ Engineering ‐ Dry Gulch 10,000
Materials testing ‐ Dry Gulch 20,000
Aggregate tent (addition to rollover)1,943
Coulson (addition to rollover)2,195
FLAP/RAMP estimated expenses 600,000
new 1% sales tax increase for "the construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation and renovations of streets within the Town
STREETS FUND
SCOPE OF SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Ordinance #06-16 Vacating a Portion of Dry Gulch Road
Objective:
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to consummate a no-cost exchange of
vacated Town right of way for 14 easements needed to realign the intersection of Dry
Gulch Road at US34 and install storm drainage and sanitary sewer improvements
necessary to accommodate the proposed road and trail construction as shown on the
attached aerial map.
Present Situation:
The PW staff memo pertaining to the construction contract award for the proposed
improvements to Dry Gulch Road provides the history of this project. The 14
easements needed for the project are all on land owned by one corporation.
Proposal:
A no-cost, win-win-win exchange of land for easements is proposed to benefit all users
of Dry Gulch Road, the land owner, and customers of Sombrero Stables. The proposed
roadway intersection realignment requires the acquisition of an access easement over
private property. The proposed storm water collection and discharge improvements
require work on private property at 12 locations. The proposed trail extension under US
34 requires a new sanitary sewer easement to make room for the trail to descend and
cross beneath US 34.
If the road intersection is realigned as proposed, the Town will no longer need the right
of way where the existing road is situated. Vacating this right of way would result in
ownership of the land reverting to the adjacent property owner (per State statutes). A
blanket utility easement would be retained to accommodate the existing and future
utilities in this vacated area.
Advantages:
The advantages of adopting the proposed ordinance include:
Town Board 2016 Strategic Plan Infrastructure goals 2a, 2b, and 2c are
advanced by providing an improved parking option, providing safe access for
users to the trail, and utilizing Open Space funding to develop connectivity of
trails.
Town Board 2016 Strategic Plan Infrastructure goals 7.b.2, 3, 4, and 5 are
advanced by completing the reconstruction of Dry Gulch Road, continuing
preventative maintenance work on Town roads, implementing a plan for utilizing
the new sales tax funds for street and trail improvements, and including multi-
modal facilities for bikes and peds when improving streets for cars.
The realigned street intersection and access control at US34 resolve unsafe
access chaos created by uncontrolled entries and exits to both Dry Gulch Road
and US34 at the Sombrero Stables facility.
Parking for the Sombrero operation is consolidated to one larger location where
customers are no longer required to cross the roadways.
Necessary easements are acquired at no cost to the Town funds.
A new northbound left turn lane will improve traffic safety on Dry Gulch Road at
Red Tail Hawk Drive.
Damaging storm and ground water will be controlled and safely discharged at 12
locations into Dry Gulch.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantages of adopting the proposed ordinance include:
12,952 sf of public street right of way would no longer available for street
purposes.
The project funds could be used for other street improvements in Town.
Action Recommended:
The PW staff recommends the Town Board approve the proposed ordinance.
Budget:
Approval of this ordinance is necessary to allow expenditure of budgeted funds for the
Dry Gulch Road project.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposal is expected to be moderate.
Recommended Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #06-16 and authorize the Mayor to sign
the ordinance and the related easement documents.
Attachments:
Ordinance #06-16
Aerial map of easement locations
Access, Drainage, & Utility Easement Agreement
Drainage Easement Agreement
ORDINANCE NO. 06-16
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A
A PORTION OF DRY GULCH ROAD
WHEREAS, the Town desires to enter into a Drainage Easement Agreement
and a separate Access & Utility Easement Agreement (Easements) with Yakutat Land
Corporation (Yakutat); and
WHEREAS, Yakutat’s dedication of the Easements is contingent upon the
Town’s transfer of a certain portion of the Dry Gulch Road right-of-way to Yakutat which
is the present owner of the adjacent Tract 1 of the Dry Gulch Addition #1 further
described as Larimer County Assessor Parcel Number 25203-00-014; and
WHEREAS, this Vacation Ordinance is the appropriate method to accomplish
the transfer of this portion of the Dry Gulch Road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park have determined
that in order to procure the aforementioned Easements, the Town shall permanently
abandon and vacate a portion of Dry Gulch Road according to the terms and conditions
of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO.
Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby
vacates the portion of right-of-way of Dry Gulch Road more fully set forth on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said right-of-way upon vacation
shall become a part Tract 1 of the Dry Gulch Addition #1 to the Town of Estes Park,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado, further described as Larimer County Assessor
Parcel Number 25203-00-014.
Section 2: The Town hereby reserves the vacated portion of the Dry Gulch Road
right-of-way as a blanket utility easement for the use of sewer, gas, water, or similar
pipelines and appurtenances, for ditches or canals and appurtenances, and for electric,
telephone, fiber optic, and similar lines and appurtenances.
Section 3. Subject to reservation of easements set forth in Section 2, the Town
surrenders any and all right, title and interest to the vacated portion of Dry Gulch Road
right-of-way set forth on Exhibit A.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS _____ DAY OF __________, 2016.
2
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
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 circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the _____
day of _______________, 2016.
_________________________________
Town Clerk
0
SCALE: 1"=400'
200 400 800
Book No:
Drawn by:
Reviewed:
Date:
Project No:TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ESTES PARK, CO
PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT
OVERALL MAP
ACCESS, DRAINAGE, & UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, effective the ___ day of March, 2016, is granted by Yakutat Land
Corporation (Grantor) to the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation (Grantee).
1. Consideration. For and in consideration of the Town’s approval of Ordinance 04-
16 which surrenders to Grantor right of ownership, title and interest to the vacated
portion of Dry Gulch Road right-of-way set forth therein, and for other good and
valuable consideration provided by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby sells, conveys and grants unto Grantee
an exclusive and permanent easement and right-of-way over, upon, across, through,
and under the property as shown and described in Exhibit A attached to and made part
hereof (“Property”), for the uses and purposes and upon the terms hereinafter set forth.
2. Purpose. This easement and right-of-way, including the perpetual right to enter
upon the real estate at any time that it may see fit, is hereby conveyed and granted to
the Grantee, its successors and to construct, inspect, maintain, operate, and use a
concrete sidewalk, curb & gutter, and roadway improvements for public access, and to
construct, operate and maintain stormwater drainage facilities, overhead and
underground water, fiber optic, and electric distribution lines, with all pipe, cables, wire,
fixtures and devices, used or useful in operation of said line, through and along a course
as said line may be hereafter constructed in, under, through, over, and across the
Property.
3. Hazardous Substances. Grantor represents to the Grantee, that to its knowledge
as of the date of the execution of this Easement, and with respect to the Property: (1)
the Property has never been used as a landfill or waste dump; (2) that there has been
no installation in or production, disposal, or storage on the Property of any hazardous
substances, including, without limitation, asbestos, by Grantor, Grantor’s tenants, or any
previous owner or previous tenants, or any other activity which could have toxic results;
(3) there is no underground storage tank on the Property; and (4) there is no proceeding
or inquiry by any governmental authority or agency with respect thereto. Grantor shall
indemnify, defend and hold the Grantee harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, and liabilities, costs and expenses (including expert fees and attorney fees)
arising or resulting from a breach of the covenants and warranties contained in this
paragraph. For the purposes of this Easement, hazardous substances means all
hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.,) and in Section 25-5-
502 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and petroleum or petroleum products.
4. Representations and Warranties of Grantor.
(A) Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns and all parties with interest in the
Property, does hereby covenant and agree not to construct improvements of any kind or
nature whatsoever on, over, across or under the Property or to take or fail to take any
action of any kind or nature whatsoever which would interfere with the Grantee’s use of
the Property for the purposes herein granted.
(B) Grantor hereby warrants and represents to the Grantee that Grantor is seized
with fee title to the underlying real property and there are no other parties with interest;
that the rights conveyed herein are free and clear of liens and encumbrances; and that
Grantor has sole and exclusive authority to enter into this Easement.
5. Survival of Indemnifications and Representations. All representations,
obligations, warranties, liabilities, covenants and agreements of Grantor in this
Easement shall survive the consummation of the transactions contemplated in this
Easement; provided, however, nothing contained herein shall imply or import a
covenant on the part of Grantor for quiet enjoyment.
6. Notices. Any notices given under the provisions of this Easement shall be valid if
deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to Grantor or to the Grantee
at the addresses stated herein:
Grantor:
Yakutat Land Corporation
911 Kimbark Street
Longmont, CO 80501
Grantee:
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
7. Binding Effect. This grant of the Easement shall run with the Property and shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, assigns,
and all parties in interest, provided nothing contained herein shall be construed to be an
abandonment or dedication of such public way to any public entity.
8. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event of any litigation between the parties
relating to this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs and reasonable
expert and attorney fees incurred in connection with such litigation.
9. Complete Agreement. This Easement consists of all the agreements,
understandings, and promises between the parties with respect to the subject matter of
this Easement, and there are no agreements, understandings or promises between the
parties other than those set forth in this Easement.
10. Governing Law. This Easement and all of the terms and provisions hereof shall
be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado,
with venue in Larimer County.
Grantor:________________________________
Yakutat Land Corporation
State of Colorado )
) ss
County of Larimer )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
__________, 2016, by ,
as .
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: ____________________
______________________
Notary Public
Accepted by the Town of Estes Park the _______ day of ____________, 2016.
_________________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Town Clerk
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, effective the ___ day of March, 2016, is granted by Yakutat Land
Corporation (Grantor) to the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation (Grantee).
1. Consideration. For and in consideration of the Town’s approval of Ordinance 04-
16 which surrenders to Grantor right of ownership, title and interest to the vacated
portion of Dry Gulch Road right-of-way set forth therein, and for other good and
valuable consideration provided by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby sells, conveys and grants unto Grantee
an exclusive and permanent easement and right-of-way over, upon, across, through,
and under the property as shown and described in Exhibits A-H & J-M attached to and
made part hereof (“Property”), for the uses and purposes and upon the terms
hereinafter set forth.
2. Purpose. This easement and right-of-way, including the perpetual right to enter
upon the real estate at any time that it may see fit, is hereby conveyed and granted to
the Grantee, its successors and to construct, inspect, maintain, operate, and use
drainage pipes, swales, and appurtenant drainage facilities for storm water abatement
and discharge, with all pipe, riprap, fixtures and devices, used or useful in operation of
said drainage improvements, through and along a course as said improvements may be
hereafter constructed in, under, through, over and across the Property.
3. Hazardous Substances. Grantor represents to the Grantee, that to its knowledge
as of the date of the execution of this Easement, and with respect to the Property: (1)
the Property has never been used as a landfill or waste dump; (2) that there has been
no installation in or production, disposal, or storage on the Property of any hazardous
substances, including, without limitation, asbestos, by Grantor, Grantor’s tenants, or any
previous owner or previous tenants, or any other activity which could have toxic results;
(3) there is no underground storage tank on the Property; and (4) there is no proceeding
or inquiry by any governmental authority or agency with respect thereto. Grantor shall
indemnify, defend and hold the Grantee harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, and liabilities, costs and expenses (including expert fees and attorney fees)
arising or resulting from a breach of the covenants and warranties contained in this
paragraph. For the purposes of this Easement, hazardous substances means all
hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.,) and in Section 25-5-
502 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and petroleum or petroleum products.
4. Representations and Warranties of Grantee.
Subject to the other terms and conditions of this Easement, Grantee shall also have
the right to remove impediments to operation and maintenance of the Easement
Property such as trees, rock, soil, and fences. Grantee further agrees all construction,
reconstruction, operation, maintenance, removal and any other activities which disturb
the Property will be coordinated with Grantor so as to minimize any disruption to Grantor's
property and ranching operations. Any fences disturbed by the Grantee or Grantee’s
contractor will be restored to equal or better condition than as found at the time of
disturbance. Soil disturbed during construction will be graded smooth and reseeded
with native dryland grasses. The installation of temporary fence during construction is
not required by Grantor.
5. Representations and Warranties of Grantor.
(A) Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns and all parties with interest in the
Property, does hereby covenant and agree not to construct improvements of any kind or
nature whatsoever on, over, across or under the Property or to take or fail to take any
action of any kind or nature whatsoever which would interfere with the Grantee’s use of
the Property for the purposes herein granted.
(B) Grantor hereby warrants and represents to the Grantee that Grantor is seized
with fee title to the underlying real property and there are no other parties with interest;
that the rights conveyed herein are free and clear of liens and encumbrances; and that
Grantor has sole and exclusive authority to enter into this Easement.
6. Survival of Indemnifications and Representations. All representations,
obligations, warranties, liabilities, covenants and agreements of Grantor in this
Easement shall survive the consummation of the transactions contemplated in this
Easement; provided, however, nothing contained herein shall imply or import a
covenant on the part of Grantor for quiet enjoyment.
7. Notices. Any notices given under the provisions of this Easement shall be valid if
deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to Grantor or to the Grantee
at the addresses stated herein:
Grantor:
Yakutat Land Corporation
911 Kimbark Street
Longmont, CO 80501
Grantee:
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
8. Binding Effect. This grant of the Easement shall run with the Property and shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, assigns,
and all parties in interest, provided nothing contained herein shall be construed to be an
abandonment or dedication of such public way to any public entity.
9. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event of any litigation between the parties
relating to this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs and reasonable
expert and attorney fees incurred in connection with such litigation.
10. Complete Agreement. This Easement consists of all the agreements,
understandings, and promises between the parties with respect to the subject matter of
this Easement, and there are no agreements, understandings or promises between the
parties other than those set forth in this Easement.
11. Governing Law. This Easement and all of the terms and provisions hereof shall
be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado,
with venue in Larimer County.
Grantor: ________________________________
Yakutat Land Corporation
State of Colorado )
) ss
County of Larimer )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
__________, 2016, by ,
as .
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: ____________________
______________________
Notary Public
Accepted by the Town of Estes Park the _______ day of ____________, 2016.
_________________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Town Clerk
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Reuben Bergstrom, Director of Utilities
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Prospect Mountain Water Company Operations Agreement
Objective:
Review and, if appropriate, approve the Agreement to Operate Water System (the
“Agreement”) between the Town and Prospect Mountain Water Company for the
Town to temporarily operate the Prospect Mountain Water Company system pursuant to
the terms of the Agreement (copy attached).
Present Situation:
Prospect Mountain Water Company (“Prospect Mountain”) is a privately owned
Colorado water utility providing service to its customers outside the boundaries of the
Town. Prospect Mountain currently serves approximately 130 dwelling units. In August
of 2012, the Town and Prospect Mountain entered into an Agreement for the Town to
provide bulk treated water to Prospect Mountain (“Water Service Agreement”).
Pursuant to this Water Service Agreement, the Town is providing treated bulk water to
Prospect Mountain.
On April 22, 2015, Prospect Mountain filed a Petition for Bankruptcy (Chapter 7) in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. Daniel E. Hepner was
appointed the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Prospect Mountain Bankruptcy Estate. The
Town has continued to provide bulk water to Prospect Mountain pursuant to the terms
of the Water Service Agreement.
Since filing of the Bankruptcy Petition, the Town has entered into discussions and
negotiations with the Trustee with regard to the continued provision of treated bulk
water to the Prospect Mountain water system and the need for the Trustee to contract
with a third party for operation of the Prospect Mountain water system.
The result of the discussions and negotiations between the Trustee and the Town is the
proposed Agreement to Operate the Water System. The customers of Prospect
Mountain have participated in the discussions between the Trustee and the Town.
Proposal:
The proposed Agreement provides as follows:
1. The Town will continue to provide bulk treated water to Prospect Mountain
pursuant to the Water Service Agreement.
2. Upon approval of the Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court and the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission, the Town will become the operator of the Prospect
Mountain water system.
3. As operator, the Town shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of
the system.
4. The Agreement provides for immediate capital improvements to be made to the
water system including the installation of equipment necessary to feed a
corrosion inhibitor into the water system, installation of remote system monitor
capability, and possible modification of one of the Prospect Mountain water
tanks.
5. The Agreement addresses the need to design and install a booster pump station
replacement to provide reliable water service to the customers.
6. The Trustee will continue to perform meter readings and provide information to
the Town.
7. The Town shall be responsible for billing Prospect Mountain customers and
collection of revenues from those bills.
8. The Town shall retain an amount from revenues received from the customers to
pay the Town’s Bulk Water Rate and Surcharge as provided in the Water Service
Agreement, be reimbursed of all costs incurred in the operation and maintenance
of the water system, costs incurred in the billing and collection of customer
accounts, and be reimbursed extraordinary maintenance and repair costs.
Advantages:
• The approval of the Agreement ensures that the Town will continue to provide
treated bulk water to the Prospect Mountain customers and provide a responsible
operator of the water system.
• The Town will be reimbursed for its costs in operation of the system.
• The approval of the Agreement and operation of the Prospect Mountain water
system by the Town under the terms of the Agreement will allow continued
negotiations among the Trustee, the Town and the customers to continue to pursue
a permanent solution to the provision of treated water to the Prospect Mountain
customers.
Disadvantages:
• The Town will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the Prospect
Mountain water system.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Agreement to Operate Water System.
Budget:
The Town’s Water Utility budget will cover expenses incurred which will subsequently
be reimbursed by Prospect Mountain pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
High. The customers of the Prospect Mountain water system are very interested in the
Town agreeing to assist in resolution of water service to their properties.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Agreement to Operate Water System between the Town of
Estes Park and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM
THIS AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM (“Agreement”) is entered into this
___ day of _____, 2016, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado Municipal
Corporation (the “Town”) and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc., debtor in Chapter 7
bankruptcy Case No. 15-14286 TBM (“Prospect Mountain” or the “Company”); together, “the
Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The Town, through its water enterprise, operates and maintains a municipal water
system within the Town of Estes Park and surrounding areas, including the distribution of treated
water.
B. Prospect Mountain is a privately owned Colorado water utility providing service in
designated areas within Larimer County, Colorado, outside of the boundaries of the Town.
