HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-11-24The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Fish Hatchery Property – Housing Authority & Land Trust
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 10, 2015, Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated November 2, 2015, November 9, 2015 and November 10, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities, & Public Works Committee, November 12, 2015:
1. Purchase a Utility Box for Light & Power Duty Truck, Auto Truck Group,
$40,660.
2. Elm Road Landfill Leachate Mitigation Contract, C&H Excavation,
$517,583.99 with a contingency for a total cost not to exceed $570,000.
3. Elm Road Landfill Leachate Mitigation Construction Management, Stewart
Environmental Consultants, $44,000 with a contingency for a total cost not
to exceed $50,000.
4. Visitor Center Restroom Remodel, Heath Construction, 176,801.40 not to
exceed $200,000.
5. Conference Center Interior Repairs, B&E Builders, $44,738.54 – 2013
Flood Insurance funds not to exceed $49,709.49.
6. Public Works Purchase of a 2016 Outback, Valley Nissan-Subaru,
$23,026.
7. Public Works Purchase of a 2016 Forester, Valley Nissan-Subaru,
$21,929.
8. Reallocate Fleet Division Capital Funds to Purchase a Tire Changer,
Vendor to be Selected, $20,000.
9. 2015 Street Overlay Contract Change Order, Coulson Excavating, Co.,
Inc., $13,090.28.
Prepared 11/15/15
* Revised 11/20/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
10. FEMA Change Order # Construction Management, RG & Associates,
$58,080 – Osmun Contract Funds.
11. FEMA Change Order #2 Construction Management, RG & Associates,
$51,731 – Osmun Contract Funds.
12. FEMA Change Order $3 Construction Management, RG & Associates,
56,463 with a not to exceed amount of $60,000 – Osmun Contract Funds.
13. FHWA Change Order #1 Construction Management, RG & Associates,
$22,844 – Osmun Contract Funds.
14. Event Center & Pavilion Snow Guards, RTN Roofing, $32,557 not to
exceed $35,000 – Supplemental Budget.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated October 15, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated October 16, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 2015.
7. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated October 1, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
8. Resolution #21-15 - Setting the public hearing date of December 8, 2015, for a new
Tavern Liquor License for La Cabana Mexican Bar & Grill, dba La Cabana Mexican
Bar & Grill, 165 Virginia Drive Unit 18-1 and 18-2, Estes Park, CO.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN. Administrator Lancaster.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – 2016 BUDGET – ADOPTION. Finance Officer McFarland.
A. Highway User’s Trust Fund.
B. Resolution #18-15 - Setting the Mill Levy.
C. Resolution #19-15 - Adopting the 2016 Budget.
D. Resolution #20-15 - Appropriating Sums of Money.
3. RESOLUTION #22-15 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BUSINESS
AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 2016. Town Administrator Lancaster and Visit Estes
Park President & CEO Fogarty.
4. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT. Director Muhonen.
5. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION – STREAMSIDE
CONDOMINIUMS ON FALL RIVER. Planner Kleisler
6. RESOLUTION #23-15 SUPPORTING AN INCREASE IN H-2B VISAS. Town
Administrator Lancaster.
7. PARKS ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Pinkham.
8. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT. Trustee Ericson.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. – For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that
may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators. MPEC / Stall Barn Contract.
5. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 10, 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 10th day of November 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
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT.
Mayor Pinkham presented a Resolution of Respect honoring former Town Administrator
Dale Hill that passed on September 22, 2015.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Marlene Hayek/Town citizen questioned the addition of a fourth floor to the Stanley
Residence Building to accommodate the Wellness Center, which was to be built as a
separate building on the lot. She stated the project should be given the proper time to
review by both the Town and the citizens and not rushed.
Jan Verschuur/Town citizen stated concern with the buildings being constructed on the
Stanley property including, the Residence Building, Wellness Center and the Film
Center. He would not support the addition of a fourth story to the Residence Building to
accommodate the Wellness Center. The community has not been properly informed of
the proposed change.
Pat Newsom/Town citizen invited the Board and the community to join the Estes Park
Memorial Gardens to celebrate the annual Veterans Day celebration at 11:00 a.m.
Doug Warner/Town citizen stated the plans and the sale of Lot 4 for the proposed
Residence Building and separate Wellness Center were a good idea at the current 30
foot height limit. The current development progress on the property has been positive;
however, the project should be built to the maximum height limit without a height
variance. Grand Heritage and the Hospital should develop their proposed buildings as
approved by the voters and to the same standards as all the other properties in the
Stanley Master Plan area.
Chris Carey/Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) spoke to the organizations
unanimous support for Visit Estes Park as a destination marketing organization. EALA
would not support spending Local Marketing District tax dollars on the marketing of
special event promotion. They would recommend the Town Board reevaluate the
marketing plan developed for the Event Center, and understand the Town should
promote, with Town funds, events held in the facility. EALA does not support the use of
LMD funds to promote events within the center or other local event.
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 2
Ed Hayek/Town citizen objected to the height variance request for the Residence
Building on Lot 4 and with the accelerated time frame for review. The proposed project
was not approved by the voters when the property was sold. The height variance has
been honored by the residents within the area for over 20 years; the height limit was
upheld in the spring on another Stanley Hotel project; and the height limit should
continue to be upheld.
Ken Arnold/EALA Board Member spoke in support of VEP and their destination
marketing efforts.
Barb Davis/Town citizen spoke in opposition of the proposed height variance for the
proposed project on Lot 4.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris commented bear activity continues this fall and cautioned the citizens.
The pothole patcher has completed filling potholes and has begun to fill cracks. The
equipment has been a good investment.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Parks Advisory Board would hold its monthly meeting on
November 20th and invited all to attend.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig reported Sister Cities continues to work with the library in Monte
Verde and has established a website to take donations for the library.
Trustee Phipps reviewed the upcoming Planning Commission agenda for November
17th, including a boundary line adjustment, amend plats and a development plan for a
townhome development. The Planning Commission would discuss amendments to the
vacation home regulations at their December 17th meeting. Attorney White has been in
discussions with Judge Brown to outline court fees associated with violations of vacation
home regulations. The Commission would hold a special meeting to consider the
Stanley Special Review for Lot 4 on December 9th.
Trustee Ericson thanked the citizens for approving the Community Center project and
recognized David Batey for his efforts in promoting the ballot issues. The
Transportation Advisory Board would meet on November 18th. The Community
Development/Community Services Committee meeting would be held on November 19th
due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Community Development would review a proposed
fee schedule on November 12th to gather public input. The National Philanthropy Day
celebrations would be held at the YMCA on November 12th.
Trustee Pinkham commented the Town staff has been judicious with the budget and
kept expenses down. The staff and the Board are researching options to include a
merit increase for staff in 2016.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 27, 2015, Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated October 27, 2015 and Town Board Budget Study Session
Minutes dated October 9, 16 and 21, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, October 22,
2015.
4. Estes Valley Library District Board Appointments:
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 3
John Krueger - 4-year term beginning January 1, 2016 and expiring on
December 31, 2019.
Bill Gerritz to complete Peter Plaut’s term ending December 31, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING – 2016 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland stated that
the proposed 2016 budget is the result of staff preparation and Board input at
three budget study sessions held in October. The 2016 budget process was
focused on balancing the General Fund; however, the fund balance continues
to decline to 17% forecasted for the end of 2016. As a result staff has
recommended a number of strategies to maintain the General Fund reserves,
including not funding the Vehicle Replacement Fund, partially fund the IT Fund,
no merit increases, and events budget must perform better than in 2015. The
2016 budgeted revenues are estimated at $15,338,233 with expenditures of
$16,331,127. Mayor capital projects would include the parking structure,
Moraine Avenue bridge, Museum improvements, signage on US Hwy 36, water
augmentation plan at Scott Ponds, riverbed stabilization at the Hydroplant, and
repairs and upgrades to Town Hall, rentals and security cameras. The 1A
sales tax funds would complete projects including equipment for joint
information center, update emergency operations plan, Fall River trail
extension, trail along Dry Gulch, rebuild Dry Gulch, and develop a systematic
road repair plan. The Enterprise Funds would complete $2.2 million in L&P
capital projects and $1.1 million in Water capital funds. Sales tax has increased
by 14% through September. The Town has 49 grants currently being
administrated by staff for items related to flood recovery and construction
projects. There are no ongoing flood reimbursements/costs presented in the
2016 budget. Staff would be presenting flood recovery revenues and
expenditures during the first quarter of 2016, which would require supplemental
budget amendments.
Other significant changes since the October budget session, include
construction bids for Elm Road mitigation increased by $310,000, a $95,000
funding request from Visit Estes Park, $200,000 set aside in the Community
Reinvestment Fund for Museum moved to a budget line item, Police budget
increase by $100,000 to account for increases in patrol officer compensation,
$50,000 in fundraising support for the Community Center remains in the
budget, and $30,000 added to Community Development for assistance with
plan reviews.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the removal of
$50,000 allocated during 2015 for fundraising efforts for the Community
Center because of the voter approved mill levy for the project, and it
passed unanimously.
Nancy Almond/Estes Valley Investment in Early Childhood Success (EVICS)
thanked the Town for their ongoing support of the organization. EVICS
requested the Board fund the program with Community Service grant funds at
the same level as 2015 as the lack of local support makes other fundraising
efforts difficult.
Sharyn Gartner/Gun Club thanked the Board for their continued support of the
club and providing Community Service grant funding.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: increases in Community
Development fees, proposed increases to vacation home licensing and other
fees were not included in the proposed budget; the Board would propose
adding a merit pool; concerned the budget may not contain appropriate funding
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 4
to move initiatives forward in 2016; and the inclusion of a storm water
management plan and utility are positive developments.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to increase Community
Services Grant funding for EVICS by an additional $5,000 for a total 2016
funding of $25,000, and it passed unanimously.
Administrator Lancaster presented the Board with the final version of the 2016
Strategic Plan developed by the Board during the budget process. The plan
has been amended to remove the final phase of Bond Park and remove staff
pursuing additional funding for parking structures in 2016. This would allow the
Public Works staff to complete the current projects, including the parking
garage at the Visitor Center.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to continue the public hearing
for the 2016 Budget adoption to the November 24, 2015 Town Board
meeting, and it passed unanimously.
2. BROADBAND GRANT APPLICATION TO DOLA FOR ENGINEERING.
Manager Fraundorf presented a request to authorize an application for a one-
to-one grant from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for Energy/Mineral
Impact Assistance Fund (EIAF) funds to support final engineering costs
associated with the Estes Park Broadband Expansion project. The project
would be grant funded at $1.387 million with a match by the Light and Power
for work to build-out fiber optics to Allenspark and Little Valley at a cost of $1.4
million for smart metering. The grant funds would allow the Town to conduct
final engineering to provide detailed costs for fiber optic construction for the
Board to consider in the establishment of broadband services through the
Utilities department. If deemed feasible, the Town would establish revenue
bonds to complete the project in phases. Jon Nicholas/EDC would submit
letters of support for the grant funding. It was moved and seconded
(Nelson/Ericson) to approve the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance fund (EIAF) grant application for final
engineering costs associated with the Estes Park Broadband Expansion
project, and it passed unanimously.
3. TRANSIT PARKING FACILITY FEE WAIVER. The Town, coordinated through
the Public Works department, received development plan approval in
September 2015 to replace an existing surface parking lot with a four level,
414-space transit parking facility south of the Visitor Center. The Town is
requesting a fee waiver of $53,911 in development application and building
permit fees which complies with the Community Development Fee Waiver
policy. The Community Development/Community Services Committee
recommended suspending the fees until project closeout, and if the project
comes in under budget and the grant allows, the fees would be paid to the
Building division. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve
the fee waiver of Community Development fees for the Estes Park Transit
Facility and Parking Structure at a cost of $53,911 and pay the fees if the
budget allows at project closeout, and it passed unanimously.
4. FALL RIVER HYDROPLANT AND UPPER FISH HATCHERY REACHES,
STABILIZATION PROJECT – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT. Planner Kurtz stated the Fall River channel and
stream banks between the National Park and the western-most Fish Hatchery
Bridge experienced significant damage as a result of the 2013 flood causing a
public hazard. The Town has received grant funds to restore the channel and
stabilize the stream bank. Staff developed an RFP and received two bids from
FlyWater, Inc. and Smith Environmental. The Environmental Assessment took
longer than expected and the Town staff has concerns about meeting the
CDBG-DR grant completion deadline of March 2016. Staff requests using
Open Space Funds in the amount of $38,752 to begin the permitting and
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 5
design work with OTak. Staff would recommend contracting with FlyWater Inc.
for the design-build of improvements along the upper Fish Hatchery area,
including the Hydroplant area.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve a professional
services contract for the Fall River Hydroplant Area and Upper Fish
Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project to OTak for a project cost not to
exceed $38,752, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the design-build
contract for the Fall River Hydroplant Area and the Upper Fish Hatchery
Reaches Stabilization Project to FlyWater, Inc., for a project cost not to
exceed $150,000, and it passed unanimously.
5. ADDITION OF A PAYROLL TECHNICIAN. In January 2015 payroll
processing was assumed by Finance because of a change in staff within the
Administrative Services department. Processing has been successfully
completed by the current Finance staff; however, their workload has
significantly increased, resulting in overtime and other finance tasks not being
completed. Under previous circumstances and with the current situation only
one staff member has the knowledge to complete payroll. The addition of a
Payroll Technician would allow cross training within Finance and a backup to
perform payroll. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to approve the
addition of a Payroll Technician and begin the hiring process
immediately, and it passed unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION #17-15 SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF LARIMER COUNTY
MILL LEVY FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE 25 (I-25) IMPROVEMENTS.
