HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-01-27
The 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.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PRESENTATION: Colorado Spirit Mountain Outreach.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 13, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated January 13, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated December 17, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated December 18, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
6. Appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as independent hearing officer – personnel matter.
7. Town Board Policy 120 - Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
Plan.
8. Transportation Advisory Board (Former Transportation Advisory Committee)
Bylaws.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. RTA APPLICATION PRESENTATION BY GRAND HERITAGE AND GONOCO
GROUP. Betsey Hale, Economic Development Director/City of Loveland.
Prepared 1/19/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2015 FUNDING FOR THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT/VISIT ESTES PARK.
Town Administrator Lancaster.
2. RESOLUTION #05-15 SUPPORT FOR THE FALL RIVER PLAN FOR
RESILIENCY (MASTER) PLAN. Director Chilcott.
3. CDBG-DR – ROUND 2 PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION: FALL RIVER, BIG
THOMPSON AND BLACK CANYON HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS STUDIES
(ESTES VALLEY). Director Chilcott.
4. CDBG-DR – ROUND 2 PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION: DOWNTOWN ESTES
PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. Director Chilcott.
5. CDBG-DR – ROUND 2 PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION: ESTES VALLEY
CHANNEL MIGRATION HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK MITIGATION PLANNING
PROJECT GRANT. Director Chilcott.
6. PRIDE AWARD – HIGH SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP.
7. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTERVIEW TEAM APPOINTMENT.
8. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW TEAM APPOINTMENT.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE UPDATE &
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD.
Director Muhonen and Chair Campbell.
5. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 13, 2015
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 13th day of January 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT FOR SENATOR UDALL.
Mayor Pinkham presented to the public a Resolution of Respect for Senator Udall and
thanking him for his years of support to the community of Estes Park.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris thanked the utilities staff for their quick response to the recent utility
outings. He reminded the public of the upcoming Winterfest.
Trustee Holcomb stated the next Parks Advisory Board meeting would be held on
January 21, 2015 at 12:30 p.m. in Town Hall.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Rooftop Rodeo would increase the purse for all
events and highlight the saddle bronc and bareback riding events to attract riders.
Trustee Phipps announced the Estes Valley Planning Commission elected Betty Hull as
Chair and Doug Klink and Vice-Chair for 2015. He reviewed the items discussed and
approved by the Commission at their January meeting.
Trustee Ericson stated the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) would review the
revised bylaws at their upcoming meeting to discuss renaming the Committee to the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The Community Development/Community
Services Committee would hold its next meeting on January 22, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. in the
Board room.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report – Per Town Board Policy 3.3, Town Administrator Lancaster
reported on Financial Planning and Budgeting. He reported compliance in all areas with
the exception of 3.3.5 with conditional compliance due to flood recovery expenses. The
General fund balance has dropped below 25% as set by the Town Board.
The Town sales tax was up 13.8% over November 2014 and 14.5% for the year. 2014
sales tax is up 10% over 2012, which was a record year.
Board of Trustees – January 13, 2015 – Page 2
Will Birchfield/Chief Building Official commented the Board of Appeals met to discuss
the Board’s role in the adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes and the local
amendments. The Board agreed to play an active role in the adoption process and
would be holding regular meetings. Larimer County would begin the adoption process
of the new codes and plans to adopt the new code by January 1, 2016.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated December 9, 2014 and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated December 9, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee. December
18, 2014.
b. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, January 8, 2015.
1. Intergovernmental Agreements for Dispatching Services for the Estes
Valley Fire District, Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes Park
Ambulance Service.
2. Consultant Agreement for GIS Services.
3. Consultant Agreement for Light & Power Cost of Service (Rate
Study) and Financial Plan.
4. Parks Division Reorganization.
4. Employment Agreement.
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
6. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated November 19, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
7. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated November 20, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
8. Resolution #01-15 - Public Posting Area Designation.
9. Amended Energy Impact Assistance Fund grant for additional Estes Park
Flood Recovery Staffing - $155,388.
10. Victim Advocate Agreement for 2015 – 2017.
11. Resolution #04-15 for Signatory Authority for Department of Local Affairs
Grants and Programs.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda, and
it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEM:
1. CONDOMINIUM MAP, Supplemental Condominium Map #4, The
Meadow Condominiums, Units 9 & 10, 351 & 355 Kiowa Drive, Marys
Meadow Development, Inc./Owner. Planner Kleisler.
Board of Trustees – January 13, 2015 – Page 3
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the Consent
Agenda with the Planning Commission recommendations, and it
passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #02-15 SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY CENTER.
Administrator Lancaster presented Resolution #02-15 outlining the Town
Board’s support for the Estes Valley Community Recreation Center. The Estes
Valley Recreation and Park District would be applying for grants and the
resolution would demonstrate the Town’s support for the project. It was moved
and seconded (Phipps/Ericson) to approve Resolution #02-15, and it passed
unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #03-15 SUPPORT OF THE BROADBAND REFERENDUM.
The proposed resolution would provide the Town Board’s support for the
Special Election question to allow the Town of Estes Park to provide advanced
telecommunications in the Estes Valley. Trustee Norris stated the citizens want
the right to the service and the service should be made available in a premier
mountain community. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve Resolution #03-15, and it passed unanimously.
3. PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY PROJECT.
Mayor Pinkham recused himself from the discussion. Director Bergsten stated
the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company Block One of the
Subdivision has approached the Town requesting the Town take over the
company to improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of delivering drinking
water to the subdivision. The Town executed a similar arrangement in 1994
with Block Two of the Park Entrance Estate Subdivision. Staff is open to this so
long as the existing Town customers do not subsidize the arrangement or take
on the liability of the water company’s aged distribution system. Transfer of
ownership to the Town would be contingent on the distribution system being
brought up to Town standards. The design and construction is costly and must
be financed by the property owners served by the water company. The joint
venture would allow the company access to grant funding and low interest
loans by the Department of Local Affairs Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance
Fund Grant Program. The Administrative grants are available to municipalities
if the Town demonstrates support for the project. Any matching funds would be
paid for by the water company. The EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund
administered through the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development
Authority can provide loans for a Special Improvement District (SID). The SID
must be authorized and governed by the Town Board and approved by a vote
of the property owners benefiting from these improvements. The whole process
will take two to three years. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve moving forward with the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and
Water Company project, and it passed with Mayor Pinkham recusing himself.
4. DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR DRY GULCH ROAD. Engineer
Ash stated Public Works prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Dry Gulch
Road design services in December with a focus on evaluating the current
asphalt condition and determine whether full replacement would be required or
if asphalt maintenance repair methods would be adequate; provide roadway
design options that account for improved traffic circulation, lane geometry, curb
and gutter, bike lanes and increased drainage conveyance; explore trail design
and location options along Dry Gulch that would connect to the existing trail
system on the south side of Highway 34 by going under the existing bridge just
east of the Sombrero Stables; and evaluate and provide options for the
Highway 34 connection and parking and drainage congestion with Sombrero
Stables. Seven firms responded to the RFP. The proposals were rated on 5
categories: client references and previous experience; adequacy of proposal to
meet project scope; qualification of staff proposed; availability of staff and
Board of Trustees – January 13, 2015 – Page 4
schedule; and fee and hours. Farnsworth Group out of Fort Collins was the
highest ranked firm as they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the design
issues in the project area and offered a detailed approach to improve and
widen the roadway and extend a trail along the east side of Dry Gulch Road.
Their project experience includes several successful roadway and pedestrian
walkway designs in the region, and they are familiar with the Estes environment
having completed successful project designs. A project design budget not to
exceed $200,000 ($172,482 bid amount) has been determined and includes a
16% contingency to address unexpected, unknown conditions that may be
encountered as the design effort progresses. The project would be funded by
the newly created Street Improvement Fund utilizing the funds from the 1%
sales tax approved by the voters in April 2014.
Board discussion followed: concern was raised over the additional cost a local
firm has bidding on projects when additional consultants are required to
complete the project; local contractors are not able to compete with larger firms
in the valley that can complete tasks in house; questioned if there would be a
safe walkway for pedestrians and bicyclist to use the roadway; the Public
Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee should review the 2% local
purchasing preference to determine if the preference should be increased; a
policy should be developed to ensure local contractors using subcontractors
are not penalized; and concerned with the contingency of 16% rather than 10%
and a contingency on a service agreement.
Staff completed a rigorous evaluation process and all three of the top proposals
were within a few points of each other. Director Muhonen stated the use of
subcontractors was only reviewed by staff when reviewing the proposals more
closely. Staff would review the local preference and the purchasing policies as
it relates to local businesses. Director Muhonen stated the higher contingency
was included to address the addition of a trail under the highway to connect to
the Lake Estes trail. The funds would only be utilized if needed.
Mike Todd/Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying has been in business for
the past 14 years. He stated the company of four employees does not have
the depth of a larger company like Farnsworth, and therefore, would hire
subcontractors to complete tasks for the project. He stated the company takes
pride in providing excellent services. Over the last 5 years the company has
lost half of its staff to jobs in the valley for higher salaries and better benefits.
He and his staff live in Estes Park, pay taxes, utilize the schools and buy goods
in the community.
Frank Theis/Town citizen stated as a general rule if a local contractor is within
10% he hires them. He commented the local government should be giving
local contractors a higher percentage preference than 2%.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to award a professional
services contract for design of the Dry Gulch Roadway Improvement
Project to the Farnsworth Group for a project cost not to exceed
$200,000, and it passed with Trustee Phipps voting “No”.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - GRANT AWARD FOR FISH CREEK MASTER PLAN
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (DOLA) PLANNING GRANT. The
Town was granted a Community Development Block Grant – Disaster
Recovery grant to support the Fish Creek Master Plan. The grant requires a
public hearing be held. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing and as there
was no public comment the hearing was closed. No further action was taken.
6. PUBLIC HEARING – GRANT AWARD FISH CREEK UTILITIES DOLA
GRANT. The Town was granted a Community Development Block Grant –
Disaster Recovery grant with funds originating from the Federal Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The funds were used to cover the Town’s match
for the utilities work along the Fish Creek corridor. The grant requires a public
Board of Trustees – January 13, 2015 – Page 5
hearing. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing and as there was no public
comment the hearing was closed. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Phipps) to approve the flood recovery grant from HUD through
DOLA for the Fish Creek utilities, and it passed unanimously.
7. APPOINTMENTS TO THE PRIDE AWARD SCHOLARSHIP REVIEW TEAM.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Pride Awards include a scholarship to be
awarded annually to a high school student. The graduation requirements have
changed over the years and now include a volunteer component. These
changes along with the increase cost of tuition need to be discussed as it
relates to the Pride Award. Trustees Nelson and Phipps volunteered to review
the Pride Award criteria and forward a recommendation to the Board for their
consideration.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. FALL RIVER AND FISH CREEK FLOOD RESILIENCY (MASTER) PLANS.
Following the September 2013 flood, the Town contracted with Walsh
Environmental Scientists and Engineers to design master plans for the
restoration of the Fall River and Fish Creek corridors. The master plans were
developed with input from the Fall River and Fish Creek coalitions, led by
citizens and River Advisory Committees. Town staff would come to the
January 27, 2015 Town Board meeting to request approval of a letter of support
for the Master Plans.
Julie Ash/Walsh Environment Scientists provided a review of the draft plans for
resiliency. Implementation projects were identified and prioritized for each river
corridor, including cut sheets and preliminary cost estimates. The intent of the
proposed projects was to provide a starting point for identifying possible grant
opportunities through agencies such as FEMA, CWCB, HUD, CDGB-DR, etc.
Grant applications can be submitted by the Town, private land owners,
coalitions, and other special districts such as the Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District. The support of the Town Board for the Master Plans would aid in
strengthening grant applications.
Chris Peterson/Fish Creek resident stated concern with the
realignment/relocation of Fish Creek Road.
Joel Holsman/Town citizen voiced concern with the removal of the Scott Ponds.
He stated removal of the ponds would negatively affect his property value.
Tony Schetzle/Town citizen commented he was not aware that the river
coalition was discussing the entire watershed when reviewing the master plan
for Fish Creek. He stated skepticism over the nexus of the dam failure and the
damage downstream. The ponds are an asset to the community and should be
discussed further before they are removed.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado January 13, 2015
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of January, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None.
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris spoke to his disappointment with the Town’s granting partners
unwillingness to allow the Town to relocate the Visitor Center parking garage to the
south parking lot across the river from the center.
Mayor Pinkham opened discussion on the inclusion of all the bills in the Town Board
packet. Discussion followed amongst the Board with suggestions including a summary
of bills could be provided or the inclusion of bills at a certain dollar amount.
Administrator Lancaster commented staff would discuss the possibilities and report
back to the Board.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Director Bergsten reviewed a proposed water rate adoption schedule with the Board
and requested the Board schedule a study session for March 10, 2015 to review the
proposal. The Board consensus was to schedule the item for the March 10, 2015
meeting.