C. Prospect Mountain provides water service to its service territory pursuant to a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) issued by the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Colorado (the "Commission"). Prospect Mountain currently serves
approximately 130 dwelling units.
D. On August 13, 2012, the Town and Prospect Mountain entered into an agreement
for the Town to provide bulk treated water to Prospect Mountain (the “Water Service Agreement”).
The Water Service Agreement was amended in September 2012. Pursuant to the Water Service
Agreement, the Town has continued to provide treated water to Prospect Mountain.
E. On April 22, 2015, Prospect Mountain filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”).
F. Daniel A. Hepner is the duly appointed Chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) of the
Prospect Mountain bankruptcy estate (the “Estate”).
G. In order to avoid the cessation of water service, the Trustee sought authorization
from the Bankruptcy Court to continue to operate the Company pending the Trustee’s efforts to
transfer the assets of the Company to a third party qualified to operate the system. On May 22,
2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the Trustee to operate the business of
Prospect Mountain for a period of 120 days. On November 13, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered
a second order, authorizing the Trustee to operate the business of Prospect Mountain through
March 15, 2016.
H. Proper operation of the Company’s water system (the “Water System”) requires
monitoring, maintenance of the system, and capital improvements with respect to operation of the
system and water quality. In addition to monitoring, maintaining the water system and capital
improvements, there are administrative tasks which must be accomplished, including billing of the
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 2 of 10
Company’s water service customers (the “Customers”). The Trustee is not in a position to
indefinitely monitor and maintain the Water System or take over other administrative tasks
necessary to its operation.
I. The Trustee approached the Town regarding operation of the Water System , and
the Town has undertaken studies to determine its feasibility, as well as the conditions under which
the Town would be willing to operate the Water System.
J. The Trustee, the Town, and Larimer County have met with Customers of the
Company to provide information to the Customers, discuss the current condition of the Water
System , and discuss the negotiations between the Town and the Trustee for operation of the Water
System by the Town.
K. As set forth above, the Trustee is not in a position to operate the Water System
during the time period necessary to make a determination of the terms and conditions of a transfer
of the Water System to the Town or another entity. However, the Town is willing and able to
operate the Water System on an interim basis, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
herein, and thereby provide water service to the Customers.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Bankruptcy Court Approval. This Agreement is subject to, and shall not become
effective, until it is approved by written order of the Bankruptcy Court. Upon execution and
delivery of this Agreement, Trustee’s counsel shall prepare and file a motion seeking approval of
the Agreement. If the Bankruptcy Court fails to enter an order approving the terms of this
Agreement, the Agreement shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.
2. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date of entry of
an order by Bankruptcy Court approving the Agreement.
3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be one year from the Effective Date, unless
terminated as provided herein or extended by the written agreement of the Parties.
4. Water Service Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, The Town shall
continue to provide treated bulk water to Prospect Mountain and its Customers through the
permanent Curry Drive connection to the Town water distribution system subject to the terms and
conditions of the Water Service Agreement except as modified herein.
5. System Operator. During the term of the Agreement, the Town shall operate the
Prospect Mountain Water System as a “Certified Operator in Responsible Charge” as defined by
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Regulation 100 (5CCR1003-2). The
Town shall not assume any obligation or responsibility of an “Owner” as defined by Regulation
100 (5CCR1003-2).
6. Maintenance. During the terms of this Agreement, the Town will maintain the
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 3 of 10
Water System. Maintenance shall include compliance with applicable drinking water regulations.
7. Immediate Capital Improvements. The following capital improvements shall be
made as follows:
a. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Town shall begin the
installation of equipment necessary to feed a corrosion inhibitor into the Water System.
The Town shall provide the Trustee with an estimated cost of the installation of this
equipment. On or within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such notice, the Trustee shall file
a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval of the cost and authorization to pay
the cost from Estate funds. The Company shall pay to the Town the estimated cost
within ten (10) days of entry of an Order by the Bankruptcy Court approving such cost
and authorizing payment thereof. In the event that the cost of the installation of this
system is more than the estimated cost, the Company shall pay the additional amount to
the Town within thirty (30) days of the Trustee’s receipt of an invoice for the amount;
provided, however, that if the Trustee determines in the exercise of his business judgment
that such additional cost requires court approval, Trustee shall first seek such approval as
provided herein. If the actual cost is less than the estimated costs, the Town shall return
the overage to the Company.
b. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Town shall begin installation
of equipment necessary for remote system monitoring capability of the Water System
including, but not limited to, tank level indication, flow and pressure indication, chlorine
residual measurement, automatic system controls, and radio communications. The Town
shall provide the Trustee with estimated cost of the installation of this equipment. On or
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such notice, the Trustee shall file a motion in the
Bankruptcy Court seeking approval of the cost and authorization to pay the cost from
Estate funds. The Company shall pay to the Town the estimated cost within ten (10)
days of entry of an Order by the Bankruptcy Court approving such cost and authorizing
payment thereof. In the event that the cost of the installation of this system is more than
the estimated cost, the Company shall pay the additional amount to the Town within
thirty (30) days of the Trustee’s receipt of an invoice for the amount; provided, however,
that if the Trustee determines in the exercise of his business judgment that such
additional cost requires court approval, Trustee shall first seek such approval as provided
herein. If the actual cost is less than the estimated cost, the Town shall return the overage
to the Company.
c. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Town shall inspect Tank 3.
The Town shall provide the Trustee with a report of its inspection. In the event the
inspection indicates a need to clean, disinfect and/or modify Tank 3, the Trustee and the
Town agree to proceed pursuant to paragraph 13 Extraordinary Maintenance and Repair
Costs.
8. Booster Pump, Station 2 Replacement. The Parties agree that the Town shall
operate and maintain the Water System in a responsible fashion in order to provide reliable water
service to the Customers and redundancy in the water system. To meet this standard, it is
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 4 of 10
necessary to design and install a booster pump station replacement. Attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein and by reference, is a description and an estimate prepared by the Town
for the installation of the booster pump station. The Trustee and the Town agree that within
ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Parties shall enter in to an agreement
for the installation of the booster pump station including the terms and conditions for payment of
this capital improvement.
9. Meter Reading. The meters used by Prospect Mountain to monitor Customer water
usage require visual reading. Prospect Mountain shall perform monthly Customer meter reading
during the term of this Agreement. On or before the fifth (5th) date of each month, Prospect
Mountain shall transmit the prior month’s meter readings to the Town and the Town shall utilize
such readings in its bi-monthly Customer billing.
10. Billing and Collection. The Town shall assume responsibility for the billing and
collection of Customer accounts upon the Effective Date. The Trustee shall provide to the Town
such Customer information as necessary for the Town to fulfill its obligations hereunder. The
Town shall invoice Customers on a bi-monthly basis. The Town shall bill individual Customers
based upon the meter readings and the water sales rate approved by the Commission including any
changes or amendments to the water sales rate.
11. Cost of Operation and Maintenance. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference is an estimate of the cost of the operation and normal maintenance of the Water
System. The Town shall charge the sum of $50 per hour for use of its personnel for the operation
and maintenance of the Water System. This $50 per hour charge shall include all Town costs for
its personnel including, but not limited to, wages, benefits, administrative costs, a standard utility
vehicle and other indirect costs of Town personnel. Costs shall be calculated on a monthly basis
by the Town and an accounting of all Town costs shall be provided to the Trustee on a monthly
basis.
12. Payments. From the revenues received from the Customers, the Town shall allocate
the collected revenues as follows:
a. The Town shall retain the amount necessary to pay the Town’s Bulk Water Rate
and Surcharge for the treated bulk water supplied to the Water System, in the
amounts set forth in the rate schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C.
b. The Town shall then retain the amount necessary to reimburse the Town the costs
incurred in the operation and maintenance of the Water System and the billing and
collection of Customer accounts as set forth in paragraph 11 herein.
c. All remaining funds following payment to the Town set forth in a. and b. above,
shall be transferred to the Trustee. Said transfer shall occur within fifteen (15)
days of the end of each bi-monthly receipt of revenues from each billing cycle.
13. Extraordinary Maintenance and Repair Costs. In the event the Town determines
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 5 of 10
that there are any necessary maintenance and/or repair costs which are extraordinary, the Town
shall notify the Trustee of the need for extraordinary maintenance and repair cost and provide the
Trustee with information necessary to document the proposed costs. The Trustee shall inform the
Town, in writing, whether or not the Trustee agrees that the Company shall reimburse the Town
for said extraordinary maintenance and repair costs and the time frame for the reimbursement.
The Town shall not make any extraordinary maintenance and/or repair costs until such time as the
Company has agreed to pay the same. Any agreed upon reimbursement must be approved by the
Bankruptcy Court prior to payment by the Company.
14. Emergency Repair Costs. In the operation of the Water System , it is possible that
the Town will incur costs for emergency repairs of the Water System. The Town shall not be
required to obtain prior approval for reimbursement of said costs from the Trustee. The Company
shall reimburse the Town for such costs upon entry of an Order the Bankruptcy Court approving
such reimbursement.
15. Subcontractors. The Town may contract with third parties to assist with its
operation and maintenance of the Water System. The costs of such services shall be included as a
cost of the Town’s operation and maintenance of the Water System as set forth in paragraph 11
herein.
16. Commission Approval. The Trustee agrees to immediately seek approval of the
Commission for payment of all Town costs as set forth in this Agreement.
17. Agreement Subject to Existing Rules and Regulations. The Parties’ respective
obligations under this Agreement shall be subject to all ordinances, rules, regulations and policies
of the Town, as amended.
18. Commission Regulation. The Town recognizes and agrees that Prospect Mountain,
as a public utility, is under the jurisdiction of the Commission. As such, the Town recognizes that
all of Prospect Mountain’s agreements and transactions not in the ordinary course of business, all
changes in rates and tariffs, including the rates described in paragraph 10 above, and all
improvements to the Prospect Mountain Water System, are subject to approval by final decision
of the Commission. As a regulated entity and party to this Agreement, Prospect Mountain agrees
to seek Commission approval for any changes in the Bulk Water rates of the Town. Prospect
Mountain will investigate needed improvements to the Water System and diligently pursue
Commission approvals of the same in good faith, and shall advise the Town of the status of its
Commission applications on a regular basis. The Town acknowledges that it is advised of the
required approvals of the Commission for Prospect Mountain to change its rate structure, its tariffs
and its system improvements. The Parties specifically acknowledge that this Agreement and its
terms and conditions are contingent upon approval by the Commission.
19. Termination. Either party hereto may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by
giving the other party ninety (90) days written notice of intent to terminate this Agreement.
20. Default. In the event of any default by either party of the terms and conditions
hereof, the non-defaulting party shall give the defaulting party written notice of said default. If
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 6 of 10
said default is not cured within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice, the non-defaulting party
shall have the option to terminate the Agreement by giving ten (10) days written notice of
termination of this Agreement.
21. Governmental Immunity. The Town, its officers, and its employees, are relying on,
and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations
(presently one three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) per person and nine hundred ninety
thousand dollars ($990,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections
provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended,
or otherwise available to the Town and its officers or employees. Notwithstanding the above, the
Town shall name Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee, as an additional insured on its general
liability coverage through CIRSA for the term of this Agreement.
22. Notice. Any notice given by one party to the other under this Agreement shall be
deemed effective five (5) days following mailing with sufficient postage prepaid, and certified as
follows:
The Town: Town of Estes Park
Attn: Town Administrator
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
With Copy To: Gregory A. White
Town Attorney
1423 West 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
Email: greg@gawhite.com
Prospect Mountain: Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
Attn: Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee
1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80264
Email: dhepner@sww-legal.com
With Copy To: David V. Wadsworth
Sender Wasserman Wadsworth, P.C.
1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80264
Email: dwadsworth@sww-legal.com
23. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns.
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the matters contemplated herein, and no representations are relied upon that
are not set forth herein. This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing, signed
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 7 of 10
by both parties hereto.
25. No Waiver of Rights. The Town and Prospect Mountain understand and agree that
neither Prospect Mountain nor the Town waive any rights they may have individually as entities
to pursue any course of action deemed by Prospect Mountain or the Town to be in the best interest
of the individual entity.
26. Waiver or Breach. The waiver by any party to a term of this Agreement or a breach
of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be construed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach by any party.
27. Severability. If any clause, sentence, term, condition, covenant and/or provision of
this Agreement is ruled to be illegal, null or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the
remaining portions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
28. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the
parties hereto, shall be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other.
29. Counterparts. This Agreement and future amendments, if any, may be executed
by facsimile or electronic signatures. All facsimile or electronic signatures shall be considered the
original signatures for all purposes. This Agreement and future amendments, if any, may be
executed in counterparts. All counterparts, when taken together, shall be deemed as an original.
30. No Third Party Beneficiary. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement
between Prospect Mountain and the Town shall not benefit nor accrue to the interest of any other
third party beneficiary including, but not limited to, any individual customer of Prospect Mountain.
31. Continued Discussions. The Parties agree to continue to cooperate and
communicate during the term of this Agreement with regard to eventual transfer of the Water
System from the Trustee to an appropriate entity which may be the Town. This cooperation and
communication shall include, if possible, continued discussion with the Customers.
32. Pre-Petition Delinquency. At the time of filing of the Bankruptcy Petition by the
Company, the Town was owed the sum of $19,040.12 for treated water delivered to the Company’s
Water System pursuant to the Water Service Agreement. Pursuant to the Water Service
Agreement, the Company deposited with the Town a $10,000 security deposit which has been
retained by the Town. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the Town shall apply the $10,000
security deposit to reduce said delinquency by $10,000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first set
forth above.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 8 of 10
COMPANY, INC.
By: ______________________________ By: _________________________
Town Administrator Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee
ATTEST:
By: ______________________________
Town Clerk
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT A
Agreement to Lease and Operate Water System
Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT B
3/4/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail Comm ent on Operating Agreem ent between Estes Park and Tr ustee Daniel Hepner
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e288e13a4b&view=pt&search=inbox&th=153382f2ae3e51c6&siml=153382f2ae3e51c6 1/1
Jackie Wil liam son <jwi lli amson@estes.org>
Comment on Operating Agreement between Estes Park and Trustee Daniel
Hepner
1 mes s age
AWCFlash@aol.com <AWCFlash@aol.c om>Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:35 A M
To: jwilliamson@es tes.org, c deats@es tes .org
Good morning,
I am Aus tin Condon of 1849 Ranc h Circ le, Es tes P ark , CO and hav e been a c us tomer of Prospec t Mountain
Water Company s inc e 1976. I am als o Secretary/Treas urer for the P ros pec t Mount ain Water As soc iat ion, an
as s oc iat ion formed by the prior c us tomers of Prospect Mountain Water Company to further and improve wat er
serv ic e to our homes.
We are c urrent ly out of town and will not be able to attend the Marc h 8 Board of Trus tee's meeting where the
Operating Agreement between t he Town and the B ank ruptcy Trus tee Daniel Hepner will be ac ted upon.
I s upport, and urge, its acc ept anc e.
Please convey t his support to the Board of Trus tees, if that is appropriate.
Thank y ou,
Aus tin Condon
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director, and
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Ordinance #07-16 – Public Hearing - Water Tap Fee Increase
Objective:
To request approval of proposed Ordinance No. 07-16 (Attachment A) for the increase
in water tap fees effective June 1, 2016.
Present Situation:
The present water tap fees were last updated in 2010. A water tap fee study has
recently been completed (Attachment B).
Proposal:
As described in the attached presentation (Attachment C), the study recommends
increasing our water tap fees from $10,713 to $12,514.
Advantages:
Setting the tap fees based on analysis of our present and future costs ensures funding
is available to maintain and increase the drinking water system capacity.
Future development requires a well maintained drinking water infrastructure.
Tap fees insulate existing water customers from the costs of growth in our community.
Disadvantages:
Tap fees are going up which will increase the cost of new development.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance which increases the water system’s tap
fee.
Budget:
No action on the 2016 budgeted revenues is recommended.
Level of Public Interest:
These fees are limited to new development. Developers are sensitive to cost.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance No. 07-16 for increase in water tap fees
effective June 1, 2016.
The Town of Estes Park
Water Tap Fee and
Water Rights Fees Update
February 2016
FINAL REPORT
hdrinc.com
500 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004
T 425 450 6200 F 425 450 7170
February 22, 2016
Mr. Jeff Boles
Water Superintendent
170 McGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Subject: Water Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees Update – Final Report
Dear Mr. Boles
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Town of Estes Park (Town) to update the tap
fees for the water utility. As part of this project HDR also updated the water rights fees. Best
industry practices indicate that such fees should be adjusted annually for construction cost
inflation and completely updated at least every three to five years to verify cost equity between
existing customers and new customers connecting to the system. This is especially important
as the Town completed the update to the Water Comprehensive Master Plan in 2015. The
demand and capacity forecasts of that Plan are incorporated into these fees and this report.
Enclosed please find HDR’s final report regarding the tap and water rights fees for the Town.
The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report should enable the Town to
implement cost-based and equitable tap and water rights fees.
This report has been prepared using “generally accepted” financial and engineering principles.
The Town’s financial, budgeting, planning, and engineering data were the primary sources for
much of the information contained in this report. HDR would recommend that prior to
implementing the fees, the Town have the fees reviewed by its legal counsel for compliance
with Colorado State law.
HDR appreciates the opportunity to assist the Town in this matter. It has been a pleasure
working with you. Thank you for the assistance you provided to us. We look forward to future
opportunities to work with the Town.