Administrator Lancaster provided an overview of Larimer County
Commissioners proposal to fund matching grant opportunities to improve the I-
25 corridor with a temporary increase in the Road and Bridge mill levy for a
period of five year due to an increase in property evaluations. The County
requests each of the eight communities agree to temporarily move General
Fund mill levy to Road and Bridge mill levy with each of the local government
contributing their increased portion to I-25 improvements. The increase in mill
levy would generate an estimated $5.3 million over five years. It was moved
and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve Resolution #17-15, and it passed
unanimously.
7. REALLOCATE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS FOR THE MUSEUM
COLLECTIONS FACILITY TO MUSEUM RENOVATIONS. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek presented a request to reallocate $200,000 in
Community Reinvestment Fund currently earmarked for a Museum Collections
Facility and allocate it to complete Museum renovations, including office space,
exhibit space and the meeting room. The renovations would make the existing
Museum space viable for the next 15 to 20 years. Construction of the
Collections Facility with Town funds has not been financially feasible at this
time. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the
reallocation of $200,000 in the Community Reinvestment Fund, currently
dedicated to funding a Collection Facility, to fund renovations of the
Museum, and it passed unanimously.
8. SCOTT PONDS NATURAL AREA DAMS MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT AWARD. Director Muhonen commented the Town Board
approved a contract with Kelley Trucking on October 13, 2015 for the dam
modifications to the Carriage Hills ponds at a cost of $780,000. Public Works
and its consultants worked closely with Kelley to reduce the project scope to
meet the State Engineers requirements while allowing Kelley to retain their unit
price per the original bid of $1.14 million. To date the contractor has not
executed a construction contract for the modified scope and on November 4th
the contractor back out of the project. Staff has been in contact with the
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 6
second qualified bidder, Dietzler Construction; however, the company’s terms
include eliminating all penalties associated with a delay in completion of the
project by March 2016. Staff has identified options including the following:
Option #1 would accept the completion date risk and award contract to Dietzler
with the understanding that the Town would risk losing grant funding and be
responsible for the full cost of the project. The grant requires the work be
completed by March 2016 or funding would be lost. Option #2 would allow the
Public Works staff to continue to negotiate with the contract to arrive at terms
acceptable to both parties, and Option #3 the Town would not complete the
project at this time and would investigate other funding sources.
Board discussion followed: questioned what the probability might be in not
completing the work on time; could the timeframe for the grant funding be
extended past March 2016; concerned that weather would affect the
contractors ability to complete the project, leaving the Town vulnerable to losing
the grant funding once the project has been completed; continuing negotiations
with Dietzler would be too risky; the Town should look for other grants to
complete the project; there are too many variables related to risk; and the
Board would prefer to do the full project including both ponds with future
funding to be identified.
Tony Schetzsle/Town citizen stated the Town should not move forward and
assume the risk of having to fund the project if the project is not completed by
March 2016. He requested the Board continue to review all options to
complete the project as soon as possible.
Joe Holtzman/Town citizen commented on his disappointment but understands
the Town’s position. He stated the Town has a responsibility to repair the
property. The properties surrounding the pond area would see a reduction in
property values until such time the area can be restored.
Staff stated if the project does not move forward, the Town would reallocate the
funds to the Hydroplant project. There would be a third round of recovery
grants the Town could apply for to complete the full project.
After further discussion, It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to
discontinue further contract negotiations with Dietzler Construction,
reallocate the CDBG-DR grant funds to other projects, investigate other
funding sources to complete both ponds, including grant funding and
open space funding, and complete ponds by the summer of 2016, and it
passed unanimously.
9. DOWNTOWN PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE INTERVIEW PANEL
SELECTION. Staff requested the Town Board appoint two members to the
interview panel in an effort to move the process forward. Trustees Ericson and
Nelson volunteered to serve on the committee. The Board requested a staff
member from Community Development and Jon Nicholas/EDC also participate
in the interview process. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve the appointment of Trustees Ericson and Nelson to the
Downtown Plan Steering Committee Interview Panel, and it passed with
Trustee Nelson abstaining.
10. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD INTERVIEW PANEL SELECTION.
Larimer County has published an upcoming County vacancy on the Local
Marketing District. The County has requested the Town Board appoint two
members to participate in the interview process. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Phipps) to approve the appointment of Trustees Holcomb and
Norris in an advisory capacity to the Local Marketing District Board
Interview Panel to be conducted by the County, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – November 10, 2015 – Page 7
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 2, 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 2nd day of November, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Nelson and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Trustees Ericson and Norris
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
FINAL AVALANCHE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY REPORT.
Avalanche Consulting provided a presentation on the final draft Economic Development
Strategic Plan. The 2013 flood highlighted economic issues that have been ongoing for
years. A seasonal economy makes it difficult for many businesses to stay open year-
round. High cost and limited availability of housing makes it difficult for individuals and
families to live and work in the Estes Valley. Sales tax revenues are slowly falling
behind other Colorado mountain towns, highlighting a need to invest in new amenities
and attractions. A number of the buildings and infrastructure in the Estes Valley are
aging and require new investment and redevelopment to stay competitive.
The highest recommendations for the community include construct and maintain a high-
speed broadband network, update building codes, zoning, and regulatory processes,
and increasing the supply of workforce and seasonal housing. These projects are
absolutely critical to any community development in the Estes Valley.
The economic strategy coordinates and prioritize activities; the report should be a
resource for implementation; the executive summary provides overview and rationale;
both would be publicly available online; and would be a living document and should start
a community conversation.
Economic development would increase the resiliency and economic diversity by
providing jobs, growing the tax base, diversifying the industry base, draw new talent to
the area, aid employees afford to live near their employment, and support entrepreneurs
and local businesses. There also needs to be a focus on supporting businesses and
residents through retaining, strengthening and expanding existing business; creating an
environment that supports entrepreneurs with new business ideas; and finding creative
solutions to the workforce needs of the community. Avalanche Consulting recommends
the community target industries such as professional services and wellness, outdoor
recreation and products, and craft goods.
The report focused on a set of goals addressing the physical infrastructure, business
climate, workforce and education, entrepreneurship and innovation, and marketing.
Each goal has been outlined.
Physical Infrastructure
The Estes Valley proactively invests in projects that both encourage economic
diversification through target industry growth and enrich its guests’ experiences.
Town Board Study Session – November 2, 2015 – Page 2
- Construction and maintain high-speed broadband
- Completing the Community Center
- Support the Wellness Center
- Encouraging the Stanley Film Center
- Mitigating flood risk and establishing floodplains.
Business Climate
The Estes Valley government and business leaders embrace thoughtful policies and
practices that help businesses succeed.
- Updating building codes, zoning and regulations
- Continuing the downtown master planning process
- Exploring opportunities and incentives for redevelopment
o Eg. Considering Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
Workforce & Education
The Estes Valley attracts, retains, and trains a skilled workforce that is supported by a
mix of housing options and multigenerational community resources
- Increasing the supply of workforce and seasonal housing
o Eg. Creating a workforce housing fund, creating codes that incentive
development of workforce housing, etc.
- Exploring childcare options
- Developing new educational partnerships and programs.
Entrepreneurship & Innovation
The Estes Valley is known nationally, if not globally, as a center for mountain
entrepreneurship and provides world-class support for growing businesses.
- Continuing to develop a business incubator or co-working spaces
- Establishing and utilizing a revolving loan fund
- Building connectivity and support for entrepreneurs
o Mentorship programs.
Marketing
The Estes Valley brand reflects a destination for guest, residents, and high-paying
primary jobs
- Conveying a unified brand in investments and communications
- Utilizing the marketing efforts of regional and state organizations
- Establishing the Estes Art District.
The overall objective of capacity building is to provide the Estes Valley with the skills,
tools, processes and resource necessary to implement the recommendations in the
report moving forward. The organizations have to work together in order for the
strategic plan to move forward.
- How the Estes Park EDC, Town, VEP and Partner Organization can most
efficiently share responsibilities.
- Establishing clear lines of communication
- Rallying community support for important initiatives
- Providing metrics and resources to support continued implementation of the
strategy.
Keys to success would include reviewing the report and the rationales behind the
recommendations, establish an implementation task force to keep the community
focused on completing strategies, educate the community about the strategy and the
need for critical initiatives, and stay positive and work together to solve challenges –
they won’t get better on their own.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 5:28 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 9, 2015
Minutes of a Special meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of
November, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
County Commission Commissioners Donnelly, Johnson and Gaiter
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps, Commissioners
Donnelly, Johnson and Gaiter
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler,
Planning Commission Chair Betty Hull, and Recording
Secretary Limmiatis
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
VACATION HOME POLICY DISCUSSION.
Mayor Pinkham noted the County Commissioners had not arrived yet and suggested the
meeting commence. No public comment would be heard as the meeting’s purpose was
for dialogue between the Board, Commissioners and staff.
Planner Kleisler provided a brief synopsis of the draft Vacation Home Policy to date. Staff
has completed research, outreach and solicited public comment. Staff wanted to gather
feedback on the policy and receive guidance on the draft ordinance in order to maintain
balance between private property rights and residential neighborhood character. Several
key issues were identified as outlined below:
Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be permitted in residential zone
districts?
Should a limit be set on the number of vacation homes within the Town and
unincorporated Estes Valley?
Should there be a limit to the size or maximum occupancy of larger vacation
homes?
Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be treated as a commercial use
in terms of building code and public facilities requirements?
Where should vacation homes with a larger occupancy be permitted?
What should the review process be for vacation homes with a larger occupancy?
What should the review criteria be for vacation homes with a larger occupancy?
Topics of discussion are summarized: Impacts on seasonal and workforce housing;
enforcement concerns; covering operational costs; the point at which a property becomes
a commercial enterprise; what constitutes a small hotel; the special review process versus
a conditional use permit; a formulaic occupancy limit of extending two individuals per
bedroom plus two including a limit up to 20 individuals; the ability for the County to levy
fines; mitigation of negative effects to the maximum extent possible; revocation of permits;
determining adequate public facilities; the ability to appeal by either the home owner or
neighbor to the Planning Commission; investigating the cost of the license to apply funds
towards workforce housing; and changes to the adoption schedule to allow adequate time
for the County Commissioners and Planning Commission to come to an understanding
of the issues in question.
Town Board Study Session – November 9, 2015 – Page 2
Trustee Phipps expressed concerns regarding high density occupations in residential
zones, particularly those with a smaller lot size, and the need for public input during the
licensing process.
The Board reached a consensus on allowing larger vacation rentals in residential
neighborhoods. There would not be a cap placed on the number of licenses issued, but
staff would continue to monitor requests closely. Large vacation home rentals would be
allowed with a maximum occupancy of 20 individuals. No maximum square footage would
be required. Large vacation rentals would be allowed in the RE and RE-1 zoning districts
through a Conditional Use Permit and in E and E-1 zoning districts through Special
Review. Commercial zoning standards, such as adequate public facilities should be
applied to larger rentals, yet staff would need to waive certain standards such as street
paving. The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation of review for Conditional Use
Permits. Again adequate public facilities, including means of legal access, should be
required.
Planning Commission Chair Hull stated a recommendation from the Planning
Commission within a month would not allow sufficient time for a thorough discussion and
requested the reading of the ordinance be delayed to the first Town Board meeting in
January 2016.
The County Commissioners appreciated being included on the meeting, but stated they
had not had the benefit of the public process and were not inclined to make a decision or
provide guidance at this point in time. Concerns were expressed regarding enforcement
and the Commissioners would like more time to investigate the issues and receive public
comment.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 12, 2015
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of
Estes Park on the 12th day of November, 2015.
Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Attending: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Chief Kufeld, Director
Muhonen, Superintendent Lockhart, Managers Fraundorf,
Ash, McEachern and Landkamer, Engineer Stallworth and
Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Absent: None
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chief Kufeld stated he would
provide the annual statistics at next month’s meeting, four candidates are in the
final stages of the interview process for the three open Police Officer positions,
the selected candidate for Communications Center Manager positon withdrew
and the position would be re-advertised, and the approved pay increases for the
Police Department have significantly improved the quality of applicants.
UTILITIES.
PURCHASE OF UTILITY BOX FOR L&P DUTY TRUCK. Superintendent Lockhart
requested approval of the purchase of a utility box for the recently purchased duty truck.
Two quotes were received and staff would like to accept the low bid for the utility box
from Auto Truck Group. The Committee recommended approval of the purchase of
the utility box for the Light & Power duty truck from Auto Truck Group for $40,660
be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015 Town Board
meeting.
PUBLIC WORKS.
ELM ROAD LANDFILL LEACHATE MITIGATION PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD.
Manager Ash summarized the Elm Road Landfill Leachate Mitigation Project to date.
Stewart Environmental Consultants completed the design for the drainage system which
was reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE). The Request for Bid was advertised and two companies
responded. C & H Excavation was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder and
staff would like to award the construction contract. Staff also recommended awarding
the construction management contract to Stewart Environmental Consultants who have
been involved with the project since 2011, have experience with CDPHE requirements,
and expertise in handling the trash that would be encountered and the ability to dispose
of it properly. The Committee recommended approval of the contracts with C & H
Excavation for construction services in the amount of $517,583.99 with a
contingency not to exceed $570,000 and Stewart Environmental Consultants for
construction management services in the amount of $44,000 with a contingency
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – November 12, 2015 – Page 2
not to exceed $50,000 be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 24,
2015 Town Board meeting.
VISITORS CENTER RESTROOM ADDITION CONTRACT AWARD. Manager
Landkamer presented the remodel of the Visitor Center for additional restrooms. An
additional six stalls in the women’s restroom, a family restroom and the relocation of the
janitor’s closet are proposed to achieve more efficient operation of the facilities. The
proposal was advertised and interest was expressed by two contractors who attended
the mandatory pre-bid site walk. Staff recommended awarding the construction contract
to Heath Construction. To stay within budget, staff discussed several value engineering
options, such as removing the automatic door and the drinking bottle fill station, and
using floor mounted toilets. The Committee recommended approval of the contract
with Heath Construction for the Visitor Center restroom addition in the amount of
$176,801.40 with a contingency not to exceed $200,000 be included on the
Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015 Town Board meeting.