Waiver of water tap fees for Falcon Ridge was scheduled for the January 27, 2015
meeting. Amending the Town Board Policies 1.4, 1.6 and Policy 101 was scheduled for
March 24, 2015. Consideration of the FEMA Community Rating System was postponed
until the next meeting.
Trustee Ericson stated the CDCS Committee was concerned with the scope for the sign
code revision project. The Committee’s opinion was the project scope was too narrow
and should be expanded. The intent of the study session would be to include a review
by the consultant on the legal issues related to the sign code and provide a background
of the proposed sign code revisions.
ROOFTOP RODEO PRIZE MONEY.
Director Winslow and members of Western Heritage requested the Board consider
increasing the prize/purse money for the 2015 Rooftop Rodeo. The increased purse
money would attract more contestants and higher quality contestants to the rodeo.
Currently the Rooftop Rodeo has one of the lowest total purses for rodeos held during
the same timeframe. Staff and Western Heritage proposed the increase for each event
by $1,000 and highlight two events, bareback riding and saddle bronc, to increase
participation. Highlighted events are required to pay double the purse or $12,000 per
Rooftop Rodeo event. The increase funding request would be $20,000 and funded with
the savings from contracting with the new stock contractor below the approved budget.
Town Board Study Session – January 13, 2015 – Page 2
PRCA places a limit of $70,000 prize money for a medium sized rodeo. The additional
funding would make Rooftop Rodeo one of the top paying rodeos during this timeframe
with a total prize/purse of $60,000 and competitive with its top rival Deadwood, South
Dakota.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned why the request has
not been increase to the full $70,000 as the Town would save approximately $40,000
with the reduced stock contract; and what provides the Rooftop Rodeo an advantage if
all rodeos have the ability to highlight events.
Western Heritage stated the increased funding would place the rodeo were it needs to
be in relation to the cap and the competition. The weekend of the rodeo and the 4th of
July week are the busiest weeks for rodeos. Deadwood rodeo is two weekends after
the Rooftop Rodeo. The Rooftop Rodeo would be pooled with three other rodeos,
thereby increasing the purse for those contestants that ride in all three rodeos.
The Board consensus was to allow the budgeted funds to be reallocated and used to
increase the purse as outlined by staff and Western Heritage.
BOARD DISCUSSION & COMMENT DURING LIQUOR LICENSE
Mayor Pinkham stated concern with how the Board addresses the licensee during the
liquor hearing. He stated the Board should treat each licensee with respect. Trustee
Ericson questioned if it was appropriate to provide a summary of how important having
a liquor license is and how seriously the Board takes liquor licensing.
DOWNTOWN VISIONING PROCESS
Trustee Phipps questioned why the Town Board would discuss an item related to the
Comprehensive Plan, as it is the purview of the Planning Commission per state statute.
Trustee Norris and Trustee Nelson stated the development of a downtown vision would
not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would add detail to the plan. The
visioning process would assess and integrate the ideas of the Town and the community
for the area and make it a better place in the future. After further discussion, it was
concluded to move forward with staff’s presentation.
Planner Shirk stated the purpose of the discussion was to provide background
information on the advantages and disadvantages of a Downtown Neighborhood Plan;
present the general concept of the public process and content; and to gain consensus
to proceed with the CDBG-DR grant application to fund the Plan. The downtown core
has seen little to no change or upgrade to the infrastructure since the EPURA
improvements following the Lawn Lake flood of 1982. A number of things have
changed over this time including a doubling of the population in Larimer County,
increase visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park, extensive destination marketing
efforts to increase visitation, a shift in demographics of residents and guests, and a
need to evolve the town’s destination product and compete with other mountain
destinations. The existing infrastructure requires updating to accommodate the current
and future demands and address items such as flood mitigation, traffic and parking
congestion, infrastructure planning, economic diversity and workforce housing. The
development of a plan would provide a blueprint for future development and
infrastructure improvements for the downtown commercial neighborhood. The plan
could be funded through a CDBG-DR grant. Round 2 funding of $11 million is available
to fund planning that would provide communities with the opportunity to assess impacts
and needs for the recovery process, from economic development and housing to
infrastructure hazard mitigation and resiliency needs. The grant application must be
submitted to the State by January 30, 2015. If awarded the grant, staff would
recommend the hiring of a consultant to conduct an inventory and analysis of the
existing downtown, prepare a draft plan, coordinate public outreach, and deliver a final
plan with an implementation plan. The plan would address the next 20 years, define the
boundaries of the plan area, identify quality of life issues, identify demographic trends,
review flood mitigation risk, minimize flood insurance costs, integrate the Downtown
Town Board Study Session – January 13, 2015 – Page 3
Loop Project, address parking needs, coordinate transportation improvements,
coordinate the improvements to infrastructure improvements, draft urban design
guidelines, establish a wayfinding system, encourage economic diversity, guide land
uses to ensure compatibility with downtown and identify barriers to development,
prepare economic analysis and market demand, expand business year, and
redevelopment and repair of older buildings. A plan could make future grants available
to complete projects such as floodplain mitigation, bridge improvements, etc.
Discussion followed amongst the Board: the assessment by an outsider would be
beneficial, the downtown area is not utilized by the residents and questioned if the plan
would address uses by the citizens; the boundaries proposed need to be discussed
further; questioned how the plan would interact with the EDC grant funded projects;
would a task force be appointed; recommend the plan area start large and shrink it
down through public comment; questioned the progression of projects such as FLAP
and the parking structure; and requested staff notice all the properties and businesses
potentially affect by the plan.
Staff stated the development of the plan would be integrated with the EDC grant and the
same consultant may be used to complete the economic analysis. A committee would
be developed to review the infrastructure needs and a separate committee would review
the overall plan. The FLAP and parking structure projects would move forward and the
plan would take these projects into consideration.
Additional discussion was heard on the timing of the grant application and the need for
the Planning Commission to consider the development of a plan before staff moved
forward with the application. The consensus of the Board was to schedule a Planning
Commission meeting as soon as possible to ensure their concurrence with the
development of the plan.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 17th, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee 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 17th day of December, 2014.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Cory LaBianca
Gregg Rounds
Thom Widawski
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Bob Holcomb, Town Trustee
Absent: Ann Finley
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Amy Hamrick
Bryon Holmes
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
No public was in attendance, so public comment was not heard.
With no quorum present, approval of bylaws and November meeting minutes was
postponed until January 21st, 2015. Officer elections will be held at the January meeting
as well.
Director Muhonen discussed the seating arrangement for TAC meetings, noting protocol
at other Town-officiated meetings consisted of board, staff support and staff liaison
sitting at the main table and all other attendees sitting in the audience. Trustee Ericson
likes the informal setup of TAC meetings and feels it promotes conversation to have
additional staff and representatives sitting at the main table . Chair Campbell
recommended everyone but public be seated at the main table, with public arranged in
back seating. Consensus with the rest of the board was for staff, trustees and board
members sit at the main table and public seated behind in the audience.
Trustee Ericson informed the board that the Town Board Study Session on January
13th, 2015, will include a discussion of a downtown visioning process, which overlaps
Transportation Advisory Committee – December 17th, 2014 – Page 2
the Downtown Estes Loop project. TAC members were encouraged to attend as
audience members to listen in on the discussion.
Shuttle committee representative Sandy Osterman suggested TAC members look up
and read articles on downtown parking that were published by the Fort Collins
Coloradoan.
STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS
An update was provided to the board on Director Muhonen’s meeting with the BOR
regarding the transit hub parking structure placement on the south side of the river. Site
relocation may take a year, with utility relocations and viability of property being
examined.
Director Muhonen is attempting to balance aesthetic needs with $2M budget overage.
Feedback was requested from the board on the need of a full aesthetics package or if a
scaled back version would be acceptable. Members stated concern about the finished
product looking like a cement bunker if softening aesthetics such as wood elements
were removed. Aesthetical elements were discussed and reconsidered, with cost for
each element taken into account. Less expensive design elements such as dyed
concrete were also suggested as an alternative.
Downtown Estes Loop project small group meetings have been taking place. Cory
Labianca attended the environmental/historical group and reported that multi modal
transportation was discussed, especially ideas on bike lanes. The small group
expressed concern over four traffic lanes on Riverside and the diminishing effect it
would have on parks, as well as the pollution and noise. Thom W idawski attended the
business group, reporting mixed opinions from business owners. Chair Campbell
suggested traffic numbers are in large part dictated by hotel capacity and improved
traffic flow could increase number of Front Range day-trippers.
Director Muhonen updated on the Downtown Estes Loop progress meeting he attended
with Central Federal Lands. Additional concepts are being proposed based on citizen
small group discussions, including the potential to reroute Hwys 34 & 36, reconfiguiring
lane geometry and better signage to incentivize use of the bypass. Director Muhonen
suggested talking to CDOT about altering the geometry of the Hwys 34 & 36
intersection to alter driver behavior and direct more traffic to the Fall River entrance of
RMNP. Some concern was voiced about the potential backup down Hwy 34 at the Fall
River Entrance as a result of this.
DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP
Until the NEPA report comes out, not much can be done with the Downtown Estes Loop
project by the committee. Updates and reports will continue each meeting, but a
committee recommendation will be postponed until NEPA results are known.
Transportation Advisory Committee – December 17th, 2014 – Page 3
MAJOR EVENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
Chair Campbell has extensive experience with major event traffic management . Topics
of consideration include how to get traffic in and out of venue, what to do with
pedestrian traffic, signage, barricades and cones and helping people understand where
they need to go. Efforts can be personnel intensive and may be beyond the Town’s
current capability.
Director Muhonen suggested identifying a final product the committee wishes to deliver,
when it will be ready and who will be the recipient. Chair Campbell suggested
presenting a concept to Trustees as an approach the Town may want to adopt on busy
days/events. The plan may require land, additional personnel, and a budget, so it will be
important to get a preliminary direction from Trustees to determine if they would like to
appropriate resources, and then TAC can proceed to flesh out a detailed plan. A trial
run could be implemented on Saturday of Memorial Day weekend in 2015. Trustee
Ericson feels the response would be positive from Trustees and recommends Director
Muhonen speak with Administrator Lancaster to gauge Administration’s reaction. Since
law enforcement cooperation would be vital to the plan, it was recommended Chief
Kufeld be brought into the discussion soon to provide feedback. Director Muhonen will
relay this concept to Administrator Lancaster and then schedule it for a Town Board
Study Session so TAC may present to Trustees. Director Muhonen will also approach
the Police Deparment to get their thoughts on concept, interface and training.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 18th, 2014
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 Room 100, Engineering
Conference Room, in said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of December, 2014.
Present: Merle Moore
Ronna Boles
Celine Lebeau
Terry Rustin (by phone)
Chris Reed
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division
Bob Holcomb, Town Board Trustee
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 12:32 p.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded ( Ronna Boles / Merle Moore ) to approve the November
20th meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
SEATING FORMAT FOR MEETINGS/INTRO TO LIAISON
Director Muhonen explained where the committee members and the staff liaison’s
should sit around the table and that they are the one’s that are empowered.
Director Muhonen introduced Parks Staff Member Brian Berg as Liaison for the PAB
committee. Everything should funnel through Brian.
A question was raised to identify different meeting days and times to try and utilize
Room 202 for future PAB meetings. Director Muhonen will send an email for a start
process for a decision.
The next meeting was selected for January 15, 2015 at 12:30 pm at the Public Works
Engineering Conference Room.
511 W. ELKHORN AVENUE POCKET PARK
Parks Advisory Board – December 18th, 2014 – Page 2
Brian Berg explained the information for options from the meeting with the Management
Company for the owner of the property.
They proposal:
1. The Town sell the Town property to the owner. Fast Track.
2. The Town retain the property and the owner will pay for landscaping plans and
pay for the construction.
PARKING GARAGE UPDATE
The Parking Garage update was that the project will be delayed because a decision and
plans are in the works for moving it to the south side of the river.
ECOLOGY WALK UPDATE
Brian Berg explained to the committee members the old plans and location of the
Ecology Walk by the Visitors Center.
Merle Moore commented that the board should revisit the original Ecology Walk concept
as a number of new board members were not familiar with it. He added the Town has
an opportunity to make all plantings on Town-owned property an educational resource.
This could be accomplished by creating and maintaining an accurate, up-to-date plant
inventory, adding to the diversity of plant material used in landscaping Town-owned
property and creating means for interpreting the landscape value of the plants (guided
walks, plant map on Town webpage, interpretive messages at cell phone accessible
stations, etc.)
Manager McEachern explained the Conservation Fund for the plans. The funds may
not be available year to year as the funds are used for multiple activities and projects.
Celine Lebeau suggested that we wait for the new parking structure design for the
Ecology Walk.
Director Muhonen said that it may be associated with the parking garage and would
need to look at the 2016 budget with Planning.
It was also brought up the walk would also be for education and children.
It was suggested that this come back to the PAB table at the August meeting.
Parks Advisory Board – December 18th, 2014 – Page 3
PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE & GUIDELINES DRAFT
Merle Moore met with Derick Fortini, Director of the Estes Park Museum. Merle asked if
the museum would be interested in being a Liaison for the PAB. This would include
helping records and inventory.
