HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-06-28The 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, June 28, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 14, 2016 and Town Board Study Session June
14, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, June 16, 2016.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 18, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 20, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement.
8. Resolution #12-16 Adopting the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS. Applicant
requests to continue to the July 26, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Prepared 6/19/16
*Revised 6/23/16
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
B. MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION. Continued to the August 9, 2016.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #17-16 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE VERIZON WIRELESS LAND
LEASE AGREEMENT. Manager Landkamer.
4. DISCUSSIONS AND REPORT ITEMS:
1. ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE REPORT. Director Bergsten & Tom Gould/HDR.
5. 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 with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District regarding the Estes Valley
Community Center.
24-6-402(4)(b). C.R.S. – For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of
receiving legal advice on specific legal questions related to Ballot Issue 1A and the
Estes Valley Community Center.
6. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 14, 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 14th day of June 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Jay Vetter/County citizen requested the Town Board and County Commissioners review
Temporary Uses and Structures section of the Estes Valley Development Code
because the current process does not notify neighboring properties of the uses and the
right to appeal. The code provides too much latitude to staff and allows them to
customize permits without specific guidance.
Marie Richardson/Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Board member stated with
the approval of the 1A sales tax the voters stated funds should be used to build a
Community Center with a Senior Center. The funds were not approved for a standalone
Senior Center.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen thanked the Town for opening the temporary road for Dry
Gulch construction. She stated disappointment and concern with how difficult it has
been to participate in Town politics. The voters have been misled as it relates to the
Community Center and how the 1A funds are being used.
Art Messal/Town citizen thanked the Town for the opening of the temporary road. He
stated dissatisfaction with the response he has received for the justification of the use of
1A funds. He suggested the Town should require tangible deliverables from entities it
funds such as the Economic Development Council, Visit Estes Park and the Senior
Center. He commented workforce housing has been negatively impacted by vacation
homes in the valley.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Monteverde, Costa Rica delegation would visit Estes
Park on July 5 – 12, 2016. They are scheduled to attend the Town Board meeting on
July 12, 2016 along with the Estes Park Science Exchange.
Trustee Walker commented the Rooftop Rodeo continues to come together for this
year. The Community Development/Community Services Committee would meet on
July 16, 2016 in the Board room.
Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission would meet on June 21,
2016. He and Trustee Walker would attend the annual CML conference.
Board of Trustees – June 14, 2016 – Page 2
Trustee Martchink reported the Parks Advisory Board would meet on June 17, 2016.
He commented he returned from a recent vacation where he participated in the Teton
and Yellowstone races. He encouraged the citizens to get involved in the upcoming
running activities in town.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster introduced Duane Hudson, the Town’s new Finance
Officer.
He commented the Lazy B land use hearing would be postponed to the July 266,
2016 Town Board meeting at the applicant’s request
The Barnes Dance has been re-established at the intersection of Elkhorn and
Moraine and the CSOs have been working the intersection to provide assistance
with pedestrian crossing. CDOT has provided staff with access to the controls at the
intersection, and staff continues to work on the timing cycle to improve traffic flow
through the intersection.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 24, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
May 24, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated May 3, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
4. Platte River Power Authority Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side
Management and Distributed Energy Resource Program Partnership.
5. Light and Power Purchase of Fiber Cable.
6. Appointing Duane Hudson as Town Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (OUTSIDE ENTITIES):
1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Acting Superintendent
Bobowski and Public Information Officer Patterson provided an update on
activities in the Park. Vaughn Baker retired as the Superintendent of the Park
in October 2015. Darla Sidles has been named the new Superintendent
starting August 7, 2016. The Park completed its 100th year anniversary last
year and began celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Park system in 2016.
They provide updates on the snow removal, repairs to bridges and crossings in
the backcountry, Environmental Assessment for repairs and reroutes to flood
damaged trails including Lawn Lake/Ypsilon Lake, Alluvial Fan, Aspen Brook
and Twin Sisters, new fees as of October 2015 including a day use pass,
reminder of upcoming fee free days in the Park (August 25 – August 28 –
National Park Service Birthday, September 24 – National Public Lands Day and
November 11 – Veterans Day). On June 16, 2016, the Park would assist
participants of Ride the Rockies riding from Grand Lake through the Park to
Estes Park. The Park would continue the shuttle system along the Bear Lake
corridor. Park visitation increased significantly in 2015 with the Centennial
celebration and has increased by 28% since 2012, with the shoulder seasons
continuing to grow. With the increase in visitation there are real impacts such
as an increase in illegal wildfires, crime, road rage, dogs on trails, etc.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
Board of Trustees – June 14, 2016 – Page 3
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION CONTINUED TO JUNE 28, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to continue the Mountain
Meadow Annexation to the June 28, 2016 Town Board meeting, and it
passed unanimously.
4. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY OF
ESTES PARK, INC., DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY TO BART'S
LIQUOR, LLC, DBA BART'S LIQUOR, 453 E. WONDERVIEW AVENUE #1,
RETAIL LIQUOR STORE LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the
application to convert the current Liquor Licensed Drugstore to a Retail Liquor
license as allowed in the liquor code. The pharmacy and the liquor store are
being separated by the owner. The pharmacy would be located a few doors
down from the retail liquor store to allow the retail store room to expand. All
required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on
April 22, 2016. TIPS training has been completed by the applicant under their
previous license. Greg Barton/applicant stated he received negative comments
from pharmacy patrons regarding the liquor sales in the pharmacy. The
division would allow him to expand both businesses. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Marchink) to approve the Transfer of Ownership from
Rocky Mountain Pharmacy of Estes Park, Inc., dba Rocky Mountain
Pharmacy to Bart's Liquor, LLC, dba Bart's Liquor, 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue #1, Retail Liquor Store License, and it passed unanimously.
2. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM DIANE L. RAMBEAU, DBA RAMBOS
LONGHORN LIQUOR TO RAMBOS LONGHORN LIQUOR, INC., DBA
RAMBOS LONGHORN LIQUOR, 1640 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, RETAIL
LIQUOR STORE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer
the current Retail Liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were
submitted and a temporary was issued on May 5, 2016. Matt
Rambeau/applicant has completed TIPS training previously as he has been
employed by the previous owner. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Marchink) to approve the Transfer of Ownership from Diane L.
Rambeau, dba Rambos Longhorn Liquor to Rambos Longhorn Liquor,
Inc., dba Rambos Longhorn Liquor, 1640 Big Thompson Avenue, Retail
Liquor Store, and it passed unanimously.
3. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM DCALS, ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA
LONIGAN'S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL TO ESTES IRISH HUB, INC.,
DBA LONIGAN'S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL, 110 W. ELKHORN
AVENUE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the
application to transfer the current Tavern Liquor license. All required paperwork
and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on May 21, 2016. TIPS
training has been completed previous by the owners; however, they have
scheduled a number of employees to attend the upcoming training in June. It
was moved and seconded (Koenig/Martchink) to approve the Transfer of
Ownership from Dcals, Enterprises, Inc., dba Lonigan's Saloon Nightclub
& Grill to Estes Irish Hub, Inc., dba Lonigan's Saloon Nightclub & Grill,
110 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Tavern Liquor License, and it passed unanimously.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #16-16 AMENDING SECTION 17.28 FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Interim Director
Cumbo stated the Municipal Code currently designates the Chief Building
Official as the Town Floodplain Administrator. The duties of the Floodplain
Administrator have significantly grown since the 2013 flood, due primarily to
additional regulatory requirements related to floodplain development permits,
Board of Trustees – June 14, 2016 – Page 4
recovery/mitigation efforts, and relationships with state and federal agencies
and community groups. The proposed Ordinance would provide flexibility to
the Town Administrator in designating which position would be the Floodplain
Administrator. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read
Ordinance #16-16. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve
Ordinance #16-16, and it passed unanimously.
2. 2016 SHUTTLE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIT
ASSOCIATES, INC. Shuttle Coordinator Wells presented the 2016 shuttle
services contract with McDonald Transit stating the contract would be a
continuation of the five-year contract between the Rocky Mountain National
Park and Rocky Mountain Transit Management. The company would continue
operating the buses, lease one vehicle from Davey Coach to be reimbursed by
the Town, and maintain and insure the Town’s trolley. The hourly service rate
for 2016 would be $56.48, which includes routine maintenance, shuttle drivers,
insurance, and fuel costs up to $2.50 a gallon for the five full-service schedule
and additional services provided. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the 2016 agreement with McDonald Transit
Associates Inc., to provide shuttle services for the Town of Estes Park, as
specified in the agreement, and it passed unanimously.