CONFERENCE CENTER INTERIOR REPAIRS CONTRACT AWARD. Manager
Landkamer discussed the need to complete the interior repairs to the Conference
Center. In 2013 an insurance claim was filed with CIRSA for the interior damage from
the roof leaking which included stained and mismatched ceiling tiles and damage to the
drywall, sound fabric and light fixtures. The claim resulted in a settlement of $49,709.49
and staff intends to stay within this budget to complete the repairs. The project was
advertised and resulted in the receipt of one bid. Staff recommends proceeding with
B&E Builders to complete the project with a modified option of salvaging good ceiling
tiles to replace damaged or stained ceiling tiles throughout the Conference Center
lobby. Landkamer made the Committee aware the Conference Center would be closed
during most of construction. Rocky Mountain Park Inn does not have any reservations
for the Conference Center during the construction schedule. The Committee
recommended approval of the contract with B&E Builders for interior Conference
Center repairs in the amount of $44,738.54 with a contingency not to exceed
$49,709.49 be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015 Town
Board meeting.
REPLACEMENT OF G39A JEEP CHEROKEE & G68A GMC PICKUP. Manager
McEachern requested approval of the purchase of a 2016 Subaru Outback and
Forrester for the scheduled replacement of G39A Jeep Cherokee and G68A GMC
Pickup in the amount of $44,955 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund. The Outback
would be issued to the Engineering Division and the Forrester would be issued to
Facilities Division. The GMC Pickup would be retained for shared use by the Fleet,
Streets and Parks Divisions. The Jeep Cherokee would be sold or traded in. The
change in manufacturer offers increased fuel efficiency, lower maintenance costs and
top safety ratings. The Committee recommended approval of the purchase of a
Subaru Outback and Forrester from Valley Nissan-Subaru in the amount of
$44,955 be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015 Town
Board meeting.
FLEET TIRE CHANGER REPLACEMENT. Manager McEachern requested the
reallocation of $20,000 for storage containers towards the purchase of a new tire
changer for the Fleet Division. The current tire changer exhibits safety issues and has
become a higher priority than storage for the Division. The Committee recommended
approval of reallocating $20,000 budgeted for storage containers to replace the
Fleet Divisiont’s tire changing equipment be included on the Consent Agenda at
the November 24, 2015 Town Board meeting.
TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT AWARD. Director
Muhonen described the need to hire a consultant for project management of the Estes
Park Transit Facility Parking Structure as the Public Works Department does not have
sufficient staff to oversee the multiple tasks associated with the completion of the
project. During the preparation of the final design and bidding documents for the original
project in 2014, the Town experienced a transition in leadership and project oversight.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – November 12, 2015 – Page 3
Absent any formal contract, SpaceIntoPlace Architecture + Design (SIPAD) continued to
help by demonstrating initiative and oversight to keep the project moving forward by
donating nearly $24,000 of uncompensated effort. Since August 2014 SIPAD continued
to offer project support for the due diligence exploration of issues triggered by the
proposed relocation of the structure to the Visitor Center south lot. For these reasons,
Public Works recommends sole sourcing the contract to SIPAD. The Committee
recommended approval of the Project Management Services contract with
SpaceIntoPlace Architecture + Design for the Estes Park Transit Facility Parking
Structure in the amount of $151,500 with a contingency not to exceed $170,000 be
included as an Action Item at the November 24, 2015 Town Board meeting.
2015 OVERLAY PROGRAM CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL. Engineer Stallworth
presented Change Order 1 for the construction contract with Coulson Excavating Co. to
complete the overlay of Scott Avenue and Stanley Avenue. During the course of
construction, additional materials and labor in the amount of $13,090.28 were
necessary to satisfactorily complete the work. Staff evaluated the submitted change
order and determined the quantities provided were necessary and equitable to the intent
of the project. The Committee recommended approval of Change Order 1 to the
construction contract with Coulson Excavating Co. for $13,090.28 be included on
the Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015 Town Board meeting.
2013 FLOOD REPAIR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER APPROVAL. Director Muhonen stated the approval of several change orders
is necessary to compensate RG Associates (RGA) for additional construction
management services provided to oversee the prolonged flood repair work by Osmun,
Inc. over 20 roadway sites damaged by the 2013 flood. Muhonen described the
difficulties and delays experienced with Osmun, Inc. during the course of the
construction schedule and informed the Committee the Public Works Department opted
to issue a Notice of Termination on October 13, 2015. Public Works has since cleaned
up the construction sites vacated by Osmun Inc., yet work remains incomplete at four
sites. Muhonen proposed the Town approve the change orders to compensate RGA for
the construction management work completed through October 2015. The costs could
be deducted from the funds owed to Osmun Inc. per provisions in the contract. A new
contractor and would need to be procured to complete the remaining flood repair work
and some risk exists that the Town would not be reimbursed for this change order work
through FEMA and CDBG-DR grant matching funds. The Committee recommended
approval of RG & Associates, LLC FHWA Change Order 1 in the amount of
$22,844, FEMA Change Order 1 in the amount of $58,060, FEMA Change Order 2
in the amount of $51,731 and FEMA Change Order 3 in the amount of $56,463 with
a contingency not to exceed $60,000 be included on the Consent Agenda at the
November 24, 2015 Town Board meeting.
EVENT CENTER & PAVILION ROOF SNOW GUARD. Manager Landkamer discussed
the need for proper snow guards on the Events Center and Pavilion roofs to prevent the
snow from shedding off in mass, damaging the rain gutter system and potentially
harming pedestrians or equipment in the path of the snow slide. Both buildings lack
protection of the roof penetrations for the heat systems, which could also be damaged
during snow events and potentially allow for carbon monoxide to vent directly into the
facilities. Staff requested to hire a contractor to repair the damages sustained and install
snow retention and diverters to correct these issues. RTN Roofing was the only
contractor to provide a quote. Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to
RTN Roofing to commence the project as soon as possible due to time and potential
weather constraints. The Committee recommended approval of the contract with
RTN Roofing for repairs and addition of snow guard protection to the roofs of the
Event Center and Pavilion in the amount of $32,557 with a contingency not to
exceed $35,000 be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 24, 2015
Town Board meeting.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – November 12, 2015 – Page 4
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Engineer Stallworth provided an
update on the status of the Pavement Condition Assessment, stating it is over
50% complete. An average street rating of 64.5 was assessed for the completed
zones of 4, 6 and 7. This demonstrates the rating goal of 70 for all roads in Town
by ___ is attainable. Staff anticipates to complete inspections by the end of
November, weather permitting. The Committee suggested updating the
Pavement Management webpage to include photos of Stallworth in the field to
show citizens their tax dollars at work.
Director Muhonen informed the Committee the Environmental Assessment by the
Bureau of Reclamation for the Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure is
approximately four months behind schedule. The Technical Advisory Committee
for the LOOP project would investigate the potential for Rockwell Street to act as
a two way road during off peak season. This information was forwarded to Estes
Performance, InCorporated (EPIC) so they would be aware of how this could
impact their design. Preliminary designs were also distributed for the intersection
of Crags Drive and Moraine Avenue which offer a roundabout and signaled
options. Final reports would be received in the spring of 2016.
Director Muhonen also provided statistics on conventional pot hole patching
versus spray patching. Costs have been diminished by two thirds with the use of
the spray patcher and staff has become more productive. All potholes in Town
within the scope of the Spray Patcher’s capabilities have been fixed in the past
50 days.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 21th, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town
Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 21th day of October, 2015.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Thom Widawski
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Ann Finley
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Liaison
Kevin Ash, Town Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Samantha Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant
Absent: Bryon Holmes
Vacancy
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
No public was in attendance, so public comment was not heard.
Minutes from the September 16th meeting were reviewed by members. It was moved
and seconded (Hamrick/Finley) to approve the minutes, with the motion passing
unanimously.
Human Resources received one application for the vacant TAB position. The Town
Board will be selecting an interview committee soon.
Sandy Osterman provided a shuttle committee update to the board. Total 2015 numbers
from June 27th through September 15th were recorded at 516,422 (down from the
previous year by 2,945). Some shuttles experienced breakdowns, including the popular
Elkhorn Express trolley, which contributed to the lower ridership numbers. Sandy
presented an overview of ridership according to different routes while also announcing
that shuttles will continue to run for fall and winter special events. The budget for 2016
has not presently changed and a few route changes have been proposed.
STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS
The alignment configurations for the Fall River Trail Extension project are in place to the
Historic Fall River Hydroplant museum. Survey work is being completed and a meeting
is scheduled to update the public on progress.
Staff hopes to get the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project out to bid and the project
under contract, to be completed by June 2016.
Utility work has been completed on Fish Creek and right of way acquisition is currently
underway. Once completed, the project can go out to bid. Construction will commence
in 2016, with hopes of completion in early 2017.
Transportation Advisory Board – October 21th, 2015 – Page 2
The Town’s new pavement manager, Kelly Stallworth, has been completing
assessments of street conditions and will move forward with training of different surface
treatments and methods of maintenance and repair.
The Loop project is still active and being supported by the Town. The Environmental
Assessment should be delivered in spring of 2016. Currently the project is looking at
ways of complying with CDOT bridge standards through phasing, since current project
funding is insufficient to complete the project with full compliance.
The parking structure is being held in the preliminary design stage until the completion
of the Environmental Assessment by the Bureau of Reclamation. Once the EA is
released, the Town is hoping to get clearance from FTA to proceed with the final design.
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGY
Chair Campbell began the discussion with the ten “Proposed Parking Strategy” items,
with minor changes to these items proposed by TAB members. Further discussion
centered on paid parking rates, as well as RV and bus parking. The board reviewed the
intro, background, guiding principles and objectives sections with little comment on
each.
It was moved and seconded (Morris/Black) to submit the Proposed Parking Strategy,
with amendments, to the Town Board for approval, with the motion passing
unanimously.
Trustee Ericson suggested presenting the Proposed Parking Strategy to the Trustees at
a Town Board Study Session. Director Muhonen expressed interest in first taking the
document to PUP for comment.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:02 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 16th, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of October, 2015.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin
Ronna Boles
Also Present:Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Sam Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant
Bob Brunson, Rotary
Absent: Two Board Vacancies
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:08 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the September 18th meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
Bob Brunson began the meeting by discussing the green apple statue outside the
Library and the history behind it. With the help of the Noontime Rotary Club, the statue
was donated but presently does not include the story behind the statue nor why Herb
Mignery, the sculptor, created the statue. Bob put forth the idea to add a Rotary plaque
at the bottom of the statue that tells the story behind it along with the artist’s signature at
the base and the rotary symbol at the top. Concerns were raised by PAB members in
regards to the installation cost coupled with the plaque and also for the size of the
lettering in reference the specific cost associated. The Noontime Rotary Club will pay for
the plaque and the installation. Brian Berg also wanted to clarify the language of the
plaque. Chair Lebeau requested to see a final review before it is placed onto the piece
and reiterated that Brunson needed to fill out the appropriate AIPP form and email it to
the Public Works department. Upon initial approval from the Parks Advisory Board and
Public Works, the proposal will be presented to the Town Board for final approval.
Brian Berg stated the Town will sell the curtain burner due to safety concerns
associated with using it.
Light and Power, alongside the CEO of Art Collective and James Frank, are working on
artwork for the green electrical boxes and are trialing wallpapers to see if they can
withstand the winter. Upon inspection after winter, they will present this idea to the PAB
for further product placement.
Rotary has given blessing to reconstruct the Library reading area on the north side of
Town Hall.
Brian Berg reminded members that the Open Lands naming policy will be next on the
docket for PAB to consider and create ordinances and guidelines.
Parks Advisory Board – October 16th, 2015 – Page 2
OVERVIEW OF TUNNEL PRESENTATIONS
Brian Berg asked thoughts and input from PAB members regarding the tunnel
presentations given during the last two meetings. Regarding the laser light idea, Terry
Rustin voiced concern over the “grey” lighting in fear that the concrete would absorb
more light than wanted therefore changing the desired effect. He recommended that the
tunnel possibly be painted to reflect the light better.
In response to the tile presentation, Brian suggested using the tiles in storage to fill
vacant tunnel spots and fill in the rest of the tunnel as additional tiles are created by the
school students. PAB members were curious over the installation costs of the tiles.
Ronna Boles suggested that fundraising be used to cover half of the funds rather than
placing the responsibility of the entire bill on the Town.
No contact has been initiated with CDOT on the issue of the property as of yet. Chair
Lebeau reiterated that in order to move forward, the proper forms need to be filled out
alongside installation costs and expectations from the town.
REVISIONS TO AIPP POLICIES
Merle Moore and Terry Rustin began the dialogue by discussing their process of taking
pictures for inventory. The concept and details for the brochure were discussed as a
sample brochure was passed around for review.
Members discussed the classification of pieces as art or landscaping, with the decision
that mass produced pieces do not fit the guidelines for art and would be considered
landscaping pieces.
The board also discussed handling approval of plaques and decided the donor would be
required to present a final proof showing plaque design and wording.