Merle also talked with Diane Watson, Executive Director of the Cultural Arts Council.
They sounded like they would be more interested to be the Liaison than the Museum.
The PAB talked and decided that the Cultural Arts Council will be a better fit with the
PAB and to put them in the draft.
Terry Rustin Talked about the subject of How to fund Public Art and where it should go
in the ordinance.
Director Muhonen communicated that it was important that the funding source be
reliable and construction cash flow would be irregular. It is important to have a fund
source with a maintenance component.
Terry Rustin stated that 1% may work for Loveland but not for Estes Park. It would be
better in the ordinance has certain funds go to art. A reserve fund.
It was determined by PAB to take out option A and go with option B.
Next time they will work on guidelines and introductions.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made (Ronna Boles/Chris Reed) to
adjourn the meeting at 1:29 pm, with all voting in favor.
Minutes recorded by Operations Manager Kevin McEachern.
Finance Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: 01-27-2015
RE: Board Policy Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation
Assistance Plan
Objective:
Establish this policy to meet HUD Community Development Block Grant – Disaster
Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding requirement.
Present Situation:
Currently the Town does not have such a policy in place. Establishing this policy will
ensure the Town is compliant with CDBG-DR funding requirement.
Proposal:
The present situation will be improved with this policy in place as it will ensure the
Town is compliant with grant funds received for flood recovery.
Advantages:
The Town will meet grant requirements. The Town has received three (3) CDBG-DR
grants.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of this Board Policy, Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
Plan.
Budget:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve this Board Policy on Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation
Assistance Plan.
Attachments:
Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan.
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the T own Board is required to have
the Ordinance included.
Residential Antidisplacement & Relocation Plan Draft 1 1/23/15
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Page 1 of 3
Effective Period:
Review Schedule:
Effective Date:
References:
TOWN BOARD
120
Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan
Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)
Program
1. PURPOSE
2. POLICY
The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town) will replace all occupied and vacant
occupiable low/moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other
than as low/moderate income housing as a direct result of activities assisted with
Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, as
required by Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended (the Act), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR 570.496a.
3. PROCEDURE
All replacement housing will be provided within three (3) years of the commencement of
the demolition or rehabilitation relating to conversion. Before obligating or expending
funds that will directly result in such demolition or conversion, the Town will make public
and submit to the State the following information in writing:
1. Description of the proposed assisted activity;
2. The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or converted to a use other than
as low/moderate dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activity;
3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or
conversion;
4. The general location on a map and approxima te number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling units;
5. The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of rep lacement
dwelling units; and
Residential Antidisplacement & Relocation Plan Draft 1 1/23/15
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Page 2 of 3
6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a
low/moderate income dwelling unit for at least 10 years from the date of initial
occupancy.
The Town will provide relocation assistance, as described in 570.496a(b)(2), to each
low/moderate income household displaced by the demol ition of housing or by the
conversion of a low/moderate income dwelling to another use as a direct result of
assisted activities.
Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, the Town
will take the steps indicated below to minimize the displacement of persons from their
homes:
1. Consider all practical alternatives to any proposed project that may result in
residential displacement. Alternatives to be considered include other sites for the
proposed facilities/project. Also to be considered are the costs and benefits, both
financial and nonfinancial, of each alternative.
2. Provide counseling and referral services to assist displacees find alternative
housing in the community.
3. Work with area landlords and real estate brokers to locate vacancies for
households facing displacement.
Approved:
_____________________________
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Residential Antidisplacement & Relocation Plan Draft 1 1/23/15
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX 1 - FORMS
a. Form 1
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Date: January 27, 2015
RE: Transportation Advisory Board (Former Transportation Advisory
Committee) Bylaws
Objective:
Update the bylaws for the Transportation Advisory Committee to reflect a new name,
refine the Roles, and update the content to be consistent with the current template for
Town Boards and Committees.
Present Situation:
The Transportation Advisory Board is comprised of citizens that meet with Town staff
and review transportation initiatives, providing input with recommendations supporting
the TVC report.
Approval of the revised bylaws was voted on and unanimously passed by the
Committee at the January 21st, 2015 Transportation Advisory Commitee meeting.
Proposal:
Update the Bylaws as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board.
Advantages:
The new name, Transportation Advisory Board, will reduce confusion between the TAC
(Transportation Advisory Committee) and the multiple Technical Advisory Committees
that exist for various projects within the Town. Clarification of Roles will help the
member retain clear focus in the mission of this Board. Update of the Bylaws content
will make them consistent with the format presented by the Town Administrator for all
Town Boards and Committees.
Disadvantages:
None noted.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the Transportation Advisory Board bylaws.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Transportation Advisory Board bylaws.
Revised 11/26/14
Town of Estes Park
Transportation Advisory Board
BY-LAWS
I. ROLE
The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board is to advise the Town
Board of Trustees and the Public Works staff on:
A. Local and Regional Comprehensive Transportation Planning Policies that protect air
quality, diminish congestion, and enhance the safety and quality of life for the citizens,
businesses, and visitors to the Estes Valley, including but not limited to pedestrian,
bicycle, automobile, and transit modes.
B. Maintenance, Operation, and Expansion Programs for all modes of the Town’s
transportation system.
C. Transportation Capital Projects to insure the Town’s transportation goals and policies for
roads, trails, parking, signage, and transit are implemented.
In addition to these bylaws, the Transportation Advisory Board operates under the terms of the
Town of Estes Park operating policy 102 – Town Committees. A copy of that procedure, along
with these bylaws, shall be provided to each member at the time of their appointment
II. MEETINGS
A. Regular Meetings shall be held at least one time per month, with additional meetings
scheduled as needed. Any item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the
conclusion of the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled
meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other matters to be
heard and considered.
B. Special Meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chairperson. The
Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the Town Board, Town Administrator,
or Director of Public Works, or upon request by three of the members of the Board.
C. Cancellation of Meetings Regularly scheduled meetings of the Transportation Advisory Board
may be canceled or rescheduled upon approval by two-thirds of the members of
the Board.
D. Meeting Procedures for matters requiring action by the Board, parliamentary procedure shall
be followed in moving, discussion, and acting on such matters.
E. Open Meetings All meetings and action of the Board shall be in full compliance with
State Statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein by reference. It
is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these statutes
and regulations.
Revised 11/26/14
F. Attendance by Non-members Meetings may be attended by persons who are not
members of the Transportation Advisory Board. At the discretion of the Chairperson,
nonmembers may be allowed to speak at meetings. However, in no event shall nonmembers
be allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is required.
III. MEMBERS AND QUORUM
A. Membership. The Board shall consist of nine (9) members. Members must be residents of
the Estes Valley Planning District.
B. Terms. Members shall be appointed to a 3 year term. The terms of the members shall be
staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the members expire each year on March
31st.
C. Vacancies. Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board for the
unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled.
D. Recommendations for Appointment Upon request by the Town Board, the Transportation
Advisory Board shall make recommendations to the Town Board for Transportation Advisory
Board appointments.
E. Quorum. A quorum of the Board shall consist of 2/3 of the members of the Board being
present at the meeting.
F. Action. Action by the Board shall be by majority vote of the members attending any regular
or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise provided in these by-
laws.
IV. OFFICERS
A. Officers. The Board officers shall include a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson as
selected by the Board.
B. Elections. Officers shall be elected by the members annually at the first regularly scheduled
meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the Board. Notification of who is
elected Chair will be sent to the Town Clerk.
C. Chairperson Responsibilities:
1. Preside at all meetings,
2. Insure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency,
3. Call special meetings in accordance with the By-laws,
4. Sign any documents prepared by the Transportation Advisory Board for submission to
the Town Board or Town Departments,
5. See that decisions of the Board are implemented,
6. Represent the Board in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations,
7. The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the Board to vote on
matters before the Board and to speak for or against proposals; provided, however,
Revised 11/26/14
that if the Chairperson desires to speak for or against a proposal which has been
formally moved and seconded at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish
the chair to the Vice-Chairperson while he or she is speaking.
D. Vice-Chairperson Responsibilities:
1. Assist the Chairperson as requested,
2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson,
3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in the event the
Chairperson is absent or unable to act.
E. Other Position Responsibilities: None.
F. Removal from Office. Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the
members of the Transportation Advisory Board in attendance at a meeting provided that at
least thirty days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be
considered at such meeting.
G. Officer Vacancies. If any office is vacant, the members of the Transportation Advisory Board
shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the year.
V. ATTENDANCE
A. Regular attendance by the members of the Board is expected. In the event any member
misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4) regular meetings in a
calendar year, the Town Board may remove its appointed member for neglect of duty and
designate a new member to fill the vacancy.
VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Transportation
Advisory Board by a majority of the membership of the Board provided that notice of such
possible amendments is given to all members at least 20 days prior to the meeting at which
action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Town
Board.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN POLICIES
A. The Board shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board policy on Town
Boards, Policy 102 as amended. The terms of this policy are incorporated in these Bylaws
by this reference and are attached herewith.
B. Volunteer members of the Board will act in accordance to the adopted Town Volunteer
Manual.
VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
A. A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or interests
diverge so that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the person’s
actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage.
Revised 11/26/14
B. Members of Boards shall not use their membership for private gain, and shall act impartially
and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.
C. A member of any Board who has a personal or private interest in a matter proposed or
pending shall disclose such interest to the Board; shall not vote on the item; and shall not
attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the matter.
Adopted this ___day of _______
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
By: ________________
Mayor
Go NoCo
Regional Tourism Act Application
A Private /Public Partnership
Estes Park Town Board
January 27, 2015
What is the RTA Program?
•Program of the Colorado Economic Development Commission
•State Sales Tax increment financing tool for the development of
large scale, regional tourism projects
•These projects can include tourism and entertainment facilities
and the associated hotels and infrastructure however:
•Must draw a significant number
of new regional, national and
international patrons
Projects …..
•Extraordinary and unique in nature
•Result in a substantial increase in out of state tourism
•Generate new state sales tax from residents outside
the zone
•Local governments must provide reliable economic
data demonstrating that in the absence of the state
sales tax increment revenue the project is not
reasonably anticipated in the foreseeable future…..
“But for the State assistance”
Why Now, Why NoCo?
•Only two more RTA applications will be awarded by
the State, 3 have been awarded.
•Northern Colorado has not received an award
•Three public partners: Larimer County, Loveland and
Windsor and 3 unique private partners with project
areas already in design phases and financial
evaluation
•There is a strong International and National
“Destination Economy” growing in NoCo
National/International Marketing
•Attendance at Pow Wow and Go West International Trade
Show(s)
•Developed Relationships with Tour Bus Receptors
•Familiarization (FAM) Tours and Ads with Colorado Tourism and Brand
USA: Germany, Ireland, England, France, Portugal, Canada, Japan, Mexico,
China
•US Pro Cycling Challenge a No Co effort
We are on the Map!
Literally…
No Co is the Center!
16,194,000 is the population within 500 miles
And More…..
And more…….
But we need more
RTA Private Partners
And many, many more…..
$46 Million Cost Estimate
RTA Potential
Projects
RTA Potential Project –July 22, 2014
Regional Ice Sheets
Project Location:
City: Loveland, CO
County: Larimer County
Major Intersection: NEC Fairgrounds Ave. and
Crossroads Blvd.
Land Use:
Estimated Land Acreage: +/-9.18 Acres
Building Square Footage: +/-100,000 SF
Estimated Construction Costs: +/-$25,000,000
Summary:
This facility would consist of a minimum 4
sheets of ice with the intent of drawing
national youth and adult hockey tournaments
to the region.
Project Facts
ICE
RINK
RTA Potential Project –July 22, 2014
Raindance National Golf Club
Project Location:
City: Windsor, CO
County: Weld
Major Intersection: 1.5 Miles North of the
Crossroads Blvd. and County Rd. 13
Land Use:
Estimated Land Acreage: 370 Acres
Estimated Course Construction Costs:
$20,000,000
RTA Enhancement Costs: $5,000,000
Summary:
This golf course is designed for the ability to
host Champions Tour and Senior PGA Tour
Events. RTA Funding would be used to entice
national tournament play to the Region.
Project Facts
Peligrande Resort and Windsor Convention
Center
Project Location:
City: Windsor, CO
County: Weld
Major Intersection: New Liberty Rd. and
Marina Drive
Land Use:
Estimated Land Acreage: 40 Acres
Convention Center SF: 50,000
Marina SF: 20,000
Estimated Construction Costs Convention -:
$10,000,000
Estimated Construction Costs Marina -
$10,000,000
Amenity Enhancement –Hotel / Timeshare -
$50,000,000
Project Facts
An RTA Project with Heart
What will we do???