3. MURPHY'S RESORT/ESTES PARK RESORT WATER MAIN EXTENSION
AGREEMENT. Utilities Coordinator Rusch presented a request to add a water
main extension to serve future development by Murphy’s Resort and the Estes
Park Resort and meet fire suppression standards. The extension would
provide a substantial increase in water capacity in the area. A Water Main
Agreement has been drafted by Attorney White, to be signed by both
developers outlining the full cost of installation would be paid by Murphy’s
Lodge upfront. Upon acceptance by the Water division, the Town would
reimburse half the cost and place a 20-year contract on the capacity of the new
main. At the time when Estes Park Resort begins development, expected in
the next two to three years, they would repay the Town for the second half of
the main extension. Both parties would be required to pay for water tap fees
associated with the new development. The proposed main extension has been
estimated at $200,000 and was not budgeted for in 2016. It was moved and
seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve the expenditures in an amount not
to exceed $200,000 for this proposed water main extension project, and it
passed unanimously.
4. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 26, 2016 ON PROPOSED RATE
CHANGES FOR LIGHT AND POWER CUSTOMERS. Director Bergsten
commented the department periodically conducts a rate study to determine the
cost of providing service and projected revenues to ensure continued high-
quality services are provided through timely upgrades to the distribution
system. The study also ensures equitable rates among customer classes. The
Colorado Revised Statutes requires a public hearing and notice be provided
between 30 to 60 days prior to the hearing. A review of the proposed rates
would be heard at the June 28, 2016 meeting and the rate hearing on July 26,
2016. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to set the public
hearing for electric rate increases at the July 26, 2016 Town Board
meeting, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 14, 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
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of June, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE.
Chuck Jordan/Project Manager for the Community Center project presented an update
on the Community Center related to design and cost. The site plan has decreased in
size from the plan presented to the Town in March due to a budget shortfall of nearly $6
million. He stated there has been an increase in construction costs from $270 sq. ft. to
an estimated $412 sq. ft., forcing the District to redesign and decrease the scope of the
building. Value engineering reviewed the scope, quality and market to lower the cost of
construction. The proposed design has removed the warm water pool and reduced a
number of areas including the locker rooms by 25%, the family room, fitness area, gym,
exercise area around the gym, office space for the District and the Senior Center, and
the multi-purpose rooms and Senior Center kitchen are add alternates to the bid. The
overall square footage of the building has decreased with the new design to 49,300 sq.
ft. The building would contain less peaked roofs and more flat roofs.
Board discussion has been summarized: stated concern the Senior Center without the
multipurpose spaces and kitchen would be the same size or smaller than the current
facility; the Senior Center kitchen was to provide a back-up kitchen for the community if
the Community Center was used as an evacuation center in the future; and the
proposed site plan does not meet the requirements of the Senior Center Master Plan
and the growing need for Senior services.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated the reduction of the Senior Center facility
would not meet either the current or future needs of the Center. Placing the kitchen and
multipurpose rooms on the alternate list would effectively reduce the Senior Center by
4,100 sq. ft. and guarantee the Center 5,500 sq. ft. of dedicated space. This would be
1,000 sq. ft. less than the current Center. There would be no guarantee the add
alternates would be added back into the project. The Town would pay a lease for the
new space in addition to the contribution of approximately $5 million in 1A sales tax
money for construction. The Town Board policy guidance at the March 2016 meeting
was no further reduction of the space for the Senior Center. The proposed site plan
would not allow the Senior Center to grow or conduct the services currently offered.
Tom Carosello/Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) Executive Director
stated the Town’s funds of approximately $5 million would be over a 10-year horizon,
therefore, the EVRPD has been reviewing the option of a lease purchase agreement
using District collateral to front the funds needed to build the Community Center. The
dedicated space for the Senior Center has not changed from the March meeting as it
depends on your definition of dedicated space, i.e. gym space, walking track, etc. would
Town Board Study Session – June 14, 2016 – Page 2
be available to the Senior Center. The lease for the Senior Center facilities would be
dependent on the square footage and would not be known until August or September.
Discussion followed on the possibility of the Town pulling its funding for an integrated
Senior Center and using the funds to improve the current facilities or build a new
standalone Senior Center. Executive Director Carosello stated the EVRPD would move
forward and build a Community Center without a Senior Center if the Town pulled its
funding. The Board requested staff review options for the current Senior Center and
provide the Board with the pros and cons of each alternative.
Further Board discussion followed: the reduction of the Senior Center would not achieve
the Boards objectives for the Center; without the Senior Center the multi-generational
concept would be lost; the District has not mentioned the other items not included in the
design such as daycare facilities; without the multipurpose rooms the Town should not
move forward with the Senior Center as part of the Community Center; and the Town
has too many unknowns such as timeline, capital cost, operational cost, lease, and
other terms and conditions that would impact programming at the Senior Center. Mayor
Jirsa requested a special meeting be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss options
for the Senior Center.
DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PRESENTED TO COMMITTEE PRIOR TO TOWN
BOARD REVIEW. At the recent Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee,
staff requested the Board provide staff with direction on what items should be presented
to the Committee for review prior to Town Board action. After discussion, the Board
consensus was to place budgeted items on the consent agenda for Town Board
approval. A policy would be drafted for review by the Town Board to outline the items
that would require Committee review prior to Town Board action.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustees Martchink and Norris met with members of the community to discuss the
formation of a Family Advisory Board. There were 8 different organizations in
attendance and all expressed strong interest in the formation of the Advisory Board to
discuss mutigenerational issues and concerns. A formal letter would be provided for the
Board’s consideration at the upcoming Board Retreat meeting on June 16, 2016.
Mayor Jirsa stated Larimer County Commissioner Tom Donnelly would be convening a
working group to discuss ways to make housing more affordable in Larimer County and
would like a representative of the Town to serve on the working group. Trustees Norris
and Walker stated interest in participating.
Trustee Norris commented there has been concern raised by those living in the Lone
Tree apartments that everyone would have to move out during the renovation of the
units by the Loveland Housing Authority. The units would be done one at a time and
the resident would be provided assistance for alternate housing.
Trustee Norris stated there has been confusion on the date and location of the Mayor
Chats. Citizens have been showing up at the Senior Center for the meetings. Staff
would post the date, time and location of the upcoming Mayor Chats at the Senior
Center.
Trustee Norris commented the feedback on the Barnes Dance has been positive. He
would like to receive additional data on how the traffic has flowed through the
intersections with the addition of the Barnes Dance.
Trustee Nelson commented the Downtown Visioning Committee is not a Planning
Committee for the Town. They are to provide a vision for the downtown. The group is
not directly affiliated with the ongoing transportation discussion.
Town Board Study Session – June 14, 2016 – Page 3
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Downtown Visioning process has been placed on
hold until the Town can receive approval from DOLA on the extension of the grant
funding.
The staff would bring forward possible implications and impacts to the community with
the closure of Hwy 34. Possible suggestions on how to lessen the impact would be
brought forward and discussed with the Board. Trustee Martchink stated the Town
should discuss the traffic impact at the intersection of Mall Road and Hwy 36.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 16, 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
16th day of June, 2016.
Committee: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Attending: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Manager Mitchell, Director Fortini, Manager
Salerno, Coordinator Wells, Senior Planner Chilcott, Interim
Director Cumbo and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Chair Walker 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.
Senior Services Quarterly Report – Manager Mitchell reported that overall
attendance at the Senior Center continues to be strong, with good participation in
the meals programs as well as planned programming, with planned programming
operating at 92% capacity for the period of January through May 2016. She stated
that fitness offerings, such as Zumba, Tai Chi, and N’ Balance, are particularly well-
attended and draw participants of all ages, and noted that a grant for additional staff
training for the N’ Balance program has been received. Beth Headley will receive
training and join current N’ Balance instructors, Kelly Claypool and Diana Laughlin in
conducting classes. The Committee discussed the Senior Center meal program and
the Meals on Wheels program and their importance to the community and to the
members of the Town Board. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek said
alternative ways to retain the meal programs will be explored in the event a
commercial kitchen is not a viable option in the proposed community center.