In the future, presentations to PAB will only take place after the AIPP process has been
followed and the proper forms have been completed and submitted to the board for
review.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Lebeau/Boles) to
adjourn the meeting at 12:08 pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Russ Schneider,
Michael Moon, Steve Murphree, Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Schneider, and Moon
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Murphree & White
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 35 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, August 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to table the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. VACATION HOME RENTALS – REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF LAND USE OPTIONS
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. Staff would like to provide an update on the scope and
timeline of the draft recommendations for vacation rentals. Staff and the Commission will engage
in discussion on occupancy limits and the residential character of neighborhoods.
Planner Kleisler stated there is a long history involving vacation rentals in the Estes Valley. The
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) has provisions to allow short-term (30 days or less) rentals
in all single-family residential zone districts. The objective of this project is to make sure there is a
balance of property rights and neighborhood character. Planner Kleisler stated there have been
several public meetings concerning this topic, beginning in April, 2015. The most recent was a
public forum last Friday. The most detailed process is drafting, adopting and implementing the
amendments to the EVDC. This portion (Phase I) of the process will include three or four public
hearings on the topic, not including today’s meeting. The goal is to adopt the code amendment
before the end of 2015.
Planner Kleisler stated the numbers of licensed vacation homes increased from 206 in 2010 to
285 in 2014, with the trend continuing upward. The Town and County made a conscious decision
to permit short-term rentals, which is classified as a low intensity accommodation use in
residential zone districts, along with some other non-residential uses (group homes). In 2013 the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Community Development Department hosted several community meetings to elicit feedback
concerning code compliance in general. One of the hot topics was vacation homes. One of the
outcomes of those meetings was the addition of a full-time code compliance officer.
Planner Kleisler stated at the last public forum, the group was given the task to prioritize vacation
home issues. The top three were Code Enforcement, Occupancy, and License Management.
Occupancy is currently defined in the EVDC as a cap of eight individuals in a short-term rental at
any one time. One possible change is to further limit vacation rentals to two individuals per
bedroom plus two additional individuals. Some homes are too small to meet this standard, while
other larger homes can easily accommodate more than eight guests. Comments were tallied by
the facilitators and will be organized as soon as possible. One concern that will need to be
addressed is whether there are areas in the Estes Valley that should be off limits to parties
greater than eight. Specific items to consider include but are not limited to: narrow streets,
homes on small lots, number of legal bedrooms, limited parking, traffic noise, garbage disposal,
etc. Currently vacation homes are allowed in areas where these conditions exist. Planner Kleisler
explained the potential for neighborhood impacts is minimal where large homes are built on large
lots, so the idea behind the proposed code change is that larger homes on larger lots could
accommodate higher occupancy limits. Some flexibility could occur in the review process; for
example, a vacation home that is ten feet from a neighboring home could have issues different to
a vacation home that is 50 feet away from the nearest neighbor. Another item the Commission
needs to address is if and when the neighboring property owners should have a voice in the
permitting process. The current process involves licensing through the Town Clerk’s office, with a
review by planning staff. There is currently no neighbor involvement in the licensing process. If
homes with higher occupancies would be permitted, the process needs to be determined,
including whether or not the neighbors should be notified. One option is to notify neighbors at
the time of the renewal of a license, to elicit feedback as to how the vacation home has been
operated. Suggestions were made that if there were issues during the year, the license could be
held until issues are resolved. Other comments from the public meeting included, but were not
limited to: no routing should be necessary if the home is in compliance with all zoning standards;
neighbors should be notified depending on the distance from adjacent homes. Overall, the goal
was to consider allowing greater flexibility for larger homes to host more guests. The
recommended action was to allow rentals to host parties greater than eight guests through the
Conditional Use Permit process. This would allow review of impacts to neighboring properties,
and impacts to public services. Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit could include additional
items requiring review. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board was not interested in using a cap
on lot size for number of occupants.
Planner Kleisler explained residential character, or how a property is able to blend in with the
surrounding environment. At the public forum, comments were requested about whether or not
there should there be a limit on the number of licenses in a given area. Comments included but
were not limited to: yes, by zoning district; no, as long as existing regulations were enforced; no, if
there are violations on the property; it could be used as a mechanism to determine where they
are appropriate. Planner Kleisler stated licensing fees are currently being reviewed. An increase in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
licensing fees could fund a part-time staff person to focus directly on short-term rental regulation
enforcement. He noted that for the number of total short-term rentals in town, the vast majority
operate without any issues.
Planner Kleisler stated the goal as presented to the Town Board was to preserve residential
neighborhood character, and the recommended action from both the Town Board and the County
Commissioners was to limit the number of vacation home rentals per street segment or within a
given radius of existing rentals. There was not a clear consensus about this particular item, so
feedback from the Planning Commission would be greatly appreciated. This is one of the more
complex issues of short-term rentals.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Chair Hull inquired about determining the average household size in specific zone districts.
Director Chilcott stated staff could use census block information to make that determination.
Commissioner Hills inquired about regulations for bed and breakfasts (B & Bs). Planner Kleisler
stated B & Bs were not part of this process, and no public comment was requested nor received.
If the Commission wished to discuss B & Bs, that would need to be addressed separately from
short-term vacation home rentals. The only item addressed related to B & Bs is whether or not
the property owner can stay on the property while renting out a single bedroom to short-term
guests. It was discussed at a Town Board study session, but changes in the regulations were not
proposed. If the Planning Commission chose to bring B & Bs into the mix, additional time would
be required for staff to address it, and also allow the public to provide comments. Planner Kleisler
stated if the Town Board and the County Commissioners decided to add the short-term rental of
individual bedrooms in homes to the discussion, staff could add that to the package. Planner
Kleisler stated there would likely be other similar issues which staff would review to avoid
unintended consequences with any new regulations. Other parts of the EVDC may need to be
amended to make the new regulations flow smoothly, e.g. group homes, number of unrelated
individuals in a household, etc.
Public Comment
Ed Peterson/town resident owns a large home on the golf course that can sleep 20 people. He
and others established a local vacation home owner association to work through the issues of
being able to house multi-generational guests. Vacation homes account for approximately 40% of
the lodging in Estes Park. He stated they are endorsed by Visit Estes Park and the Estes Area
Lodging Association, and generate approximately $30 million to the local economy.
Mike Thomas/town resident stated Estes Park was built on tourism, and is what the local
economy is based on. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the maximum number of
individuals that can stay in a larger home, which can easily house multi-generational family
reunions.
Rainer Schelp/owner of Estes Park Central stated homes most sought after are those that can
accommodate more than eight people. Large families like to meet in Estes Park. Many larger
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
homes are on larger lots that do not create any problems. Code enforcement and qualified
property managers are important to make sure the guests follow the rules. He stated 98% follow
the rules. He stated he is a pro-active property manager that immediately follows up on
complaints from neighbors. The economic impact of vacation homes for the Estes Valley is huge.
There are probably more than 440 vacation rentals in the area, and they are a large part of the
success of this community.
Linda Moak/county resident wants the Planning Commissioners to be very careful and thoughtful
about the occupancy limits. She owns a nine bedroom vacation rental, and 99% of the renters are
multi-generational families. She refuses to come into compliance by saying she can only sleep
eight people. Her rental is on a large lot and does not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.
She lives next door and is an on-site manager.
Mick Scarpella/town resident has owned vacation rentals in Estes for 11 years. He owns a five
bedroom home that has beds for 12 guests. He has worked hard to engage the neighbors. He
agreed with the statement about the popularity of multi-generational families wanting to rent
larger homes. He stated Estes Park should realize and appreciate the multi-generational market,
and should have allowances for such gatherings. He also supports regulations of short-term
rentals.
Dean Norton/Larimer County property owner was supportive of larger occupancy limits. Estes
Park has a lot of activities for people of all ages. He was concerned that when potential visitors
research the area before they make reservations, they will go elsewhere when they find out the
maximum occupancy for a short-term vacation rental is eight individuals.
Greg Perrotto/town resident stated he owns a property that can accommodate up to 32 people.
Many of his renters are here for family reunions. His concern is that if the Estes Valley is too strict
on occupancy, Estes Park will lose the marketability of being a place for families.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident was opposed to occupancy limits and supportive of a
Conditional Use Hearing, similar to what Grand Lake requires. She shares a driveway with a large
vacation home. She stated family reunions come with a lot of noise. She stated the Economic
Development Corporation has tracked people that have moved out of the valley. She has talked
to others who are tired of living in a hotel zone. She stated this has become an issue all over the
country. She recommended grandfathering in the vacation homes that are available now,
provided they have a conditional use hearing, and make the determination about neighbor
impacts at that time. She stated complaints in her neighborhood are not adequately addressed by
the police. She recommends capping the number of licenses until enforcement can be effective.
She thinks property owners rights are being violated by having to live next to vacation rentals.
Linda Beach/county resident stated she is a year-round resident living near a short-term rental.
She was opposed to vacation rentals, and hoped the county and town could solve the disparity of
ordinances between the two jurisdictions, specifically the noise ordinance. Quiet time within the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
town limits is 8 p.m., while the county’s is 10 p.m. She stated the Sheriff’s office treats noise
violations as low priority. Code enforcement is needed, as tourists have no respect for the
neighbors. She stated the neighboring home was built as a vacation rental. The owner of that
property lives out of state, has never lived in the house, has no plans to live there, and does not
realize how serious the issues are. She stated enforcement of the regulations is very important.
She agreed with Ms. Urquhart about noise, parties, speeding, trespassing, fire danger, and other
issues.
Kurt Johnson/town resident agreed with Ms. Urquhart and Ms. Beach. He was opposed to
allowing large numbers of occupants in vacation rentals, saying they have completely changed the
character of his neighborhood, and because of that they are planning to move.
Seth Smith/Ponderosa Property Management that manages 60-80 properties. He stated the
biggest piece that is missing is enforcement. He thought some of the other issues would take care
of themselves if the rules were enforced.
Millicent Cozzie/town resident agreed that the larger homes should be allowed to have more
than eight people. She stated code enforcement is the issue. There is a small percentage of less
than desirable guests that have the potential to ruin what is being done responsibly. She stated
most complaints seem to revolve around noise, and after researching the Estes Park Municipal
Code, did not understand why citations are not being issued. She encouraged residents with noise
issues to call the police, who should be enforcing the noise ordinance.
Glenn Malpiede/town resident stated the biggest issue is enforcement. He stated the police
should be issuing citations. A call list should be created so the property owners can be notified
when there is a problem. He stated Air B&Bs should be licensed like everyone else, and that type
of rental should be included in the proposed regulations.
Barbara May/town resident stated the Planning Commissioners need to think seriously about the
amount of money that should be spent on hiring the enforcers. Larger houses with more people
require a larger enforcement budget. She thought the police department was understaffed and
was unable to provide adequate enforcement because of that issue. She encouraged the
enforcement of noise and parking violations. There are a lot of things on both sides that need to
be addressed, and she hoped the Commissioners could find a way to make it balance.
Fred Mares/town resident was neutral on vacation rentals. He stated the explosive growth of
short-term rentals and the lack of enforcement over the years has impacted the community. It is
difficult to know what comments to direct to which groups, as all issues are related and need to
be intertwined in order to be effective. Cross-talk needs to happen with all groups involved. In
recent history, the Town Board has discussed many issues; changing the character of Estes Park to
a year-round economy, the aging population, the decline of the school population, etc. Family
values are trying to get reestablished in town. The Planning Commission needs to be able to find
balance between residents and visitors, and the balance seems to be shifting. He urged the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission to consider the larger picture: vacation rental owners versus people with issues
about vacation rentals. The rules in place now may not be clear to property owners. While the
Commissioners are being asked to allow more flexibility, there should be ways to maintain the
small amount of control that we now have. A Conditional Use Permit may be helpful, but there
could be other ways to address the issues.
Nick Thomas/vacation home owner stated one of the biggest issues is people not being able to
stand in each other’s shoes. Some of the examples provided today are extreme. In general, one
size does not fit all. Estes Park is a vacation place for families. He does not appreciate trying to
limit the occupancy. It is not a negative to celebrate things. There needs to be regulation and
Estes Park needs to be able to back the rules. Different communities enforce things in different
ways. He sees the biggest issue is to make sure that when people have a problem, it can be taken
care of by the police and other enforcers. He questioned whether the statistics about number of
vacation homes to the number of complaints was accurate, thinking that many complaints may be
coming from one or two individuals about one or two vacation homes. He encouraged the
Commissioners to be flexible and realize one rule will not fit every situation.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Sergeant Rick Life/Estes Park Police Department stated the local noise ordinance is based on
decibels and the location where the reading is taken from. It is not as simple as it seems.
Staff and Commissioner comments included but were not limited to: noise really varies; Estes
Park and Larimer County have challenges with response times; Sheriff’s office does not have a
deputy regularly assigned to the Estes Valley; the code regarding eight unrelated individuals has
been in place for many years, and is derived from the state statute which defines small group
homes as eight people or fewer; you cannot prohibit small group homes from residential
neighborhoods; from a planning perspective, residential neighborhoods are for residential use, so
if we allow vacation homes for more people than eight people, then we also need to look at
increasing the number of people that can live in a residence or small group home; it is hard to
determine regulations when you have to assume that enforcement would work; enforcement is
one of the biggest issues; property owners that are out of state are maybe not as in tune to
issues; staff will flush out the land use issues more fully than others and present it as a package
with how the process would work and how enforcement would occur; the enforcement of
covenants is a civil matter; if occupancy was maintained at eight people, a conditional use permit
could allow a larger number; the Planning Commission could place regulations on the process for
renewals; conditional use permits currently expire after one year of non-use.