$4-$10 million
Cost Estimate
So What’s Next for this effort
Formation of the Go NoCo Private Non-Profit
Contributions from Public and Private Sector
Public Sector funds requested= $300,000
Private Sector = $400,000 in assistance plus
Completion of Market and Financial Analysis
Recruitment of Tenant/Operators is on-going
Determination of RTA Area due in October 14’
RTA Applications are due February 2015
•Announcement of Awards October 2015
What’s Next for Estes Park
•Go NoCo Board will consider an addition
to the Regional Tourism Zone only if:
1.The Estes Park Town Board Supports
2.The Pre-application, feasibility and
financial analysis fees are paid by the
private sector no costs to the town
3.There is no additional work for staff
4.The addition is submitted before 3/11.
Important Dates
•1/27: Estes Town Board meeting: Study only
•2/10: Possible Resolution of support
•2/17: application due to OEDIT
•3/11: last day to add to zone or add missing
info.
•8/28: last day to delete or add projects
Go NoCo Board and Team……
•Go NoCo Board Chair, Rick Raesz
•Go NoCo PR Consultant Nicole Yost
•www.gonoco.com
Will discuss the consulting/application team
qualifications, the community outreach to date,
website, etc.
Application Partners ????
Estes Park Project Description
•Greg Rosener and Grand Heritage Resort staff
•The Go NoCo Board and private partners
welcome the addition of Estes Park should the
Town Board support the application with a
resolution, the project meets the But For,
feasibility and financial performance
requirements and the private partner covers the
application costs. They do not want Estes Park to
feel pressured to participate.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: January 27th, 2015
RE: 2015 FUNDING FOR THE LOCAL MARKETING
DISTRICT/VISIT ESTES PARK.
Objective:
Respond to the Visit Estes Park request for an additional $25,000 in funding from the
Town of Estes Park
Present Situation:
The current 2015 budget contains no funding for Visit Estes Park as adopted. On
October 14th, the Town received a letter from VEP requesting funding in the amount of
$25,000 for the 2015 budget. The Board directed staff to schedule a study session to
discuss this and other requests for funding at a later date. At the Board study session,
The Board requested that staff work with VEP to draft an agreement for the use of the
additional funds to be brought before the Board at the January 13, 2015, Town Board
meeting. In an e-mail from VEP CEO Elizabeth Fogarty on January 5th, she expressed
that the use of the funds is included in the original letter;
"We will commit to investing this additional revenue toward event promotion for the new
Estes Park Event Complex and other area events. This would further complement our
continued investment in marketing efforts of all town events, activities and festivals."
Furthermore, Ms. Fogarty and I have agreed to develop a formal service level
agreement to better define the services VEP will provide on behalf of the Town and the
Town will provide for VEP, as well as to clearly define each entities roles in marketing,
promoting and producing events, operation of the Estes Park Visitors Center, and any
other common or supportive services.
Proposal:
That the Board consider the request for additional funding in the amount of $25,000 to
Visit Estes Park for 2015.
Advantages:
Illustrates the Towns partnership with Visit Estes Park
Enhances the marketing for the Event Complex and other area activities
Disadvantages:
Will result in a further deficit of the General Fund fund balance below the targeted
amount set by the Board of Trustees in the amount of $25,000
Action Recommended:
Board policy decision - no staff recommendation
Budget:
$25,000 to come from General Fund Fund Balance
Level of Public Interest
moderate
Sample Motion:
I move to authorize/ not authorize the Town Administrator to modify the 2015 amend the
2015 general fund budget to add an additional allocation of $25,000 for funding for the
Local Marketing District, Visit Estes Park
October 14, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Honorable Bill Pinkham, Town Trustees and Town Administrator
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Visit Estes Park Contribution
The Local Marketing District Board and Visit Estes Park would like to thank you for last year’s investment during a very
critical time in the community’s post-flood recovery process. Your investment allowed Visit Estes Park to continue
marketing this destination, thereby insuring the quick return of our guests. The visitation Estes Park has experienced
post-flood has helped reignite our tourism economy, which helps support every aspect of this community.
Visit Estes Park looks forward to continued partnership with the Town and other organizations, such as the Economic
Development Corporation, to further broaden and diversify our community including redevelopment, industry
diversification and enhancing the quality of life for our residents. Your recent commitment to hire an event coordinator is
an example of this partnership, illustrating how we can work together and find ways to grow and help this community
thrive.
While you are in the midst of the 2015 budget process, we would like to respectfully ask for your consideration with
continued investment in Visit Estes Park. While we understand the need to diversify our economy, tourism and quality of
life will always be the mainstay of Estes Park. The return on investment as it relates to Estes Park tourism is clear, as
stated in the 2012 Summit Economics Impact of Tourism Study:
The 2.03 million visitors in 2011 spent $187 million. This generated $154 million in taxable sales. The town’s 4%
sales tax produced $5.2 million in revenues for the town. Guests provided the town with 54.1% of its revenues,
almost $18 million. The net subsidy to local residents by guests was $2.45 million. This means municipal costs to
each resident were reduced by $418. A 5% increase in visitor days would provide an additional annual subsidy of
$21 per resident.
Although we look forward to continuing our partnership with redevelopment and economic opportunities, we do feel
compelled to ask on behalf of all our partners and stakeholders, continued investment in the amount of $25,000 for 2015.
We will commit to investing this additional revenue toward event promotion for the new Estes Park Event Complex and
other area events. This would further complement our continued investment in marketing efforts of all town events,
activities and festivals.
We do understand the financial constraints currently challenging the town, and as we continue to diversify and build a
year-round stable economy, ultimately our partnership with the Town of Estes Park is our focus; however we do hope you
will seriously consider continuing a financial investment that not only illustrates our partnership, but also enhances
marketing for the Event Complex and other area activities.
Warm Regards,
Elizabeth Fogarty Bill Almond
President & CEO Board Chairman
Visit Estes Park Local Marketing District
EFogarty@VisitEstesPark.com BAlmond@ymcarockies.org
970-586-0200 970.586.3341, Ext 6030
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: January 27, 2015
RE: Resolution #05-15: Support for the Fall River Plan for Resiliency (Master)
Plan
Objective
The consideration of a resolution of support for the recently completed Fall River
Resiliency Plan.
Present Situation
Following the 2013 flood, the Town of Estes Park contracted with Walsh Environmental
Scientists and Engineers to design master plans for the restoration of the Fall River and
Fish Creek corridors. Master plans were developed with input from the Fall River and
Fish Creek coalitions, led by a citizen River Advisory Committee. The completed draft
plans are the culmination of coalition members, Town of Estes Park staff and E stes
Valley citizens’ efforts is available at the Fall River Coalition website:
www.fallrivercoalition.org/master-plan. The Town Board received an overview of the
draft plan during the January 13, 2015 meeting.
Proposal
Staff is providing a resolution of support for the Board’s consideration.
Advantages
Formal Board support for the Resiliency Plan will strengthen the Coalition’s ability
to obtain grant funds to implement the river restoration projects.
Disadvantages
No disadvantages noted.
Action Recommended
Town staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution of support for the Fall River
Resiliency Plan.
Community Development Memo
Page 2
Budget
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High
Sample Motion
I move to approve (or deny) Resolution 05-15.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-15
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR
THE FALL RIVER PLAN FOR RESILIENCY
WHEREAS, the Fall River corridor is heavily developed with resort accommodations and
residential homes; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 flood event damaged properties and public infrastructure, and
caused significant changes to the Fall River; and
WHEREAS, the Fall River Coalition (“Coalition”), which included volunteer members of
the public and local landowners, assembled to coordinate and advocate for the health and
resiliency of the corridor; and
WHEREAS, through a generous grant from the Northern Colorado Community
Foundation, the Coalition prepared the Fall River Plan for Resiliency for the purpose of guiding
harmonious recovery, restoration and resiliency along the Fall River corridor; and
WHEREAS, public engagement played a central role in the development of the Plan for
Resiliency through a River Advisory Committee, neighborhood captains and extensive public
meetings with property owners along the corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK hereby recognizes and supports the extensive efforts of the Fall River
Coalition and the vision established in the resulting Fall River Plan for Resiliency.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _______________, 2015.
_____________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Town Clerk
I, Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the
above is a true copy of Resolution No. 05-15 of the Town of Estes Park on file in my office as
part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado which are in my custody.
_____________________
Jackie Williamson
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner
Date: January 27, 2015
RE: CDBG-DR Round 2 Planning Grant Application: Fall River, Big Thompson
and Black Canyon Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies (Estes Valley).
Objective:
1. Provide the Board with background information on the purpose and scope of an
upcoming grant opportunity through the Colorado Community Development
Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program (CDBG-DR); and
2. Consideration of a motion permitting the Town to apply for such CDBG -DR
funding.
Present Situation:
There are three watersheds that join within the downtown area of the Town of Estes
Park: Fall River, Black Canyon Creek, and the Upper Big Thompson River and each of
these waterways experienced some level of flooding in September 2013. The Town is
in need of planning for a higher standard of flood resiliency since FEMA’s floodplain
hydrology and flood delineation mapping is now 30 years old and did not meet the
realities of the flood.
The hydrologic uncertainty on these streams hampers engineering a nalysis and design
efforts, for example to recommend dimensions and other specifications for bridge
upgrades, because of the high likelihood that changes to the hydrologic data will cause
substantial changes to the preliminary specifications.
Therefore, the purpose of this project is to greatly reduce the hydrologic uncertainty on
these streams to provide for sound science in current and future decision making for
planning efforts, land-use and zoning codes, design and implementation of flood -
recovery related infrastructure projects, and any other projects (e.g., transportation
circulation redesign) in which this information is crucial for success.
Of utmost importance, this information is needed prior to the design and implementation
of current flood-recovery infrastructure projects, all of which will receive grant monies
from various state and federal agencies.
The intended outcome of this project is to define the current flood hazards of the
downtown waterways to allow the Town to make informed decisions to protect the
community, infrastructure and the environment. This information will be used to help in
current and future flood mitigation efforts by ensuring proper design, construction and
zoning of structures within the river corridors for long-term resiliency and sustainability
of the Town of Estes Park. The study will be completed to FEMA modeling and
mapping standards, but at this time is to be used by the Town for planning and project
implementation purposes, and not intended to be submitt ed to FEMA as part of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Proposal:
Authorize staff to submit a grant application for a CDBG-DR Round Planning monies to
fund Estes Valley Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies.
Advantages:
If received, the funding would allow the Town to analyze and plan for a vital
community need: flood resiliency.
Disadvantages:
No disadvantages noted.
Action Recommended:
Town staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to submit a grant application for
CDBG-DR Round 2 funding, as described above.
Budget:
Estimated cost: Approximately $250,000 to be paid with CDBG-DR grant.
A small portion of the area that is likely to be studied is within the Estes Valley, but
outside Town limits. Staff will need to coordinate with the county, if a local match is
required.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate, anticipated to become High
Sample Motion:
I move to authorize staff to submit a grant application for CDBG-DR Round 2 funding for
Fall River, Big Thompson and Black Canyon Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: January 27, 2015
RE: CDBG-DR Round 2 Planning Grant Application: Downtown Estes
Park Neighborhood Plan
Objective:
1. Provide the Board with an update of the January 20 Planning Commission study
session.
2. Gain consensus from Board to submit a grant application for CDBG-DR Round 2
funding for a Downtown Estes Park Neighborhood Plan.
Present Situation:
At their January 13 Study Session the Town Board heard a presentation from
Community Development staff about application for a CDBG-DR grant application for a
Downtown Estes Park Neighborhood Plan; this report is attached for reference.
During the January 13 Study Session, the Board directed staff to present the same
report to the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC).
On January 20, the EVPC held a special study session to hear this presentation and
ask questions of staff.
Prior to this meeting, Community Development staff issued a press release, created a
project webpage (www.estes.org/downtownplan ) and mailed notice to approximately
880 affected property and business owners. Approximately a dozen members of the
public attended the meeting.
The Planning Commission discussed the potential planning area boundary, success of
past plans, questioned the status of the Visitor Center Parking Structure, and the
importance of public input. At the conclusion of discussion, the Commission provided
consensus to move forward with the Downtown planning effort.
The grant application is due no later than January 30, 2015. If awarded, request for
qualifications will be prepared, a consultant selected, and the Downtown Estes Park
Neighborhood Plan will be initiated. Community Development staff anticipates an
engaged public involvement for this process, with a timeframe of approximately 12
months.
Advantages:
If approved, would provide funding for a Downtown Estes Park Neighborhood
Plan that would set vision of downtown for the next 20 years and would
coordinate and integrate various projects including flood recovery, flood
mitigation, and transportation and infrastructure planning.
Disadvantages:
Possible misconceptions about the depth and scope of visioning process. Care
will need to be taken to distinguish this process from “downtown loop” NEPA
process.
Public process could be contentious.
Action Recommended:
Community Development staff recommends that the Town Board authorize staff to
submit a grant application for CDBG-DR Round 2 funding, as described above.
Budget:
Estimated cost: $150,000-$185,000, to be paid with CDBG-DR grant.
Downtown Plan could aid with future grant opportunities to mitigate flood hazard, assist
in façade renovation, and infrastructure improvements.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Downtown business and property owners and groups such as Partners for Commerce,
the Economic Development Corporation, and Board of Realtors will be most affected
and interested.