Sincerely yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Shawn Koorn
Associate Vice President
Table of Contents i
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
Executive Summary
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 1
Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 2
2 Overview of Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Defining Water Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees .................................................. 3
2.3 Economic Theory and Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees ........................................ 3
2.4 Water Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees Criteria ................................................... 4
2.5 Overview of the Water Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees Methodology ................ 6
2.6 Disclaimer............................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Summary .............................................……………………………………………………………….8
3 Legal Considerations in Establishing Tap Fees and Water Rights Fees
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Requirements under Colorado State Law........................................................... 10
3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................... 12
4 Development of the Water Tap Fees
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Overview of Estes Park’s Water System ............................................................. 13
4.3 Existing Water Tap Fees ..................................................................................... 14
4.4 Calculation of Estes Park’s Water Tap Fees ........................................................ 15
4.4.1 System Planning Criteria ....................................................................... 15
4.4.2 Equivalent Residential Units ................................................................. 15
4.4.3 Calculation of the Water Tap Fees ........................................................ 16
4.5 Net Allowable Water Tap Fees ........................................................................... 18
4.6 Key Assumptions ............................................................................................... 20
4.7 Consultant’s Recommendations ........................................................................ 20
4.8 Summary ........................................................................................................... 20
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
5 Determination of the Water Rights Fees
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Overview of Water Rights Fees in Colorado ....................................................... 21
5.3 Existing Water Rights Fees in Estes Park ............................................................ 22
5.4 Calculation of Updated Estes Park’s Water Rights Fees ...................................... 22
5.5 Implementation of the Fees............................................................................... 24
5.6 Consultant’s Recommendations ........................................................................ 24
5.7 Summary ........................................................................................................... 25
Technical Appendix
Exhibit 1 Development of ERUs
Exhibit 2 Water Tap Fee for Source of Supply & Treatment Plant
Exhibit 3 Water Tap Fee for Storage Facilities
Exhibit 4 Water Tap Fee for Transmission & Distribution System
Exhibit 5 Water Tap Fee for General Facilities
Exhibit 6 Summary of the Water Tap Fees
Exhibit 7 Determination of Water Rights Fee
Exhibit 8 Capital Improvement Plan
Executive Summary 1
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
Introduction
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Town of Estes Park (Estes Park) to update the
water tap fees. As part of this update HDR also updated Estes Park’s water rights fees. Tap fees
and water rights fees bring equity between existing and new customers connecting to the
system. The objective of this study was to update the Estes Park’s cost-based fees for new
customers connecting to Estes Park’s water system. Since 2007, when the fee was last updated,
the Mary’s Lake water treatment plant was completed, along with numerous other water
system improvements. By establishing cost-based tap fees, Estes Park attempts to have
“growth pay for growth”, with existing utility customers, for the most part being sheltered from
the financial impacts of growth.
General industry practice recommends adjusting these fees annually for changes in the costs of
construction and to update the fees every three to five years, or whenever comprehensive
planning documents for the systems are updated. A Comprehensive Water Master Plan was
completed as of May 20, 2015. The demand and capacity forecasts of the Plan are
incorporated into the calculation of the water tap and water rights fees.
Summary and Conclusions
The fees are calculated in conformance with regulatory requirements and are based on Estes
Park’s planning and design criteria. A component-by-component approach is taken in
developing the fees because each component can have different planning and design criteria.
The calculations take into account the financing mechanisms of capital improvements. These
charges must be implemented according to the capacity requirement (i.e., the impact) each
new connection has on the system. This way, the charge is related to the costs the new
customer places on the system and the benefit they derive from the system.
The current water tap fee for a single-family residential connection (5/8x3/4-inch meter) is
$5,263. The water rights fee is $5,450 for a residential connection. Table ES-1 provides the
existing and updated fees from this study, for residential customers.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary 2
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
Table ES-1
Existing and Updated Water Tap Fee and Water Rights Fees
For a Residential 5/8-inch Meter
Existing
Fees
Updated Fees
$
Change
Water Tap Fee $5,263 $5,194 $(69)
Water Rights Fees 5,450 7,320 1,870
Total $10,713 $12,514 $1,801
Table ES-1 shows the updated water tap fee to be $5,194/(5/8” meter) and the water rights fee
to be $7,320/(5/8” meter). The overall total charges will increase by $1,801 for one ERU. This
is approximately a 17% increase in these charges. The water tap fee for customers other than
single-family residential is determined by the number of fixture units according to the Uniform
Plumbing code. Section 4 of this report describes the fees in detail. Section 5 of the report
describes the water rights fee calculations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of Estes Park’s water tap and water rights fees, HDR makes
the following recommendations:
9 Estes Parks should adopt water tap and water rights fees for new connections to these
respective systems which are no greater than the net allowable water tap fee and water
rights fees as set forth in this report.
9 The Town’s adopted water tap and water rights fees should be updated annually by a
local construction cost index such as the Engineering New Record Construction Cost
Index (ENR-CCI) for no more than five years before a complete update of the fee is again
undertaken. This best industry practice can keep the fee relatively current with
construction pricing practices.
9 Estes Park should update the actual calculations for the water tap and water rights fees
at such time when a new capital improvement plan, public facilities plan,
comprehensive system plan, or a comparable plan is approved or updated by Estes
Parks, or every five years.
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 3
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing water tap fees is to have a basic understanding of
the purpose of these charges, along with the criteria and general methodology that are used to
establish cost-based water tap and water rights fees. This section of the report presents an
overview of water tap and water rights fees methodologies that was used to develop cost-
based charges for Estes Park. It should be noted that Estes Park has used these same generally
accepted methodologies to establish their past and current water tap and water rights fees.
2.2 Defining Water Tap and Water Rights Fees
The first step in establishing cost-based tap fees is to gain a better understanding of the
definition of a tap fee or system development charge (SDC). For the purposes of this report, a
tap fee or SDC (system development charge) is defined as follows:
“System development charges are one-time charges paid by new development to finance
construction of public facilities needed to serve them.”1
Simply stated, tap fees are a contribution of capital to either reimburse existing customers for
the available capacity in the existing system, or help finance planned future growth-related
capacity improvements. At some utilities, tap fees may be referred to as system development
charges, impact fees, capacity reserve charges, infrastructure investment fees, etc. Regardless
of the label used to identify them, their objective is the same. That is, these charges are
intended to provide funds to the utility to finance all or a part of the capital improvements
needed to serve and accommodate new customer growth. Absent those fees, many utilities
would likely be unwilling to build growth-related facilities (i.e., burden existing rate payers with
the entire cost of growth-related capacity expansion).
2.3 Economic Theory and Water Tap and Water Rights Fees
Water tap and water rights fees are generally imposed as a condition of service. The objective
of the water tap and water rights fees is not merely to generate money for a utility, but to
create fiscal balance between existing customers and new customers so that all customers
seeking to connect to the utility’s system bear an equitable share of the cost of capacity that is
invested in both the existing and any future growth-related expansions. Through the
implementation of equitable water tap and water rights fees, existing customers will not be
unduly burdened with the cost of new development.
1 Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Facilities, Lewis Publishers,
New York, 1995, p. 1,
2. Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights
Fees
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 4
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
“The use of system planning
criteria is one of the more
important aspects in the
determination of the water tap
and water rights fees. System
planning criteria provide the
“rational nexus” between the
amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and
the fee to the customer.”
By updating its water tap and water rights fees, Estes Park continues an important step in
assuring adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs while providing this
infrastructure to new customers in a cost-based, fair, and equitable manner.
2.4 Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Criteria
In determining water tap and water rights fees, a number of different criteria are utilized.
Criteria most often used by utilities to establish water tap and water rights fees include the
following:
x State/local laws
x System planning criteria
x Financing criteria
x Customer understanding
Many states and local communities have enacted laws that govern the calculation and
imposition of water tap and water rights fees. These laws must be followed in the development
of water tap and water rights fees. Most states require a “reasonable relationship” between
the charge and the cost associated with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The
charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the
cost burden imposed. The utilization of the planning criteria, the actual costs of construction
and the planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the “reasonable relationship”
requirement.
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more
important aspects in the determination of the water tap
and water rights fees. System planning criteria provides
the “rational nexus” between the amount of
infrastructure necessary to provide service and the
charge to the customer. In general terms, the rational
nexus test requires that there be a connection (nexus)
established between new development and the new or
expanded facilities required to accommodate new
development, and appropriate apportionment of the
cost to the new development in relation to benefits
reasonably to be received. An example using system
planning criteria is the determination from Estes Park’s
planning documents of the average requirement for storage for a single-family residential
customer. The water tap fee methodology should establish the value of one (1) equivalent
residential unit (ERU) to equal the average residential water storage for Estes Park.
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 5
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
A “rational nexus test” is used to evaluate the reasonable relationship between the water tap
and water rights fees and the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the new development.
A “rational nexus test” typically contemplates the following:
1. “A connection be established between new development and the new or expanded
facilities required to accommodate such development. This establishes the rational
basis of public policy.
2. Identification of the cost of these new or expanded facilities needed to accommodate
new development. This establishes the burden to the public of providing new facilities
to new development and the rational basis on which to hold new development
accountable for such costs. This may be determined using the so-called Banberry
factors. [Banberry Development Company v. South Jordan County (631 P.2d 899, Utah
1981)].
3. Appropriate apportionment of that cost to new development in relation to benefits it
reasonably receives. This establishes the nexus between the fees being paid to finance
facilities that accommodate new development and the benefit new development
receives from such new facilities.”2
The first bullet of the rational nexus test requires the establishment of a rational basis of public
policy. This implies the planning and capital improvement studies that are used to establish the
need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Adopted master plans or facility plans should
firmly meet this first test since these plans assess existing facilities and capacity, project future
capacity requirements and determine the future capital infrastructure and new facilities
needed to accommodate growth.
The second portion of the rational nexus test discusses the Banberry Factors. In summary form,
“consideration must be given to seven factors to determine the proportionate share of costs to
be borne by new development:
1. The cost of existing facilities
2. The means by which existing facilities have been financed
3. The extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing
existing excess capacity
4. The extent to which existing development will, in the future, contribute to the cost of
providing existing facilities used community wide or non-occupants of new development
5. The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing at its cost
facilities the community has provided in the past without charge to other development
in the service area.
6. Extraordinary costs incurred in serving new development
2 Ibid, p. 16 and 17.
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 6
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
7. The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amount of money paid at
different times.”3
The final portion of the rational nexus test is the reasonable apportionment of the cost to new
development in relation to benefits it reasonably receives. This is accomplished in the
methodology to establish the water tap and water rights fees, which is discussed in more detail
within this section.
Water tap and water rights fees are typically established as a means of having new customers
pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing
criteria for establishing water tap and water rights fees relates to the method used to finance
infrastructure on the system and assures that customers are not paying twice for infrastructure
– once through the water tap fee and again through rates. The double payment can come in
through the imposition of a water tap and water rights fees and then the requirement to pay
debt service within a customer’s rates. The financing criteria also reviews the basis under
which infrastructure was provided such that the customer is not charged for infrastructure that
was provided (contributed) by developers.
The component of customer understanding implies that the charge is easy to understand. This
criterion has implications for the way that the charge is implemented and assessed to the
customer. For a water system, the charge is generally based on the size (capacity) of the
customer’s meter. This makes it easy for the customer to understand that the level of charge is
based on the size of a meter required to provide a certain capacity to meet that customer’s
needs. In some instances, larger meter sizes are calculated based on actual usage. While this is
more complicated, it applies to very few customers and they are generally more sophisticated
industrial or commercial customers. The other implication of this criterion is that the
methodology is clear and concise in its calculation of the amount of infrastructure necessary to
provide service.
2.5 Overview of the Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Methodology
There are “generally accepted” methodologies that are used to establish water tap and water
rights fees. Within the “generally accepted” water tap and water rights fee methodologies,
there are a number of different steps undertaken. These steps are as follows:
1. Determination of system planning criteria
2. Determination of equivalent residential units (ERUs)
3. Calculation of system component costs
4. Determination of any credits
3 Ibid, P. 18 and 19.
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 7
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
“The replacement cost
method values
existing assets based
on the cost to replace
the assets in today’s
dollars.”
The first step in establishing water tap and water rights fees is the determination of the system
planning criteria. This implies calculating the amount of water required to serve a single-family
residential customer. For a water system, two different criteria are generally determined due
to differences in planning criteria. The first planning criterion is the peak day water usage per
ERU and the second is a water storage requirement per ERU. These two different planning
criteria are developed since a majority of the water system infrastructure is sized to meet the
peak day demand, and water storage is sized to meet equalizing, emergency, and fire flow
requirements.
Once the system planning criteria is determined, the number of equivalent residential units
(ERUs) can be determined. For the water system, this is determined by utilizing the peak day
water system demand and dividing it by the peak day water usage per ERU. This is a very
important calculation since it provides the linkage between the amounts of infrastructure
necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if the system is
designed to provide service for demands up to the year 2034, then the infrastructure costs are
divided by the ERUs in 2034 to determine the cost per ERU.
Once the number of ERUs has been determined, a component-by-component (e.g., source of
supply, treatment, storage, etc.) analysis is undertaken to determine the component water tap
fee in cost ($) per ERU. Individual plant components are analyzed separately given that the
planning criteria differ for the development of the various system components. The calculation
of the component water tap fee includes both historical assets and planned future assets.
Historical assets can be valued in a number of different ways. These ways include original cost
plus interest, replacement cost and depreciated replacement costs.
The original cost plus interest method includes original cost plus ten (10) years’ worth of
interest. This calculation is conducted in order to reflect the fact that existing customers have
provided for excess capacity in the system and hence need to be reimbursed for not only their
initial investment, but also the “carrying cost” on that investment. The reimbursement to
existing customers is accomplished by the fact that without water tap and water rights fees,
rates would otherwise be higher. Inclusion of interest in future capital costs reflects the
method used to finance the plant and hence the “true cost” to
construct future infrastructure.
The replacement cost method values existing assets based on the
cost to replace the assets in today’s dollars. This is done by
escalating the original cost using the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost (ENR) index. The theory behind the use of
replacement cost is that customers are indifferent since they
would have to pay replacement cost if the infrastructure was built
today to serve their needs.
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 8
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
The use of depreciated replacement cost reflects the fact that the assets have already been
used and, hence, their value to the new customer is less that the replacement cost. Caution
needs to be exercised in the use of depreciated replacement cost, since the book or accounting
lives used by many utilities are not reflective of the actual life of the asset and may result in the
assets being undervalued. For example, the “accounting life” of a storage reservoir may be 40
years when in reality, with proper maintenance, the actual life maybe between 60 to 80 years.
Each of these three (3) methods are used in the industry and the appropriate method selected
by Estes Park should be based on the method that best reflects the cost of providing capacity to
the water system. HDR recommends the use of the replacement cost method because it
reflects the current value of the system that the new customers are connecting into. Using this
method, the total cost of the capital infrastructure is divided by the appropriate number of
equivalent dwelling units the infrastructure will serve in order to determine the cost per ERU
for the specific plant component.
The last step in the calculation of the water tap fee is the determination of any credits. This is
generally a calculation to assure that customers are not paying twice, once through water tap
fees and again through debt service included within the water rates. Any outstanding principal
balance on debt is subtracted from the system component. After each plant component is
analyzed and a cost per ERU is determined, the cost per ERU for each of the plant components
is added together to determine the “net allowable water tap fee.” The “net allowable charge”
is net of any credits for debt service.
This results in a “net allowable water tap fee” stated in dollars per ERU. The general basis of
this calculation for any utility system is the assumption that an ERU is equivalent to a certain
level of service. Larger demands placed on a system are then imposed fees based on the
number of ERUs for a given demand based on operating capacity. For water systems the
number of ERUs per meter size is based on the safe operating capacity of the meter, or number
of fixture units allowable per adopted plumbing code for various size meters and demand.
2.6 Disclaimer
HDR, in its calculation of the water tap and water rights fee for Estes Park, as presented in this
report, has used “generally accepted” engineering and ratemaking principles. This should not
be construed as a legal opinion with respect to Colorado State law. HDR recommends that
Estes Park have its legal counsel review the water tap and water rights fees as set forth in this
report to ensure compliance with Colorado State law.
2.7 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of water tap and water rights fees; the
basis for establishing the charges, considerations in establishing a water tap and water right
fee, and the connection (nexus) which must be established between new development and the
Overview of Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 9
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
new or expanded facilities required to accommodate new development, and appropriate
apportionment of the cost to the new development in relation to benefits reasonably to be
received. The next section of the report will provide a brief discussion of the legal
considerations associated with water tap and water rights fees.
Legal Considerations in Establishing Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 10
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
The laws for the enactment
of a water system and to
charge water tap fees and
water rights fees in
Colorado are found in
Section 31-35-402 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes.
3.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing water tap and water rights fees is any legal
requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the
methodology around which the water tap and water rights fees must be calculated or how the
funds must be used. Given that, it is important for Estes Park to understand these legal
requirements.
This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing water
tap and water rights fees under Colorado State law. This summary represents HDR’s
understanding of the relevant Colorado State law as it relates to establishing water tap and
water rights fees. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of the state law by HDR.
3.2 Requirements under Colorado State Law
In establishing water tap fees and water rights fees, an important requirement is that they be
developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have
established specific laws regarding the establishment,
calculation and implementation of water tap and water rights
fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that
these charges are established in such a manner that they are
fair, equitable and cost-based. In other cases, state legislation
may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the
utility to establish the charges and fees.
The Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) enabling legislation for the
enactment of water tap and water rights fees for a water utility is found in Section 31-35-402.
A summary of this provision is provided below.
31-35-402…(f) Powers: To prescribe, revise, and collect in advance or otherwise, from any
consumer or any owner or occupant of any real property connected therewith or receiving
service therefrom, rates, fees, tolls, and charges or any combination thereof for the services
furnished by, or the direct or indirect connection with, or the use of, or any commodity from
such water facilities or sewerage facilities or both, including, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, minimum charges, charges for the availability of service, tap fees, disconnection
fees, reconnection fees, and reasonable penalties for any delinquencies, including but not
necessarily limited to interest on delinquencies from any date due at a rate of not exceeding one
percent per month or fraction thereof, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs of collection
3. Legal Considerations in Establishing
Water Tap and Water Rights Fees
Legal Considerations in Establishing Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 11
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
without any modification, supervision, or regulation of any such rates, fees, tolls, or charges by
any board, agency, bureau, commission, or official other than the governing body collecting
them; and in anticipation of the collection of the revenues of such water facilities or sewerage
facilities, or joint system, to issue revenue bonds to finance in whole or in part the cost of
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or extension of the water
facilities or sewerage facilities, or both; and to issue temporary bonds until permanent bonds
and any coupons appertaining thereto have been printed and exchanged for the temporary
bonds;…
It is also helpful to review the statutes related to impact fees for new development for guidance
in calculations related to this type of connection charge for new development. While the Town
is authorized under Section 31-35-402, Section 29-20-104 provides some perspective related to
development of such calculations and the rational nexus test that should be met.