Museum Quarterly Report – Director Fortini reported on activities which took place
during first quarter 2016. Highlights included: beginning outreach programs for the
community that will continue into 2017, the Town of Estes Park’s centennial year;
the Museum Friends and Foundation is working with the author of a book entitled
“Staking Her Claim” to publish a book about three female homesteaders from Estes
Park which will be sold at the Museum store; the Legendary Locals program was
held during the winter months to draw local participation; staff is working to refine the
Museum’s collection to ensure it is relevant and preserves and reflects the unique
history of Estes Park; changes and updates to exhibits are being reworked, revised
and refurbished; and the natural disaster section is being expanded and will include
oral histories. Director Fortini also noted that a tour of the current facilities is being
planned for the Board of Trustees.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Visitor Center Quarterly Report – Manager Salerno’s first quarter report included the
following: visitor counts were lower as compared to 2015 and may be attributable to
the restroom remodel that took place January through March; telephone inquiries
increased during first quarter 2016; and, in addition to visitor center year-round and
seasonal staff, 65 Ambassadors are trained and ready for the summer season.
Community Development / Community Services – June 16, 2016 – Page 2
Manager Salerno also noted that the Visitor Center staff supports the bear task force
by serving as a warehouse and distribution center for bear task force informational
materials.
Shuttle Update – Coordinator Wells reported that special event trolley service was
available during Winterfest and the Duck Race. Ridership for Winterfest showed a
significant increase over 2015, however, due to inclement weather, ridership during
the Duck Race was minimal. He stated that trolley service will be available during
the Ride the Rockies event to transport bicyclists and guests from the fairgrounds to
Bond Park and downtown venues. He reported that the 12-week summer shuttle
service season will begin on June 25 and noted that maps and schedules are being
distributed. When asked about expanded shuttle service schedules, Coordinator
Wells reported that the Shuttle Committee is researching grants and funding
opportunities that would enable an expansion of service, however, it was determined
not to be a viable option at this time. The Shuttle Committee will continue to monitor
funding opportunities and plans to participate in the 2018-2019 grant cycle. He
spoke to the costs of owning vs. leasing the shuttle service vehicles and stated that
currently the per-rider cost is approximately $5. The Committee requested that
Coordinator Wells compile information related to advertising on the shuttle vehicles,
the current restrictions contained in the Town’s sign code, the effect advertisements
could have on ridership costs, and bring a report forward to the next CDCS
Committee meeting.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
Senior Planner Chilcott brought forward a request from Habitat for Humanity and the
Estes Park Salud Foundation for a waiver of fees related to the development and
construction of two single-family residences and the construction of a parking lot for
Salud Health Center. The fee breakdown is as follows:
Pre-Application Meeting $500
Development Plan $2000
Preliminary Plat $3000
Final Plat $3600
Total $9100
Staff finds that the request complies with the Town’s Fee Waiver policy as the
development is being proposed by “organizations providing low-income health and
human services or low-income housing.” Senior Planner Chilcott noted that the
organizations provided a complete application for review and added that it is likely a fee
waiver for building permit fees will also be requested as the project moves forward. The
Committee recommended the fee waiver be brought before the full Board as an
action item at the July 26, 2016, Town Board meeting.
ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) requested a fee waiver related
to the proposed Community Recreation Center as follows:
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variances (if processed) $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees* $84,083.75
Plan Review Fees** $49,000.00
Subtotal $133,083.75
Total $136,783.75
Community Development / Community Services – June 16, 2016 – Page 3
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $20 million.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the
number of reviews required. The fees could range anywhere from $19,000 to
$49,000.
Discussion is summarized: staff is proceeding with the review of the application so the
process is not delayed; knowing whether or not the waiver is approved would help
EVRPD as they develop a budget for the center and could have an impact on the
bottom line; a request for a waiver for tap fees will likely be forthcoming; the Town is a
partner in this project; and the Town Board has the option to approve or deny the
waiver.
The Committee requested that the Estes Valley Fee Waiver be brought before the
full Board as an action item at the July 26, 2016, Town Board meeting. At that
time, staff will point out the issues involved and options available to the Board.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Verbal Updates – The new fee schedule for development and building fees that was
adopted by the Town Board in February (effective beginning June 1, 2016), was
intended to increase Community Development cost recovery from 26% to 50%.
Staff will track development review costs, building division costs, and costs related to
review by other departments and entities including Utilities, Public Works, and Fire in
order to provide relevant cost data. The data will be reviewed annually with a
proposed 10% yearly increase to eventually achieve 100% cost recovery.
Downtown Plan – The advisory committee recently met with consultants and a
contract will be brought forward to the Town Board in July.
Community Development Positions – Interviews for the Community Development
Director position will be held next week. A job offer was extended to a candidate for
a planning position, however, the candidate declined the offer due to the cost of
housing and commuting. A Permit Tech position and a Plan Examiner position are
open and are necessary due to an increased workload as the spike in development
activities shifts to the Building Division. Contract labor is being utilized for certain
development and building reviews and inspections. Town Administrator Lancaster
noted that difficulties in hiring a Community Development Director may require a
restructuring and change in the current department model. Interim Director Cumbo
noted that even with staffing shortages, work is getting done, customers are being
helped, and applications are being processed.
Code Amendments – Due to staff workloads, code changes have been delayed.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 18th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of May, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Ann Finley
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Tom Street
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Samantha Phillips, Flood Recovery Project Associate
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Gregg Rounds
Belle Morris
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Slack/Finley) to approve the April meeting minutes & the
motion passed unanimously.
Chair Kimberly Campbell welcomed Trustee Bob Holcomb who will be the new trustee
liaison for the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB).
PROJECT UPDATES
The Town would be continuing dialogue with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) involving the Barnes Dance. CDOT had not confirmed that they would make the
conversion or provide files. A proposed sign had been sketched which would be placed
above the push buttons on the downtown intersections. The ownership of the signals
would remain with CDOT while the Town would have the key and the ability to reset them.
Regarding the Loop, the Town was awaiting the EA draft for staff review. The EA will be
submitted publicly at the next public hearing tentatively scheduled for June 29th. The Loop
project is approved unless the Board takes action to halt the project.
Transportation Advisory Board – May 18th, 2016 – Page 2
A draft application for the FLAP Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements had been
submitted to the Town Board. Letters of support had been received and the consultant
had prepared a photo simulation.
The “Finding of No Significant Impact” had been released for the Transit Hub Parking
Structure. The Town is currently waiting for an official answer regarding the request to
move from the north to south site. The Town would be exploring the possibility of taking
a different direction on the construction side and utilizing a CM/GC (Construction
Manager/General Contractor) method which could potentially save time and cost as
opposed to the traditional method.
There had been no changes involving scope or schedule for the Fish Creek project. 36 of
48 property owner agreements had been signed and returned.
The contractors hired for the Dry Gulch project had indicated that the project was still on
schedule and on budget. The utility work was underway as was the water line lowering
and storm drainage culverts. Phase one would tentatively be complete by the end of June.
Approximately two thirds to three quarters of the designated roads had been done with
what was budgeted for the 2016 year regarding the Crack Seal project. The remaining
roads would be rolled into next year’s budget. The roads to be affected were Axminster
Lane, Golf Course Road, and Manford Avenue stretching from Community Drive to the
school. The project will last up to 2 weeks.
The consultants for Fall River Trail would be proceeding into final design and would be
receiving an extension for the delivery date of final documents. The Town would be
entering into a final easement discussion.
TAB INITIATIVES
The Trustees would be meeting in June to determine the 2017 objectives. The TAB
confirmed that paid parking was still a number one priority and would like to see this
implemented no later than summer 2018. The Town would look into public outreach to
gather support.
The TAB discussed the possibility of two extra levels on the Transit Hub Parking Structure
and additional downtown parking. The Town would continue pursuing opportunities for
the Visitor Center parking lot. A more active strategy was discussed to look at funding
Transportation Advisory Board – May 18th, 2016 – Page 3
sources aside from grants. Tom Street proposed a goal of guests leaving their cars before
they enter the corridor to free traffic downtown.
The TAB was interested in setting up a meeting to learn more about the Rocky Mountain
National Park and its history of shuttles.
The TAB would be addressing the ongoing issue of bike lanes in the downtown area. The
TAB would be asking the Town Board to renew the objective.
The Town would be reaching out to downtown business owners to discuss incentives for
employee parking. The TAB would like to see the locals in mind rather than outsourcing
the work. The TAB would like if the Town hired a consultant to facilitate action with an
implementation plan and not a study.
The TAB would be taking a memo to the Town Board asking that these objectives be
added to the list of 2017 objectives and would be working on the action strategy for the
June meeting.