Sample Motion:
I move to authorize staff to submit a grant application for CDBG-DR Round 2 funding for
a Downtown Estes Park Neighborhood Plan.
Attachments:
1. Initial area boundary map
2. Report presented to Town Board on January 13
3. Report presented to Planning Commission on January 20
4. Hard copy of Estes Park Downtown Neighborhood Plan webpage
5. Press Release
6. Text of neighbor notice
Elkhorn Lodge
Stanley VillageShoppingCenter
TheKnoll
Visitor Center
Town Hall &Library
BOYD LN
VIRGINIADR
IV Y ST
W
ELKH
O
R
N
AVE
CLEAVE ST E E L K H O R N A V E
W E L K HORNAVE
WIEST D RSUNNYLN
WRIVERSIDEDRBIGTHOMPSONAVEERIVERSIDEDRBIG HORNDR
MORAINEAVEPARKLNSPRUCEDRFall RiverBlackCanyonCreek
F allR i ver
Fall RiverBigThompsonRiverE W O N D E R V I E W AVE
E E L K H O R N A V E
W ELKHORN AVE MA
C
G
R
E
G
O
R
A
V
E
WWONDERVIEWAVE
M O R A I N E AVE
[0 ½¼Miles
Commercial Outlying (CO)Commercial Downtown (CD)Commercial Heavy (CH)Office (O)
Commercial
Multi-Family ResidentalTwo Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2)Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)
Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R)Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1)
Single Family ResidentalRural Estate: 10 acre min. (RE-1)Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE)Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1)Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E)
Accomodations
IndustrialRestricted Industrial (I-1)
Accomodations (A)Accomodations (A-1)
Downtown Neighborhood Plan
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: January 13, 2015
RE: Downtown Visioning Process (aka “Downtown Neighborhood Plan”)
Objective:
1. Provide background information on advantages and disadvantages of a
Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
2. Present general concept of public process and contents of Downtown
Neighborhood Plan: integrate the vision for hazard and resiliency planning,
transportation and parking, infrastructure planning, sense of place (urban
design), economic development and economic diversity.
3. Gain consensus to proceed with CDBG-DR grant application to fund downtown
neighborhood plan.
Present Situation:
There has been very little change or upgrade to the infrastructure of the core downtown
commercial area since EPURA improvements following the Lawn Lake Flood of 1982.
Since that time, the population of Larimer County has more than doubled, and visitation
to Rocky Mountain National Park has increased by over 500,000 visitors. These surges
combined with extensive destination marketing have greatly increased the number of
guests visiting Estes Park throughout the year.
Looking beyond the numbers, the demographics and demands of residents and guests
are also changing. We see a continual increase in the retired population.
The destination products that attract guests to Estes Park are evolving and our products
must compete with other mountain destinations who are aggressively making
investments to attract guests away from Estes Park to their communities.
As these trends are expected to continue, the existing infrastructure requires updating
to accommodate the current and future demand. Currently there are a number of
interrelated issues being examined that each have an impact on the future of the core
downtown area, including flood mitigation, traffic and parking congestion, infrastructure
planning, economic diversity and workforce housing.
Many residents and businesses have expressed concern that there is no
comprehensive vision that incorporates all of these considerations. Instead, it seems we
are looking at just the individual trees without considering the overall health of the
economic forest.
Yet, all of these issue are certainly interwoven to create the fabric of Estes Park’s
downtown core. The Downtown Visioning project is intended to be high-level study of all
these issues, considering not just where we are today, but where we, as a community,
want to be in twenty years.
By analyzing the current situation as well as the desired outcome in twenty years, we
can complete a gap analysis and use the vision as the basis to develop a Downtown
Neighborhood Plan.
This plan will serve as a blueprint for future development and infrastructure
improvements in the heart of our downtown commercial neighborhood.
Funding Opportunity. Potential funding for the project is available through the CDBG-
DR grant program. In Round 2 $11 million is set aside to fund planning that “will provide
communities with the opportunity to comprehensively assess impacts and needs across
their entire recovery process, from economic development and housing to infrastructure
hazard mitigation and resiliency needs. …
… specific activities that may be funded include, but are not limited to:
Long range comprehensive community plans that integrate hazard and resilience
planning.
Economic development strategic plans.
Addressing flood mitigation through multi-objective parks and open space
planning.
Regional resilience plans to support better prepared and communities.
Area neighborhood plans.”
The grant application must be submitted to the State no later than January 30.
Proposal:
Staff proposes we hire a consultant to conduct inventory and analysis of the existing
downtown, prepare draft plans, coordinate public outreach, and deliver final product with
an implementation plan.
The downtown plan could address many factors, including downtown vision, flood
mitigation, infrastructure planning, sense of place, economic diversity and financial
incentives:
Process, Scope and Timeframe.
1) Create overall vision for downtown development for the next 20 years.
2) Coordinate with the Planning Commission to define possible boundaries, which
may differ from existing downtown area (map attached).
3) Establish public outreach and neighborhood planning process. Include coordination with
Estes Valley Planning Commission and incorporation in the Comprehensive Plan.
4) Identify community quality of life issues.
5) Identify demographic trends along the Northern Front Range and how the Town
can prepare for such trends.
6) Analyze downtown Estes Park in relation to other mountain resort communities.
Flood Mitigation.
7) Aid with flood mitigation planning to help reduce risk of future flooding and
minimize flood insurance costs.
8) Integrate with Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, the Fall River Master Plan and
future Big Thompson and Black Canyon master plans (if funded).
Infrastructure Planning.
9) Integrate Downtown Loop Project (Federal Land Access Grant).
10) Address parking needs and coordinate parking infrastructure.
11) Coordinate overall transportation improvements such as pedestrian amenities,
bicycle facilities, transit service, and private vehicles.
12) Coordinate improvements to aging infrastructure such water, sanitary and storm
sewer, electric, communications, high-speed internet, and fire protection.
Sense of Place.
13) Draft urban design guidelines to ensure public improvements have a consistent
visual theme (street lighting, parking lot signage, public restrooms, etc) to create
a sense of place.
14) Establish basis for a wayfinding system for pedestrians and drivers. This was
noted in the rejection letter regarding the downtown arts district.
15) Possible revisions to downtown sign regulations.
16) Identify additional outdoor activities such as public and private art, street
performers and ‘block parties’.
Economic Diversity.
17) Encourage economic diversity.
18) Guide land uses to ensure compatibility with downtown. Examples include
office, urban mixed-use housing, and workforce housing.
19) Prepare economic analysis and market demand.
20) Expand business day into evening hours.
21) Expand business year into winter months.
Financial Resources.
22) Encourage and assist in redevelopment and repairs of older buildings.
23) Investigate benefits of the Colorado Main Street and similar programs.
24) Provide basis for additional grant opportunities for infrastructure and
redevelopment opportunities.
Staff anticipates this planning process to take approximately 12 months from grant
application through delivery of final product.
Advantages:
Pro-active rather than reactive in guiding future development.
Coordinate public involvement in determining vision for downtown.
Identify quality of life issues regarding future of downtown.
Provide vision of ‘entire forest’ instead of the ‘individual trees’.
Consistent with previous Town Board direction to apply for grants.
Update and reinforce the neighborhood planning concept in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Identify flood hazards and coordinate potential solutions with overall downtown
development.
Ensure infrastructure is coordinated and adequate for future development.
Ensure holistic approach in transportation and parking improvements.
Aid in grant opportunities from State and Federal agencies.
Disadvantages:
Possible misconceptions about the depth and scope of visioning process. Care
will need to be taken to distinguish this process from “downtown loop” NEPA
process.
Public process could be contentious.
Action Recommended:
N/A
Budget:
Estimated cost: $150,000-$185,000, to be paid with CDBG-DR grant.
Downtown Plan could aid with future grant opportunities to mitigate flood hazard, assist
in façade renovation, and infrastructure improvements.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Downtown business and property owners and groups such as Partners for Commerce,
the Economic Development Corporation, and Board of Realtors will be most affected
and interested.
Attachments:
Area map
Wikipedia article on Neighborhood Planning
“Return on Investment”, Landscape Architecture, April 2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: January 20, 2015
RE: Downtown Estes Park Neighborhood Plan Grant Application
Objective:
1. Provide the Planning Commission opportunity to hear the “Downtown Estes Park
Neighborhood Plan” report that was presented to the Town Board at their
January 13 study session.
2. Inform the Planning Commission that the Town Board has directed staff to
proceed with a grant application.
3. Inform the Planning Commission of the public process initiated to date: direct
mailing to affected property and business owners, press release, web page.
4. Receive initial input from the Planning Commission on scope of plan.
Present Situation:
At the Tuesday January 13 Town Board Study Session, the Board discussed a possible
downtown plan and a grant application to fund such a plan. Community Development
Staff presented a report that outlines the grant application process, possible boundaries
of the study area and plan contents.
The Town Board requested staff present the downtown plan concept to the Planning
Commission as a courtesy.
The attached report presented to the Town Board on January 13 describes the grant
funding opportunity, the proposal to hire a consultant to prepare a downtown plan,
possible area boundaries, and possible plan contents. The plan could address flood
mitigation, infrastructure planning, urban design, economic health and diversity, and
financial resources.
Community Development Department is in the initial stage of drafting the grant
application, which includes scope of work that will outline the public process and plan
boundaries.
The public process will be finalized only after grant award (if awarded). The Planning
Commission will have a role; however, the role is yet to be determined.
The proposal, advantages, disadvantages, and anticipated level of public interest are
outlined in the attached report presented to the Town Board of January 13.
Action Recommended:
Staff requests initial input on scope and process for staff’s consideration in drafting the
grant application.
Attachments:
Report presented to Town Board on Jan. 13.
Area map
Press release
Notice to property/business owners
Wikipedia article on Neighborhood Planning
“Return on Investment”, Landscape Architecture, April 2009
Sample neighborhood plans:
- North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (portion of plan; entire plan can be
accessed at www.estes.org/downtownplan)
- Madison Downtown Plan (portion of plan; entire plan can be accessed at
www.estes.org/downtownplan)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: January 27, 2015
RE: CDBG-DR Round 2 Planning Grant Application: Estes Valley Channel
Migration Hazard Mapping and Risk Mitigation Planning Project Grant.
Objective:
1. Provide the Board with background information on the purpose and scope of an
upcoming grant opportunity through the Colorado Community Development
Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program (CDBG-DR); and
2. Consideration of a motion permitting the Town to apply for such CDBG-DR
funding.
Present Situation:
Definitions
The definitions below relate specifically to this
project.
Channel Migration refers to the dynamic process
of river channels moving laterally, or “migrating”,
over time. The area within a river channel that is
likely to move over time is called the channel
migration zone (CMZ). This process generally
occurs gradually or abruptly. A gradual migration
moves a river to a new location by eroding one
bank and depositing sediment along the other
(see photo to right1). Abrupt migration is when the
river channel rapidly shifts to a new location,
which is what we witnessed during the 2013
floods. The abrupt migrations are generally
unpredictable events that occur during high flood flows when the existing channel
cannot handle the new water and sediment (see photo on following page).
1 http://www.channelmigrationzone.com/cmz‐basics/river‐processes/
Gradual Migration: Lower Ruby River, 1870.
The green line is the historic river channel,
and the blue line is modern‐day channel.
Resilience means different things to different communities. According to the National
Disaster Recovery Framework, “Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use
planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental and cultural resource
protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and
revitalize the economic, social and natural environments.” Ultimately, a community is
more resilient when it can recover more quickly from any major impact, such as a
disaster.
Project Purpose
Colorado local governments and non-profit organizations in counties that were federally-
declared disasters in 2012 and 2013 are eligible to apply for CDBG-DR funds through
the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The Town is applying for project funding
through a subset of the CDBG-DR funding called the “Colorado Resilience Planning
Grant Program.” The overall goal of this funding program is to help flood and fire-
affected communities build capacity and plan for resiliency. The primary approaches for
this capacity building are local staffing, basic planning and studies, and long range
planning.
The Town is assembling a grant application package for what will be called the Estes
Valley Channel Migration Hazard Mapping and Risk Mitigation Planning Project
(“Project”). The purpose of the Project is to map channel migration zones (CMZs) in the
Estes Valley, and begin work with State agencies to develop a set of incentives and
regulatory programs that limit investment and development within these identified CMZ
hazard areas. The long-term goal of the Program is to reduce potential risks to life,
property and infrastructure, and to ensure the long-term flood resiliency and
sustainability of the riparian ecosystems in the Fall River, Fish Creek, Big Thompson
and Black Canyon Creek watersheds of the Estes Valley. The Project will likely
Rapid Migration: Fish Creek, 2013. Blue line is the normal river path.
recommend effective incentives to relocate away from hazardous areas, local Building
Code amendments, enhancements to the Estes Valley Development Code and lastly,
best management practices for the Estes Valley.
Project Scope
The grant application is due by January 30, 2015, with a likely notification of funding
status in March. If awarded the grant, the Project will be completed in early 2016.