29-20-104.5. Impact fees.
(1) Pursuant to the authority granted in section 29-20-104 (1) (g) and as a condition of
issuance of a development permit, a local government may impose an impact fee or
other similar development charge to fund expenditures by such local government on
capital facilities needed to serve new development. No impact fee or other similar
development charge shall be imposed except pursuant to a schedule that is:
(a) legislatively adopted;
(b) generally applicable to a broad class of property; and
(c) intended to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities caused by proposed
development.
(2) A local government shall quantify the reasonable impacts of proposed development on
existing capital facilities and establish the impact fee or development charge at a level
no greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed
development. no impact fee or other similar development charge shall be imposed to
remedy any deficiency in capital facilities that exists without regard to the proposed
development.
(3) Any schedule of impact fees or other similar development charges adopted by a local
government pursuant to this section shall include provisions to ensure that no individual
landowner is required to provide any site specific dedication or improvement to meet
the same need for capital facilities for which the impact fee or other similar
development charge is imposed.
(4) As used in this section, the term "capital facility" means any improvement or facility
that:
(a) Is directly related to any service that a local government is authorized to provide;
(b) Has an estimated useful life of five years or longer; and
(c) Is required by the charter or general policy of a local government pursuant to a
resolution or ordinance.
(5) Any impact fee or other similar development charge shall be collected and accounted
for in accordance with part 8 of article 1 of this title. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Legal Considerations in Establishing Water Tap and Water Rights Fees 12
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
this section, a local government may waive an impact fee or other similar development
charge on the development of low- or moderate- income housing or affordable
employee housing as defined by the local government.
(6) No impact fee or other similar development charge shall be imposed on any
development permit for which the applicant submitted a complete application before
the adoption of a schedule of impact fees or other similar development charges by the
local government pursuant to this section. No impact fee or other similar development
charge imposed on any development activity shall be collected before the issuance of
the development permit for such development activity. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit a local government from deferring collection of an impact fee or
other similar development charge until the issuance of a building permit or certificate of
occupancy...
Given this broad authority, Estes Park should set water tap fees and water rights fees that are
cost-based and “reasonable”. The use of the methodology discussed in Section 2 will assure
that the “reasonable” standard is met. The requirements described within the statute related
to capital plans, interest charges, and financing credits were incorporated into the methodology
used to develop the charges.
The information presented within this portion of the report is intended to be a summary of our
understanding of the relevant Colorado law as it relates to establishing water tap and water
rights fees for Estes Park. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Colorado State law
by HDR.
3.3 Summary
This section of the report reviewed the legal basis for establishing water tap and water rights
fees in the State of Colorado. The next section of the report provides a detailed discussion of
the specific calculation of the water tap and water rights fees for Estes Park.
Development of the Water Tap Fees 13
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents the key assumptions and details used in calculating Estes
Park’s water tap fees. The calculation of Estes Park’s water tap fees is based on Estes Park-
specific accounting and planning information. Specifically, the tap fees are based upon Estes
Park’s fixed asset records, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and planning data from Estes Park’s
Comprehensive Water Master Plan, 2015 (Hereafter referred to as the Plan). Estes Park
provided other financial and accounting information that was used within this analysis.
To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital improvements change, then the water
tap fees presented in this section of the report should be updated to reflect the changes.
The present methodology used by Estes Park is the “combined approach”. The combined
approach is used when capacity is available in some parts of the existing system but new or
incremental capacity is also needed to serve new (future) development. In this calculation, the
existing assets are divided by the total ERUs or component capacity for the projected time
period. Future expansion or growth-related projects are divided by the future capacity they will
provide. Both calculations are added together and the result is the total “net allowable tap
fee”.
4.2 Overview of Estes Park’s Water System
Estes Park’s water system consists primarily of two water treatment plants, the Mary’s Lake
Water Treatment Plant and the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant. The maximum design
capacity of the two plants combined is 7.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The Glacier Creek
plant design capacity is 3.0 MGD, and the Mary’s Lake treatment plant is 4.0 MGD. The existing
peak day capacity is 3.5 MGD and is anticipated to reach a required capacity of 4.7 MGD by
2034. Estes Park operates the water system as a single integrated utility. Thus, all system
assets serve all customers.
Currently the Town is able to meet current water supply demands. Future growth impacts the
ability to provide adequate and reliable sources of water for existing customers. In order to
meet future demands the New Mary’s Lake Treatment Plant (MLWTP) will have capacity of 5.0
MGD while the existing plant capacity is 4.0 MGD.
4. Development of the Water Tap Fees
Development of the Water Tap Fees 14
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
4.3 Existing System Development Fee
Estes Park’s existing system development fee is based on the cost for one ERU, for a 5/8-inch
meter. Estes Park’s existing water tap fees are shown below in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Existing System Development Fees by Customer Type
Type of Customer Unit to Charge Water Tap Fee
Single-Family Residential (SFR) As 1 Dwelling Unit $5,263
Multi-family 70% of SFR per unit $3,684
Accommodation 60% of SFR per unit $3,158
Non-accommodation 5% per fixture $263
Minimum charge of 60% of SFR $3,216
Accessory Dwelling Unit 40% of SFR $2,105
In Table 4-1, Estes Park’s water tap fee, for a residential customer, is based on a per dwelling
unit tap fee. Multi-family customers (e.g., apartment complexes with more than one unit) are
charged 70% of the single family residential (SFR) unit rate, per unit of multi-family residential.
Likewise, Accommodation type customers (hotels, motels, etc.) are charged 60% of the SFR
charge. These percentages are based on data Estes Park developed in 2003. For new non-
accommodation customers, (commercial) a fixture count is conducted. A commercial
customer is charged 5% of the SFR charge per fixture value unit (FVU). There is a minimum
charge of 6 FVU.
Development of the Water Tap Fees 15
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
4.4 Calculation of Estes Park’s Water Tap Fees
As discussed in Section 2, the process of calculating tap fees is based on a four-step process. In
summary form, these steps are as follows:
x Determination of system planning criteria
x Determination of equivalent residential units (ERUs)
x Calculation of the water tap fee for system component costs
x Determination of any water tap fee credits
Each of these steps is discussed in more detail below.
4.4.1 System Planning Criteria
System planning criteria are used to establish the capacity needs of an equivalent residential
unit (ERU). Based upon Estes Park’s Water System Plan, a value of 192 gals/day/ERU was used
for average day flow. The peak day demand of a residential unit is 307 gals/day/ERU. The
storage requirement per ERU is based on Estes Park’s Water System Plan of 240 gallons per
ERU. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the planning criteria used to establish Estes Park’s water
tap fees.
Table 4-2
Summary of the Water System Planning Criteria
Planning Criteria Description Gallons/Day/ERU
Average Day Demand 192 gallons/day/ERU
Peak Day Demand 307 gallons/day/ERU
Storage Requirements 240 gallons/ERU
As previously discussed, on a water system certain facilities may be planned and sized around
different planning criteria. Therefore, the system planning criteria shown above were used for
different plant components to determine the cost per ERU for that specific plant component.
4.4.2 Equivalent Residential Units
The planning horizon of this analysis was 2015 to 2034, which aligns with the planning period of
the most recent Water System Plan. As a part of this study, a projection of the number of new,
additional ERUs per year must be determined, along with the total number of ERUs at 2034.
Estes Park’s total number of ERUs for each year was determined by dividing the peak day usage
factor per ERU into total peak day demand. The total peak day demand was based on the
projections in Estes Park’s Water System Plan. Peak day demand for future years was projected
assuming an equal annual growth rate between the demand projection years. The assumed
growth rate for the test period was approximately less than one percent based on the Water
System Plan.
Development of the Water Tap Fees 16
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
A summary of the ERUs for 2015 and 2034 are presented below in Table 4-3. Details of the
determination of ERUs are provided in Exhibit 1 of Technical Appendix A.
Table 4-3
Water System Equivalent Residential Units
Description Calculated ERUs
Equivalent Residential Units – 2015
Equivalent Residential Units – 2034
11,393 ERUs
15,288 ERUs
There is an addition of 4,134 ERUs to the system during the time period of 2015 through 2034.
The calculation of the SDC for each plant component may now be determined with the
development of total water ERUs completed.
Given the development of the water system ERUs for each year of the planning period, the
focus shifted to the calculation of the water tap fee for each plant component. This aspect of
the analysis is discussed below.
4.4.3 Calculation of the Water Tap Fees
In calculating the water tap fees for Estes Park a number of infrastructure and cost components
were reviewed. These included Estes Park’s existing infrastructure components, the debt
service for the existing facilities, and the future expansion-related capital improvements.
Overall, the general methodology used to calculate each component of the water tap fee was
the “combined method”. In this calculation the existing assets are divided by the total ERUs for
the projected time period, while the future or expansion-related capital projects are divided by
the future capacity they will provide or the number of additional ERU’s, whichever is greater.
Both calculations are added together and the result is the total “net allowable water tap fee”.
Estes Park’s water system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating the water tap fee
were as follows:
x Source of Supply
x Storage
x Transmission/Distribution Mains
x General Plant
A brief discussion of the water tap fee calculated for each of the functional water plant
components is provided below.
Source of Supply & Treatment – The existing supply and treatment components were
developed on a cost per gallon basis. The total existing supply and treatment plant 2015
Development of the Water Tap Fees 17
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
replacement value was determined to be $21.4 million. From this total, debt service principal
outstanding of $4.3 million was netted against cash outstanding of $2.0 million, and the balance
of $2.3 million was netted against existing source of supply and treatment assets. This netted
total of $19.1 million for existing plant was divided by the current capacity of 7.0 MGD for a unit
cost of $2.73 per gallon.
Future plant improvements that are attributable to growth were developed on a cost per gallon
basis. Total future plant was estimated at $15.4 million. This total cost was then divided by the
total planned source of supply capacity of 1.0 MGD (8.0 MGD future - 7.00 MGD current = 1.0
MGD) to determine a cost of $15.49 per gallon.
Because the system operates as a whole, two separate unit costs needed to be averaged. A
weighted average was developed based on the capacity available within each set of assets. The
weighted unit cost represents 52% of the existing system and 12.5% of the future system,
resulting in a final unit cost of $10.04 per gallon of treated water. Based on the peak day use of
307 gallons per ERU this results in a per ERU charge of $3,085 for supply and treatment. Details
of the calculation of the source of supply and treatment plant are shown in Exhibit 2 of
Appendix.
Storage – As noted in Table 4-2, the design criterion utilized by Estes Park for the determination
of storage requirements is equal to 240 gallons/ERU.
The total existing capacity of system reservoirs is 3.73 million gallons provided by two 1 million
gallon tanks and 7 other tanks of sizes ranging from 70,000 gallons to 500,000 gallons. There
are no new future storage projects at this time.
Dividing the total cost of existing storage by the total required capacity in gallons provides a
cost of $1.04 per gallon of storage. Multiplying that figure by the 240 gallons per ERU for
required storage provides a cost per ERU of $251 for storage. Details of the calculation are
provided in Exhibit 3 of the Appendix.
Transmission and Distribution Mains – To determine the charge for transmission and
distribution mains, an inventory of the existing system was reviewed, as well as those planned
transmission and distribution main improvements identified in Estes Park’s Water Plan. The
cost of the existing transmission and distribution mains was divided by the number of ERUs in
2034, resulting in a water tap fee for existing distribution and transmission mains of $1,485 per
ERU. Future transmission and distribution main capital improvements were reviewed to
determine the projects or percentage of projects that would provide additional capacity to
serve new development. These allocations were based on estimates by Estes Park staff. The
growth-related portion of future transmission and distribution mains was then divided by the
number of ERUs added from 2015 to 2034, resulting in a water tap fee for future distribution
and transmission mains of $100 per ERU. Taken together, the existing and future transmission
Development of the Water Tap Fees 18
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
and distribution mains charges result in a total water tap fee of $1,585 per ERU. Details of the
calculation of the transmission and distribution mains are provided in Exhibit 4 of the Appendix.
General Plant – There are a number of items in water utility general plant asset listing. These
include vehicles, equipment, buildings, and large equipment items. Only those assets that have
a useful life of 10 years or more were included within tap fees. Meters, hydrants, facilities less
than $1,000 dollars in original costs, computers and software older than 12 years, vehicles older
than 50 years, and radios older than 12 years were not included in this total. Meters and
hydrants are not included as they are service specific (not relating to the system-wide benefits)
or related to fire protection, respectively. These types of facilities typically are not included
within water tap fee calculations. The total general plant value of equipment with a useful life
greater than ten years $676,000 thousand was divided by the total ERUs by 2034 to determine
the cost per ERU. This was determined to be $44 per ERU.
There was one future general plant item at this time for the new shop building projected to be
built in 2020 for an estimated $1.1 million. This total future plant divided by the number of
ERUs added from 2015 to 2034, resulting in a water tap fee for future general plant of $229.
Together the existing and future general plant results in a total water tap fee of $273 per ERU.
Details of the calculation are provided in Exhibit 5 of the Appendix.
4.5 Net Allowable Water Tap Fee
The methodology used to establish the water tap fees is a “combined approach”. The
combined approach adds the buy-in component and the incremental or future component
together, resulting in a “net allowable water tap fee”. Based on the sum of the component
costs calculated above, the net allowable water tap fee is $5,194. A summary of the calculated
net allowable base charge for the water tap fee of a 5/8 X 3/4-inch meter is shown below in
Table 4-4.
Table 4-4
Calculated Net Allowable Water Tap Fee 5/8” X 3/4" by Component (1 ERU)
Plant Component
Water Tap Fee by Component
$/ ERU
Source of Supply Plant $3,085
Storage Plant 251
Transmission and Distribution Plant 1,585
General Plant 273
Net Allowable Fee per ERU $5,194
Development of the Water Tap Fees 19
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
The charge for a single family residential customer assumed with a 5/8” x 3/4" inch meter is
calculated to be $5,194. This is $69 lower than Estes Park’s current residential water tap fee of
$5,263 per residential unit. Exhibit 6, of the Appendix, details the calculation of the net
allowable water tap fee.
For customer types other than single-family home (5/8” X 3/4” inch meter) there are weighting
factors applied to account for the additional demand these customers place on the system.
Estes Park has a methodology in place for the existing water tap fee, as described in Estes Park’s
policy and fee implementation document. The existing approach for charging water tap fees to
customers other than residential, for the added benefit they receive above the capacity of a
5/8” X 3/4" inch meter, is shown in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Net Water Tap Fee, by Customer Type
Type of Customer Unit to Charge Water Tap Fee
Single-Family Residential (SFR) As 1 Dwelling Unit $5,194
Multi-family 70% of SFR per unit $3,635
Accommodation 60% of SFR per unit $3,116
Non-accommodation 5% per fixture $260
Minimum charge of 60% of SFR $3,116
Small non-accommodation Assumes 20% of SFR $1,038
The water tap fees for customers other than single family residential are calculated by applying
the appropriate factor times the number of units for multi-family and accommodation type
customers (hotels, motels, etc.). For non-accommodation customers (commercial customers)
the fee is calculated by applying 5% of the SFR fee to each fixture unit. The commercial fixture
unit values that Estes Park uses to implement their fee are provided at the end of Appendix A.
With both the “buy-in” and “future” components calculated to 2015 dollars, and using
replacement cost as the basis, the fee decreases $69 overall. The fee has decreased
primarily due to changes in system planning for future projects.
Development of the Water Tap Fees 20
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
4.6 Key Assumptions
In developing the tap fees for Estes Park’s water system, a number of key assumptions were
utilized. These are as follows:
x Estes Park provided the planning criteria.
x The methodology used is the “combined” methodology. The buy-in and
incremental/future component are added together for a net allowable charge.
x Estes Park’s asset records were used to determine the existing plant assets.
x The base year for calculations is 2015.
x Estes Park and the 2015 Comprehensive Master Plan provided the CIP for future
improvements.
x Estes Park determined the portion of future improvements that were growth-related,
for other than the treatment plant facilities.
x Replacement value was based on the original cost and the 20-city Engineering New
Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) to bring asset values into today’s dollars
(percent change varies, depending on original year of construction).
4.7 Consultant’s Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of Estes Park’s water system, HDR recommends:
9 Estes Park should adopt water tap fees for new connections to the water system that
are no greater than the net allowable water tap fee as set forth in this report.
9 The adopted tap fees should be updated annually by a local construction cost index,
such as the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI), for no more
than five years before a complete update of the fee is undertaken. This best industry
practice can keep the fee relatively current with construction pricing practices.
9 Estes Park should update the actual calculations for the tap fees at such time when a
new capital improvement plan, facilities plan, comprehensive system plan, or a
comparable plan is approved or updated by Estes Park, or every five years, or when a
major infrastructure project is completed.
4.8 Summary
The water tap fees developed and presented in this section of the report are based on the
planning and engineering design criteria of Estes Park’s water system, the value of the existing
assets, and “generally accepted” ratemaking principles. Consistently updating the fee annually
based on the Engineering New Record cost index and reviewing the tap fees every five years
will continue to create equitable and cost-based charges for new customers connecting to Estes
Park’s water system.
Determination of Water Rights Fees 21
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents the key assumptions and details used in calculating the Estes
Park water rights fee. The calculation of Estes Park’s water rights fee is based on Estes Park
specific water rights data and water rights costs. Specifically, the water rights fees are based
upon Estes Park’s Final Water Comprehensive Master Plan, 2015; referred to hereafter as the
Plan), water rights information provided by the City, and relevant water rights cost information
(BizWest – writing about Boulder Valley and Northern Colorado economic conditions).