A motion was made to support two 2017 objectives for the Town Board. The first being
an action plan for paid parking downtown and employee parking with a goal to
implement this program by the 2018 peak season. The second being to pursue funding
opportunities for the Fall River Trail and two additional levels on the Transit Hub Parking
Structure. The motion was made (Slack) and seconded (Street) and was passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:47 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 20, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of May, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (conference call)
Vicki Papineau
Ronna Boles (& Paige the Baby)
Also Present: Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Flood Recovery Project Associate
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Trustee Liaison
Lars Sage, Estes Arts District
Absent: Carlie Bangs
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the April meeting minutes
with corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
The Parks Advisory Board (PAB) introduced and welcomed the new trustee liaison,
Patrick Martchink. Lars Sage of the Estes Arts District joined the meeting as an official
liaison for the Board and would have a standing agenda item for updates in future
meetings.
Parks Advisory Board – May 20th, 2016 – Page 2
The Board summarized the successes of the Mountain Heritage Festival. It was
suggested that the PAB extend the Festival another day next year (Friday & Saturday)
and add more activities for community turnout. The PAB also discussed ideas for the
2017 Mountain Heritage Festival including beer, food vendors, and bands.
The Parks Division installed artificial turf at Tregent Park where there had previously
been difficulty growing natural grass. Supervisor Berg would give the PAB an update at
the June meeting. The interactive musical instrument had broken ground and the Parks
Division would begin searching for the gas line with plans to finish before the end of the
May. The Sunrise Rotary donated $5K to the Town for an additional musical instrument
which would be placed on Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing so we can complete the
musical walkway. The PAB expressed concerns about the steep dredge area of the
bank and discussed the possibility of a warning sign for citizens. This concern would be
passed onto the Bureau of Reclamation.
Chair Lebeau would be providing feedback for the Community Development plant list
finalization. The original list was set to be merged with any recommendations followed
by a reformatted structure. Reformat the structure. The completed and updated list
would be sent to PAB members.
AIPP ARTWORK SELECTION
Lars Sage, Estes Arts District (EAD), introduced the proposed artwork for the outside
wall of the public restroom facing the street. The EAD felt that displayed artwork would
brighten up this area. If permanent, the mural would be oil-based but semi-permanent
options would also be available. The proposal is an artwork of Bigfoot due to the recent
lore in the area. The Board was concerned about promoting the connection between Big
Foot and Estes Park. Director Muhonen mentioned the possibility of the artwork being
re-designed as a bear or elk which would be indigenous/relative to the area. The PAB
requested Lars Sage reintroduce the idea once a new image had been designed.
Parks Advisory Board – May 20th, 2016 – Page 3
Director Muhonen believed there was a standing ordinance against putting murals on
town walls only if it has a marketing image or symbol. Chair Lebeau would confirm the
ordinance before the new image is brought back before the PAB. The PAB voted ‘no’ on
the existing mural design.
Director Muhonen mentioned that the LOOP Project would remove this restroom,
therefore a semi-permanent solution would be the best option.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
The Parks Division would begin repairing drainage in the outside children’s reading area
of the library. The sculpture grant that the library received was not enough for an
original bronze piece. The library would be discussing different options for moving
forward.
There was no update on the tunnel tiles or lighting project as they were still in Colorado
Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) hands.
The Parks Division would be repairing the arboretum and the plants are to be put into
rock work on Elkhorn Avenue on June 25th, 2016. Perennials and annuals would be
added over the following weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
Lars Sage informed the PAB that on the first weekend in June, the ‘Arts in Estes’
weekend would be taking place. Maps would be finalized and public outreach would be
through the Estes Park news.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Attorney Greg
White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, April 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
3. PORTION OF TRACT B, THE KEEP MINOR LAND DIVISION; ROBISON CABINS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2016‐03, 1220 Griffith Court
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant requested the public hearing be continued to the June 21,
2016 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Hull stated public comment would be taken, but it
would be better to provide the public comment at the June public hearing so those comments
could be heard by the applicant.
Public Comment
Ned Sequin/County resident stated he thought there was going to be a special study session
today on this agenda item. Interim Director Cumbo was not aware of a special study session. She
stated the application was not fully processed and was not ready to take to a public hearing.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to continue Development Plan 2016‐03 to the June 21,
2016 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously.
4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016‐01, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, 1665 Spur 66
Chair Hull stated this item was continued at the April meeting, at the request of the Planning
Commission. Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. Because this meeting was continued, he
would not provide the full staff report again. He stated the proposed site is a 5‐acre portion of the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
30+ acre parcel that currently contains the Elk Meadow RV Park, and is within the town limits. The
proposed use is a chuckwagon dinner and live performance in a facility just under 18,000 square
feet. 192 parking spaces and landscaping are also part of the development plan. The project
would be completed in three phases. The use for this special review is categorized in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major, which is permitted by
Special Review as a principal use in the A–Accommodations zone district.
At the April meeting, the Commission requested additional information pertaining to the Special
Review Development Plan for the chuckwagon dinner and performance facility. Requested
information included additional details on the temporary use classification (mainly regarding the
tent) and Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) input on the Spur 66 and Highway 36
intersection. The Commission desired to give the applicant additional time to address parking
concerns with the adjacent business, Rock Inn Mountain Tavern.
Regarding the tent, Planner Gonzales stated the application proposal falls under the use
classification Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. Phase 1 of the proposal includes a temporary
tent. The Planning Commission questioned whether or not the use of a temporary tent was
considered “indoor.” The Estes Valley Fire Protection District and the Town of Estes Park Division
of Building Safety classify this tent as a structure. The Division of Building Safety would also
require building permits for use of a tent over 180 days. Therefore, staff determined the use
would take place within a structure, making it an indoor use.
Regarding the Spur 66 & Highway 36 intersection, Planner Gonzales stated CDOT felt the
development proposal did not pose a major impact on the overall traffic situation at this location.
CDOT commented they are opposed to a four‐way stop sign at this intersection at this time. They
stated future traffic conditions may warrant reconsidering their position on traffic mitigation at
this intersection.
Regarding the Rock Inn parking concerns, Planner Gonzales stated the Commissioners can ask the
applicant about any discussions that may have occurred.
Planner Gonzales provided additional information regarding the temporary use. He stated the
Temporary Use Permit was approved in February, 2016, for events occurring from May 15
through September 30, 2016. Operating hours are 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. daily. Staff used the provisions
found in the EVDC to allow a Temporary Use Permit for longer than 30 days for this type of use.
The approved permit allows up to 250 people in the existing lodge building at the RV Park.
Planner Gonzales stated this is the third consecutive year the Lazy B has been issued a temporary
use permit at this location. Parking associated with the temporary use will occur in the overflow
portion of the RV site located along Mills Drive. Temporary use permits are reviewed by staff, and
further discussion at this meeting is outside the purview of the Commission. Planner Gonzales
invited those with questions to call or visit the Community Development Department.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner White was concerned about possible wildlife issues if the temporary tent was
being used for dining. She spoke with Police Chief Kufeld, who told Commissioner White he would
like to meet with the applicant to discuss the new wildlife ordinance. Other comments included
but were not limited to: (1) The western portion of the existing pond is considered a wetland,
which requires a 50‐foot setback. The applicant requested a minor modification to encroach 2.6
feet into the wetland setback. Staff approved this minor modification, as the amount of the
encroachment was within staff’s authority to do so. There is also another wetland area on the
site, which has a 50‐foot setback and will not be encroached upon. Historically, stormwater has
drained into the existing pond, and that will not change. The method the stormwater drains into
the pond will be changed to drain through piping rather than sheet flow. The drainage report was
approved by Town Engineer Kevin Ash; (2) There were concerns of conflicts in the EVDC’s Special
Review provisions regarding principal and accessory uses. Under the “indoor use” provision, there
are no additional provisions stating it must be an accessory use; therefore, it was interpreted as a
principal use permitted by Special Review. The EVDC clearly allows several uses as principal uses
unless there are additional regulations. It was suggested the code conflicts be identified and
amended to clarify and eliminate unintended consequences on future projects.
Public comment
Troy Krening/attorney representing applicant stated his assignment was to meet with the owners
of the Rock Inn. He errored and did not meet at the scheduled time. He took full responsibility for
not attending the meeting.
Chair Hull stated the Planning Commission is tightly bound by the Estes Valley Development Code.
If a person commented at the last meeting, it is not necessary to speak again today, as those
comments are a part of the public record. Public comments today will be limited to three
minutes.
Ed Grueff/county resident stated when the former Lazy B was here, he always took his guests
there and it was a positive experience. He has no stake in this application. He offered his
volunteer assistance to the applicant to assist with their food service. There are procedures in
place for food cleanup and storage to not attract wildlife, including animal‐resistant trash
containers. He believes this project is an opportunity to get people to invest in the community
without having to come up with any more money. He thinks people will stay in Estes Park longer
when they have this type of event to attend. He did not think light pollution would be an issue,
since it would still be fairly light when the show ended. Food is already being cooked at many of
the camp sites in the Elk Meadow RV Park, so he did not see food service as an issue. He has
heard many rumors about this project, and was disappointed in the immaturity of many involved
against the proposal. Mr. Grueff stated the Lazy B would be good, healthy entertainment for the
town and he was supportive of the project.