Planner Kleisler stated the next step will be a joint meeting with the Town Board and County
Commission to present final recommendations. Following that meeting, a draft ordinance will be
written and presented to the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the Planning Commission
may request changes be made, that something else be flushed out differently, etc. At that point,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
September 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the Planning Commission would either ask for additional information, request changes be made
to the ordinance, or make a recommendation to the decision-making boards. It is also contingent
on Town Board feedback.
REPORTS
Planner Kleisler reported the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure project was heard
by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2015. The variances for height and
setbacks were approved.
Planner Kleisler reported on the Downtown Plan, stating a grant was received from the
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for $190,000 to hire a consultant to create a downtown plan
that would be the vision for the next ten years. That process is currently underway. The
community has provided input on the submitted proposals, and interviews were held with the
two finalists. The committee is nearing completion, and will be providing a recommendation to
the Town Board in the near future. Commissioner White is a member of the committee. Chair
Hull stated she will be filling in for Commissioner White while she is out of town.
Director Chilcott reported there is no update on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
Modernization. It is a very time-intensive project and other projects in the department have had
higher priority.
Director Chilcott will be providing a report to the Town Board on October 27, 2015 on goals for
long- and short-term flood mitigation, with the main goal reducing flood risk to protect property
owners from future flood damage, both economically and physically.
Director Chilcott reported a consultant reviewed our current fee schedules for development
review and building permit fees, and several recommendations have been presented to staff.
Options to consider are (1) retain the current fee schedule but potentially increase the fees; (2)
move to a cost reimbursement model, where the more you use the service the more you pay; and
(3) a combined model for development review fees, where a simple review is a flat fee, and a
complex project would be based on the amount of staff time incurred. The reason for reviewing
the fee schedules is because our current fees are not covering the cost of services, due to the
increase in demand. The other option would be to scale back on the level of services. The Town
Board heard the presentation, and staff will be doing some public outreach to stakeholders to
obtain feedback.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Senior Building Permit Technician Phillips
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were five members of the public in the audience.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from October 1, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously.
2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE (IEBC)
Chair Spooner stated today’s meeting is a review of the International Existing Building Code.
Significant Changes to the 2012 and 2015 Codes will be discussed.
CBO Birchfield stated in the previous editions of the IBC, there was a chapter for existing buildings. In
the 2015 codes, that chapter was deleted. The information is contained solely in the IEBC beginning in
2015. The IEBC is very specific depending on the amount of change in the existing buiding. It is much
mor flexible than the IBC for existing buildings. Also more flexible when dealing with different scopes
of work. It is a tiered system.
Classifies work on existing buildings in dofferent classifications: Repairs, which has no other affect on
the rest of the building. Component or appliance that is no longer functioning properly. Second level is
Alteration – Level 1, include removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements,
equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same
purpose. Replacing like for like materials, etc. Not changing the use. What becomes important when
working on an existin gbuiding is that the scope of work is classified. IEBC is very clear about what the
level of work requires. Not an all or nothing approach. Level 1 must also comply with Chapter 7 of the
IEBC. Level 2 alteration – reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window,
the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment. This is
for buildings originally built under the IBC. This raises the bar because when you start changing walls,
there are many other systems that can be affected. Level 2 alterations must also comply with Chapter
8. Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50% of the building area. Level 3 also must
comply with Chapters 7,8, and 9. Sometimes the code requirement may require you to work in a part
of the building you hadn’t planned on disturbing. The code allows that without bumping the level of
work up. Change of Occupancy – this is the most difficult to understand. Rules are based on the
hazards and the hazards are determined by the use. Changes of Occupancy involves life safety issues.
Some requirements are driven by the use, others by the type of construction (combustible, non-
combustible, fire resistive or non-fire resistive construction). When the use is changed, the
requirements for that area change. For example, remodeling a garage to a living space changes the
requirements.
In the building code there are occupancy classifications. Underneath those classifications are groups.
CBO Birchfield gave a brief explanation of the classifications and groups. The definition of Change of
Occupancy is: a change in the use of the building or of apportion of a building. A change of occupancy
shall include any change of occupancy classification, any change from one group to another group
within an occupancy classification or any change in use within a group for a specific occupancy
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
classification. If you change the character of how the space is being use, it is considered a change of
occupancy.
Joe Calvin provided an example that you could have a change of occupancy and a level 2 alteration on
the same project.
CBO Birchfield stated the identification of the scope of work is the most important, to assist with
determining the level of work.
Additions - ………..put in words from handout. Chapter 11.
Historic buildings must be listed on the official history registery in order to qualify under this section.
Page 4 – Section 904 fire Protection. Chapter 9 is only for Level 3 alterations (more than 50% of the
floor area of the building). This chapter talks about automatic sprinkler systems. Chapter 9 directs
one to Section 804 with further instructions about automatic sprinkler systems. CbO Birchfield
explained in detail how to work your way through the IEBC, as there is a specific direction to follow.
Section 804 discusses fire exits in existing buildings, and takes in to account the occupant load,
number of tenants from multiple units, use in the units, etc. As the use changes, the occupant load
changes, and the requirements change. The use drives almost everything in the building codes. The
IEBC makes provisions for insufficient municipal water supply in a building.
Alteration level 3 refers one to Chapter 9. This has the provisions elevators, boiler and equipment
rooms, upholstered furniture, farm alarm and detection systems, means of egress, accessibility,
structural changes, and energy conservation.
The IEBC only applies to buildings constructed under the International building Code. This is mostly
commercial buildings. It is very user friendly, although it takes a lot of work to get through the maze of
determining which triggers are tripped.
The adoption of this code is the reason we require permits for change of use. The CO is only valid for
the use that was approved under that permit.
Chapter 10 discussed Change of Occupancy. Chapter 11 discusses Additions. The IEBC does not
penalize property owners for not………………………………….. Additions must be built to the current codes,
but it doesn’t require the entire house be brought up to code. However, the addition cannot
compromise the existing building, and must be examined to ensure safety. Chapter 11 also discusses
smoke alarms and accessibility.
CBO Birchfield stated in the 2015 codes, we no longer have the option of using the IBC for work in
existing buildings. Many jurisdictions have never adopted the IEBC, and they will now be required to
do so. The way we are doing business in the Town will not change with the adoption of this code. CBO
birchfield stated there was not a publication for significant changes for the IEBC.
Joe – says it’s a good code and he uses it frequently.
Board and Staff Discussion
CbO Birchfield stated this will be the last time the Board can provide input for him to take information
back to the town Board. He stated if there are other changes that need to be made, the Board can
come back together to address them whenever necessary.
The IBC adopts all the other codes by reference. The IRC can stand alone as a separate code.
Property Maintenance Code – adopted by reference in the IBC. Either decide to not adopt it, or adopt
it with amendments. Took the input from the Board to write the local amendments. Commercial only,
perimeter of building is excluded. Gives the CBO the authority to condemn buildings.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was Will’s opinion that the board agreed with all the current local amendments, and had a few
items they wanted to discuss from the 2015 codes.
Sprinklers in one and two family dwellings. Recommended to require sprinklers if in a wildfire hazard
area, not enough water protection, or over 5000 square feet. Start with wildfire hazard area. If it is in
one, and meets any other one criteria, sprinklers would be required. Marc Robinson shared his
opinion. Residential systems are 13D systems. There are some that can actually be installed off the
domestic water line, which could be installed by a plumber. MNationally, there are still problems with
fires and deaths in single family homes. In a high risk area that comes into play even more.
Throughout the country, residential sprinlers are becoming more of a standard. The community has to
decide if they are ready for it. There is enough data to show that they work and they save lives. With
the increase in plastics and other petroleum based products in homes, he said that sprinklers work. If
a residential system is designed to a NFPA 13 standard, that code will be reviewed by the Fire District
for compliance. If it’s a P2904, it basically becomes part of the plumbing system. Don Darling, if you
put a dollar amount on something, people will base their decision on economics before safety. CbO
Bircheifld stated the trigger would most likely be adequate access, because many homes are built in
areas fairly difficult to access. The Board is in agreement that we are not going to require sprinklers in
all one and two family homes, at a minimum. Tony – need to be selective with raising the bar on all
of the codes, as it would make it more difficult to build here. CbO Birchfield stated the mountainous
terrain, limited access, high winds makes the wildfire hazard area has the potential to have a greater
negative impact on the community than a flood. He stated Larimer County does not think the same
way, but they also have many more square miles to cover. There was discussion about residential
fires and how they have changed over the years with the ways construction materials have changed.
Marc – sprinkler systems are installed to keep fires at bay so occupants and emergency responders
can escape from the home. Heat is greater from a home than from trees burning around it.
Joe – fire department access when the house is a certain size – would get the requirement established
and help temper it a little bit. Tony - In agreement to raise the bar a little. Will – this discussion
could be taken to the elected officials, and ask them for direction. Elected officials will give a lot of
credit to the Board and staff to make informed recommendations to give to them. Marc – once we
build a structure that is rented nightly, it no longer becomes a single family home and becomes a
commercial property. We have the responsibility to protect our guests that come to town and stay in
nighlty rentals, whether or not it is a hotel or a single family home.
Will – the way the code reads now is if it looks like a single family dwelling, regardless of the use
(owner occupied or nightly rentals) it is built under the residential code.
Decision – exempt one and two family homes from sprinklers, but tell the Town Board it needs more
discussion and possible alterations.
WILDFIRE HAZARDS – Will doesn’t think the county standards are high enough for estes Park. Will
would like to look at Boulder county’s code. Could conflict with the vegetation requirements in the
EVDC.
Paul Brown – Boulder county has a 100 foot clear cut around buildings, and are required to have a
gravel perimeter and under decks.
Will – recommends to adopt the Larimer county wildfire by reference, but we want to revisit it to
make sure it’s adequate for our jurisdiction. Hopefully we can get more community input.
CONDENSATE PUMPS - You can build a mechanical room in a crawl space, if you can put in a floor
drain. In new construction only.
Either put drywall on the ceiling if the mechanical equipment is in a crawl space
EGRESS WINDOWS – - same as last minutes about permits and voluntary structural changes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
November 11, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS – permit will be required.
ZERO CLEARANCE HOODS – same as previous
REROOFS – If you are in a high hail area, you cannot overlay roofs. This went away in the 2015 code.
This is mainly for homes with conventional shingles. Will said roofing contractors prefer all layers be
removed, but it’s a cost thing. Weight of new shingles is as much as 300/square. Recommended to
allow one overlay.
SNOW LOADS – Recommendation from SEAC is to increase from 45-60 psf, and adjust for altitude.
John stated the county will have a list that adjusts for alittitude. RECOMMENDATION TO GO WITH
WHAT THE COUNTY IS DOING.
WIND LOADS – John doesn’t think we need all the maps. We should pick one wind load for the town,
because otherwise it makes it difficult to make the determination. John crunched some numbers. In
town, he recommends using 160 for everything in town limits. Wants to use a table instead of maps.
For the residential code, set one wind speed. County has maps, pressure correction factor for
elevation. For the Town, we would tell designers they could correct to sea level wind speed For the
IRC, we would use the table for Category 2 buildings.
DECK BRACING – LATERAL BRACING – Will has concerns about decks that are completly cantilevered
out from the building. It is currently an option in the code, and we are currently not doing anything.
We have not seen any deck failures. Options – leave it up to the designer and have it based on wind
loads, only require in new construction. RECOMMENDED TO FOLLOW THE COUNTY.
Joe – talked about a lot of local amendments. He would like for the Board to physically have in hand
the draft of the local amendments to review before they go to the Town Board. Don - recommends
that the Board give Will the authority to take the local amendments to the TB. They will have
It was decided to have another meeting on December 3rd to review the local amendments in between
the two Board meetings.
Items tabled is FEES. Public meeting at 4:30 at the museum to discuss a new fee proposal. Proposing
to keep same fee schedule, but base them on real world values. Not increasing the fee schedule, but
creating a level playing field, so builders are paying the same rate for their large projects as those for
small projects. Development review fees will also be discussed. Floodplain fees will not be addressed
until we can have more itme to review it.
The Town will pay for the Board to attend one day of class at the CCICC training.
REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION # 21-15
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New TAVERN Liquor License, filed by LA
CABANA MEXICAN BAR & GRILL, LLC, 165 VIRGINIA DRIVE UNITS 18-1 AND 18-2, Estes
Park, Colorado, is October 28, 2015.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at
7:00 p.m., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and
hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 2.9 miles, as measured from the center of
the applicant's property.
DATED this 24th day of November, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2016 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
a. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user-friendly
and easier to understand and use, while ensuring they are effective and
enforceable and support development.
1. Complete Downtown Neighborhood Plan and develop implementation options in
partnership with the downtown residents and businesses. (e.g. BID, DDA, URA, etc.)
b. We will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town fiber infrastructure.2. Research and possible implementation of options to provide increased broadband
access within the Estes Park Light & Power service area.
c. We will review the potential for redevelopment of areas of town where
appropriate.
3. Define the role of Town government in economic development as it relates to the
Estes Park EDC and other organizations.
d. The Town will encourage events, activities and development that
enhance a year round economy.
4. Revise the sign code to be simpler and easier to understand while retaining the
basic intent.
5. Serve a supportive role in the formation and operation of a Creative Arts District.
6. Continue to participate in local, regional, and state economic development.
a. We will continue to address parking options throughout the Town.1. Complete construction of phase 1 of the Visitor Center Transit Facility Parking
Structure.
b. We will provide safe access for users to the trail system.2. Pursue funding for future phases of the Visitor Center Transit Facility Parking
Structure.
c. We will continue to pursue grants and utilize available open space
funding to develop connectivity of trails in the Estes Valley in partnership
with other local entities as described in the Estes Valley Trails Master
Plan.