The water rights fee presented in this section of the report should be reviewed each year and
updated to reflect the changes in the water rights costs and other parameters used to
determine the fee.
5.2 Overview of Water Rights Fees in Colorado
Water rights fees are essentially an option of providing water rights as a cash-in-lieu of, in areas
where water rights are required in order to develop. Within Colorado, in areas where water
resources are scarce, there typically are requirements to provide a prescribed number of acre-
feet of water per dwelling unit of development, in order to develop. Water rights fees are the
“cash-in-lieu” of option, rather than providing the actual water rights. These fees are charged to
acknowledge the high cost of water; in particular acre-feet available from the Colorado Big
Thompson River, referred to as Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) units. Estes Park has a number of
water rights aside from the Colorado Big Thompson rights. These water rights are documented
in Table 1 of the Plan.
Estes Park is now in a good position with water rights, but had to make substantial investments
in 2002 due to drought conditions, when it paid over $2 million for its most recent CBT water
rights in order to meet peak water demands. Water rights costs per unit vary depending upon a
number of economic factors including demand, development pressure, and availability. The
price per unit has fluctuated over the past several years between $12,800 and $26,250 per unit.
The term “units” refers to the number of acre-feet included within each unit of water. This
price per unit also varies by water right. For example, the Windy Gap water rights are currently,
and typically are, a lower cost per acre foot than the CBT water rights. The CBT water rights
represent the largest allotment of total water rights to the Mary’s Lake Water Treatment Plant
(WTP) at 43% of total water rights to that plant. Windy Gap rights represent 21% of the total
water rights to Mary Lake WTP. Therefore, it is reasonable to continue to base the water rights
fees on the cost of CBT water rights.
5.Determination of Water Rights Fees
Determination of Water Rights Fees 22
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
5.3 Existing Water Rights Fees in Estes Park
The purpose of having a water rights fee in the Estes Park is due to the fact that most recently
(2002) customers made a substantial investment in the rights and should be reimbursed for
that investment, as it serves new customers to the system. Therefore, with the specific
purpose of reimbursing prior investments, rather than having water rights to invest in new
water rights, a reimbursement approach is taken to calculating the fee, rather than looking at
market costs of the current water rights. In this way, the fees are able to be more reasonable
(lower), more representative of the original investment, and equitable to new customers, to
share in the value of existing water rights that benefit them.
Estes Park currently charges water rights fees. The last update to the fees was in 2010. The fee
is based on a number of parameters including the following:
Table 5-1
Existing Water Rights Parameters
Factor Parameter Value
AU
Average annual ERU
Usage (Acre/feet)[1] 0.22 acre feet
L
Loss of water in
distribution system 13%
Y
Expected yield of CBT
units 62%
CBT CBT price per unit $13,600
[1] ERU = Equivalent residential unit.
The fees were based on the cost of the most recently acquired Colorado Big Thompson water
rights. The fee is determined using the following formula:
AU/(1-L) x (1/62%) x CBT
The resulting fee was calculated to be $5,550 for a single family residence. This would have
been an increase of $100 to the then current fee of $5,450. Estes Park kept the current fee of
$5,450 in place. The same accommodation factors, as shown in Table 5-5, are applied to non-
single family customers connecting to the system in determining their water rights fee.
5.4 Calculation of Updated Estes Park Water Rights Fees
The same methodology was used in updating the water rights fees. However, each of the
factors used in the formula were reviewed and adjusted, only as needed, as shown below:
Determination of Water Rights Fees 23
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
Table 5-1
Existing Water Rights Parameters
Factor Parameter Value
AU
Average annual ERU
Usage (Acre/feet)[1] 0.22 acre feet
L
Loss of water in
distribution system 13%
Y
Expected yield of CBT
units 50%
CBT CBT price per unit $14,800
The average annual usage was determined from the Water Master plan, as the shown in Table
1, average daily flow per equivalent residential unit (ERU) as 192 gallons/day/ERU. This is
multiplied by 365 days and divided by 325,851 to convert it to acre-feet, resulting in 0.22 acre-
feet per year for the average residential household usage. The loss in the distribution system
needs to be accounted for as it impacts total impact of each new customer on the total
demand. System losses have improved over the years, as tracked by water utility management.
The Water Master Plan did not quantify losses specifically, on a system-wide basis, but
mentioned consistency with past studies. Therefore, the 13% for losses was maintained.
The yield of the CBT units typically ranges between 50 and 70 percent. Water rights were
reviewed for Estes Park as part of the Town’s Plan (2007). The current yield of the CBT units is
still estimated to be 50 percent, according to BizWest and the Comprehensive Water Master
Plan, 2015. Additionally, this is the yield that was available when the water rights were first
purchased in 2002. Therefore, for consistency with the pricing available at the original time of
purchase, it is recommended that this yield value be used in current and future calculations,
unless the yield changes significantly from this range in future years.
To determine the cost per unit the original cost ($2.2 million) was divided by units purchased
(200) to determine a cost per unit, which was then brought into 2015 dollars and compared
with the historical and current cost ranges of CBT units. Using only the current cost per unit
does not reflect how costs may fluctuate over time. In addition, it does not reflect the original
investment of customers. The Town originally paid $2.23 million for 200 units in 2002. The unit
cost was determined to be $11,150 per unit in 2002 dollars. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics
All Urban Consumers Index, 20-cities, this cost was adjusted to June 2015 dollars. The 2002 cost
per unit was adjusted by multiplying by 1.33 which resulted in a 2015 cost per unit of $14,800.
This escalated cost accounts for the time value of money. In other words, the Town’s
customers who originally paid for the water rights need to be reimbursed at a rate that
acknowledges that the dollars they spent in 2002 were worth more than the same dollars
Determination of Water Rights Fees 24
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
today. Therefore, the original cost should be escalated to the comparable value of today’s
dollars. The ENR construction cost index (ENR-CCI) used in developing the SDC in Section 5 is
not an appropriate index to inflate the water rights unit cost, as the ENR-CCI relates to
construction costs. The All Urban Consumers Index was the lowest of several other inflationary
factors available, and applies more specifically to commodities.
Using the formula Estes Park has for the current water rights fee, and the factors as noted
above, the fee is determined as follows:
AU/(1-L) x (1/50%) x CBT original cost escalated for the time value of money
This formula results in the fee of $7,320, increasing $1,870 from the existing fee of $5,450.
Water rights for non-single family customers, or commercial, are determined in the same
manner as they currently are, by applying the ERU factors shown in Table 4-5 (5%, 60% or 70%)
times the charge of $7,320, times the number of units. The Town currently uses fixture unit
values to implement these fees.
5.6 Implementation of the Fees
The factors involved in calculating the fee can fluctuate over time. Most of the factors have
varied since the 2007 calculations. It is important to update the fee every year, to account for
the time value of money. Rather than include an estimated inflationary cost, the fee should be
updated each year by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics “All Urban Consumers Index – All City
average consumer price index”. In this way the time value of money is accounted for each year
and reimbursement to existing customers is as equitable as possible.
The fee should formally be reviewed and updated at least every three to five years, or when
there are significant changes in any of the factors that appear to be lasting, in order to keep the
fee current.
5.7 Consultant’s Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of Estes Park’s water rights analysis, HDR recommends the
following:
9 Estes Park should adopt water rights fees for new connections to the water system as
reflected in this report.
9 The fees should be updated annually by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics “All Urban
Consumers Index – All City average consumer price index”. This best industry practice
can keep the fee relatively current with the time value of money.
9 Estes Park should update the actual calculation for the water rights fees at such time
when there is a significant change in one or more of the factors involved in the
calculations, or at a minimum of once every three to five years.
Determination of Water Rights Fees 25
Town of Estes Park – Water Tap and Water Rights Fees Study
5.8 Summary
The water rights fees presented in this section are based on the cost and yield criteria affecting
the most recently purchased CBT water rights by the Town, and “generally accepted”
ratemaking principles. Adoption of the cost-based fees for new customers connecting to the
Town’s water system will maintain equity between existing and new customers.
Technical Appendix
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 1
Water Tap Fee - 2015
Development of ERUs
ERU = Equivalent residential unit
Average Day Flow (gpd) [1]91 gallons/capita/day
People per household [2]2.11 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
Average Day Flow 192 average gallons per day/ERU
Peak Day Flow [3]307 peak gallons per day/ERU
Storage Capacity [4]240 gallons per day/ERU
Peak Day (MGD)Additional Total ERUs Cumm. New
Year Capacity [5]ERUs ERUs/Year [5]By Year ERUs/Year
2015 3.50 11,393 178 11,570 178
2016 11,570 180 11,751 358
2017 11,751 183 11,934 542
2018 11,934 186 12,120 728
2019 12,120 189 12,309 917
2020 12,309 192 12,501 1,109
2021 12,501 195 12,696 1,304
2022 12,696 198 12,895 1,502
2023 12,895 201 13,096 1,703
2024 13,096 204 13,300 1,907
2025 13,300 207 13,507 2,115
2026 13,507 211 13,718 2,326
2027 13,718 214 13,932 2,540
2028 13,932 217 14,150 2,757
2029 14,150 221 14,370 2,978
2030 14,370 224 14,594 3,202
2031 14,594 228 14,822 3,429
2032 14,822 231 15,053 3,661
2033 15,053 235 15,288 3,896
2034 4.70 15,288 238 15,527 4,134
Notes:
[1] Average gallons per capita per day from Comprehensive Water Master Plan (Master Plan), May 2015,
page 4, Table 3. Peaking factor of 1.6 from 2015 Master Plan, Table 3, page 4.
[2]People per household page 32, 2015 Water Master Plan.
[3] Peaking factor of 1.6 from 2015 Master Plan, Table 3, page 4.
[4] Total capacity of system reservoirs (3.73 MG), 2015 Master Plan, page 40, divided by total 2034 ERUs.
[5] Peak day firm capacity of 3.5 MGD and 2034 required capacity of 4.7 MGD from 2015 Master Plan, page 81.
Page 1 of 11
Town of Estes Park Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 2
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee Source of Supply and Treatment Plant 6/30/2015
10,039
Original ENR-CCI of 2015 %WTF
Year Type Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1]WTF Eligible Eligible
Existing Source of Supply
12/04/14 COM Microwave Network P to P, Tinair Exalt $14,438 1.02 $14,780 100%$14,780
09/21/12 LAN Land, Koehler Property Marys Lake Rd (Water)40,121 1.08 43,271 100%43,271
11/20/95 LND YMCA Land Purchase (95)15,301 1.83 28,077 100%28,077
07/30/13 MET Water Meter, Magmeter Sparling 12" Flanged 5,583 1.05 5,871 100%5,871
10/31/89 PUR Streaming Current Monitor, Glacier 7,514 2.18 16,345 100%16,345
03/12/08 PUR Spectrophotometer, Spectro DR5000-01 6,613 1.21 7,987 100%7,987
08/23/11 PUR Online TOC Analyzer Model 5310C 28,230 1.11 31,232 100%31,232
12/29/11 PUR Feeder System, Soda Ash/V20 Vibrator/Loading Hoppe 15,054 1.11 16,655 100%16,655
03/26/13 PUR Feeder System, Soda Ash Single Bag Loading 15,369 1.05 16,162 100%16,162
11/07/13 PUR Replacement Alum Feeder for GCWTF 16,780 1.05 17,645 100%17,645
12/31/96 STC Bldg, Glacier Creek Plant 8,620 1.79 15,398 100%15,398
02/18/97 STC Glacier Intake Rehab Phase I (1997)96,571 1.72 166,405 100%166,405
05/26/98 STC Glacier Intake Rehab Phase II(1998(82,873 1.70 140,535 100%140,535
Total Existing Source of Supply $353,067 $520,363 $520,363
Existing Treatment
06/03/03 DPE SCADA Computer, Replacements for Water Plants $22,907 1.50 $34,354 100%$34,354
12/31/88 PUR Purification Water System 770,423 2.22 1,711,501 100%1,711,501
08/20/90 PUR Chlorine,Phosphate, Zinc Instruments 8,765 2.12 18,595 100%18,595
03/11/98 PUR Carbon Feeder, Volumetric 8,187 1.70 13,883 100%13,883
11/03/00 PUR Tanks, Scale Storage Water 15,916 1.61 25,684 100%25,684
10/27/06 PUR Construction Pond Discharge Box Glacier Creek 8,356 1.30 10,823 100%10,823
04/05/07 PUR SCM Monitor and Sensor Unit 20,623 1.26 25,985 100%25,985
11/19/14 PUR Spectrophotometer Probe, Wtr Qlty Monitoring Unit 18,059 1.02 18,487 100%18,487
11/19/14 PUR Analyzer, Parker TTHM Concentration Analyzer 36,576 1.02 37,443 100%37,443
07/23/00 SHP Davit Arm for Confined Space 2000 311 1.61 501 0%0
10/01/00 STA Electric Work 2000 1,892 1.61 3,053 100%3,053
01/01/59 STC Water Plant, Fall River 41,448 12.60 522,073 100%522,073
01/01/59 STC Water Plant, Little Prospect 34,338 12.60 432,525 100%432,525
01/01/71 STC Water Plant, Glacier Creek 48,841 6.35 310,132 100%310,132
01/01/74 STC Water Plant, Black Canyon 6,789 4.97 33,742 100%33,742
01/01/79 STC Water Plant, Crystal 89,352 3.34 298,702 100%298,702
01/01/87 STC Water Pump Station, Thunder Mtn.6,248 2.28 14,236 100%14,236
02/17/89 STC Water System, Crystal Water 159,569 2.18 347,110 100%347,110
11/21/89 STC Pond Metering 1,357 2.18 2,952 100%2,952
12/31/89 STC Cascade 20,286 2.18 44,129 100%44,129
01/01/90 STC Backwash Flow Meter 22,628 2.12 48,005 100%48,005
06/25/91 STC Marys Lake Main Plant 3,654,687 2.08 7,588,295 100%7,588,295
04/19/99 STC Glacier Creek Rehab, Phase 2 1999 26,485 1.66 43,882 100%43,882
03/17/05 STC Bldg, Crystal Water Plant 2005 Replacement 14,003 1.35 18,880 100%18,880
09/29/00 MET Raw Water Meter Marys Lake 8,676 1.61 14,001 0%0
01/21/09 STC 2009 MLWTF Sewer Tap Fees 331,100 1.17 387,635 100%387,635
01/01/08 STC Mary Lake WTF Expansion/Modification 2008 2,462,519 1.21 2,974,477 100%2,974,477
01/01/09 STC Mary Lake WTF Expansion/Modification 2009 4,375,726 1.17 5,122,882 100%5,122,882
01/01/10 STC Mary Lake WTF Expansion/Modification 2010 260,858 1.14 297,505 100%297,505
01/01/11 STC Mary Lake WTF Expansion/Modification 2011 473,012 1.11 523,311 100%523,311
Total Existing Treatment $12,949,937 $20,924,783 $20,910,281
Total Existing Supply and Treatment Costs $13,303,004 $21,445,146 $21,430,644
Outstanding Principal ($4,330,821)
Less: Cash on hand for Capital 2,012,472
Net Outstanding Debt ($2,318,349)
Net Existing Supply and Treatment Costs $19,112,295
Design capacity of Existing System [2]7.00
Cost per Gallon $2.73
Page 2 of 11
Town of Estes Park Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 2
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee Source of Supply and Treatment Plant 6/30/2015
10,039
Original ENR-CCI of 2015 %WTF
Year Type Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1]WTF Eligible Eligible
Future Treatment [3]
Future
MLWTP/Pretreatment System Prelim Eng Report $170,000 0.00 $170,000 100.0%$170,000
Secondary Water Source Prelim Eng Report 175,000 0.00 175,000 80.0%140,000
MLWTP/Pretreatment System Final Design Phase 400,000 0.00 400,000 100.0%400,000
Secondary Water Source Prelim and Final Design Phase 500,000 0.00 500,000 100.0%500,000
Seconday Water Source Land Purchase 2,000,000 0.00 2,000,000 80.0%1,600,000
Seconday Water Source Construction Phase 6,000,000 0.00 6,000,000 80.0%4,800,000
MLWTP/Pretreatment System Connection 5,000,000 0.00 5,000,000 80.0%4,000,000
GCWTP Backwash Pond Improve. Prel and Finale Design 50,000 0.00 50,000 80.0%40,000
GCWTP Backwash Pond Improve. Const Phase 300,000 0.00 300,000 80.0%240,000
MLWTP Membrane System Replacement 50,000 0.00 50,000 100.0%50,000
MLWTP Capacity Related Membrane System Upgrade 50,000 0.00 50,000 100.0%50,000
MLWTP Capacity Membrane System Prelim & Final Design 500,000 0.00 500,000 100.0%500,000
MLWTP Capacity Membrane System Upgrade Const Phase 3,000,000 0.00 3,000,000 100.0%3,000,000
Total Future Treatment $18,195,000 $18,195,000 $15,490,000
Total Future Supply/Treatment $18,195,000 $18,195,000 $15,490,000
Future growth related plant capacity (MGD) [3]1.00
Cost per Gallon $15.49
Weighted Average of Existing and Future Plant [4] [5]
Existing Cost ($/Gal)$2.73 42.7%1.17
Future Cost ($/Gal)$15.49 57.3%8.88
Total Existing and Future Improvements $10.04
Peak Day use per ERU [6]307
Source of Supply and Treatment Water Tap Fee per ERU $3,085
Notes:
[1]"2015 Cost" is the replacement cost, based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) 20-cities applied to
original cost. June 2015 ENR-CCI was used.
[2] Mary's Lake plant at 4.0 MGD and Glacier Creek at 3.0 MGD, 2015 Master Plan, Page 5 asdesign capacity.
[3] Future capacity after CIP projects comppleted and current design capacity is 1.0 MGD (8.0 MGD future - 7.00 MGD current = 1.0 MGD)
Design Future
Mary's lake 4.0 5.0 Design Pg. 72, Firm pg. 81, Ultimate pg. 93, WMP Plan, 2015.
GCWTP 3.0 3.0 Design Pg. 72, Firm pg. 81, Ultimate pg. 93, WMP Plan, 2015.