Charley Dickey/town resident stated the Planning Commission decision today would be a
testament to the ability to find a balance between property rights of land owners and adjacent
property owners and business development in the Estes Valley. He stated it did not appear this
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
issue would be resolved by compromise and the recommendation by the Planning Commission
would only satisfy one side. Michelle Oliver and her business partners have the right to use the
property as allowed in the EVDC. He had a similar experience with a construction project near his
home. Attorneys became involved, and the result was not in favor of the HOA. Another
development project at the Elkhorn Lodge did not come to fruition due to local opposition and
lack of support. Mr. Dickey conducted an unofficial survey regarding the Lazy B project and
submitted the comments received as public comment.
Paul Fishman/town resident stated a big issue at last month’s meeting was traffic. He stated the
developer would not incur the added expense for a turn lane if CDOT or Larimer County didn’t
require one. The proposed turn lane would be located in a right‐of‐way area, not on the Rock
Inn’s property. According to the developer, there are plans to subdivide the property, which
would require a separate entrance off of Mills Drive. The applicant has met the requirements of
the EVDC. He supported the project, and encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval
to the Town Board.
Alec Hodges/Estes Valley resident stated close attention should be paid to how development is
guided in the Estes Valley. He was concerned about wildlife entering the tent, and stated the live
music in the tent would violate the codes. He questioned the “indoor use” classification. He
stated the local economy could not support a business such as the Lazy B, especially with the
proposed performing arts center and the event center at the fairgrounds. However, he was
supportive of a sidewalk along Mills drive to reduce risk to pedestrians. He stated although the
Lazy B offered to allow Rock Inn patrons to use Lazy B’s parking lot before 5:30 and after 8:00, it
would not be a workable solution since their busiest time is 5‐8 p.m.
Ned Sequin/county resident stated traffic coming out of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)
following an afternoon rain shower is very heavy and would create gridlock. He is not opposed to
the project, but does not think the proposed location is the appropriate place.
Art Messal/town resident stated he was not associated with the drama or organizations involved
in this proposal. He stated this project is in conflict with uses in the A–Accommodations zone
district. He did not agree with the classification as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. He stated
this project was irresponsible, as traffic is already heavy at this time of day. He stated the tourism
mentality worked when he was in middle school, but now there is a “tourism at all costs”
approach. Mr. Messal stated there is a time period each summer when “Estes is simply full.” He
was opposed to the type of tourism that affects many and benefits few. He stated this project
would lower the quality of life for Estes Park residents. He stated the project does not meet the
EVDC requirements, did not comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and he was
opposed to it.
Michelle Hiland/town resident stated she was concerned the zoning regulations had not been
interpreted correctly. She was concerned about traffic and the timing of the Lazy B’s operating
hours. She was concerned about the temporary structure attracting bears. She was opposed to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
taking away parking from neighboring businesses; however, stated a sidewalk should be built
along Mills Drive to increase pedestrian safety. She did not think the benefits of an additional
tourist attraction would benefit the area. She was opposed to the project.
Marcia Rothschild/town resident stated she was a part of the Barleen family, who ran a similar
business in Estes Park for decades. Eventually, the business moved out of Estes Park because it
was not sustainable. She was concerned about the success of the proposed Lazy B venture. She
stated the Rock Inn was listed as one of the top five historical places to visit in Estes Park. She was
opposed to the project and the negative affect it would have on the Rock Inn.
Bryan Gillam/Rock Inn business partner stated what friends of the Rock Inn have done or written
is not the Rock Inn’s responsibility and the Rock Inn has not directly told them what to do;
therefore, the Rock Inn cannot be held responsible for those actions. He stated they were willing
to listen to the Lazy B, but felt disrespected when Mr. Krening did not attend the meeting and did
not apologize. He has begun taking video recordings to be able to set the record straight. He did
not think this project fit within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. He was opposed to the
project.
John Vernon/county resident stated traffic would be a big issue because people would be coming
to the Lazy B at the same time many people are leaving RMNP. He stated a commercial
enterprise this close to the RMNP boundary was irresponsible. This proposal represents predatory
business practices at its worst, meaning it would hurt the historic Rock Inn. He felt the code
contradicts itself, and wondered why is staff supporting the project instead of supporting the
spirit of the zoning code.
Ann Vernon/county resident was disappointed the Lazy B’s attorney did not attend the meeting
with the owners of the Rock Inn. She was opposed to staff’s interpretation of the EVDC relating to
zoning. She was concerned about the crowds, traffic, noise, etc. related to this project. She stated
both the Planning Commissioners and Staff should be unbiased to both the developer and the
citizens. She encouraged the developer to find a different location for this project.
Mike Bilos/town resident stated he thinks there were more people that signed “the petition”
than the number of people that voted in the last election.(NOTE: Petition referred to was
submitted by Bryan Gillam, business partner of the Rock Inn.) He was opposed to the project at
the proposed location. He thought the Town should consider subsidizing the project at a different
location, and it would be in the Town’s best interest to help the developer find a different
location.
Meryl Noyes/county resident stated the widening of Mills Drive will take away the parking space
in front of her house.
Kaci Yoh/town resident finished Alec Hodges’ comments. She was concerned about the
intersection of Hwy 66 and Hwy 36, and wondered who the responsible party would be if the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
intersection was to be rated as “F” by CDOT. She thinks the Town Board and Planning Staff would
be responsible for any future intersection rating. She was opposed to a project that would have a
negative effect on a year‐round business. She thought the media was biased and pushed the big
business agenda without considering the quality of life for residents. In the coming years we will
have many decisions to make regarding development in Estes Park.
Johanna Darden/town resident was concerned that Colorado Parks and Wildlife was not
consulted about this proposed development. She stated the review of the proposal shows an
unmapped wetlands, and she questioned the qualifications of the person selected to conduct the
wetland delineation study. She stated the noise could be disturbing to the campers at Elk
Meadow RV Park.
Troy Krening/applicant representative stated on May 12, 2016 RMNP provided a comment
regarding the project, stating the Park took a neutral stand on the project. There have been
comments about the success of the business, which is not in the purview of the Planning
Commission. The parking problem at the Rock Inn (parking in the right of way) is not the Lazy B’s
problem. He stated the town is now aware of the problem at the Rock Inn. Mr. Krening stated
Larimer County is requiring the turn lane, not the Lazy B developers. Elk Meadow RV Park (130
spaces) guests will most likely be attending the Lazy B dinner and show, which will reduce the
amount of traffic. Mr. Krening reminded the Commissioners that CDOT did not see this
development proposal as negatively affecting the traffic flow at the intersection of Hwy 36 and
Hwy 66pur 66. This proposed project is about whether or not the applicant meets the code and
whether or not staff has provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make an
informed decision. He encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval of the proposed
project. He stated the viciousness, personal attacks, and disrespect directed to Ms. Oliver and Mr.
Jackson are unconscionable. He stated a harmonious relationship between the Lazy B and the
Rock Inn will probably not happen, and reminded the Planning Commissioners that a compromise
with the Rock Inn is not part of the decision being made today. He urged the Commission to
recommend approval of the Lazy B project.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner White stated the Commission cannot base their decisions on community surveys,
popularity contests, parking conflicts, or behavior. There were over 250 pages of public comment
posted to the Town website and read by the Commissioners. The Planning Commission
recommendation is based on whether the applicant mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible,
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment. Commissioner White stated she would not be supportive of this project because
she did not think the applicant mitigated those impacts to the maximum extent feasible. She
referred to the comment issued by RMNP regarding this project. Estes Park is a gateway
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
community to RMNP, and that is the primary reason people visit this area. We need to be mindful
of the Park and the relationship we have with them.
Commissioner Schneider stated he still had concerns regarding the wetland area and potential
runoff from the impervious surfaces. He stated the environment we have to protect includes not
only the wildlife and vegetation, but also the human environment.