3. Explore the need for a stormwater master plan and the feasibility of a stormwater
utility (including floodplain considerations).
d. We will develop plans and build the financial strength for redundant
raw water sources to our water treatment plants.
4. Develop a facilities needs assessment for equipment and other storage, including
the museum collections and police evidence.
5. Complete the environmental studies required for the extension of the Fall River Trail
using the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks grant.
2 Infrastructure - We have
reliable, efficient and up-to-
date infrastructure serving
our residents, businesses
and guests.
Town of Estes Park 2016 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: 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.
1 Robust Economy - We have a
diverse, healthy year-round
economy.
e. The Town will participate as a partner in local, regional and state
economic development efforts.
Page 1 2016 Strategic Plan
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2016 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2016 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: 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.
1 Robust Economy - We have a
diverse, healthy year-round
economy.
6. Pursue funding opportunities for construction of the Fall River Trail.
7. Start planning for the use of the Trails Special Revenue Fund formed by Ballot Issue
1A sales tax revenue.
8. Repair trails damaged during the flood utilizing available Larimer County Open Space
funds for the Town's required funding match.
9. Partner with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District in updating the Estes
Valley Trails Master Plan.
10. Develop and adopt a policy on Town installation of empty conduit with other
Town projects.
a. The Events Complex meets the 2013 CH Johnson pro-forma financial
projections.
1. Complete a needs assessment and conceptual plan for improvements to the
Conference Center.
b. We will plan for future upgrades and expansion of the Conference
Center.
2. Investigate ways to improve signage for special events.
c. We will complete stall replacements at the Fairgrounds.
4 a. We will continue to pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk
and flood insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the
Estes Valley.
1. Work to restore the streams damaged by the flood and redefine the floodplains
within Town boundaries.
b. We will implement projects and policies which promote sustainability,
to improve the quality of the environment.2. Continue the program to provide wildlife-resistant trash and recycling receptacles.
c. We will maintain safe and healthy environments on Town-owned
properties. 3. Participate as a partner in the County's regional wasteshed planning.
d. We will investigate alternative technologies for recycling and waste
management.
2
Public Safety, Health and
Environment - Estes Park is a
safe place to live, work, and
visit within our
extraordinary natural
environment
Exceptional Guest Services -
We are a preferred Colorado
mountain destination
providing an exceptional
guest experience.
3
Infrastructure - We have
reliable, efficient and up-to-
date infrastructure serving
our residents, businesses
and guests.
Page 2 2016 Strategic Plan
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2016 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2016 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: 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.
1 Robust Economy - We have a
diverse, healthy year-round
economy.
a. We will serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for all
segments of our community.
1 Define housing needs and identify potential plans for action.
b. We will continue to work with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks
District and the other partners, to develop and build the multi-
generational Community Center, including the Senior Center.
2. Develop a strategy for addressing seasonal workforce housing demands.
c. We will increase the capacity of the Senior Center, considering the
recommendations of the Museum and Senior Center Master Plan, in
coordination with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District's
Community Center.
3. As the Planning Commission finishes its current work on neighborhood plans and
after the conclusion of the Downtown Neighborhood plan, collaborate with the
Planning Commission to consider what specific action to take regarding any additional
neighborhood plans.
d. We will plan and implement the celebration of the 100th Anniversary
of the Town.
4. Revise the sign code to be simpler and easier to understand while retaining the
basic intent.
e. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user-friendly
and easier to understand, while ensuring they are effective, enforceable
and support reasonable development.
5. Develop plans for the Town's 100th Anniversary Celebration in 2017.
f. We encourage the Board of Appeals to look at our regulations and
codes and give suggestions.
a. We will ensure town finances are strong with adequate fund balances
and sustainable reserves.
1. Continue to evaluate financial policies that provide adequate fund balances and
sustainable reserves.
b. We will provide adequate funding for staffing needed to provide the
appropriate level of services to our citizens and guests.
2. Implement the capital planning process.
Outstanding Community
Services - Estes Park will
continu to be an
exceptionally vibrant,
diverse, inclusive and active
mountain community in
which to live, work and play,
with housing available for all
segments in our community.
5
Governmental Services and
Internal Support - We will
provide high-quality, reliable
basic municipal services for
the benefit of our citizens,
guests, and employees,
while being good stewards
of public resources
6
Page 3 2016 Strategic Plan
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2016 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2016 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: 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.
1 Robust Economy - We have a
diverse, healthy year-round
economy.
c. We will conduct a citizen survey biennially to measure our
performance and citizen preferences.
3. Conduct the biennial Citizen Survey.
d. We will maintain a well-trained and educated town staff.4. Complete a needs assessment and recommendation for an enterprise-wide
document management system.
e. We will implement an enterprise-wide document management system.5. Develop a standard set of contracts for Town Activities.
a. We will continue to address downtown traffic issues. 1. Proceed with the next steps in the Loop Project, (to be determined after the
completion of the NEPA Environmental Assessment).
2. Complete the reconstruction of Dry Gulch Road.
3. Continue preventative maintenance activities on Town roads, as adequate funds
become available.
4. Adopt and implement a plan for utilization of the new sales tax funds for street
improvements.
5. Include bike/pedestrian lanes wherever possible along with the street
improvements.
6. Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the downtown neigborhood, coordinated
with the Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
7. Coordinate with CDOT for improved signage on S.H. 7, U.S. 34 and U.S. 36.
8. Investigate the costs and opportunities of expanding transit services year round.
Transportation - We have
safe, efficient and well
maintained multi-modal
transportation systems for
pedestrians, vehicles and
transit.
7
b. The street rehabilitation efforts will result in an average pavement
condition index of 70 or above for the Town street network by 2024.
Governmental Services and
Internal Support - We will
provide high-quality, reliable
basic municipal services for
the benefit of our citizens,
guests, and employees,
while being good stewards
of public resources
6
Page 4 2016 Strategic Plan
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Board of Trustees, Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: November 24, 2015
RE: Public Hearing – 2016 Budget – Adoption ‐ Highway Users Trust Fund
Background
Colorado budget law requires a public hearing be conducted to discuss how the Highway Users
Trust Fund revenues are proposed to be expended in the ensuing fiscal year. The following are
the proposals that are included in the 2016 Town of Estes Park budget:
2016
1. Estimated Revenues: $260,510
2. Estimated Expenditures:
a. Street Improvement Plan $435,000
b. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, guardrail,
Snow removal, plow blades 98,000
c. Vehicles/equipment usage 192,540
$725,540
Expenditures for snow plowing, street maintenance, or any other expenditures directly related
to streets are allowable uses of Trust Fund revenue in the event that any of the above‐listed
projects are not constructed or come in considerably less than budget.
RESOLUTION TO SET MILL LEVIES NO. 18-15
A RESOLUTION LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE
YEAR 2015 TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT
FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE 2016 BUDGET YEAR.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will adopt the
annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November
24th, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to balance the budget for general
operating expense is $334,804; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary net valuation for assessment for the Town of Estes
Park as certified by the County Assessor is $194,772,660.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That for the purpose meeting all general operating expenses of the Town of
Estes Park during the 2016 budget year, there is hereby levied a tax of 1.719 mills
(revised from the original calculation of 1.822 mills) upon each dollar of the total
valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2015. The
1.719 mills is a temporary reduction of the original 1.822 mills due to property tax
increase spending limits per C.R.S. 29-1-301.
That the Town Clerk is herby authorized and directed to immediately certify to the
County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, the mill levies for the Town of
Estes Park as hereinabove determined and set.
ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
RESOLUTION # 22-15
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Local Marketing District has filed with the Town Clerk
the Estes Park Local Marketing Business and Operating Plan for 2016 along with its
proposed budget for the 2016 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29-25-110 C.R.S. and the applicable provision
of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 26, 2008, between the Town of
Estes Park and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, the Town
Board shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan within thirty (30) days after
receipt of said Plan, the proposed budget and all additional documentation
requested by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Operating Plan and proposed
budget and has determined that the Operating Plan will provide efficient and cost
effective marketing and promotion services for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2016
as filed with the Town Clerk is hereby approved.
Dated this___________________________, 2015.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
MINUTES
VEP –TOEP IGA DISCUSSIONS
11/18/2015
10:30 AM – 1:00 PM
EFFORT PURPOSE: To refine and improve the Intergovernmental Agreement between Visit
Estes Park and the Town of Estes Park and clarify the roles of each entity where applicable.
MEETING PURPOSE: To clarify the respective roles of Visit Estes Park and the Town of
Estes Park as they relate to the marketing of events.
Present
o Wendy Koenig (Mayor Pro Tem)
o Ron Norris (Town Trustee)
o Bill Almond (Visit Estes Park Board Chairman)
o Lindsay Lamson (Visit Estes Park Board Member)
o Frank Lancaster (Town Administrator)
o Elizabeth Fogarty (Visit Estes Park President and CEO)
o Travis Machalek (Assistant Town Administrator)
Briefly touch on brochure rack resolution
o VEP is doing its due diligence on choosing a touch screen solution that will work
properly and consistently
o This may take longer than was initially anticipated; there is a chance this project
will not be completed in 2016 due to faulty equipment and technology with all the
top touchscreen providers.
o Under the current IGA, VEP is responsible for the management of the brochure
rack process
The Town has been assisting VEP with stocking the brochure racks
The IGA will be changed so that the Town will continue to assist VEP by
physically stocking the brochure racks through 2016
At the end of 2016, if the touch screens are not installed, the stocking of
the brochure racks will be reassessed at the annual Town-VEP IGA review
meeting
Once the touch screens are installed, the Town will cease to manage the
physical restocking of the brochure rack in accordance with the intent of
the original IGA
o Town and VEP staff will meet in January to discuss process improvements for the
management of the brochure rack in 2016
Meetings of Destination Leadership Group
o Frequency
The IGA will be changed so that this group meets quarterly
o Other
The Town will add this group to the Board Policy list
The Town and VEP will alternate preparing the agenda for these meetings
Service Level Agreement
o This section will be updated to conform to recent efforts and changes will be
reviewed by VEP and Town.
Role of VEP and Town within the Tourism economy
o Please see “Statement from Visit Estes Park Defining DMO Role, Including
Destination Event Marketing and Event Promotion”
Events
o Distinction between Destination Event Marketing and Event Promotion
Destination Event Marketing is the general marketing of events as things
to do in the Estes Valley (e.g. through an event calendar, social media,
VEP website, and other various marketing tools), and does not include
specific advertisements for every individual event. As a destination
marketing organization, VEP is promoting the larger guest experience and
elements that will attract guests to Estes Park, rather than focusing on
increasing sales of event tickets and other event specific details.
Event Promotion is the marketing of specific events through individual
marketing efforts (e.g. radio ads, single-event print or digital ads, etc.)
o VEP will no longer be paying for and managing Event Promotion for Town-
produced events.
o VEP will continue to manage and budget Destination Event Marketing (Town
events will be included in this)
o The Town will meet with VEP annually during budget season to work up a Event
Promotion plan for Town-produced events (contingent on available Town
funding)
This meeting will identify all Town-produced event promotion needs for
the coming year, as well as identifying how much the Town will need to
compensate VEP for these event promotion services
The Town does not have money in its 2016 budget for Event Promotion
Other items
o Brand consistency
It would be helpful if VEP released a document detailing steps to take for
brand consistency
o Event Surveys
These are important to evaluation of events and will be worked through in
the Service Level Agreement (SLA)
MEETING DELIVERABLES: Progress towards agreement on the respective roles of Visit
Estes Park and the Town of Estes Park in regard to marketing events.
1200 Graves Ave • P.O. Box 4426 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-0500 • www.VisitEstesPark.com
November 18, 2015
To: Town of Estes Park - Honorable Bill Pinkham, Town Trustees and Town Administrator
Statement from Visit Estes Park Defining DMO Role,
Including Destination Event Marketing and Event Promotion
A Destination Marketing Organization is one that promotes the development and marketing of a destination with the
intent of impacting economic growth and quality of life through a travel and tourism strategy. As an LMD and a DMO,
Visit Estes Park is charged with representing all businesses and organizations inside the district equally. Event
managers/promoters, on the other hand, are charged with growing a specific event, or set of events, in attendance,
sales, participation, etc. While event attendance can impact destination travel and the economy, each event is a specific
destination product, like each business, and therefore not something a DMO would inherently market heavily. As a
DMO, Visit Estes Park is promoting the larger guest experience and elements that will attract guests to Estes Park, rather
than focusing on selling event tickets, vendor spaces, or other specific details and revenue opportunities for the event
itself.
Like other products or tourism businesses, events are, and will continue to be (regardless of Town investment),
supported by the DMO in many ways. Visit Estes Park promotes events and other news-worthy and on-brand
destination products through various marketing tools such as social media, VEP website, blog, press relations, and as
part of a broader guest experience in our advertising. Also, by publishing ads that promote the seasonal event calendar,
for example, we are able to offer potential guests multiple reasons and times to come to Estes Park, rather than
marketing a single event that, in-and-of-itself, is not always a multi-day guest attraction.
Investing in advertising that promotes any single event is outside the realm of destination marketing. Thus, without
investment from the Town, this type of advertising, such as radio ads, single-event print or digital ads, etc. can no longer
be a large part of the VEP advertising program, if VEP stays true to its strategy of continuing as a destination marketing
organization. These ads are simply too narrowly focused to provide ample opportunity to convert large numbers of
overnight guests and, therefore, do not fit into our overall destination marketing strategy. Visit Estes Park recognizes
the Town’s budgetary limitations and if the Town is not in a position to invest in individual event promotion through
Visit Estes Park, we understand.