Total 7.0 8.0 MGD
Existing peak day use 3.3 3.3 Page 35, Water Master Plan, 2015.
Incremental 3.7 4.7
Incremental/Total 52.9%58.8%
[4] New Marys Lake Treatment Plant (MLWTP) will have capacity of 5.0 MGD. Existing plant has 4.0 capacity, but often operates at 2.0 MGD.
Capacity available to growth equates to 5.0 - 4.0 = 1.0 MGD capacity available to growth is 1.0/5.0 = 20%
[5] The weighted average of the existing and future plant was based on the growth portion of the new plant cost to total new plant costs.
Capacity Cost($/Gal)Weighting [7]Wgtd Cost($/Gal)Wgtd Percentage
7.00 $2.73 52.9%$1.44 42.7%
1.00 $15.49 12.5%$1.94 57.3%
8.00 $3.38 100.0%
Growth related portion for existing is determined by subtracting the peak day use (Average Daily Peak 3.3 ; Master Plan page 30, Table 24) from total actual
capacity of 7.0 MGD (MLWTP 4.0 MGD and GCWTP of 3.0 MGD) = 3.7 incremental, resulting in 52.9%.
Future equals 1.0 MGD (Future of 8 MGD less Existing of 7 MGD) or 1.0/8.0 = 12.5%.
[6] Peak day use based on average gallons times peak day from Comprehensive Water Master Plan (Master Plan), May 2015. See Exhibit 1.
Existing Plant
Future Plant
Page 3 of 11
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 3
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee for Storage Facilities 6/30/2015
10,039
Original ENR-CCI of 2015 % WTF WTF
Year Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [2]Eligible Eligible
Existing Storage Facilities [1]
12/31/99 STA Water Dispenser 1999 $2,164 1.66 $3,585 100%$3,585
01/01/63 STC Water Tank, Crystal 54,878 11.14 611,450 100%611,450
01/01/65 STC Water Tank, Fall River 47,396 10.34 490,017 100%490,017
01/01/71 STC Water Tank, Fall River Estates 23,698 6.35 150,476 100%150,476
01/01/79 STC Bldg, Water Shop 77,414 3.34 258,795 100%258,795
01/01/84 STC Water Tank, Prospect Mtn Estates 29,792 2.42 72,137 100%72,137
01/01/87 STC Water Tank, Thunder Mtn.29,983 2.28 68,316 100%68,316
01/01/89 STC Diversion Structure Water 115,063 2.18 250,296 100%250,296
04/15/99 STC Gate, Electric Install 5,090 1.66 8,433 100%8,433
01/31/00 STC Bldg, Water Dispenser 4,389 1.61 7,083 100%7,083
05/16/00 STC Concrete 2000 1,451 1.61 2,342 100%2,342
09/20/01 STC Exhaust System and 1 door and raise wall (2001)8,011 1.58 12,697 100%12,697
12/12/01 STC Hand Rail for Shop (2001)300 1.58 475 0%0
06/06/02 STC Bldg, Water Dispenser 2002 3,713 1.54 5,700 100%5,700
10/03/02 STC Anthracite, Torpedo San, Silica Sand(2002)25,486 1.54 39,133 100%39,133
11/15/02 STC Pave Water Shop Parking Lot(2002)19,030 1.54 29,221 100%29,221
01/01/04 STC Retaining wall 2004 119,722 1.41 168,923 100%168,923
12/31/05 STC 2005 Classroom Locking System 6,689 1.35 9,018 100%9,018
07/24/07 STC Water Shop,Doorlocks with Closers 6,802 1.26 8,571 100%8,571
01/01/07 STC 2007 MacGregor Water Tank 216,521 1.26 272,824 100%272,824
02/19/13 STC 2013 Fencing @ Big Thompson Tank 3,233 1.05 3,400 100%3,400
02/19/13 STC 2013 Fencing @Crystal Storage Site 9,185 1.05 9,659 100%9,659
04/25/95 STC Water Storage Tank (YMCA)35,130 1.83 64,462 100%64,462
02/08/96 STC Glacier Water Tank (1996)750,867 1.79 1,341,274 100%1,341,274
04/30/13 STC 2013 Electronic Locking System 6,805 1.05 7,156 100%7,156
$1,602,812 $3,895,443 $3,894,967
Future Storage Plant
Future $0 0.00 $0 100%$0
Total Future Storage Plant $0 $0 $0
Total Storage $3,894,967
Capacity (MG) [3]3.73
Cost per Gallon $1.04
Storage Requirement per ERU [4]240
Storage Facilities Water Tap Fee per ERU $251
Notes:
[1] No capital contributions are known for these facilities.
[2] "2015 Cost" is the replacement cost, based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) 20-cities applied to
original cost. June 2015 ENR-CCI was used.
[3] Total capacity of system reservoirs (3.73 MG), 2015 Master Plan, page 40.
Name Capacity (gallons)
Glacier Creek 1,000,000
Mary's Lake 1,000,000
Big Thompson 200,000
Castle Mountain 400,000
Fall River Estates 130,000
Kiowa Ridge 70,000
Crystal 500,000
Thunder Mountain 130,000
MacGregor Mountain 300,000
Total 3,730,000
[4] Total storage capacity divided by 2034 ERUs, see Exhibit 1.
Page 4 of 11
Town of Estes Park Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 4
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee for Transmission/Distribution System 6/30/2015
10,039
Percent
Original ENR-CCI To 2015 WTF WTF
Year Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1] Eligible Eligible
Existing Transmission/Distribution System
10/05/89 COM SCADA Communication System (Water)$175 2.18 $381 0%$0
01/01/74 CUS Customer Services Lines 6,431 4.97 31,960 100%31,960
01/01/74 HYD Hydrants, Water Dept.33,490 4.97 166,441 0%0
12/31/88 DIST Distribution System, Water 1,340,191 2.22 2,977,246 100%2,977,246
12/31/88 TR Transmission System, Water 426,597 2.22 947,689 100%947,689
01/01/89 DIST Carriage Hills Interconnection 143,273 2.18 311,661 100%311,661
01/01/89 HYD Hydrants, Labor Etc 6,247 2.18 13,588 0%0
02/09/89 DIST Phase I Water System Design 298,007 2.18 648,254 100%648,254
07/20/89 DIST Northern Interconnection 173,355 2.18 377,099 100%377,099
08/31/89 DIST Moccasin Drive 174,077 2.18 378,669 100%378,669
11/20/89 HYD Hydrants, Fire Dept. funding 124,398 2.18 270,602 0%0
01/08/90 DIST Water Looping Project 1990 155,773 2.12 330,475 100%330,475
01/24/90 COM SCADA Installation 1990 7,256 2.12 15,393 100%15,393
02/19/90 COM Controller, Valve Produce Code CBA10 6,621 2.12 14,047 100%14,047
05/31/90 DIST Arapahoe Meadows 41,383 2.12 87,794 100%87,794
06/04/90 DIST Commanche/Dunraven Looping 42,300 2.12 89,739 100%89,739
07/20/90 DIST Bailey Lane 143,091 2.12 303,570 100%303,570
09/10/90 PUR Plant Parts 264 2.12 559 0%0
09/19/90 DIST High Street 126,343 2.12 268,039 100%268,039
10/05/90 DIST Fall River Ln 313,285 2.12 664,639 100%664,639
10/05/90 DIST Phase III-Master Plan Project 311,041 2.12 659,876 100%659,876
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 2 2.12 4 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
10/17/90 DIST Easement/Right of Way 1 2.12 2 0%0
12/26/90 DIST Phase II-Western Interconnection 201,038 2.12 426,505 100%426,505
04/30/91 DIST Strong Ave 219,389 2.08 455,522 100%455,522
10/28/91 DIST Eastern Interconnection 124,895 2.08 259,323 100%259,323
03/10/92 DIST Riverside Vault 8,386 2.01 16,889 100%16,889
10/23/92 DIST Sunny Acres 17,759 2.01 35,764 100%35,764
12/14/92 DIST Treager-Fall River Portion 50,788 2.01 102,279 100%102,279
01/31/93 DIST Glacier Creek WTF 176,410 1.93 339,919 100%339,919
02/28/93 DIST Water Looping Project 1993 186,013 1.93 358,423 100%358,423
03/16/93 COM SCADA Installation 1993 6,328 1.93 12,193 100%12,193
05/06/93 HYD Hydrant F2500 2,450 1.93 4,721 0%0
01/20/95 DIST 1994 Loop Project (1995 Business)32,822 1.83 60,227 100%60,227
04/06/95 DPE Computer, Gateway P5-100XL 5,154 1.83 9,457 100%9,457
05/18/95 DIST 1995 Loop Project 266,509 1.83 489,030 100%489,030
10/12/95 COM SCADA Installation 1995 1,831 1.83 3,360 100%3,360
05/07/96 DIST Hwy 34 Water Line (1996)445,713 1.79 796,177 100%796,177
05/10/96 DIST 1996 Loop Project 311,739 1.79 556,859 100%556,859
07/30/96 DPE Computer Conduits Water Shop 1996 2,925 1.79 5,225 100%5,225
11/29/96 DIST Highway 7 Water Line (1996)53,060 1.79 94,781 100%94,781
02/03/97 DIST Hwy 7 Water Main (1997)951,806 1.72 1,640,093 100%1,640,093
03/31/97 COM Reprogram Mary's Lake Moscad Unit (1997)21,600 1.72 37,220 100%37,220
04/17/97 DIST 1997 D.I.P. Bluebell 89,278 1.72 153,838 100%153,838
02/19/98 DIST 1998 Loop Project 609,891 1.70 1,034,238 100%1,034,238
05/01/98 COM SCADA Upgrade Phase 1&2 (1998)62,714 1.70 106,348 100%106,348
02/11/99 DIST 1999 Loop Project 402,715 1.66 667,248 100%667,248
03/01/99 COM Alarm System, Intrusion Water Vandal 1999 8,954 1.66 14,836 100%14,836
03/18/99 DIST 1999 Charles Heights Main Extension 5,181 1.66 8,585 100%8,585
Page 5 of 11
Town of Estes Park Page 2 of 3
Exhibit 4
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee for Transmission/Distribution System 6/30/2015
10,039
Percent
Original ENR-CCI To 2015 WTF WTF
Year Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1] Eligible Eligible
08/18/99 DIST 1999 Prospect Mountain 117,369 1.66 194,466 100%194,466
11/16/99 COM SCADA System Upgrade 1999 9,026 1.66 14,955 100%14,955
11/16/99 DPE Scada System Upgrade 1999 (DPE)5,250 1.66 8,699 100%8,699
12/31/99 DIST 1999 Fire Hydrant Project 20,131 1.66 33,355 0%0
12/31/99 HYD Hydrants, Extensions (Fire)20,131 1.66 33,355 0%0
01/01/00 COM Alarm System, Intrusion Water Vandal 2000 2,182 1.61 3,522 100%3,522
03/08/00 DIST 2000 James McIntyre/Boyd Wonderview 99,706 1.61 160,898 100%160,898
04/06/00 MET Water Meter, 18" meters 16,021 1.61 25,853 0%0
08/08/00 COM SCADA System Upgrade 2000 Com 16,762 1.61 27,049 100%27,049
08/08/00 DPE Scada System Upgrade 2000 DPE 9,750 1.61 15,734 100%15,734
08/08/00 DPE Water CAD Stand Alone (500) Pipes 2,995 1.61 4,833 100%4,833
11/03/00 MET FS/3 Reader 8,866 1.61 14,307 0%0
11/09/00 DIST 2000 Looping Projects 252,364 1.61 407,247 100%407,247
01/01/01 DIST 2001 Fall River 57,915 1.58 91,791 100%91,791
03/01/01 DIST 2001 Fire Hydrant Project 12,281 1.58 19,464 0%0
03/01/01 DIST 2001 Water Looping Projects 450,984 1.58 714,782 100%714,782
03/01/01 DIST 2001 Devils Gulch Marys Lake 70,623 1.58 111,933 90%100,740
10/01/01 COM SCADA System Upgrade 2001 Com 11,295 1.58 17,902 100%17,902
01/01/02 DIST 2002 Water Looping Projects (2002)471,609 1.54 724,149 100%724,149
01/01/02 DIST 2002 Looping Devils Gulch (2001)617,049 1.54 947,469 100%947,469
01/01/02 DPE Water CAD 2000 Pipes (2002)3,000 1.54 4,606 100%4,606
02/06/02 DPE UPS Backup 91 1.54 140 0%0
05/09/02 MET M25 Rtr/ERT Remote Style Water Meters 30,205 1.54 46,379 0%0
05/09/02 MET M25 Meters/Bronze 5,670 1.54 8,706 0%0
06/07/02 COM SCADA System Upgrade 2002 Com 1,160 1.54 1,780 100%1,780
06/20/02 DIST Hydrant, Hwy 34/Lake Front 14,899 1.54 22,877 0%0
07/24/02 MET Water Meter, M25 RTR/ERT Remote Style 5,400 1.54 8,292 0%0
07/24/02 MET Water Meter, M25 Meters 9,840 1.54 15,109 0%0
08/28/02 MET Water Meter, M25 RTR/ERT Remote Style 6,241 1.54 9,582 0%0
01/01/03 DIST 2003 Water Looping Projects 1,056,372 1.50 1,584,242 100%1,584,242
01/01/04 DIST 2004 Water Looping Projects 372,246 1.41 525,225 100%525,225
05/04/04 COM Radio, Moscad-L units w/external radio interface 15,771 1.41 22,252 100%22,252
08/13/04 DPE Platter, HP Designjet 5500PS 60" UV 17,269 1.41 24,366 100%24,366
01/01/05 DIST 2005 Water Looping Projects 418,767 1.35 564,600 100%564,600
01/01/06 COM SCADA System Upgrade 2006 Com 17,449 1.30 22,599 100%22,599
01/01/06 DIST 2006 MacGregor Water Tank 104,188 1.30 134,940 100%134,940
01/01/07 COM SCADA System Upgrade 2007 Com 587 1.26 740 0%0
09/05/07 DPE Software Laboratory Infor Mgmt System 17,400 1.26 21,925 100%21,925
01/01/08 DIST Bureau Water Main Replacement (2008)26,218 1.21 31,669 100%31,669
07/29/08 COM SCADA System Upgrade/Fiber/Radios 2008 Com 39,206 1.21 47,357 100%47,357
01/01/09 DIST 2009 Water Looping Projects 10,608 1.17 12,420 100%12,420
05/31/09 DIST Bureau Water Main Replacement (2009)5,020 1.17 5,877 100%5,877
06/14/10 DIST 2010 Water Looping Projects-Prospect Ave Wtr Main 28,586 1.14 32,601 100%32,601
12/31/10 DIST Bureau Water Main Replacement (2010)10,998 1.14 12,543 100%12,543
04/29/11 DIST 2011 MacGregor Ave Water Line Upgrades 33,000 1.11 36,509 100%36,509
01/01/12 DPE GPS GIS Improvement Project 2012 Water Portion 24,180 1.08 26,079 100%26,079
01/27/12 DPE Scada System Hardware Upgrade/Wonderware Software 41,300 1.08 44,543 100%44,543
01/30/12 DIST 2012 Virginia Dr/Park Ln/MacGregor Ave Rehab Project 197,273 1.08 212,763 100%212,763
03/26/12 COM SCADA System Upgrade Programming Chgs etc 12,610 1.08 13,600 100%13,600
01/02/13 DPE GPS GEOXH 6000 Handheld GIS Mapping/Software 7,929 1.05 8,338 100%8,338
05/28/13 DIST Distribution System, Capacity Increase 15 SFEs 130,500 1.05 137,231 100%137,231
07/03/13 COM SCADA System Programming Site Visit 2013 Com 10,000 1.05 10,516 100%10,516
01/17/14 COM Software, Tribal Licenses (5)8,000 1.02 8,190 100%8,190
03/02/14 DIST Invision GIS (8CATF)418 1.02 428 0%0
06/30/14 DIST Stanley Circle Water Main Replacement 6,867 1.02 7,030 100%7,030
09/30/14 DIST Task 1-Raw Water Resources Eval 5,177 1.02 5,300 100%5,300
Page 6 of 11
Town of Estes Park Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 4
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee for Transmission/Distribution System 6/30/2015
10,039
Percent
Original ENR-CCI To 2015 WTF WTF
Year Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1] Eligible Eligible
09/30/14 DIST Task 2-Future Demand Projections 3,624 1.02 3,709 100%3,709
09/30/14 DIST Task 3-Water Distribution System Eval 30,408 1.02 31,129 100%31,129
09/30/14 DIST Task 4-Water Treatment Facilities 26,538 1.02 27,167 100%27,167
09/30/14 DIST Task 5-3yr Plan 12,813 1.02 13,117 100%13,117
10/24/14 COM SCADA System Programming Site Visit 2013 3 days 8,390 1.02 8,589 100%8,589
10/24/14 COM SCADA System Programming Site Visit 2014 Com 12,861 1.02 13,166 100%13,166
12/31/14 DIST Fish Creek Flood Repairs (9CATF) Eng/design 173,090 1.02 177,193 100% 177,193
Total Existing Transmission and Distribution Plant [2] [3]$13,373,429 $23,763,983 $23,057,894
Total ERUs 2034 15,527
Existing Transmission/Distribution Plant Water Tap Fee per ERU $1,485
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant
Future
Bureau Area - Phase I (Mains & Services)$371,000 0.00 $371,000 0%$0
Fish Creek Corridor (FEMA 400K)200,000 0.00 200,000 35%70,000
Charles Heights Replacement 150,000 0.00 150,000 10%15,000
US34 MacDonald's to Church Phase I 200,000 0.00 200,000 50% 100,000
Big Horn & Virginia 200,000 0.00 200,000 0%0
Hill Streets Waterline Replacement Phase 2 325,000 0.00 325,000 0%0
Bureau Area - Phase 2 (Mains & Services)250,000 0.00 250,000 0%0
Thunder Mountain Pump House Replacement 350,000 0.00 350,000 30% 105,000
Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement 300,000 0.00 300,000 0%0
Prospect Mountain Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)250,000 0.00 250,000 50% 125,000
Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement 475,000 0.00 475,000 0%0
Bureau Area - Phase 3 (Mains & Services)210,000 0.00 210,000 0%0
Bureau Area - Phase 4 (Mains & Services)310,000 0.00 310,000 0%0
Bureau Area - Phase 5 (Mains & Services)250,000 0.00 250,000 0%0
Bureau Area - Phase 6 (Mains & Services)190,000 0.00 190,000 0%0
Park View/Cyteworth Water Main Replacement 600,000 0.00 600,000 0%0
Total Future Transmission/Distribution Plant $4,631,000 $4,631,000 $415,000
New ERUs 2015 to 2034 4,134
Future Transmission/Distribution System Water Tap Fee per ERU $100
Total Transmission/Distribution Water Tap Fee per ERU $1,585
Notes:
[1] "2015 Cost" is the replacement cost, based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) 20-cities applied to
original cost. June 2015 ENR-CCI was used.