Commissioner Hills appreciated all those citizens that provided public comment for and against
the project. She had concerns about the traffic and the proposed turn lane. There are other areas
in town where people back out from parking spaces directly into traffic. The Rock Inn does not
have to be negatively impacted by the turn lane. Overall, her concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Klink stated this recommendation was a difficult one. He stated parking at the Rock
Inn does not seem to be a real issue. He was bothered by the impression that it was the
government’s job to determine if a competitive business moves in next door. Competition is part
of running a business. According to the EVDC, the applicant is responsible for mitigating traffic for
one‐quarter mile (1800 feet) from the proposed site. The intersection discussed today is more
than 1800 feet from the site, so the Planning Commission cannot use that intersection as part of
their recommendation. He stated the fundamental issue is the interpretation of the zoning code
for a project like this. Integrity demands we interpret the code in a balanced manner, and if we
error, we error on the side of impacts to our residents and visitors. When the Supreme Court
looks as cases, they look at the intent of the people that were writing the code. There are lots of
things that conflict. He thinks this application is an accessory use to true accommodations, and he
struggles with making a recommendation where he believes the code has been misinterpreted.
Commissioner Klink stated if the Commission recommends approval, he would like to see the
sidewalk along Mills Drive be required, based on the testimony of public comments.
Chair Hull stated the Commission is tightly bound by the parameters of the EVDC. The Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide. She agreed with Planner Gonzales that there are some
gray areas of the EVDC. With that in mind, Accommodations zoning allows for a variety of
commercial uses as accessory uses located inside the same structure as the principal use. She
quoted from the EVDC, Entertainment Event, Major. She did not see this provision as applying to
an event that occurs every day in the summer. She would not support the project for these
reasons.
Commissioners Moon and Murphree had no comments.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Schneider) to recommend disapproval of the Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers Special Review to the Town Board and the motion passed 4‐3. Commissioners
Schneider, White, Klink, and Hull voted in favor, with Commissioners Hills, Murphree, and
Moon opposed.
REPORTS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1. Interim Director Cumbo reported the Town hopes to have a contract awarded at the next
Town Board meeting for a new consultant for the Downtown Plan.
2. Interim Director Cumbo reported the Voeks Appeal, Boundary Line Adjustment and
Rezoning, as well as the Mountain Meadow Final Subdivision Plat were approved at the
May 16th County Commission meeting. Planner Gonzales added a fee waiver request for
the Voeks Rezoning request was denied by the County Commissioners.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
POLICE DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Captain Eric Rose
Date: June 28, 2016
RE: Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement
Objective:
To approve the Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement.
Present Situation:
This agreement is to allow for mutual aid between Larimer County whenever there is an
urgent or possible significant event that poses threats to the general welfare of the
public, public health, public safety or property. This agreement is to provide and
authorize mutual assistance in emergency situations whether natural or human caused
which requires additional resources.
Proposal:
Approval to renew the Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement.
Advantages:
In the event of any emergency requiring additional resources this agreement is in place
for assistance.
Disadvantages:
There are no disadvantages to entering into this agreement
Action Recommended:
Recommend Board Approval of the Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual
Aid Agreement.
Budget:
No budget implications for this mutual aid agreement. Reimbursement costs could
apply after first twelve hour operational period. Costs and resource allocations would
be upon approval of the Administrative staff and/or Town Board.
Level of Public Interest:
Public interest level low.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend approve/deny of the Mutual Aid Agreement by the Town Board
Attachments:
Mutual Aid Agreement for Disaster-Emergency Mutual Aid and Disaster-Emergency
Funding Assistance.
POLICE DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Captain Eric Rose
Date: June 28, 2016
RE: Resolution #12-16 Adopting the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Objective:
To adopt Resolution #12-16 as required by FEMA and accept the updated Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park adopted the current Northern Colorado Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan between the Larimer County, Berthoud, Estes Park, Fort Collins,
Loveland, and Wellington in 2010. Local governments must continue to improve their
abilities to respond to natural, man-made, and hazardous materials hazards. It is
imperative that different levels of community government be able to work together to
develop approaches and responses that mitigate potential hazards. As a result of a
collaborative effort, the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan has
been developed to help guide the mitigation efforts and activities of the various
communities within Larimer County. This plan lists potential hazards or disasters that
could occur within Larimer County (wildfires, severe winter storms, or floods) and
planning methods to mitigate such incidents.
Proposal:
The plan has been updated to meet the requirements established by Title 44 CFR
Section 201.6 and has been reviewed by FEMA for completeness. FEMA requires a
formal Resolution be adopted by the local jurisdictions and forwarded to FEMA and its
Colorado counterpart before FEMA will officially approve the Plan. Approval of the
Mutual Aid Agreement for Disaster Emergency may be approved by motion as FEMA is
not involved in this Agreement. The adoption of the plan is required prior to the local
jurisdiction requesting official grant close-out from FEMA.
Advantages:
Mitigate identified hazards, ensuring quick and effective recovery following disasters,
reducing future vulnerability, enhancing coordination within and across participating
organizations, expediting recovery funds and demonstrating a commitment to improve
health and safety within our community. The plan is FEMA compliant, which provides for
eligibility for funding and technical assistance from State and Federal hazard mitigation
programs. This plan does not affect any existing agreements; however, it provides
additional protection for all-hazard events where other agreements do not apply.
Disadvantages:
There are no disadvantages to adopting this resolution.
Action Recommended:
Adopt Resolution #12-16
Budget:
No budget implications
Level of Public Interest:
Not a high level of public interest.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #12-16 adopting the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Attachments:
Resolution #12-16
Executive Summary Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 12-16
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LARIMER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, Larimer County, including the Town of Estes Park, has experienced past flooding,
wildfires and other natural and human-caused hazard events that pose risks to public health and
safety and which may cause serious property damage; and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been
developed by the Mitigation Planning Committee, including personnel from twenty-seven different
jurisdictions within Larimer County, including the Town of Estes Park, and partner organizations; and
WHEREAS, the planning process by all participating Larimer County jurisdictions and
agencies offered the opportunity to consider natural and human-caused hazards and risks, and to
identify mitigation actions to reduce future impacts of such hazards; and
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends
mitigation actions that will help minimize and reduce safety threats and damage to private and public
property; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park desires to formally adopt the Larimer County Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK:
1. The Town of Estes Park hereby adopts the May 2016 Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town of Estes Park.
2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are authorized to submit this Resolution
and any related documents to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK on this ___ day of _________________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Town Clerk
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Date: June 23, 2016
RE: Verizon Land Lease Agreement – 1st Amendment
Objective:
Approve the amended lease agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon,
to grant them the ability to install, and operate, cell phone communication equipment
and antenna in the Moraine/Weist parking lot.
Present Situation:
Verizon’s temporary lease on another building is expiring and they have been working
with the Town of Estes Park to find a site downtown that is on a Town owned property
or building. The current site was identified as a potential site when a solution for a cell
phone antenna site on the roof of Town Hall could not be accomplished. Through the
review process, Public Works Engineering requested that the proposed construction
plans show that a 24’ wide drive lane be maintained through the area of new
construction, with a centerline painted to help direct the vehicular traffic through the
parking lot.
Proposal:
This lease agreement will not generate expense, but will generate $18,000 per year in
revenue from Verizon. The location of the cell phone communications station will greatly
improve service for Town of Estes Park visitors and businesses particularly in the
downtown area.
Advantages:
Improved cell phone service in the downtown area for visitors and businesses.
Generate revenue that could be used for maintenance of Town owned facilities .
Disadvantages:
Visual impact of a cell phone tower in the downtown area , however, there are
currently cell phone antennas on top of privately owned buildings in the
downtown area.
Action Recommended:
Public Works recommends that the Town Board of Trustees authorize the Mayor to sign
the lease agreement, and allow Verizon to proceed with the installation and operation of
the communications equipment as described in the land lease agreement, Exhibit A,
Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. Construction documents have been submitted to Town of
Estes Park Planning Department for review and approval.
Budget:
No budget necessary for this request. Staff coordination time and review by Town
Attorney White have been the only costs associated with this request.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate: There was some public comment during the review of this plan through the
Community Development process.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Verizon Land Lease Agreement as
presented.
ORDINANCE NO. 17-16
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE VERIZON
WIRELESS SITE AT MORAINE/WEIST PARKING LOT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is appropriate to enter into a land lease agreement with Verizon
Wireless for the construction and maintenance of a wireless communications antenna in
the Moraine/Weist parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows:
1. The Land Lease Agreement for the wireless communications antenna
between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon Wireless, Exhibit A, Exhibit
B, and Exhibit C, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, is hereby approved. The officials of the Town of
Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute the Lease.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,
2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
Site Name: FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
096003.701First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement
Active/43180850.1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND LEASE AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”)
is made and entered into as of the _______ day of ________________, 20___, between the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation, with a mailing address of 170
MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80017 (“Lessor”), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal offices at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100,
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 (“Lessee”). Lessor and Lessee are referred to individually as
a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Lessor and Lessee are parties to that certain Lease Agreement dated May 25, 2016
(the “Agreement”), whereby Lessor leased to Lessee a portion of the property located in Lots 5A
and 5B and the alley adjacent thereto in the First Resubdivision of Buena Vista Terrace (the
“Property”) as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A.