It is not in the community’s best interest to have the Town Board directing strategy or budget allocations to Visit Estes
Park. This subverts the work of the appointed VEP Board, to which the Town Board appoints five of the seven seats. The
Town has made a conscious decision to appoint board members for the purpose of creating and delivering on a long-
term DMO strategy for the health of the entire community. These appointees should be trusted to fulfill their roles as
they have been charged to do without direct intervention from Town Trustees, and to use their expertise, along with
that of the VEP staff and partners, to make such decisions.
Visit Estes Park Board of Directors
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: November 24, 2015
RE: Project Management Consultant Services for the Estes Park Transit
Facility Parking Structure
Objective:
The Public Works Department proposes to hire a consultant Project Manager to
represent the Town and provide weekly project management support to the design
team, funding agencies, impacted parties, and the future construction contractor for the
transit facility parking structure at the Estes Park Visitor Center south parking lot site.
Present Situation:
At the Town Board meeting on March 24, 2015, the Public Works staff was authorized
to seek approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Bureau of
Reclamation (BoR) to relocate the new transit facility parking structure from the north
parking lot to the south parking lot at the Estes Park Visitor Center where fewer utility
and access conflicts exist. This is a complicated endeavor which requires substantial
time to complete a new preliminary design, draft a new Environmental Assessment,
negotiate a Special Use Permit with the BoR, perform a new geotechnical investigation,
coordinate utility impacts, mitigate concerns from the EVRPD, obtain formal approval
from FTA, complete the final design, obtain two new access permits from CDOT, bid the
project, build the project, and complete the closeout paperwork for cost reimbursement
from the grant funding agencies. The Public Works Department does not have
sufficient professional Project Management staff to provide these services while
concurrently managing the existing project workload.
Proposal:
The Public Works Department proposes to hire SpaceIntoPlace Architecture & Design
(SIPAD) to perform the project management services during both the design and
construction phases of this project. During the preparation of the final design and
bidding documents for the original project in early 2014, the Town experienced a
transition in leadership and project oversight. Absent any formal contract or agreement,
SIPAD continued to help by demonstrating tremendous initiative and oversight to keep
the project moving forward during this time, donating nearly $24,000 of uncompensated
effort. Since August of 2014, SIPAD has continued to offer invaluable project support
for the due-diligence exploration of key issues triggered by the proposed relocation to
the new south site. For the reasons described below, Public Works recommends sole
sourcing this contract to SIPAD.
Advantages:
• SIPAD has in-depth familiarity with the project, the community, and the design since
they were part of the project consultant design team for the original project at the
Visitor Center north site in 2013.
• The proposed hourly compensation rate of $90/hour is highly competitive in the
architectural/engineering field where senior Project Managers/Principal owners
routinely bill out at $130 to $200 per hour.
• SIPAD is a local firm with established business relationships in Estes Park, the North
Front Range, and the Denver metro area.
• SIPAD has recently proven their professionalism and technical competence through
the Construction Management services provided on the Town’s Events Center in
2013/14.
• SIPAD is available now to assist the Town in moving this project aggressively
forward toward the goal of construction in 2016.
Disadvantages:
• Maintaining continuity in professional services eliminates the fresh perspective
sometimes realized from new eyes on a project.
• The owner of SIPAD is the spouse of the Town Finance Director and some
taxpayers may have an unfounded worry that this award is based on nepotism rather
than demonstrated competence and benefit to the taxpayers.
Action Recommended:
The Public Works Department recommends the Town retain SIPAD to provide primary
project management services for the completion of the design and construction of the
Transit Facility Parking Structure in an amount not to exceed $151,500.00.
Budget:
Projected future expenses for the parking structure item would be paid fully with local
funds from account number 204-5400-3544-36-53 of the Community Reinvestment
Fund (CRF). On March 24, 2015, the Town approved an increase of $750,000 for this
project which includes $50,000 for Project Management expenses, $100,000 for
Construction Management expenses, and $1500 for landscape design oversight &
management. To allow expedient administrative approval of potential change orders for
unforeseen PM tasks, staff recommends a 10% contingency be included in the
Purchase Order encumbrance of $170,000 for the services contract with SIPAD. No
project budget increase or allocation of new funds is requested with this action.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this project is high. Public interest in the selection
of the consultant project manager is low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a Professional Services
contract for the Transit Facility Parking Structure with SpaceIntoPlace Architecture &
Design in the amount of $151,500. Public Works staff has budget authorization to
spend up to $170,000 if necessary for this work.
Attachments:
Professional Services Contract with attached Proposal for Project Management
Services: Transit Facility Parking Structure, EP Visitor Center
Page 1 of 8
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Contract is entered into this ____ day of _____________, 20 , by and between the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”) and SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture + Design
(“Consultant”).
Whereas, the parties desire to contract with one another to complete the following project:
Phase One, Ground Plus One Level Transit Facility Parking Structure of the Estes Park Visitor
Center Campus.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services.
a. The Consultant shall perform the services set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). The Town
reserves the right to remove any of the Services from Exhibit A upon written
notice to Contractor. In the event of any conflict between this Contract and
Exhibit A, the provisions of this Contract shall prevail.
b. No material change to the Services, including any additional compensation,
shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment to this
Contract executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written
authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for
additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust
enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly
provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is
authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by
a course of action.
2. Price. The Town shall pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed $151,500. The
Town shall make payment within thirty days of receipt and approval of monthly invoices, which
shall identify the specific Services performed for which payment is requested.
3. Term. This Contract shall be effective from August 1, 2014 through July 1,
2016. This Contract may be extended or renewed by written agreement of the parties.
4. Appropriation. To the extent this Contract constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt
or financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the
Town’s annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The
Town shall have no obligation to continue this Contract in any fiscal year in which no such
appropriation is made.
5. Independent Contractor. The parties agree that the Consultant is an independent
Contractor and is not an employee of the Town. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’
compensation benefits from the Town and is obligated to pay federal and state income
tax on any money earned pursuant to this Contract.
Page 2 of 8
6. Insurance Requirements.
a. Policies. The Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, shall procure and
keep in force during the duration of this Contract the following insurance
policies and shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing
upon execution of this Contract:
i. Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Consultant
and naming the Town as an additional insured with minimum
combined single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises
and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee
acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision.
ii. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the
Consultant and naming the Town as an additional insured against
any liability for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising out of
the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of
all motor vehicles controlled by the Consultant which are used in
connection with this Contract, whether the motor vehicles are owned,
non-owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least
$1,000,000.
iii. Professional liability insurance insuring the Consultant against any
professional liability with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. (Note: this policy shall only be required if the
Consultant is an architect, engineer, surveyor, appraiser, physician,
attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional.)
iv. Workers’ compensation insurance and all other insurance required
by any applicable law. (Note: if under Colorado law the Consultant is
not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the
Consultant shall execute a Certificate of Exemption and Waiver,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.)
b. Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be with companies
qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s financial
rating acceptable to the Town. Said policies shall not be cancelable or
subject to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty
days prior written notice to the Town. The Consultant shall identify whether
the type of coverage is “occurrence” or “claims made.” If the type of
coverage is “claims made,” which at renewal the Consultant changes to
“occurrence,” the Consultant shall carry a six-month tail. Comprehensive
general and automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and
protection of the Consultant and the Town. Such policies shall provide that
the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be
Page 3 of 8
entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
officers, employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Contractor,
its officers, employees, agents, subconsultants, or business invitees. Such
policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in
excess of coverage the Town may carry.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Town, its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability, claims, and demands on
account of any injury, loss, or damage, including court costs and attorneys’ fees, arising out of
or connected with the Services, if such injury, loss, or damage, or any portion thereof, is caused
by, or claimed to be caused by, the negligent act, omission, or other fault of the Consultant or
any subconsultant of the Consultant, or any officer, employee, or agent of the Consultant or any
subconsultant, or any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible. The Consultant’s
indemnification obligation shall not be construed to extend to any injury, loss, or damage to the
extent caused by the act, omission, or other fault of the Town. This paragraph shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Contract.
8. Professional Responsibility.
a. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services, holds
all professional licenses required by law to perform the Services, and has all
requisite corporate authority to enter into this Contract.
b. The Services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently
maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or
similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Services shall be done in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
c. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings,
specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or
resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications,
reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional
practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions
which fall below the standard of professional practice.
d. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and
incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of its services. Neither
the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the
Consultant’s services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
under this Contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance
of this Contract.
e. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any
employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a
financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or
entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or
Page 4 of 8
work for the services provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Contract. Consultant understands and agrees that the
purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of
Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the
preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the Town.
f. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise,
Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than
twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services.
Upon execution of this Contract, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of
proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor
to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between
Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Contract including, but
not limited to, Section 10.
9. Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices, requirements,
immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and other provisions of the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. and under any other
applicable law.
10. Compliance with Applicable Laws.
a. Generally. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations
of the Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible for payment of all
applicable taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits
and approvals.
b. C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the
date of this Contract, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien who will perform work under this Contract and that the Consultant will
participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in
order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly
hired for employment to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that fails to
certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or
contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The
Consultant certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this
Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the
Department program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-
verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-
employment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being
performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant
performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an
illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant
and Town within three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the
subconsultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii)
Page 5 of 8
terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within three days of
receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the
subconsultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien;
except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the
subconsultant if during such three days the subconsultant provides
information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed
or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall comply with any
reasonable request by the Department made in the course of an
investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the
Town may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with
“Termination,” below. If this Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall
be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town. (Note: this
paragraph shall not apply to contracts: (i) for Services involving the delivery
of a specific end product (other than reports that are merely incidental to the
performance of said work); or (ii) for information technology services and/or
products.)
11. Termination.
a. a. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Contract without cause
upon thirty days prior written notice to the other. The Town shall be liable to
pay the Consultant for Services performed as of the effective date of
termination, but shall not be liable to the Consultant for anticipated profits.
b. For Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to
be a material element of this Contract. In the event either party fails to
perform according to the terms of this Contract, such party may be declared
in default. If the defaulting party does not cure said breach within ten days of
written notice thereof, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Contract
immediately upon written notice of termination to the other. In the event of
termination of this Contract pursuant to this Section, the non-defaulting party
shall be entitled to recover all damages caused by said default. In the event
that Consultant is in default, the Town may withhold payment to the
Consultant for the purposes of setoff until such time as the amount of
damages is determined.
12. Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed
received when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested:
To the Town: To the Consultant:
Greg Muhonen Virginia Gerhart McFarland, AIA, NCARB
Town of Estes Park SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture + Design
170 MacGregor Avenue POB 1645
Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO, 80517
Email: gmuhonen@estes.org Email: Ginny@SpaceIntoPlace.com
13. Special Provisions.
The Consultant agrees to perform project and construction management and
field observation services for the project as requested by the Town. This is a time
Page 6 of 8
and materials contract with an established maximum payment not to exceed
$151,500.00. Hourly rates to be based on the Project Proposal attached to this
Agreement.
Consultant hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless
Town, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all liability, loss, costs,
charges, obligations, expenses, attorney's fees, litigation, judgments, damages,
claims, and demands of any kind whatsoever arising from or out of any breach of
contract or negligent act or omission or other tortious conduct of Contractor, its
officers, employees, or agents in the performance or nonperformance of its
obligations under this Contract.
The Contract work shall be completed according to the attached schedule unless
otherwise modified in writing with a subsequent Amendment to this Contract.
14. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in performance of the Services and
is a significant and material term of this Contract.
15. Entire Agreement. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or
amended except by written agreement of the parties. In the event a court of competent
jurisdiction holds any provision of this Contract invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not
invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Contract.
16. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Contract without the Town’s
prior written consent.
17. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
18. Instruments of Service. Drawings, models, specifications, research, reports,
studies, data, photographs and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by
Consultant and its subconsultants in the performance of obligations under this Contract are
Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to the project identified in this Contract.
Consultant and its subconsultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective
Instruments of Service and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including copyrights; except that, upon execution of this Contract, the Consultant grants to the
Town a non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid, non-revocable license to reproduce and use the
Consultant's Instruments of Service solely in connection with the above-referenced project,
including the project's further development by the Town and others retained by the Town for such
purposes. The Consultant shall obtain similar licenses from its subconsultants consistent with
this Contract. Consultant shall, during the term of this Contract provide the Town with copies of
all Instruments of Service prepared by Consultant or its subconsultants contemporaneous with
such preparation, and shall provide them in electronic format or any other format requested by
the Town.
19. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to
bring any action to enforce any provision of this Contract or to recover any damages from the
other party as a result of the breach of this Contract, including, but not limited to, defective work,
and the party that prevails in such litigation, the other party shall pay the prevailing party its
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court.
Page 7 of 8
20. Electronic Signature. This Contract may be executed by electronic signature in
accordance with C.R.S. § 24-71.3-101 et seq.
Signed by the parties on the date written above.
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
ATTEST:
________________________
Town Clerk
Consultant
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
STATE OF ________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________________,
20 by __________________________________________________.
(Insert name of individual signing on behalf of the Consultant)
___________________________
Notary’s official signature
S E A L
___________________________
Commission expiration date
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: November 24, 2015
RE: Subdivision Improvement Agreement Extension – Streamside
Condominiums on Fall River
Objective:
Consideration of a request to extend the timeline for installation of required
infrastructure improvements.