[2] No capital contributions are known for these facilities.
[3] The following assets were not included:
meters, hydrants, facilities less than $1,000 original cost, computers and software older than 12 years, vehicles older than 50 years.
Page 7 of 11
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 5
Water Tap Fee - 2015 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Tap Fee for General Facilities 6/30/2015
10,039
Percent
Original ENR-CCI To 2015 WTF WTF
Year Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1]Eligible Eligible
Existing General Facilities
General Plant
10/25/06 BLN Locknetics Locking System $6,734 1.30 $8,721 100%$8,721
04/25/85 V Vehicle, Lincoln Welder SAM650 1985 12,943 2.39 30,973 100%30,973
04/21/92 TOO Sign, Confined Space Various 92 2.01 186 0%0
06/24/92 TOO Confined Space, Equipment 5,072 2.01 10,213 100%10,213
01/08/94 DPE Computer, P560 Tower 6,085 1.86 11,296 0%0
09/29/94 SHP Chlorine Shelter 8'x8'6,745 1.86 12,522 100%12,522
07/17/96 DPE Computer, Dell 133 MHZ (County Comm-Fleet shop)5,271 1.79 9,416 0%0
11/03/98 V Bed Tarp and Install 748 1.70 1,268 100%1,268
12/30/98 V Vehicle, International 1999 94,902 1.70 160,933 100%160,933
07/30/99 STA Generator Winco (Muni Bldg) Water 10,000 1.66 16,569 100%16,569
12/19/01 V Swaploader Bed w/Tank/Pump/Hose (2001 WTR)16,980 1.58 26,912 100%26,912
05/23/02 COM Security Alarm System-Muni Bldg for Employees Wtr (Split)5,300 1.54 8,138 100%8,138
08/08/02 V Vehicle, Ford 2002 F350 4x4 36,597 1.54 56,194 100%56,194
11/06/02 LAB DR4000 Spectrophotometer with UV Spectrum 5,550 1.54 8,522 100%8,522
11/18/02 LAB Alkalinity Analyzer 8,000 1.54 12,284 100%12,284
12/19/02 OFC Copier, Oce large format (Wtr)8,769 1.54 13,465 100%13,465
05/07/03 STC Security Camera System (municipal Bldg) Wtr Split 13,772 1.50 20,654 100%20,654
09/07/05 COM Software, GPS Data Collection Equipment 16,757 1.35 22,592 100%22,592
09/07/05 DPE GPS Data Collection Equipment 6,616 1.35 8,920 100%8,920
03/01/07 V Trailer,2007 Wells Cargo model RF7142-VF 5,100 1.26 6,426 100%6,426
10/04/07 V Vehicle, 2007 F-150 4x4 14,875 1.26 18,743 100%18,743
12/31/07 V Vehicle, 2008 Ford F-350 w/Utility Body Supercab 44,897 1.26 56,571 100%56,571
10/08/08 V Vehicle, GMC 4x4 2008 w/UT Bed/Tommy Lift 39,789 1.21 48,061 100%48,061
02/25/09 LAB TOC Test Package-Analyzer/Remover 17,300 1.17 20,254 100%20,254
02/09/12 LAB Spectrophotometer, Spectro DR5000-03 7,625 1.08 8,223 100%8,223
12/16/13 OEQ Printer, HP Designjet T2500 Large Format 2,325 1.05 2,445 100%2,445
12/01/15 Master Plan 106,733 1.01 107,300 90%96,570
Total Existing General Facilities $505,576 $707,801 $676,174
Total ERUs 2034 15,527
Existing General Facilities Water Tap Fee per ERU $44
Future General Facilities
Future General Plant - New Shop Building $1,183,115 0.00 $1,183,115 80%$946,492
Total Future General Facilities $1,183,115 $1,183,115 $946,492
New ERUs 2015 to 2034 4,134
Future General Facilities Water Tap Fee per ERU $229
Total General Facilities Water Tap Fee per ERU $273
Notes:
[1] "2015 Cost" is the replacement cost, based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) 20-cities applied to
original cost. June 2015 ENR-CCI was used.
[2] The following assets were not included:
meters, hydrants, facilities less than $1,000 original cost, computers and software older than 12 years, vehicles older than 50 years,
radios older than 12 years.
Page 8 of 11
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 6
Water Tap Fee - 2015
Summary
Current Tap Fee
Single-family Change
2015 Calculated WTF: Single-family $5,194 $5,263 ($69)
Source of Supply $3,085
Storage 251
Distribution/Transmission 1,585
General Plant 273
Total $5,194
Net Allowable WTF Fee $5,194
Current Wtr Rights Change
Water Rights Fee (CBT)$7,320 $5,450 $1,870
Current Total Fees Total Change
Total Residential Cost (WTF and Water Rights)$12,514 $10,713 $1,801
Customer Type ERU Factor Cost/unit Water Rights Total
Residential WTF/unit 1 ERU $5,194 $7,320 $12,514
Multi-family: per unit 70%3,635 5,124 8,759
Accommodation: per unit 60%$3,116 $4,392 $7,508
Non-accommodation 5% per fixture $260 $366 $626
Example for 20 fixtures 20 $5,194 $7,320
Minimum Charge 60%$3,116 $4,392 $7,508
Sample WTF by Meter Size (inches)
Water Tap
Meter Size Weighting Factor [1]Fee
5/8" X 3/4"1.00 $5,194
3/4"1.00 5,194
1 1.67 8,673
1 1/2 3.33 17,295
2 5.33 27,682
---------------------------------------------- -----------------------
3 10.00 51,936
4 16.67 86,577
6 33.33 173,101
8 53.33 276,972
10 76.67 398,190
12 112.50 584,275
Notes:
[1] Weighting factor based on AWWA meter equivalencies
[2] It is recommended to base fee for meter sizes larger than 2-inch on projected usage.
WTF Calculation Results
Sample Implementation by Existing Procedure
Page 9 of 11
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 7 ENR-20 City CCI
Water Rights Fee - 2015 6/30/2015
Determination of Water Rights Fee 10,039
Original ENR-CCI of 2015 %Water Rights
Year Type Equipment List Cost Year Built Cost [1]SDC Eligible Eligible
Existing Source of Supply [1]
01/01/88 CON Consents-Water $440,111 2.22 $977,711 100%$977,711
01/01/74 LND Land/Land Rights (Water)31,050 4.97 154,311 100%154,311
12/31/03 WR Water Rights 2,230,000 1.50 3,344,334 100%3,344,334
$2,701,161 $4,476,355 $4,476,355
Colorado Big Thompson Water Rights Assumptions:
Annual ERU Usage (acre/feet) [2]:0.22
Loss of water in distribution system [3]:13%
Expected yield of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Water units [4]:50%
CBT price per unit 2015 (Current market price - for information only)$26,250
CBT price per unit 2002 (200 units)$11,150
Cost escalated per BLS inflation from 2002 [4]1.33
Escalated CBT cost per unit [5]$14,800
CBT Water Rights Calculation:[1]/(1-[2])*1/.50*$14,800 $7,320
2010 Calculation
Existing Water Rights Fee (7/2015)$5,450 $5,550
Difference in cost per ERU $1,870
Notes:
[1] "2015 Cost" is the replacement cost, based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index (ENR-CCI) 20-cities applied to
original cost. June 2015 ENR-CCI was used. This plant value for information purposes only. Not included in the calculation.
[2] From Exhibit 1: gallons/day/ERU times 365 divided by 325,851 = annual acre feet/ERU
[3] Losses from 2000 to 2006 averaged 16%, per Public Works 2006 Water Audit (AWWA file).
Town staff indicate improvements have been made in water losses. Consistent with prior reports.
[4] Town of Estes Park Final Water Comprehensive Master Plan, May 20,2015. Table 1. Update provided annual average allocation of .50.
It has been as low as 30% in one year. Formerly estimated to be between 60-70%. Oil and gas company demands increasing demand.
Original water rights formula in 2006 used the 50% expected yield, so most closely resembles the yield when rights were first purchased.
[5] Using the June 2015 CPI All Urban Consumers Index - All U.S. cities, to 2002 BLS 20-cities CPI.
For information purposes only: BizWest Article on cost of CBT water rights ranges from $52,000/acre foot to $26,635/unit; $26,250/ unit.
Windy Gap water rights at $31,250/acre foot
Page 10 of 11
Town of Estes Park
Exhibit 8
Water Tap Fee - 2015
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital Improvement Projects [1]
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Future [2] Total % Growth
Related [3] [4]
Total Growth
Related
Water Treatment Facility CIP Program
Treatment MLWTP/Pretreatment System Prelim Eng Report $50,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $170,000 100.0%$170,000
Treatment Secondary Water Source Prelim Eng Report 100,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 0 175,000 80.0%140,000
Treatment MLWTP/Pretreatment System Final Design Phase 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 100.0%400,000
Treatment Secondary Water Source Prelim and Final Design Phase 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 100.0%500,000
Source Seconday Water Source Land Purchase 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 80.0%1,600,000
Treatment Seconday Water Source Construction Phase 0 0 6,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000,000 80.0%4,800,000
Treatment MLWTP/Pretreatment System Connection 0 0 0 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 80.0%4,000,000
Treatment GCWTP Backwash Pond Improve. Prel and Finale Design 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 80.0%40,000
Treatment GCWTP Backwash Pond Improve. Const Phase 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 80.0%240,000
Treatment MLWTP Membrane System Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 100.0%50,000
Treatment MLWTP Capacity Related Membrane System Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 100.0%50,000
Treatment MLWTP Capacity Membrane System Prelim & Final Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0 500,000 100.0%500,000
Treatment MLWTP Capacity Membrane System Upgrade Const Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 100.0%3,000,000
$150,000 $827,500 $6,207,500 $4,507,500 $2,507,500 $357,500 $32,500 $32,500 $57,500 $257,500 $257,500 $3,000,000 $18,195,000 $15,490,000
Pipeline, Booster Station, Water Storage Tank Replacement
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase I (Mains & Services)$371,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $371,000 0.0%$0
Distribution Fish Creek Corridor (FEMA 400K)200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 35.0%70,000
Distribution Charles Heights Replacement 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 10.0%15,000
Distribution US34 MacDonald's to Church Phase I 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 50.0%100,000
Distribution Big Horn & Virginia 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0.0%0
Distribution Hill Streets Waterline Replacement Phase 2 0 325,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325,000 0.0%0
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase 2 (Mains & Services)0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0.0%0
Distribution Thunder Mountain Pump House Replacement 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 30.0%105,000
Distribution Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 0.0%0
Distribution Prospect Mountain Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 50.0%125,000
Distribution Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement 0 0 0 475,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475,000 0.0%0
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase 3 (Mains & Services)0 0 0 0 210,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210,000 0.0%0
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase 4 (Mains & Services)0 0 0 0 0 310,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 310,000 0.0%0
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase 5 (Mains & Services)0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0.0%0
Distribution Bureau Area - Phase 6 (Mains & Services)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190,000 0 0 0 0 190,000 0.0%0
Distribution Park View/Cyteworth Water Main Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 0 0 0 600,000 0.0%0
$721,000 $725,000 $600,000 $1,025,000 $210,000 $310,000 $250,000 $190,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,631,000 $415,000
General Plant - New Shop Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,183,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,183,115 80.0%$946,492
Total Water System Plan $871,000 $1,552,500 $6,807,500 $5,532,500 $2,717,500 $1,850,615 $282,500 $222,500 $657,500 $257,500 $257,500 $3,000,000 $24,009,115 $16,851,492
Notes:
[1] Based on current Master Plan. Secondary Water Source Land Purchase and MLWTP Capcaity membrane System Upgrade Construction Phase cost estimates were provided by Town staff 8/12/15.
[2] Future project for construction of MLWTP phase. Estimated cost from Town staff.
[3] Secondary source project growth related. Would not be needed except that growth is projected to occur. Estimated 80% growth and 20% operational by Town staff.
Incremental growth out stripped by ability to operate on daily basis. Need redundancy.
[4] Pipeline replacement projects are built out. No growth increase available.
Page 11 of 11
Water Tap Fees
Objective: To request approval of a tap fee
increase
Purpose:Provide high quality reliable services
for our citizens, rate payers and guests
of Estes Park
Goal:Fund capital projects related to growth
This presentation will:
Define tap fees
Explain why we have tap fees
Review of current system
How tap fees are determined
Water Tap Fees
What is a tap fee?
A Tap Fee is a term used by the trades which refers to
the costs for the physical connection to the water
system as well as the fee to join the system.
Why do we have tap fees?
Growth pays for growth. When a new customer
connection is made, the tap fee covers the cost of the
system capacity required for their service.
Water Tap Fees
Review of current system:
First, let’s review the different parts of our
water infrastructure.
Water Tap Fees -Background
RAW WATER
The Town has a portfolio of water rights adequate for
future growth.
Water Tap Fees -Background
TREATMENT
The Town has two water treatment plants.
Water Tap Fees -Background
STORAGE
The Town has nine storage tanks.
Water Tap Fees -Background
RAW WATER
TREATMENT
STORAGE TRANSMISSIONThe Town has 21 miles of water
transmission mains (12 inch and
larger).
The Town has 79
miles of water
distribution
mains (smaller
than 12).
DISTRIBUTION
GrowthWater Tap Fees = Growth
New
Multi-Family
Residential/
Workforce
New
Business
New
Residential
Projects and water rights that accommodate growth
are funded by system development charges and
water right fees.
Water Tap Fees
How are tap fees determined?
•Tap fees are grouped into two categories, water
rights and system development charges (SDC).
•All our water rights and capital projects are
reviewed to determine how they relate to growth.
•The dollar value associated with growth is divided
by the current excess capacity and future
capacity growth. The excess capacity is measured
in units of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs).
Water Tap Fees
How are tap fees determined? Cont.
•It has been six years since the last tap fee
increase. The recommended water rights fee
for an ERU should increase by $1,870 and the
system development fees should decrease by
$69 resulting in an increase from $10,713 to
$12,514.
Water Tap Fees
How are tap fees determined? Cont.
Why did water rights fee go up?
•Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD) manages all the Colorado Big
Thompson water. Last year NCWCD Board
reduced the initial yield from 60% to 50%. This
reduction in supply increases the value of the
water.
Water Tap Fees
How are tap fees determined? Cont.
Why did the system development charge go down?
•The 2015 master plan projects a smaller future
demand at build out than the previous study.
The reduction is based on mandates for water
efficient fixtures and appliances.
The End
Questions?
ORDINANCE NO. 07-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONNECTION
CHARGES FOR CONNECTION TO
THE TOWN OF ESTS PARK
WATER ACTIVITY ENTERPRISE FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, through its Water Activity Enterprise, owns
and operates its municipal water system; and
WHEREAS, a system development charge and a water rights fee are the two
components of the connection charge for connecting to the Town’s water system; and
WHEREAS, the connection charges have not been changed since 2010; and
WHEREAS, increases to the connection charge have been recommended by
HDR Inc., the Town’s water system consultant, to reflect the actual cost of the existing
physical assets of the system, reflect the current value of the water rights, and provide
funding for necessary future capital improvements related to growth; and
WHEREAS, the new connection charge will continue to provide an equitable and
cost-based charge for new customers connecting to the Town’s water system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The connection charges set forth on Exhibit A are hereby adopted
and made a part of the Water Fee Schedule pursuant to the provisions of Section
13.32.010 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2: The connection charges set forth in Exhibit A shall become effective
June 1, 2016.
Section 3: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force for 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
By: _________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor
___________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. 07-16 was introduced and read at
the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ______ day of ___________, 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the _______ day of __________, 2016.
____________________________________
Town Clerk
WATER FEE SCHEDULE
Effective 6/1/16
(A)(B)(C)(D)
Sub-Total
Customer Class Tap Size System Water Right Development
Development Fee and Water
Fee Right Fees
(inches)($)($)($ per unit)
(Columns B + C)
Single-Family 3/4 5,194 7,320 12,514
Mulit-family 3/4 3,635 5,124 8,759
1 3,635 5,124 8,759
1 1/2 3,635 5,124 8,759
2 3,635 5,124 8,759
3 3,635 5,124 8,759
3 1/2 3,635 5,124 8,759
4 3,635 5,124 8,759
Accommodation 3/4 3,116 4,392 7,508
(1)1 3,116 4,392 7,508
1 1/2 3,116 4,392 7,508
2 3,116 4,392 7,508
3 3,116 4,392 7,508
4 3,116 4,392 7,508
Non-3/4 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
Accommodation 1 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
(2)1 1/2 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
2 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
3 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
4 260 / FVU 366 / FVU 626 / FVU
Accessory Dwelling Unit 3/4 2,077 2,928 5,005
Notes:
(1)No kitchen, as defined in the Town Utilities Policy Manual
(2)Minimum (= 6 Fixture Value Units, $3754)
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: March 8, 2016
RE: Policy 205 (Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities)
Objective:
To obtain approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign Policy 205 (Naming of Town-
Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities)
Present Situation:
Currently, there are no established processes for naming or re-naming Town-owned
parks, open spaces, or facilities (other than streets). The proposed policy provides
processes and criteria for naming and re-naming Town-owned parks, open spaces, and
facilities.