Generally speaking, the Project will likely include the following components:
1. Coordination with State and Federal agencies
The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB), is currently taking steps to develop a statewide protocol for identifying
and mapping CMZs. The CWCB has expressed interest in assisting Estes Park
with the implementation of a pilot program to use CMZs and fluvial hazard zone
maps as regulatory tools.
The Project will include coordination with FEMA to identify opportunities to
reduce flood insurance rates, as determined via the Community Rating System
and the National Flood Insurance Program.
2. Channel Migration Hazard Zone Mapping
This portion of the Project will likely involve new and follow-up fieldwork along the
Fall River, Fish Creek, Black Canyon, Aspen Brook (a tributary to the Big
Thompson), and Big Thompson riparian areas of the Estes Valley, and an
assessment of existing information (Fish Creek/Fall River Master Plans) to
ultimately finalize the CMZs through GIS mapping.
3. The development of recommendations for a regulatory Channel Migration Zone
Program for the Estes Valley.
The selected consulting team will work with the Town of Estes Park, an Estes
Valley Watershed Coalition and the public to draft recommendations regarding
new or revised CMZs, floodplain development regulatory codes, Best
Management Practices, and incentives, for inclusion in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan, Estes Valley Development Code, and/or Town of Estes
Park Building Codes, as appropriate. The adoption of any incentives or
regulations will be at the sole discretion of the Town Board and County
Commissioners, with input from the Planning Commission.
Avoiding development in CMZs is generally viewed as the most cost effective
approach to mitigating fluvial erosion hazards, in comparison to retrofit, removal
or modifications to protect structures. As such, development of regulatory CMZs
is an important municipal planning tool for limiting encroachment along rivers. A
map of the CMZs can also be used to support other flood mitigation projects,
including stream and floodplain restoration projects, bridge and culvert
replacements, and river corridor protection. Finally, CMZ mapping and regulation
can be a critical tool to promote the establishment of a sustainable community
relationship with its waterways, and to permanently protect and enjoy the social,
economic and ecological benefits of rivers, streams and their riparian areas.
4. Development of Best Management Practices for stream/river corridor design and
management for integration into the Estes Valley Development Code and/or
Town of Estes Park Floodplain Management Code.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are suggested methods or techniques that
are found to be the most effective and practical means in achieving an objective
(e.g., flood hazard reduction). Maximizing the use of BMPs is in the interest of
the landowner, the Estes Park community, and river as a whole. BMPs for land
use in a CMZ will be compiled for the Estes Valley.
5. Public outreach and stakeholder engagement
The goal of this Project component is to achieve public buy-in and engagement
regarding proposed CMZ codes, incentives, and regulations, and to allow ample
opportunity for public input and review of any proposed codes.
Public outreach will include a series of open house public meetings at key points
in the project, as follows:
Release of draft CMZ maps (2 meetings);
Release of draft proposed regulation, BMPs, and map finalization (2
meetings);
Final meeting (1 meeting);
Presentations on the CMZ mapping and proposed regulations, codes and
incentives will occur with the Estes Park Town Board, Larimer County
Commissioners, and the Estes Valley Planning Commission (estimated 6
meetings);
Additional meetings will include one-on-one discussions with key landowners and
presentations to local interest groups such as Estes Valley Land Trust, the Estes
Valley Watershed Coalition and others.
Updated web pages detailing the program and public outreach will be maintained
on the Town’s website. Press releases will precede and follow all public
meetings and also periodically provide updates on progress.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission opined on this grant opportunity during their
January 20, 2015 special meeting. During that meeting the Commission did not have
concerns about moving forward with this grant application.
Proposal:
Authorize staff to submit an application for a CDBG-DR Round 2 to fund an Estes Valley
Channel Migration Hazard Mapping and Risk Mitigation Planning Project.
Advantages:
If received, the funding would allow the Town to analyze and plan for a vital
community need: flood resiliency.
Disadvantages:
No disadvantages noted.
Action Recommended:
Town staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to submit a grant application for
CDBG-DR Round 2 funding, as described above.
Budget:
Estimated cost: $157,000 to be paid with CDBG-DR grant.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate
Sample Motion:
I move to authorize staff to submit a grant application for CDBG-DR Round 2 funding for
an Estes Valley Channel Migration Hazard Mapping and Risk Mitigation Planning
Project.
Attachments:
1. Grant application
2. Planning Grant Process
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 1
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant
PROGRAM GUIDELINES*
Contents
Version History ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Program Summary.................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Program Description .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Technical Assistance to Prospective Applicants .................................................................................................................... 4
Eligible Recipients ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Eligible Activities ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Application Deadline .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Maximum Grant Amount ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Project Selection Criteria ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Funding Priorities ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Funding Decision Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Regulations & Policies ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Dispute Resolution and Appeal Process ............................................................................................................................... 10
Process for Complaints (fairness, fraud, and waste) ............................................................................................................ 10
*These program guidelines are for the 2nd Allocation of the CDBG‐DR Resilience Planning Grant Funds.
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 2
Version History
Version # Date Page # Description
1.1 12.1.14 N/A Update to original guidelines for round 2 funding
Program Summary
How / Where to Apply? See www.dola.colorado.gov/cdbg‐dr for a link to the online
application.
Application Period
Applications are due to DOLA by 5 p.m. on January 30, 2015.
(Before submitting the online application, applicants must
complete an applicant profile by January 20, 2015.)
Award Amounts or Maximum The maximum grant award allowed is $300,000.
Eligible Recipients
Colorado units of local government as well as non‐profit
organizations in counties that were federally‐declared
disasters in 2012 and 2013 are eligible to apply for these
planning and capacity building funds. The state encourages
local governments to partner with other jurisdictions,
nonprofits, private sector, or other partners as necessary.
Watershed coalitions that are not a registered 501(c)3 must
apply with a fiscal agent. Where applicable, multi‐jurisdictional
and multi‐objective projects will be more competitive.
Program Description / Overview
These planning funds will support capacity building through
local staffing, basic planning and studies, and long range
planning for disaster recovery in the municipalities, counties,
and watersheds that sustained damage from the fires and
floods.
Eligible Activity and National Objective
1. Plans, Studies, and Analyses
This includes watershed coalition plans, studies, and analyses.
2. Local Staff for Planning, Permitting, or Related Functions
Targeted Counties 80% or more of funds to Boulder, Larimer, and Weld
Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Benefit
LMI benefit is not a requirement of planning and capacity‐
building projects, but is desired when applicable
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 3
Overview
Colorado is allocating a portion of Community Development Block Grant ‐ Disaster Recovery funds to help flood
and fire‐affected communities build capacity and plan for resiliency. The recent Colorado floods and fires hit many
communities hard, affecting not just homes, businesses, and infrastructure, but local government capacity and
plans for the future (see table on page 2 for a list of counties federally declared as disasters that are eligible for
this grant program). Now disaster‐impacted communities face both the challenge and the opportunity, under
serious time constraints and pressures, to plan to rebuild differently. Communities have the ability to reexamine
plans, rethink procedures, and capitalize on disaster recovery funds to rebuild in a way that protects its residents,
economy, and culture.
Program Description
These planning funds will support capacity building through local
staffing, basic planning and studies, and long range planning for
community redevelopment in the municipalities and counties that
sustained damage from the fires and floods that were federally
declared as disasters in 2012 and 2013. The Colorado Department
of Local Affairs (DOLA), Division of Local Government (DLG)
administers these competitive planning funds. Approximately
$11,000,000 is available to communities in the impacted counties
for planning and capacity needs. As per direction from the U.S.
Housing and Urban Development, 80% of the funds will be
allocated to Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties or communities
within those counties.
Many municipalities, counties, and their project partners are
facing a myriad of recovery challenges. Among them is the need
for planning support to develop long‐term community recovery
plans that design a strategic action plan and policies that will
guide the community’s actions to recover over the next several
years. Additionally, local governments need strategically
important and urgent plans, studies, and analyses that must be
completed before starting project implementation work, such as a
site analysis before the planning of a facility. Others are ready to
update their long range plans and regulations, like comprehensive
plans that integrate hazard mitigation planning. Finally, the state
recognizes that some communities simply cannot address any of
these planning needs without first addressing key staffing
shortfalls that are a result of the floods and fires. While
communities have different needs and timelines, these Community Resilience Planning funds are meant to
address those needs.
Resilience
What does “resilience” mean? It
means different things to
different communities.
According to the National
Disaster Recovery Framework,
“Resilience incorporates hazard
mitigation and land use planning
strategies; critical infrastructure,
environmental and cultural
resource protection; and
sustainability practices to
reconstruct the built
environment, and revitalize the
economic, social and natural
environments.” Ultimately, a
community is more resilient
when it can recover more quickly
from any major impact, such as a
disaster.
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 4
Technical Assistance to Prospective Applicants
The DLG staff, including Regional Managers and the Community Development Office, can provide technical
assistance and advising to communities interested in applying for these funds. Please see the cover page of this
document or visit DLG’s website for staff contact information.
Eligible Recipients
Colorado units of local government as well as non‐profit organizations in counties that had federally‐declared
disasters in 2012 and 2013 are eligible to apply for these planning and capacity building funds. The state
encourages local governments to partner with other jurisdictions, nonprofits, private sector, or other partners as
necessary. Where applicable, multi‐jurisdictional and multi‐objective projects will be more competitive.
Disaster Declared Year Counties Affected
2013 Severe Storms, Flooding,
Landslides, and Mudslides
September 2013 –
18 counties
Adams, Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Boulder,
Clear Creek, Crowley, Denver, El Paso,
Fremont, Gilpin, Jefferson, Lake,
Larimer, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan,
Sedgwick, Weld
Black Forest Wildfire Summer 2013 El Paso
Royal Gorge Wildfire Summer 2013 Fremont
High Park and Waldo Canyon
Wildfires
Summer 2012 El Paso, Larimer, Teller
Eligible Activities
Planning activities for this program are determined eligible under 24 CFR 507.205.
All planning activities should be directly related to needs related to the declared disaster(s).
1. Plans, Studies, and Analyses
These planning funds can be used for municipalities, counties, a combination of multiple
jurisdictions/coalition, and/or non‐profit organizations to address short and long‐term disaster recovery
planning needs. Examples may include, but not be limited to: drainage studies, feasibility studies,
vulnerability and risk assessments, housing and redevelopment assessments, park planning and
conceptual design, real estate analyses for relocation of housing/mixed uses or public facilities, sewer and
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 5
water system analyses, green infrastructure planning, economic recovery analyses and plans and similar
projects.
Additional examples may include: comprehensive plan and land use code updates which integrate hazard
mitigation and resilience, scenario plans (including those that take into account climate change factors),
community fire prevention or risk reduction planning, risk reduction planning for vulnerable populations,
continuity of government/operations plans, transportation corridor and access planning, parks/trail
connectivity planning, strategic planning for properties acquired through the flood, park system planning,
community resilience building, communications planning and similar projects. Regional, collaborative
plans that have broad support from participating communities and sectors will be more competitive,
especially where those plans work to build resilience.
Watershed Coalition Plans, Studies, and Analyses
These planning funds can be used for watershed coalitions to address critical and time‐sensitive recovery
needs to further develop and/or prepare future projects for implementation, and to develop longer‐term
plans that are multi‐objective, seek to integrate existing plans with the Watershed Master Plan or develop
integrated projects.
Examples of plans, studies and analyses may include, but not be limited to: drainage studies, geomorphic
assessments, flood studies, environmental assessments, watershed assessment plans, riparian conditions
assessments, aquatic/terrestrial habitat condition assessments, river restoration reports, watershed
coalition master plans for fire‐disaster declared regions, sediment transport modeling, hydraulic
modeling, erosion hazard zone mapping, sewer and water system analyses, and wildlife habitat
preservation plans. Studies that address areas such as stream restoration or enhancement, land use,
economic development, green infrastructure, recreation and community connectivity to the river, hazard
mitigation, and infrastructure (e.g., utilities and roads) are also eligible. Broad, regional/multi‐
jurisdictional planning projects and studies will be highly competitive. Planning and conceptual design
projects that achieve multiple objectives and maximize community‐wide benefit by further developing
prioritized watershed master plan projects will make Watershed Resilience project implementation
applications more competitive in later rounds of funding.
Typically engineering and design for a specific project is not eligible. These funds may be spent on
conceptual design, but as a general rule are to not exceed 30% of project design work. Additionally the
funds may be spent to study and analyze a recovery concept further, such as resilience scenario planning
(including rough cost estimate development).
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 6
2. Local Staff for Planning, Permitting, or Related Functions
A limited amount of these funds can be used for local staff for up to 18 months where: (a) other funding
sources are not available, and (b) staffing needs are related to the declared flood or fires and preventing
planning functions from occurring successfully, and (c) the positions are related to recovery‐related
planning or permitting or related community development functions. The staffing needs that best fit this
funding source include planners working on a plan/planning project and code enforcement/permit staff
(where demand has increased or is expected to increase dramatically due to rebuilding from the disaster).