B. Pursuant to a requirement of the Public Works Department, the driveway in front
of the Lessee’s lease area (within which Lessee’s access and utility easement is located) was
widened. Lessor and Lessee now desire to amend the Agreement to replace Exhibit B and
Exhibit C to the Agreement with Exhibit B and Exhibit C attached hereto. The new exhibits will
reflect the new width of the driveway in front of Lessee’s lease area.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The Parties hereby replace Exhibit B and Exhibit C to the Agreement with Exhibit
B and Exhibit C attached hereto. The new exhibits reflect the newly widened driveway.
2. Except as specifically modified by this First Amendment, all of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Neither Party is in default of
the Agreement as of the date of this First Amendment. In the event of a conflict between any
term or provision of the Agreement and this First Amendment, the terms and provisions of this
First Amendment shall control. All captions are for reference purposes only and shall not be
used in the construction or interpretation of this First Amendment. All capitalized terms used but
not defined in this First Amendment have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.
FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
2
Site Name: FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
096003.701First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement
Active/43180850.1
This First Amendment has been executed by each Party’s duly authorized representative
effective as of the date first above written.
LESSOR:
The Town of Estes Park
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
LESSEE:
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC
d/b/a Verizon Wireless
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
Site Name: FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
096003.701First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement
Active/43180850.1
EXHIBIT “A”
(Description of Property)
Legal Description: A portion of Lots 5A and 5B, together with a portion of the alley adjacent
thereto, and being described as a 16’ – 9” by 52’ parcel containing approximately 666 square
feet, located in the FIRST RESUBDIVISION OF BUENNA VISTA TERRACE, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado.
FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
Site Name: FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
096003.701First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement
Active/43180850.1
EXHIBIT “B”
(Site Plan)
FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
Site Name: FTC Redrum Alt. 5 (Amendment)
096003.701First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement
Active/43180850.1
EXHIBIT “C”
(Survey)
Light & Power Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Tom Gould, VP Financial Services, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Date: June 28, 2016
RE: Electric Rate Increase Report
Objective:
To share results from HDR’s rate study prior to the public hearing. The public hearing
will be held at 7:00 p.m. during the July 26, 2016 Town Board Meeting in the Town
Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue. At that time Light and Power will request the
Town Board to take action on the proposed rate schedule.
Present Situation:
To ensure continued high-quality utility services and plan for future upgrades through
capital improvement projects, we periodically review the cost of providing services as
well as projected revenue – the rates paid by customers. The Town’s public electric
utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees to operate. Costs and
revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations and keep utilities in line with
ever-increasing federal standards. Rate studies also ensure equitable rates among
customer classes, so that one customer class does not subsidize another.
The rate study recommends a rate increase which will be proposed at the July 26, 2016
Town Board Meeting.
Proposal:
Based on the rate study, Light and Power will propose rates increases as follows:
September 1, 2016 6.25%
January 1, 2017 5.50%
January 1, 2018 5.50%
January 1, 2019 5.00%
June 28, 2016
Overview of the
Electric Rate Study
Presented by:
Tom Gould
Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2
Overview of the Presentation
•Review draft final rate study results
•Receive Board policy direction
•Next steps
3
Key Assumptions of the Study
Revenue Requirement
•Starting point is the adopted 2016 Budget
–O&M is escalated by annual inflationary factors
–Projected expenses over the 5-year review period
•Developing a capital funding plan
–Based on the current capital improvement plan
Cost of Service
•Allocate 2016 revenue requirement
–Functionalize costs (general plant, distribution)
–Classify costs into the appropriate component (energy, demand, customer)
–Allocate costs to customer classes (residential, commercial)
Rate Design
•Current rate structure is maintained for all customers
–2 options were developed for the Town
–Customer charge, energy charge (kWh), and demandcharge (kW) where applicable
•Reset the Power Cost Adjustment
Revenue Requirement
Analysis
5
Revenue Requirement –
Draft Final Results
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Revenue Requirement - ($000s)
Total O&M Expenses Taxes & Transfers Debt Service
Rate Funded Capital Current Total Revenue
6
Revenue Requirement - Summary
•Revenue adjustments are necessary
–Annual O&M expenses
–Capital improvement to maintain the system
–Existing annual debt service
–Taxes and Transfers
•Bond required reserves
–Required minimum of 90 days of O&M
•Minimum achieved with proposed rate adjustments
Rate Transition Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019
ProposedRate Adjustments 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Cost of Service
Analysis
8
Cost of Service – Draft Final Results
- Recommend no cost of service adjustments at this time
9
Cost of Service – Summary
Minor cost differences between the customer
classes of service
Reflects customer usage and facility
requirements
Results in fair and equitable rates
Provides the Board with information for rate
structure policy decisions
Cost of service is one tool in the rate making t
Recommend “across the board”
implementation of proposed rate adjustment
Rate Design Analysis
11
Overview of the Current Electric Rates
•Current rate structure
–Fixed customer charge
•Varies by class of service
–Also varies by season for some customers
–Energy Charge (kWh)
•Varies by class of service
–Also varies by season for some customers
–Demand Charge (kW)
•Varies by class of service where applicable
–Also varies by season for some customers
12
Overview of the Proposed Rate Design
•Maintain current rate structure
–Only the level of the rates has been adjusted
•Increasing customer charge (fixed charge)
–Better reflection of fixed costs on the system
•Option 1 – adjust by $3.00/mo./yr. (Residential)
•Option 2 – adjust by $4.00/mo./yr. (Residential)
•All other customers’ fixed charges are adjusted proportionally
•Other rate components (kWh and kW) were adjusted to meet the target rate revenue
•Proposed rates will result in resetting the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)
–Purchase Power Rider
13
Residential Rate Design – Option 1
Present and Proposed Rates
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Residential $/Mo.
Customer Charge $6.70 $9.70 $12.70 $15.70 $18.70
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.10075 $0.11055 $0.11210 $0.11405 $0.11570
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Residential Demand
Customer Charge $/Mo.
Sept - April $7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50
May - Aug 6.70 9.70 12.70 15.70 18.70
Energy Charge $/kWh
Sept - April $0.06021 $0.06607 $0.06699 $0.06816 $0.06914
May - Aug 0.10075 0.11055 0.11210 0.11405 0.11570
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Demand Charge $/kW
Sept - April $10.62 $11.95 $12.45 $13.00 $13.50
May - Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present
Rates
14
Residential Rate Design – Option 2
Present and Proposed Rates
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Residential $/Mo.
Customer Charge $6.70 $10.70 $14.70 $18.70 $22.70
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.10075 $0.10885 $0.10890 $0.10920 $0.10950
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Residential Demand
Customer Charge $/Mo.
Sept - April $7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10
May - Aug 6.70 10.70 14.70 18.70 22.70
Energy Charge $/kWh
Sept - April $0.06021 $0.06505 $0.06508 $0.06526 $0.06544
May - Aug 0.10075 0.10885 0.10890 0.10920 0.10950
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Demand Charge $/kW
Sept - April $10.62 $12.00 $12.50 $13.10 $13.60
May - Aug 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present
Rates
15
Residential Rate Design – Option 1 and 2
Bill Impacts
2016 2017 2018 2019
Option 1 $87.09 $91.17 $95.54 $99.69
Option 2 $86.90 $90.93 $95.14 $99.35
Present Rates $77.23 $77.23 $77.23 $77.23
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Residential Monthly Bill Impacts @ 700 kWh
16
Residential TOD Rate Design – Option 1
Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Residential Energy TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.11900 $0.13650 $0.14150 $0.14700 $0.15200
Off-Peak 0.05946 0.06820 0.07070 0.07345 0.07595
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Residential Basic TOD
Customer Charge $/Mo.
Sept - April $7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50
May - Aug $6.70 $9.70 12.70 15.70 18.70
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.11946 $0.13400 $0.14000 $0.14750 $0.15200
Off-Peak 0.09567 0.10731 0.11212 0.11813 0.12173
Sept - April 0.10075 0.11055 0.11210 0.11405 0.11570
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Present
Rates
17
Residential TOD Rate Design – Option 2
Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Residential Energy TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.11900 $0.13650 $0.14130 $0.14700 $0.15200
Off-Peak 0.05946 0.06820 0.07060 0.07345 0.07595
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Residential Basic TOD
Customer Charge $/Mo.