After the Town Board Study Session on February 23, 2016, the following changes were
made to the policy based on Board feedback:
• The word “property” was changed to “parks and/or open space” throughout the
policy for clarity
• The administrative review of submitted names for new Town parks, open space,
or facilities was removed and replaced by a Town clerk review for completeness
and a forwarding of all qualifying names to either the Town Board (facilities) or
the Parks Advisory Board (Parks or Open Space)
• Under “Re-Naming a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility” a sentence
was added encouraging potential re-naming applicants to consider options to
memorialize an individual other than a re-naming (i.e. plaques, memorial
benches, memorial trees, etc.)
• Under “Re-Naming a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility” a provision
was added stating the Town Staff will endeavor to ensure that any re-naming is
reflected on Google Maps as soon as possible.
Advantages:
Page 2 of 2
• Provides consistent processes and criteria for naming or re-naming Town-owned
parks, open spaces, or facilities
Disadvantages:
• None
Budget:
No immediate budget impact from this policy.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff expects a moderate level of public interest in this issue from the general
community.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny adoption of Policy 205 (Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open
Spaces, and Facilities) and authorize the Mayor to sign.
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 1 of 6
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Biennially
Effective Date: 03/15/2016
References: Governing Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.2
ADMINISTRATION
205
Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities
1. PURPOSE
To establish a consistent and systematic approach for selecting names for Town-owned
parks, open spaces, and facilities.
2. POLICY
Maintaining consistent and understandable procedures for naming and re-naming
Town-owned parks, open spaces, and facilities is crucial for identification purposes.
These names aid emergency response, help to develop a sense of place, and help to
honor community leaders.
The Town of Estes Park will follow the procedures outlined in this policy to name or re-
name any Town-owned park, open space, or facility. When choosing a name for a
Town-owned facility, park, or open space, the Town will endeavor to ensure that such
names: (1) are appropriate; (2) aid in the identification and location of the property or
facility in question; and (3) encourage the donation of lands, facilities, and funds to the
Town.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Naming a New Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility
i. Working Name for Facilities under Consideration or Construction
All new facilities under consideration or construction will be given a working
name by staff.
ii. Naming Criteria
In order to be considered, proposed names for a new Town-owned park, open
space, or facility shall be reflective of at least one of the following criteria:
1) Specific purpose of the facility (e.g., Senior Center, Museum)
2) Geographic location
3) Prominent geographic feature or local reference point
4) Adjoining subdivision/community
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 2 of 6
5) Historical feature
6) A deceased individual (see section 3.a.iii)
7) An individual or group via a donation or sponsorship agreement (see
section 3.a.iv)
iii. Naming a Park, Open Space, or Facility after a Deceased Individual
Consideration shall be given to the naming of a Town-owned park, open space,
or facility after a deceased individual only if both of the following conditions have
been met:
1) The individual has been deceased for at least three (3) years; and
2) The individual has made significant contributions to the Town through a
long-term commitment to the residents and guests of the Town of Estes
Park.
iv. Individual or Group Donations or Sponsorships
Consideration shall be given to the naming of a Town-owned park, open space,
or facility after a group or individual based on a donation or sponsorship only if
such donation or sponsorship comprises 75 percent or more of the overall value
of the park, open space, or facility. This provision shall not apply to any naming
rights sold for the Estes Park Events Complex.
v. Sponsorship Naming Rights
Sponsorship naming rights made by contract, for a specific period of time, are
exempt from this policy.
vi. Naming Process
The naming of a new Town-owned park, open space, or facility will follow the
process below:
1) Public Announcement: When the Town signs a contract to construct a
building or purchase land to be used as a park or open space, the Town
Clerk’s Office will publish a legal notice in the paper of record inviting the
public to submit prospective names for the building or park/open space.
The deadline for submitting names will be two weeks from the date of the
printed legal notice. The legal notice shall refer to the facility or property by
description, in addition to common/informal names. The Public Information
Office will also notify the community of the opportunity to participate
through a news release and other appropriate channels.
2) Review for Facilities: Within two weeks of the deadline to submit names,
the Town Clerk will submit to the Town Board all of the names received
that meet the criteria in section 3.a.ii.
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 3 of 6
3) Review and Recommendation for Parks/Open Space: Within two weeks of
the deadline to submit names, the Town Clerk will submit to the Parks
Advisory Board all of the names received that meet the criteria in section
3.a.ii. The Parks Advisory Board will review the submitted names, and
make a recommendation to the Town Board.
4) Notice of Submitted Names - Facilities: A legal notice shall be published in
the paper of record as soon as reasonable after the Town Clerk submits
the list of qualifying names to the Town Board. This legal notice shall
include the qualifying proposed names, a description of the facility to be
named, and the time and place of the Board Meeting at which the
recommendation will be considered. The legal notice must be published at
least 30 days prior to the Town Board meeting where the recommendation
will be considered. The Public Information Office will also notify the
community of the opportunity to participate through a news release and
other appropriate channels.
5) Notice of Recommendation – Parks/Open Space: A legal notice shall be
published in the paper of record as soon as reasonable after the Parks
Advisory Board submits its recommendation to the Town Board. This legal
notice shall include the proposed name, a description of the park/open
space to be named, and the time and place of the Board Meeting at which
the recommendation will be considered. The legal notice must be
published at least 30 days prior to the Town Board meeting where the
recommendation will be considered. The Public Information Office will also
notify the community of the opportunity to participate through a news
release and other appropriate channels.
6) Town Board Review and Approval: Upon receipt of the recommendation
from the Leadership Team, the Board will consider the recommended
name at a regular Board meeting as an action item.
b. Re-Naming a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility
i. Conditions
The existing names of Town-owned parks, open spaces, and facilities are
deemed to have historic recognition. The Town of Estes Park will not change the
name of any existing Town-owned park, open space, or facility unless: (1) there
are compelling reasons to consider such change; (2) there is a thorough study of
the change consisting of a public hearing at a regularly scheduled Town Board
meeting; and (3) there is a unanimous vote of the Town Board.
Additionally, the Town Board will consider renaming a Town-owned park, open
space, or facility to commemorate a person or persons only when said person or
persons: (1) is/are deceased, (2) has/have made a major, overriding contribution
to the Town; (3) has/have made contributions that have not been honored in
another manner; and (4) has/have notable historic significance to the Estes
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 4 of 6
Valley. Potential re-naming applicants should consider other appropriate options
to memorialize individuals including, but not limited to, plaques, memorial
benches, and memorial trees.
ii. Requests to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility
Any requests to re-name a Town-owned park, open space, or facility shall use
the following procedure:
1) The applicant shall submit a completed “Request to Re-Name a Town-
Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility” application form (Appendix A) to the
Town Clerk.
2) The application will be reviewed for completeness based upon the naming
criteria set forth in section 3.a.ii of this policy.
3) Completed applications will be forwarded to the Town Administrator and
Town Board.
4) If the Town Board wishes to consider the proposed re-naming, the Board
will set a date to consider the proposal as an Action Item on a Town Board
Meeting Agenda.
iii. Costs of Renaming
The Town Board may request that any cost of renaming (e.g. the replacement of
signs) be borne by the individual or group recommending the change.
iv. Noticing of Google
Upon any renaming, Town staff will endeavor to ensure that said renaming is
reflected on Google Maps as soon as possible.
c. Naming of Meeting Rooms in or on Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, or
Facilities
Meeting rooms located in or on Town-owned parks, open spaces, or facilities may
be named administratively by the Town Administrator.
d. Revocation of Name
Under extraordinary circumstances that would cast a negative image upon the
Town, any naming of Town-owned parks, open spaces, or facilities in honor of an
individual, family, or group may be revoked at the discretion of the Town Board.
e. Naming of Streets
All streets will be named in accordance with Policy 421 (Addressing and Street
Naming Policy).
Approved:
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 5 of 6
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Policy 205 03/08/2016
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX 1 - Request to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility
Town of Estes Park
Request to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility
1. Applicant General Information
Name: ______________________________________________ Date: ________________
Address: ____________________________________________ City/State: ________________
Zip Code: ___________________________________________ Telephone: ________________
Does the Applicant Represent an Organization? Y N
If Yes, Name of Organization: ___________________________________________________________
2. Nature of Re-Naming Request
Park OR Open Space OR Facility
Location: ____________________________________________________________________
Proposed Name: _______________________________________________________________
3. Re-Naming Justification
Specific Purpose Historical Feature
Geographic Location Deceased Individual
Geographic Feature Donation/Sponsorship
Adjoining Community
Explanation of Justification Attached (Required)?* Y N
________________________________________________ _________________________
Signature Date
________________________________________________
Print Name
*Please ensure that the justification addresses the conditions for re-naming contained in Policy 205.3.b.i
Transportation Advisory Board Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 4, 2016
RE: Transportation Advisory Board Appointments
Objective:
To appoint three members to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB).
Present Situation:
The TAB was formed to support the comprehensive transportation planning for the
valley; to review and recommend transportation related capital projects, and to support
the safety and maintenance of the Town’s transportation system. The committee is
actively discussing the downtown highway reroute with the Federal Land Access Project
(FLAP) grant and parking issues.
The bylaws outline the membership of the committee shall consist of nine members and
the members must be residents of the Estes Valley Planning district. The terms shall be
for three years and shall be staggered so the terms of three members shall expire each
year.
Members Bryon Holmes, Thom Widawski and Amy Hamrick terms expire on March 31,
2016. Administrative Services advertised for the positions on the board and received
six applications. Interviews were held with five applicants because the six applicant was
not available for an interview.
Proposal:
The interview committee recommends the reappointment of incumbent Amy Hamrick
and appointment of Tom Street and Ken Zornes for three-year terms expiring on March
31, 2019.
Advantages:
Filling the positions would complete the nine member committee.
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made, the positions would remain vacant until the positions
could be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Transportation Advisory Committee Appointments
2
Action Recommended:
Reappointment of Amy Hamrick and the appointment of Tom Street and Ken Zornes,
each for a three-year term expiring on March 31, 2019.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the reappointment of Amy Hamrick and the appointment of Tom
Street and Ken Zornes, each for a three-year term expiring on March 31, 2019
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: March 08, 2016
RE: Financial Report through December 2015
Background:
Attached is the Draft Financial Report through December 2015.
Dashboard page
After a long-time effort to display ever-increasing amounts of information on a
dashboard page, Staff is (temporarily?) giving up and moving to a slide for each sector.
Hopefully the slides will now present more summary information, both graphically and in
summary form.
Staff encourages review of the accompanying Powerpoint presentation, which will be
discussed in further detail at Tuesday’s Board meeting.De
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
UPDATE: Financial and Sales Tax Report(through December 2015)Steve McFarland –Finance Officer
GENERAL FUND: HIGHLIGHTSSales tax up 5% over Revised Budget.Event Center Revenues significantly lagging budget.Approximately $1,360,000 in grant revenues, $1,390,000 in grant related expenses.GENERAL FUND2015 2015 Better/Revised Budget Draft Actuals (Worse)REVENUES $20,440,088 $16,121,863 ($4,318,225)EXPENSES 20,757,030 16,198,654 4,558,376 Net decrease ($316,942) ($76,791) $240,151
TRACKING THE GENERAL FUND
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND: HIGHLIGHTSEvents Center almost (financially) complete.Transit Hub Structure to be re‐budgeted in 2016.Conference center roof repair complete. CVB restrooms underway. Elm Road landfill mitigation continuing.>$1,000,000 in rollovers. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Rev Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100%REVENUES $854,960 $4,045,011 ($3,190,051) 21.1%EXPENSES 1,941,579 7,166,874 5,225,295 27.1%Net increase/decrease ($1,086,619) ($3,121,863) $2,035,244
UTILITY FUNDS: HIGHLIGHTSRevenues tracking closely with budget. Water revenues up in part due to Falcon Ridge tap fees.Expenses under budget due to capital/flood projects trailing budget.Fund balance and ratios being maintained.LIGHT & POWER FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Rev Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100%REVENUES $14,377,376 $14,615,084 ($237,708) 98.4%EXPENSES 15,814,690 17,780,935 1,966,245 88.9%Net increase/decrease ($1,437,314) ($3,165,851) $1,728,537 WATER FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Rev Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100%REVENUES $4,777,066 $4,536,159 $240,907 105.3%EXPENSES 4,679,240 5,879,778 1,200,538 79.6%Net increase/decrease $97,826 ($1,343,619) $1,441,445
FLOOD/GRANT UPDATE49 different flood/grant related projects being tracked.FEMA reimbursements picking up: $550,000 in 2014; $1,250,000 in 2015.Thanks: Christy, Sharla, Linda, Tina!
FLOOD/GRANT UPDATEChallenges:FEMA ‐project scope change approvalsTaking 6‐12 monthsDelays reimbursementsCDBG‐DR (Round 2/3) –short time frame to complete projects (obligated, but not allocated)Delays in selecting consultants/contractors impacts CDBG‐DR project completion deadlines: Moraine Ave Bridge ($2m), Storm Water Master Plan ($300k), FHWA cost share ($265k), FEMA cost share ($225k).
FLOOD/GRANT UPDATE2016‐17:Construction on Fish Creek roads and trail expected to start by end of 2016. Based on experience with Fish Creek utilities and Larimer County, we expect reimbursements to be timely and on schedule. County is main contact with FHWA (roads); Town is main contact with FEMA (trails).Fish Creek reconstruction current estimate: $5.0m. If all goes as well as it possibly can, our share will be ~$100,000.
1A FUNDS: HIGHLIGHTSAs with General Fund, 1A sales tax revenues are up 12% vs 2014, 5% vs Revised Budget.A total of $3,773,937 has been collected since inception of 1A Funds (July 2014).SALES TAX ‐New 1A fundsJuly ‐Dec 2014 2015 TotalEmergency Response 33,754 60,595 94,349 Community Center 337,537 605,947 943,484 Trails Expansion 168,769 302,973 471,742 Street 810,089 1,454,273 2,264,362 1,350,149 2,423,788 3,773,937
INVESTMENTS: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTSMMF pooled rate increased to 0.50% as of March 1, 2016 from 0.26% on November 30, 2015. Annualized = ~$30,000.Committed $3,000,000 to Treasuries, Instrumentalities, Com Paper, Corp Bonds in last Q.INVESTMENTS (Fair value) Nov‐15 Dec‐15 Jan‐16Town FundsMoney markets/CDs 18,123,149 13,972,693 12,479,756 U.S. Treasuries 3,070,369 3,978,011 3,981,653 U.S. Instrumentalities 4,412,638 6,805,334 6,837,621 Commercial Paper 0 424,215 923,717 Corporate Bonds 1,504,117 1,001,913 1,003,734 subtotal: 27,110,272 26,182,165 25,226,481 RestrictionsCOPs 1,256,211 1,037,047 1,037,416 L&P Bond requirements 450,833 450,947 451,107 FLAP 4,196,186 4,196,382 4,198,801 FOSH/Theater Fund 459,869 459,984 460,134 Total 33,473,371 32,326,525 31,373,939
INVESTMENTS: FUND vs TYPE (Jan 31, 2016)General $3,280,452 Money markets/CDs $12,479,756 Community Reinvestment 1,227,277 US Treasuries 3,981,653 Conservation Trust 58,576 US Instrumentalities 6,837,621 LCOS 344,577 Commericial Paper 923,717 Emergency Response 7,971 Corporate Bonds 1,003,734 Community Center 910,884 Trails 380,831 Streets 2,609,222 L&P 8,440,018 Water 5,309,756 Medical Insurance 460,033 Fleet 86,598 IT 590,262 Vehicle Replacement 1,520,024 RestrictionsCOPs (MPEC) 1,037,416 COPs (MPEC) 1,037,416 L&P Bond 451,107 L&P Bond requirements 451,107 FLAP/RAMP 4,198,801 FLAP/RAMP 4,198,801 FOSH/Theater 460,134 FOSH/Theater 460,134 $31,373,939 $31,373,939
SALES TAX HIGHLIGHTSSales tax coming in at $9.73m pace (blue line).Increasing at 11.5%/yr (maroon line).All time record revenues at all time record pace. Sustainable?
SALES TAX: CAST (STATE WIDE), 2015 v 2014We rank 8th(of 27) in increase. Improvement from 16thin June.We rank 4th of the non‐marijuana communities (marijuana communities in green).
SALES TAX: CAST (STATE WIDE), 2015 v 2012We rank 20th(of 27) in increase.We rank 11th of the 14 non‐marijuana communities (marijuana communities in green).
NEW SALES TAX INFO ON WEBSITE•www.estes.org/finance/salestax•Updates to new funds (including financial statements)•Emergency Response•Community Center•Trails•Streets•Five year history of General Fund•Sectors
END OF PRESENTATIONQUESTIONS?
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
April 27, 2010
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest – Section 24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S.
2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law,
rule, or regulation – Section 24-6-402(4)(c), C.R.S.
4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations –
Section 24-6-402(4)(d), C.R.S.
5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators – Section 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S.
6. For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure
provision of the Colorado Open Records Act – Section 24-6-402(4)(g), C.R.S.
2
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, “all or a portion” of the discussion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney’s opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
_ For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) – The Loop.
_ X For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
____ To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
3
_ _ For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
____ For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal
or state law, rule or regulation: under C.R.S. Section 24-
6-402(4)(c).
_ _ For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements under C.R.S.
Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
____ For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.R.S., the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-72-
204(5.5) C.R.S.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
4
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It is ____Tuesday, March 8, 2016___, and the time is (state time)_.
For the Record, I am ___Bill Pinkham _________________, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro
Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, the executive
session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) for the purpose of determining positions
relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for
negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators – Community Center, is being electronically
recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s):__ Trustees John
Ericson, Bob Holcomb, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and John Phipps. Town
Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, and Town Attorney
White. (Also include any others who will be present for the executive session in this
announcement.)
This is an executive session for the following:
For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) – Community Center.
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor’s discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.