To be competitive for this CDBG‐DR funding, the position must address flood and/or fire impacts and the
applicant must consider how this position will help the community rebuild better, stronger, and more
resilient to future disasters. If your organization plans to apply for these funds, contact DOLA staff for
more details on eligibility. As per CDBG‐DR requirements, grant writing and fundraising are not eligible
staff activities.
Application Deadline
Applications are submitted online and due to DOLA by 5 p.m. on January 30, 2015.
Before submitting the online application, an applicant profile must be submitted by January 20, 2015 in order to
be validated by the state in time for you to submit your application by the 30th.
Applications must be signed electronically by the chief local elected official or the nonprofit board president.
Maximum Grant Amount
The maximum grant award allowed is $300,000. In addition to large planning projects and studies, this fund is
available to help pay for small but critical planning projects and studies, so there is not a minimum grant award
amount.
Project Selection Criteria
The following criteria or guidelines are used by department staff, external advisors, and the DOLA executive
director in reviewing applications and making funding decisions.
Category 1: Planning Projects
Requirements for planning grants:
Applicants will be required to demonstrate the following:
Project’s purpose, scope, engagement in local or regional planning efforts, and the extent of multiple
private and public partner involvement
Planning work is directly related to the declared disaster
Project budget and additional funding sources (including in‐kind)
Specific, actionable steps planned to implement the plan or study recommendations (including a planned
implementation schedule)
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 7
Community must be ready to start spending funds immediately after the executed contract, and project
work must be completed within 18 months. Upon notification of the grant award, grantees can start the
request for proposals process, but cannot obligate any grant funds before the executed contract.
Listing of recovery‐related projects funded or expected to be funded within the same time period (to
assess capacity of applicant to manage the grant)
Projects must identify, track, and report resilience metrics
Watershed Coalitions: The multi‐jurisdictional or regional nature of the planning project
Project priority: If submitting multiple requests for planning funding, rank the project submittals in order
of priority
Scoring criteria for planning grants:
Need (40%)
Extent and severity of disaster damage
Responsive to existing conditions that pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community
Responsive to documented needs and critical recovery issues
Alternative funding sources not available
Impact (35%)
Planning project will incorporate resilience and sustainability to help prevent or minimize losses from
future disasters
Community has adopted “Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado” as put forth by
the Colorado Water Conservation Board (effective date 1/14/2011)
Commitment, involvement, and support for project from community partners and/or neighboring
jurisdictions and the public (letters of support are encouraged)
Incorporates multiple objectives/benefits
Consistent with local and regional plans (including Watershed Coalition master plans), as applicable
Identifies carbon mitigation and energy efficiency strategies (e.g., renewable energy usage, state‐of‐the‐
art technologies, location efficiency planning, etc.) where applicable
Provides connectivity (trails, wildlife habitat, roads, etc.) where applicable
Benefits low‐income persons or other vulnerable populations
Promotes economic development
Feasibility (25%)
Demonstrated capacity and experience to carry out project, including management capability of
applicants/administrators
Project cost‐effectiveness and reasonability (e.g., must demonstrate how you arrived at the project cost)
Ability to carry out project in a timely manner, including readiness of applicant to begin work immediately
and complete work within 18 months
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 8
Category 2: Planning Staff
Requirements for staffing grants:
The position and work must be directly related to the federally declared disaster. Staff plan demonstrates
a need for additional or replacement staff, and the staff position(s) will be related to planning, permitting,
or related community development functions.
No other funding sources are available to meet the staffing needs
Costs must be reasonable and defensible (note: hiring process must be documented)
For permitting or code enforcement positions, the community can demonstrate or has a reasonable
expectation to see a significant increase in development permit applications, related to rebuilding after
the disaster
Positions will be funded for no more than 18 months, and the applicant must hire and have the position
begin work immediately after the contract is executed
The position must address enhancing the community’s resilience
Scoring criteria for staffing grants:
The impact the position will have on the community’s recovery planning efforts and how well it addresses
the staff capacity gaps demonstrated in the staffing plan (45%)
The extent to which the position builds resiliency and sustainability in the community (35%)
Demonstration of community support (e.g., ability of the applicant to cover indirect expenses, or the
shared prioritization for the position among partners) (20%)
Funding Priorities
Funding will be considered for any project that meets the selection criteria. However, the following types of
projects will be very competitive, as they are funding priorities for this second allocation of Resilience Planning
funds:
critical studies and plans for a resilient long‐term recovery
multi‐jurisdictional/regional planning projects that incorporate resilience
comprehensive plan and land use code updates which thoroughly integrate hazards and resilience
planning and implementation (e.g., regulation, program, or process changes) that leads to the significant
reduction of community risk to hazards
Funding Decision Process
Complete applications, submitted online, are due by January 30, 2015 at 5pm. Please visit
http://www.dola.colorado.gov/cdbg‐dr for a link to the online application. Following an initial staff review,
Division of Local Government staff and external advisors will evaluate the applications and make
recommendations to the executive director of DOLA. External advisors may include a neutral local government
representative, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management representative, and community
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 9
development disaster planning expert, and others. Colorado Water Conservation Board staff will be involved in
the review of Watershed Coalition planning project application review.
DLG will send written notification to each applicant concerning the award decisions. Funding decisions will be
made if possible within 6 weeks. A letter from the DOLA executive director announcing a decision to provide
project funding is not a formal obligation of funds by the state, but rather an offer to enter into a grant contract
for the amount and project specified. Conditions of funding may be stated in the letter. Such conditions must be
met either prior to or during the time of performance of the project. Therefore, grant recipients should not
encumber or expend any grant funds before they receive a fully executed contract from DLG. This includes
signing contracts with hired staff or consultants.
Regulations & Policies
Grantees will be required to comply with cross‐cutting federal regulations to accept and spend the CDBG‐DR
funds, as applicable (e.g., environmental review, preference for local hiring, fair housing laws, accessibility,
procurement rules, etc.). See the Colorado CDBG Guidebook and the CDBG‐DR Resilience Planning Program Quick‐
Start Guide for details, or contact DOLA staff for questions or concerns. The Quick‐Start Guide will be customized
for 2nd Allocation grantees, but the existing version can provide preliminary guidance on requirements for
procedures, pay request and reporting processes, and other issues.
The following sections describe applicable federal and state regulations, policies, and procedures that must be
adhered to as part of these CDBG‐DR grants, as applicable.
Audit Requirements
OMB Circular A‐133 requires single audits of all grantees that have total annual federal expenditures in excess of
$500,000. Financial audits and/or certifications are required in accordance with State law when grantee has total
annual federal expenditures less than $500,000. Single audit costs may be eligible for reimbursement in part as
an administrative expense. These limits are subject to change per updates to the OMB Circular A‐133.
Duplication of Benefits
Grantees must be aware that the Supplemental Appropriations Act authorizing CDBG funding or the Stafford Act
itself may include restrictions on using those program funds to provide assistance when insurance providers or
other federal or state agencies have already funded all or a portion of the activity. Certain Supplemental
Appropriations Acts also include restrictions against use of those program funds as matching requirement, share
or contribution for any other federal program. The Stafford Act also contains eligibility requirements for recipients
who have received prior disaster funding based upon whether or not they are in compliance with requirements
associated with receipt of those funds. Where applicable, recipients must be in compliance with these restrictions
or individual funding will be denied.
Procurement Requirements
Both grantees and sub recipients must follow federal, state, and local procurement rules when purchasing
services, supplies, materials or equipment. The federal procurement rules establish standards and guidelines for
the procurement of supplies, engineering, architectural, consulting, and other professional services for CDBG‐DR
programs. These standards are furnished to ensure that such materials and services are obtained efficiently and
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 10
economically and in compliance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, and local laws and executive
orders.
Equal Opportunity
Capacity building grantees are subject to cross‐cutting regulations, so the hiring process must be well‐
documented to show how the position was made accessible to all individuals. Grantees are encouraged to market
the position(s) locally and outreach to low to moderate income individuals.
Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains
While construction is not an eligible activity for the Resilience Planning Grant Program, construction projects
funded through the CDBG‐DR program, as well as all other FEMA and State grant funding sources will comply not
only with the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program, but also of the higher standards that
the State of Colorado adopted in the Colorado Water Conservation Board's Rules and Regulations for Regulatory
Floodplains. Specifically, the rules require that all new and substantially changed residential structures located in
the regulatory floodplain must have a minimum of one foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation. All new
or substantially changed non‐residential structures must either have one foot of freeboard above the base flood
elevation, or be flood‐proofed to at least one foot above the base flood elevations. All new or substantially
changed critical facilities, as defined in Rule 6, must have at least two foot of freeboard above the base flood
elevation.
Dispute Resolution and Appeal Process
If an application is not approved for funding, or is approved for a smaller amount than requested, the applicant
will be notified in writing. If the applicant desires to appeal, the applicant must submit a letter giving the reason
for the appeal within 3 days of funding decision written notification. The appeal letter must explain the rationale
for why the applicant believes the funding decision made was contrary to state or federal laws or rules or was in
some other way inequitable or indefensible. The appeal will be considered and a written response provided within
14 days.
Process for Complaints (fairness, fraud, and waste)
Resolving local complaints is the grantee’s responsibility. Grantees are required by federal regulations to establish
a procedure for handling complaints that deal with local program administration, management, or operational
procedures. DOLA is responsible for monitoring to insure that a judicious procedure for handling local complaints
is in place and is utilized when necessary. The grantee may provide HUD contact information to complainants as
needed. For civil rights violations about grant programs, they should contact the Department of HUD, Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (1‐800‐669‐9777). Complaints about fraud, waste, and abuse about grant
programs that represent criminal wrongdoing or HUD standards of ethics and conduct may be submitted to the
Office of Inspector General (1‐800‐347‐3735).
Colorado Resilience Planning Grant Program, CDBG‐DR – Guidelines Page 11
For assistance in completing your application, please contact:
Don Sandoval, Regional Manager
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Division of Local Government, Field Services
Phone: 970‐679‐4501
don.sandoval@state.co.us
Anne Miller, Senior Planner
DOLA, Division of Local Government, Community Development Office
Phone: 303‐864‐7726
anne.miller@state.co.us
Version 1CDBG-DR Application Process
Local Governments Applying for
Planning Grants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGSubmit Application toColorado Divisionof Local Government (DLG)
GRANT APPROVAL PHASE
START!COMPLETE!
GRANT CLOSEOUT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGDLG Reviews Applicationfor Completeness andDuplication of Benefit
GRANT IMPLEMENTATION
DLGApplication ReviewedAgainst Action PlanApproval Matrix
Confirm Impacted County, Low to
Moderate Income-LMI, etc.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGGrant Award, Rejectionor Hold Letter Prepared
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGAudit Records
Maintain records for future audits
LOCAL GOVERNMENTPayment Received, Spend Funds
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGDLG Reviews Submitted Invoices for Eligibility
Reimburse Local Government
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGGrant Closeout
Must retain all files and records for audit purposes.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLG
Grantmaking Decision
- If grant awarded, grant paperwork prepared, notify Local Government.
- If grant is denied, Local Government is notified.
- If grant is on hold, DLG provides regular status reports to Local Government.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DLGSign Grant Paperwork
Submit Invoices for Repayment
to DLG
PLANNING
Estes Park Pride Awards
The Estes Park Pride Awards allow the Town of Estes Park to recognize outstanding citizens for their effort
and time spent giving back to the community. Anyone in the Estes Park area may nominate or be nominated
for an Estes Park Pride Award; residency within the town limits is not required. The awards honor community
members in the categories of Volunteer of the Year, Volunteer Group of the Year, Business Person of the
Year, and Teacher of the Year. In addition, the Estes Park High School (EPHS) Student Pride Scholarship
recognizes a graduating senior who puts forth exceptional effort as a volunteer or participant in community
service projects.
Past Estes Park Pride Award recipients include:
2013
Volunteers of the Year: Jane Zmijewski and Lakota
Volunteer Group of the Year: Estes Valley Victim Advocates Crisis Advocate Team
Business Persons of the Year: John Cullen and Rick Benton
Teacher of the Year: Brenda Humphrey
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Karin Kingswood
In 2014, the Town of Estes Park will present awards in the following categories;
Volunteer of the Year: This award recognizes the volunteer who has done something ‘remarkable’ for the
community during the past year, although long-term community volunteerism may also be considered during
the selection process. Elements considered are: number of citizens affected, scope of personal involvement,
number of hours dedicated, and uniqueness of the volunteer’s effort. Nominations may come from anyone
within the Estes Park area. Should the evaluation team identify more than one recipient, multiple awards may
be granted.
Volunteer Group of the Year: This award recognizes the volunteer group which has made a ‘remarkable’
impact on the community during the past year, although long-term community volunteerism may also be
considered during the selection process. Elements considered are: number of citizens affected, scope of
involvement, number of hours dedicated, and uniqueness of the group’s effort. Nominations may come from
anyone within the Estes Park area. Nominees for this category include groups of three or more individuals.