Sept - April $7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10
May - Aug $6.70 $10.70 14.70 18.70 22.70
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.11946 $0.13500 $0.14000 $0.14750 $0.15300
Off-Peak 0.09567 0.10812 0.11212 0.11813 0.12253
Sept - April 0.10075 0.10885 0.10890 0.10920 0.10950
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Present
Rates
18
Commercial Rate Design – Option 1
Present and Proposed Rates
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Small Commercial $/Mo.
Customer Charge $9.85 $14.26 $18.67 $23.08 $27.49
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.09804 $0.10910 $0.11195 $0.11520 $0.11815
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Small Commercial Energy TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $10.85 $15.71 $20.57 $25.43 $30.29
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.12356 $0.14400 $0.15000 $0.15600 $0.16150
Off-Peak 0.05417 0.06313 0.06576 0.06839 0.07080
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Large Commercial $/Mo.
Customer Charge $13.35 $19.33 $25.31 $31.29 $37.27
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.04555 $0.05355 $0.05645 $0.05950 $0.06250
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
$/kW
Demand Charge $11.14 $13.10 $13.75 $14.45 $15.10
Present
Rates
19
Commercial Rate Design – Option 2
Present and Proposed Rates
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Small Commercial $/Mo.
Customer Charge $9.85 $15.73 $21.61 $27.49 $33.37
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.09804 $0.10800 $0.11000 $0.11200 $0.11400
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Small Commercial Energy TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $10.85 $17.33 $23.81 $30.29 $36.77
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.12356 $0.14300 $0.15000 $0.15600 $0.16150
Off-Peak 0.05417 0.06269 0.06576 0.06839 0.07080
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Large Commercial $/Mo.
Customer Charge $13.35 $21.32 $29.29 $37.26 $45.23
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.04555 $0.05355 $0.05640 $0.05950 $0.06250
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
$/kW
Demand Charge $11.14 $13.00 $13.65 $14.25 $14.80
Present
Rates
20
Commercial Rate Design – Option 1
Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Large Commercial TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $15.70 $22.73 $24.29 $30.03 $43.82
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.06142 $0.07000 $0.07350 $0.07750 $0.08200
Off-Peak 0.03330 0.03795 0.03985 0.04202 0.04446
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Demand Charge $13.40 $15.25 $16.00 $16.85 $17.45
Municipal $/Mo.
Customer Charge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.09422 $0.10000 $0.10550 $0.11150 $0.11710
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Outdoor Lighting Area $/Mo.
Customer Charge $10.77 $15.59 $20.41 $25.23 $30.05
Present
Rates
21
Commercial Rate Design – Option 2
Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Proposed Rate Adj 6.25%5.50%5.50%5.00%
Large Commercial TOD $/Mo.
Customer Charge $15.70 $25.07 $28.12 $35.77 $53.18
Energy Charge $/kWh
On-Peak $0.06142 $0.07000 $0.07350 $0.07750 $0.08200
Off-Peak 0.03330 0.03795 0.03985 0.04202 0.04446
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Demand Charge $13.40 $15.25 $16.00 $16.85 $17.45
Municipal $/Mo.
Customer Charge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$/kWh
Energy Charge $0.09422 $0.10000 $0.10550 $0.11150 $0.11710
PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Outdoor Lighting Area $/Mo.
Customer Charge $10.77 $17.20 $23.63 $30.06 $36.49
Present
Rates
22
Summary of the Rate Designs
•Developed Option 1 and Option 2 to more
closely reflect the fixed costs of providing service
–Based on the cost of service unit costs
–Recommend Option 2
•Rate structures reflect general industry
approaches
•No recommended rate structures changes
•Proposed rates will reflect the revenue needs of
the electric utility
•Developed for a multi-year period (2016 – 2019)
Rate Study Summary
24
Summary of the Electric Rate Study
•Revenue adjustments are necessary
–Need to meet O&M expenses
–Adequately fund renewal and replacement of the
system (capital)
–Maintain bond required minimum reserve levels
•Cost of service analysis resulted in minimal
cost differences
•Option 1 and Option 2 rates were developed
for a multi-year period
–No rate structure changes are recommended
–Increased the fixed charge to reflect unit costs
25
Next Steps…
•Receive Board input and
policy direction
–Recommend rate
Option 2
•Finalize the rate study
•Implement proposed
rates
–September 1, 2016
–January 1, 2017 - 2019
LIGHT & POWER RATE PROPOSAL 2016 -2019
2
Overview
Why do we perform rate studies?
What are the proposed rates?
How do we compare with others?
What capital projects we are funding?
Why is the proposed monthly base fee going up?
What can customers do to manage their bill?
What is Light and Power doing to control costs?
3
WHY DO WE PERFORM RATE STUDIES?
To ensure continued high-quality water and electric
utility services and plan for future upgrades through
capital improvement projects, we periodically review
the cost of providing services as well as the projected
revenues.
4
WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED RATES?
92% of our customers are in the:
Residential Class
Small Commercial Class
Large Commercial Class
5
A CUSTOMER’S BILL
The Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU)
uses the following energy and demand figures to
facilitate comparisons between utilities:
Residential 700 kWh
Small Commercial 2,000 kWh
Large Commercial 45,000 kWh and 130 kW
CAMU standards are used for comparisons due to our
high percentage of second homes.
6
A CUSTOMER’S BILL
7
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS ?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers
8
EQUIVALENTS
To put the residential increase into perspective by
January 1, 2017 residential electric service will be up
$8.28 based on the CAMU standard of 700 kWh/month
Fast food for two = $10.29
Latte for two = $9.27
Images from Fox News, Trip Advisor,
9
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers
10
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers
11
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
12
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
13
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
14
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
15
WHY IS THE PROPOSED
MONTHLY BASE FEE GOING UP?
We have certain fixed costs on the system that occur
regardless of whether customers are using electricity:
•processing monthly utility bills
•continuous need for trimming trees along our
easements and rights-of-way
The monthly base fee is increasing to help offset the
gap between fixed costs and fixed revenue, which
ensures our customers have electricity available 24
hours a day / 365 days a year.
16
WHAT CAN OUR CUSTOMERS DO TO MANAGE THEIR BILL?
•We understand that some of our customers face
financial struggles. Utility Billing works with these
customers to find them assistance. Two assistance
programs provide support. Last year 31 families
received assistance from Colorado’s Low-Income
Energy Assistance Program (LEAP).
•Customers who do not qualify for LEAP are given
referrals to Crossroads Ministry. Crossroads has
access to Energy Outreach Program Funds which
L&P supports annually.
17
WHAT CAN OUR CUSTOMERS DO TO MANAGE THEIR BILL?
•Budget billing is available to help customers
manage their bills. Budget billing averages a
customer’s annual monthly bills which facilitates a
customer’s financial planning.
•Some customers can reduce their electric usage by
becoming more energy efficient. Estes Park in
combination with Platte River Power Authority
offers energy audits and rebates. Customers can
call toll-free 877-981-1888 or visit
http://efficiencyworks.prpa.org/
18
WHAT IS LIGHT AND POWER DOING TO CONTROL COSTS
Reducing Outages Decreases Our Costs
Outages also disrupt our customers’ lives, productivity
and their profitability. Reducing outages is the focus of
our capital projects and tree trimming efforts.
Centralized Database of Assets and Documentation
Utilities has been digitizing infrastructure
documentation to make it easily accessible throughout
the whole organization. This saves time and money
when retrieving information for daily operations and
improves our organizational knowledge base.
19
WHAT IS LIGHT AND POWER DOING TO CONTROL COSTS
Workflow Improvements
Process improvements for work orders has been
streamlined with file sharing between Finance and
field operations.
Outsourcing
Utilities outsources wherever it provides the best
value. Engineering work, tree trimming and
Geographic Information Systems are three such areas.
20
The End
Questions?
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:
_ X 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) – initiated
ordinances for the sale and use of Town-owned property.
_ 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).
3
____ 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).
_ _ 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, June 28, 2016___, and the time is (state time)_.
For the Record, I am ___Todd Jirsa _________________, 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 with
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District regarding the Estes Valley Community Center;
and is being electronically recorded. The executive session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-
402(4)(b) for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions related to Ballot Issue 1A and the Estes Valley Community Center, will
not be recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s):__ Mayor Pro Tem Koenig,
Trustees Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and Cody Walker. (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 with the
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District regarding the Estes Valley Community Center,
under 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S.
And
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions related to Ballot Issue 1A and the Estes Valley Community
Center, under 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
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.