Business Person of the Year: This award recognizes the business person who has done something
‘remarkable’ for the community during the past year and, if applicable, past years. Nominations may come
from any person, business, or organization within the Estes Park area. Elements considered are: number of
citizens affected, scope of personal involvement, number of hours dedicated, and uniqueness of the business
person’s effort.
Teacher of the Year: The Town would like to recognize the exceptional efforts of Estes Park area teachers.
The selection criteria will center on ‘outside the classroom’ service to the community. Elements considered
are: number of citizens affected, scope of personal involvement, number of hours dedicated, and uniqueness
of the teacher’s effort. Anyone in the Estes Park area may make a nomination.
Estes Park High School Student Pride Scholarship: The student chosen as the recipient of this
scholarship must have a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher and demonstrate outstanding service to the Estes
Park community. Elements considered are: number of citizens affected, scope of personal involvement,
number of hours dedicated, and uniqueness of the student’s effort. This scholarship will be included on the
high school’s local scholarship application and will require the student to provide a comprehensive account of
his/her community service and volunteer efforts.
NOMINATION FORM
2014
ESTES PARK PRIDE AWARD
Nomination Category
Volunteer of the Year Business Person of the Year
Volunteer Group of the Year Teacher of the Year
Nominee’s Name
Address
City, State & Zip
For what organization(s) does the nominee volunteer?
Narrative (Your nomination will not be considered without this information.)
Please attach a narrative describing the nominee’s noteworthy service to the community.
Elaborate on the impact the nominee has upon the community and, if possible, quantify the
number of hours and/or years the nominee has volunteered.
Nominator
Nominator’s Name
Mailing Address
City, State & Zip
Phone E-mail address
Nomination deadline is Tuesday, April 1, 2014.
Return completed nomination forms to:
Town of Estes Park, c/o Town Clerk, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517,
or email to TownClerk@estes.org
Pride Award Recipients
2014
Estes Park Pride Award Plaque Presented to entire community for efforts during the
September 2013 Flood and flood recovery.
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipients: Ashlyn Johnson ($2000)
Elizabeth Palmer ($500)
2013
Volunteers of the Year: Jane Zmijewski and Lakota
Volunteer Group of the Year: Estes Valley Victim Advocates Crisis Advocate Team
Business Persons of the Year: John Cullen and Rick Benton
Teacher of the Year: Brenda Humphrey
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Karin Kingswood
2012
Volunteers of the Year: Claudia Irwin and Sandy Osterman
Volunteer Group of the Year: Ambassadors of Estes Park
Business Persons of the Year: Rob and Julie Pieper
Teacher of the Year: Marcie Kiser
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Carly Bowles
2011
Volunteer of the Year: Elizabeth Fogarty
Volunteer Group of the Year: Rooftop Rodeo Committee
Business Person of the Year: Kris and Gary Hazelton
Teacher of the Year: Jennifer Taylor
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Annika Van der Werf
2010
Volunteers of the Year: Les Foiles, Tom Anderson and Don Widrig
Business Person of the Year: Mimi Hardendorf
Teacher of the Year: Julie Varilek
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Scott Wenzel
2009
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Peter Webermeier
2008
Teacher of the Year: Tom Frasier
Volunteers of the Year: Carly Bowles and Harriet Burgess
Business Person of the Year: Paula Steige
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Kellsie Purdy
2007
Teacher of the Year: Elizabeth Repola
Volunteer of the Year: Doug Frisbie
Business Person of the Year: Judy Nystrom
EPHS Student Pride Scholarship Recipient: Laura Carspecken
2006
Teacher of the Year: Susan Ryder
Volunteers of the Year: Katie Speer and Lindsey Marquez
Business Persons of the Year: Rob and Julie Pieper
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: January 23, 2015
RE: Interview Committee for Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the two positions open on
the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The terms of two members of the Board expire on
February 28, 2015.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is currently made up of five volunteer community
members with three appointed by the Town and two appointed by the County. The
Commission currently has two vacancies. Administrative Services has posted the positions
and accepted applications through February 6, 2015.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be
interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the
Town Board. Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments
at the Study Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the
Board meeting for approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to be identified at the Study Session and recommended for Board
approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment interview panel.
Estes Valley Planning Commission Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: January 23, 2015
RE: Interview Committee for Estes Valley Planning Commission
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the one position open on
the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission is currently made up of seven volunteer community
members with three appointed by the Town, three appointed by the County and one jointly
appointed by the Town and County. The Commission currently has one vacancy.
Administrative Services has posted the positions and accepted applications through
February 6, 2015.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be
interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the
Town Board. Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments
at the Study Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the
Board meeting for approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to be identified at the Study Session and recommended for Board
approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Estes Valley Planning Commission interview panel.
Reports and Discussion:
The Estes Park Transit Hub Parking Structure Update &
Recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Board
will be a verbal report
by Director Muhonen and Chair Campbell
SHEET TITLE:DESCRIPTION
ISSUE:
MARK DATE COLORADOPROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:23-7422.005DECBA6784321PARKING STRUCTURE
TRANSIT HUB
ESTES PARK56784321Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.\\FHUMAIN\FHUMAINK\113156-01\CADD\113156-01DESIGN-SIGNING AND STRIPING.DWG 9/24/2014 1:09:32 PM BARRY.NOVAK
Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.
Firm Certificate of Authority Number:
19871396991
ESTES PARK
ISSUED FOR BID9/23/14 1424423555C-600PAVEMENTMARKING &SIGNAGEPLANPROPOSEDPARKINGGARAGE11
ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 1Figure 1.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"NORTH SITEJanuary 16, 2015
ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 2Figure 2.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"NORTH SITEJanuary 16, 2015
ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 8Figure 8.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"SOUTH SITEDecember 11, 2014
Town of Estes Park Public Works Dept (Engineering Division)
BID OPENING: 11/25/2014 DATE:12/01/14
OPENING TIME: 3:00 PM TABULATION OF BIDS PAGE:1
PROJECT: EP Transit Facility Parking Structure CONTRACT TIME: 200 WORKING DAYS = 10 months
BID FULL PROJ TOTAL MIN PROJ MIN PROJ % OF % OF
RANK VENDOR NAME RESPONSIVE?BID DEDUCTS BID DEFICIT LOW BID EST
0 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $4,969,500.00 ($50,000.00)$4,919,500.00 $1,142,837.00 94%100%
1 Mark Young Construction Inc.N $5,308,282.00 ($948,478.00)$4,359,804.00 $583,141.00 100%107%
2 Heath Construction N $5,428,640.00 ($839,906.00)$4,588,734.00 $812,071.00 102%109%
3 MW Golden Constructors Y $5,751,000.00 ($644,120.00)$5,106,880.00 $1,330,217.00 108%116%
4 Alliance Const Solutions, LLC N $6,330,000.00 ($588,000.00)$5,742,000.00 $1,965,337.00 119%127%
(0) -EST-(1)(2)(3)(4)
LOW BID UNIT
COST
HIGH BID UNIT
COST
AVE UNIT
COST
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Mark Young Construction Inc.Heath Construction MW Golden Constructors Alliance Const Solutions, LLC
ITEM
CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
1 Base Bid (Full Structure)1.00 LS $4,969,500.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $63,686.82 $5,428,640.00 $5,428,640.00 $64,878.49 $5,751,000.00 $5,751,000.00 $68,070.17 $6,330,000.00 $6,330,000.00 $73,802.84 $5,308,282.00 $6,330,000.00 $5,704,480.50
2 Structural Alternate 1 (Cast in Place Struct Concrete)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 $885,821.00 $6,194,103.00 $72,457.33 $0.00 $5,428,640.00 $64,878.49 $0.00 $5,751,000.00 $68,070.17 $0.00 $6,330,000.00 $73,802.84 $0.00 $885,821.00 $221,455.25
3 Structural Alternate 2 (Doug Fir in lieu of Cedar)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 ($45,560.00)$5,262,722.00 $63,235.73 ($10,700.00)$5,417,940.00 $64,772.54 $21,190.00 $5,772,190.00 $68,279.97 ($13,000.00)$6,317,000.00 $73,674.13 ($45,560.00)$21,190.00 ($12,017.50)
4 Deductive Alternate 1 (Stone Masonry Veneer)1.00 LS ($50,000.00)$4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($75,359.00)$5,187,363.00 $62,489.60 ($53,270.00)$5,364,670.00 $64,245.12 ($81,340.00)$5,690,850.00 $67,474.62 ($31,000.00)$6,286,000.00 $73,367.20 ($81,340.00)($31,000.00)($60,242.25)
5 Deductive Alternate 2 (Custom Porch & Seat Walls)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($181,093.00)$5,006,270.00 $60,696.60 ($238,247.00)$5,126,423.00 $61,886.24 ($146,364.00)$5,544,486.00 $66,025.48 ($176,000.00)$6,110,000.00 $71,624.62 ($238,247.00)($146,364.00)($185,426.00)
6 Deductive Alternate 3 (Art Panels & Timbers)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($343,724.00)$4,662,546.00 $57,293.40 ($405,507.00)$4,720,916.00 $57,871.32 ($196,670.00)$5,347,816.00 $64,078.25 ($280,000.00)$5,830,000.00 $68,852.35 ($405,507.00)($196,670.00)($306,475.25)
7 Deductive Alternate 4 (Pre-fab Stairs in lieu of Custom)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($302,742.00)$4,359,804.00 $54,295.95 ($132,182.00)$4,588,734.00 $56,562.58 ($240,936.00)$5,106,880.00 $61,692.74 ($88,000.00)$5,742,000.00 $67,981.06 ($302,742.00)($88,000.00)($190,965.00)
8 Additive Alternate (Elect Vehicle Charging Stations)1.00 LS $70,000.00 $4,989,500.00 $60,530.56 $93,268.00 $4,453,072.00 $55,219.40 $87,620.00 $4,676,354.00 $57,430.11 $79,476.00 $5,186,356.00 $62,479.63 $81,500.00 $5,823,500.00 $68,787.99 $79,476.00 $93,268.00 $85,466.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST (including design & CM)$6,093,587.00 $71,462.12 $6,432,369.00 $74,816.40 $6,552,727.00 $76,008.06 $6,875,087.00 $79,199.74 $7,454,087.00 $84,932.42
FULL PROJECT BUDGET DEFICIT $1,192,837.00 $1,531,619.00 $1,651,977.00 $1,974,337.00 $2,553,337.00
NOTES
1. No restrooms included
2. All landscaping and irrigation by Town
3. Budget reflects Const Mgmt & Inspection by Contract Employee instead of Consultant
4. FASTER = Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009
5. Cost per space includes all design and construction costs divided by net gain of 101 parking spaces.
PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATED COST TO BUILD 253 SPACE GARAGE ON SOUTH PARKING LOT (net gain 190 Spaces)
REVENUE Funding Source
Funding
Agency ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COMMENTS
Federal Transit Administration Grant FTA Low Bidder Total Project Cost 6,432,369.00
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality FHWA Design & TIS Revisions 300,000.00
FASTER CDOT $400,000.00 New EA (NEPA) Report 100,000.00 adds 6-12 months
Local Sales Tax General Fund ToEP $972,250.00 Avoided utilitity Relocation -160,000.00
Rocky Mountain National Park NPS $10,000.00 Add 15' length to Garage 170,000.00
TOTAL FUNDING BUDGETED TO DATE $4,900,750.00 Project Management 100,000.00
Construction Inflation (4%)??212,331.28
EXPENSE Design Engineering Walker PC $443,118.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,154,700.28 budget deficit = $2,253,950.28 Min Proj Budget Deficit = $1,305,472.28
Authorized Scope Revisions (Design)Walker PC $68,150.00 % INCREASE IN COST 11.2%
Bidding & Construction Administration Walker PC $157,819.00
Environmental Assessment (NEPA) & Traf Impact Study FHU $250,000.00 COST PER SPACE $37,656.32
Landscaping & Irrigation Materials ToEP $50,000.00 % SAVINGS PER SPACE 49.7%
Electrical Utility Relocation ToEP $30,000.00 % INCREASED YIELD=(190-101)/101 =88.1%
Construction Mgmt & Inspection ToEP $125,000.00
SUBTOTAL EXPENSES $1,124,087.00
BENEFITS of RELOCATION
REMAINING BUDGETED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR
CONSTRUCTION $3,776,663.00 1. Diminished visual impact on EP Hwy 34 iconic entry view for guests
2. Improved fit to topography on recessed south parking lot.
3. Decrease vehicular delay for visitors using the garage and shuttles accessing Hwy 34.
4. Improved safety for guests using Hwy 36 access vs competing with Hwy 34 commercial traffic for gaps.
5. Preserves all RV and auto parking and landscaping in north lot.
6. No adverse impact to primary sanitary sewer line in EP.
7. Provides elevated viewing structure for watching elk on the golf course.
8. Diminished construction period impact on Visitor Center operations and guests.
9. Preserves north access extension options to east (Steamer Dr) for the future.
$3,200,000.00
$328,500.00
Amount
CONSISTING of a new 215 stall parking garage, utility relocations, and revised site improvements to modify bus circulation. Net increase 101 parking spaces
East of Visitor Center