Present Situation:
The Streamside Condominium subdivision was approved by the Town Board in May
2006. To date, no units have been individually sold.
The condominium subdivision approval required installation of adequate public facilities
including a water main, paved internal roads, an electrical main and service upgrades,
expanded sewer system, and a portion of the Fall River Trail. These infrastructure
improvements are required in order to ensure condominium units are served by
adequate public facilities prior to sale.
Improvements were due to be completed no later than mid-2008. In March 2008, the
Town Board approved an infrastructure phasing plan, with a completion date of
December 2013. The applicant requested another extension in January 2014 due to
the desire to share of infrastructure costs with another development project on an
adjacent lot: The Sanctuary. The board approved that request to extend the deadline to
December 31, 2015. The developer for The Sanctuary project has since decided not to
pursue construction and has sold that property to the applicant. Streamside
Condominiums and the “Sanctuary property” are now under the same ownership.
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to extend the timeframe for sewer and electrical work to the end
of this winter and the street improvements to 2016 (with no specific date). The applicant
has contracted the utility work and believes that the proposed timeline is realistic.
Comments from the Estes Park Sanitation recommend that the timeline for utility work
be consistent with the applicant’s statement of intent (“fall and winter”).
Community Development
Memo
Page 2
Advantages:
Allows contracted utility work to commence;
Design and coordination with adjacent development projects reduces the number of
river sewer crossings to one (1); and
Town staff would not need to draw on the letter of credit and manage the
construction project.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Town staff recommends approval of the requested time extension, with the following
completion dates:
1. Electrical and sewer work completed by March 31, 2016; and
2. Road expansion completed by December 31, 2017 (i.e. two years).
Budget:
Disapproving the extension would lead to the Town drawing the letter of credit and
managing the construction project through a third party contractor. This demand on
staff could lead to other projects being referred to a third party (e.g. development
review).
Level of Public Interest:
Low. No public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Subdivision Improvement Agreement Extension for the
Streamside Condominiums on Fall River, conditional to the recommendation by staff.
Attachments:
1. Written request from the applicant.
2. Development Agreement
3. Affected Agency comment
REVISED
„'111
Hy l
Statement Of Intent
12.1;croIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Streamside Resort
Extension of Subdivision Improvement Agreement
October 7, 2015
The Streamside Condominiums Subdivision Improvement Agreement was extended in
January, 2014 to allow time for the subdivision improvements to be completed in
conjunction with an adjacent development, The Sanctuary. Since that time, the
developer of the Sanctuary decided not to proceed with the development and sold the
property earlier this year. The Streamside Resort has also been sold since the 2014
extension was granted, but no condominiums have been sold. The property continues
to be used for nightly rentals.
The current Letter-Of-Credit guaranteeing these improvements will stay in place. The
owner of Streamside Resort, the David R. Renner Revocable Trust, is requesting a 2-year
extension of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement in order to allow adequate time
to complete the required improvements. The owner of Streamside Resort had
contracted to complete the required electrical and sewer improvements last Spring, but
early spring run-off prevented the work from happening. That work will be completed
this fall and winter. Interior road improvements are planned to be completed in 2016.
CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517
Submittal Date:
ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
- ../7
- a ... 2
Type of Application
3 Development Plan
3 Special Review
3 Rezoning Petition
3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat
3 Final Subdivision Plat
3 Minor Subdivision Plat
3 Amended Plat
3 Boundary Line Adjustment
3 ROW or Easement Vacation
3 Street Name Change
X Time Extension
• Other: Please specify
Condominium Map
• Preliminary Map
3 Final Map
3 Supplemental Map
General Information
Project Name
Project Description
Project Address
Legal Description
Parcel ID #
Site Information
3 S-2- 3731 0(5 )
C_
S
Me—
.L)
/\ N) E_ LPs.
Lot Size /6 , ,
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service ,g Town
Proposed Water Service J) Town
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service
Is a sewer lift station required?
Existing Gas Service Xcel
Existing Zoning A.
tf
3 Well r None
3 Well r None
EPSD
g EPSD
n Yes
3 Other
Other (specify)
F Other (specify)
• UTSD
3 UTSD
1.5-4 No
3 None
3 Septic r None
3 Septic
Proposed Zoning A
Area of Disturbance in Acres
i 01\3
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?
Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? I-3 r Yes KNo
Primary Contact Information
r Yes P< No
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address
Primary Contact Person is
Attachments
S
i:2--)7( 4-16 (7)r:o 7
r Owner )5‹ Applicant r Consultant/Engineer
Application fee r - Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to
X, Statement of intent planning@estes.org
3 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan
3 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan
Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which
may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report,
wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information.
Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue -es Estes Park, CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: (9701 577-3721 -6, Fox: 9701 586-0249 www.estes.org/Commun1tyDevelopment
Revised 2013.08.27 KT
MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION
Article 65,5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews,
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface
estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application
for development and meet the statutory requirements.
I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met.
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT .
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:
yEA.,Ael \/?/ L,
Ct1S LAM&A t-LL_( s
9 16 /
is
(7-1 Z
Date 7,/4/417(
/,
Record Owner (kvt.-(
.
Applican ,.---"2---4!(-- 4
Signatures:
Contact Information
Record Owner(s) DAV i D R_ e- INN !••:S E RE v c7 0.f3LE )S T
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
C770 ) - 7E)
53o, t 7
Fax
Email k# A0 LL& 17 )G ,v E42. E, Rix.) (Lc) N-1
Applicant GMS ft_ArolL.03L-2
Mailing Address PO i3 4 t Sc-.0 G 1 7
Phone (q70) Z 3 T 6 zw
Cell Phone
Fax
Email t- is 6-t) 3kneA L
Consultant/Engineer
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
VAIL) /-14, rz..1\
APPLICATION FEES
For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
www. estes. orq/Com Dev/Sched u les& Fees/Plan ninqApplication FeeSchedule. odf
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Revised 201308.27 KT
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
10. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
0. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at:
http.//www.estes.orq/ComDev/DevCode
10. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC.
Jo- I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
110' i understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
lb The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
lb. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to
my property during the review of this application.
IPP. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet
the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and
void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void.
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: (2 - ef 711,4 -k
Applicant PLEASE PRINT - C.— I"( .5 ILA N C NCB e•-•"/
Signatures:
Record Owner vi,._e
Applicant
Date
r
Date
Revised 2013.08.27 KT
ESTES VAl—r ENGINEER'SCOST ESTIMATE ind REQUESTFOR REDUCTION OR ...LEASE OF SECURITY SPREADSHEET
Streamside Condos
Warranty Agreement Exhibit A
Signature needed only when a request for reduction or release of security is r^uested.
Construction &Fadlittes Manager,Putriic Works Department
by:{Stgnature)^
(Print Wama)
Signature above confirms:
1.Public Improvefnents listed lielow have been Inspected and accepted i)y the applicable reviewing agency/department
2.As^bultt plans of these public Improvements have been submitted In all required formats,for example,one mylar copy,one digital copy,stamped
and one signed paper copy,and have been approved by the applicable reviewing agency/department.
Dste
DsteOMO-2014
By: Van Horn Enstneeitng
and Surveying (ne.
EXPANDING EXISTINC1 ROADS TO MEET ST^NDAR
1 Date of Da
1 Requested |Reqi
DS 1 Release 1 Re
teof
jested
ease
Contract Item DesertiMton of Item Units
ffofUnHs
Planned UnHCost
Total
Estbnatad
Cost
Amount
(l1S%efCost
Estlmats)
1S%Wan8my
Amount
(1S%efCeit
Estimate)
%
Comslste
Amount
Raouesied
%
Comntets
Amount
Raauested
EXPAND EXISTING ROAOS TO MEET
TOWN STANDARDS DIRT WORK DAYS 8 $1,000.00 $8jOOO.OO $9,200.00 $1,200.00
ROAD BASE TONS 140 S2S.OO $3,500.00 $4,028.00 $525.00
PAVING TONS ISO $110.00 $16500.00 S18.S75.00 $2,475.00
EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCING FEET too S3.00 $300.00 $345.00 $45JJ0
MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL FEET 1Q0 $2.06 $200.00 $230^00 $30.00
•
A8«UtLTS WrrH ENGINEER CERTtFCATION a.OCK AND STAMP
Teial ESItmalad Cost S28.800L00
TOlSl AmOURt GU8f8nt06ll $32,775X0
Wntanlv Antount (1S%)$4,275.00
Mix.RelaaM PamilttBd MorTo End Of Watranlv Pertod
RELEASEREQUESTED 1 1
Date
Revised t'1(V2014
ESTES VAu .V ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE and REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OR.-lEASE OF SECURITY SPREADSHEET
Streamside Condos
Warranty Agreement Exhibit A
Signature needed only when a request for reduction or release of security is requested.
Utilities Director
by|
(PrtnlWawe)
Signature above confirms:
1.PubRc improvements listed below Itave been inspected and accepted by the applicable reviewing agency/department.
2. As-bum plans of these pubBc Improvements have been submitted In all requlfed formats,for example,one mylar copy,one digital copy,stamped
and one signed paper copy,and have been approved by the applied reviewing agmcy/depaitment
Data
Dat8 01-1&«014
By: Van Hem Englnwrtng
and Simmytng tne.
K DaPReqi
Electric I Re
te of Da
jested Reqi
ease 1 Re
teof
Jested
ease
Contract Item OeserlBtlonofltem Units
#of Units
Planned Unit Cost
Total
Estimated
Cost
Quarantaed
Amount
(11S%ofCost
csmisiBi
mWmtrnir
Amount
(19%of Cost
Estimate)
%
Comslete
Amount
Reomrted
%
ComBlete
Amount
ReouBsted
PRIMARY UNE AND CONDUIT Trench 4*.Bury FEET 450 S45.0C SZOJtSO.00 $23^.80 S3.03750
SECONDARY UNE AND CONDUrr Trench.Butv FEtit 200 S22iI0 S4.40a00 S660.00
3.PHASE SYSTEM W/TRANSFORMEflS 1 S26.578.00 $28578.00 S30.S64.70 S3.988.70
3-PHASE UNDER BRIDGE Huna tn schedule 80 Dtoe FEET 40 S1&00 S480.00 Sffi2JI0 S72.00
EROSION CONTROL (NEAR RIVER»SILT FENCING INSTALLATION FEET 40 S3.00 S120.00 S138.00 S18.00
MAINTENANCE &REMOVAL FEET 40 S2.00 S80.00 82X10 $12.00
AS«Ua.TS WITH ENGINEER CERTIFCATtON BLOCK AND STAMP
TotslEstbiHOMlCost n •8i.moo
ToM Amount Oumntoed 1 tS9£84.20
WatnntvAm«tntnS%l 1 S7.78a.20
Has.Release Pwmlttad Prior To End Of Wananlv Pntod $8i.88&eo
RBJEASEREQUeSTED f
COST ESTIMATE^PMVED
Date
Revised 1/10/2014
.ESTES VAi-^Y ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE and REQUESTFOR REDUCTION OR ..uLEASE OF SECURITY SPREADSHEET
Streamside Condos
Warranty Agreement Exhibit A
Signature needed only when a request for reduction or release of security is requested.
Estes Park Sanitation District OR Upper Thompson Sanitation District
by*(ggnatuTB)
(Print Name)
Signature aliove confirms:
1.Public Improvements listed below have been Inspected and accepted by the applicable reviewing agency/departmenl.
2. As-buitt plans of these public Improvements have been submitted In all required formats,for exanqile,one mylar copy,one d^ital copy,stamped
and one signed paper copy,and have been approved by the applicable reviewing agency/department.
Data
Date 01-10-2014
By:Van Horn Engtneeflng
ondStoveyinoInc.
Da
(•:!_Reqi
Sanitary Sewer Rel
te of Da
jested !Reqi
lease Rel
te of
jested
ease
Contract Item Oeseriotfonofttem Units
#of Units
Planned Unit Cost
Total
Eatlmaisd
Cost
Guarantied
Amount
(115% of Cost
Estimate)
Warranty
Amount
(15%of Cost
Estimate)
%
Comslete
Amount
Reouested
%
Comslete
Amount
ftonussted
8*SERVICE UNE ACROSS RIVER FEET 40 S80.00 S3.600I)0 $4,140.00 S540.00
8'SEWER MAIN FEET 330
MANHOLES 3 S2.500.00 $7^.00 $8,625.00 S1.12S.00
6'SERVICE UNE ftSET 100 S30.00 S3JKI0J00 S3.4S0.a0 S450iI0
EROSION CONTROL IN AND NEAR RIVE SILT FENCING FEET SO tajoa S1S04»S17250 tfoom
MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL FEET 50 S2.00 smoo SIISiKJ S1S.00
RIVER DIVERSION/STRAW BALES SO.FEET 600 S1.00 seoaoo smoo SSOiK)
MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL SO.FEET 600 S0.S0 SSOOiW S345JOO $45.00
A&eUQ.TS WITH ENQtNEER CERTIFCATION BLOCK AND STAMP
Tolal Estlmatfld Cost $31.7SaOO
Total Amount Qusfintaad S38JS12J8
Wfemmtv Amoimt rtS%)$4,762.50
Max.Rateasa Pennftted Prior To End Of Warranty Period S3i.reo.oo
RELEASE REQUESnm 1
Revised 1/10/2014
PPROVED
smm.
pciTPq VAII ,-V PNRINFFR'R COST ESTIMATE and REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OR k-^EASE OF SECURITY SPREADSHEET
t "
Streamside Condos ;
Warranty Aareement Exhibit A 1;
Oste OMO-2014
By: Van Horn EnghtMrine
and Surveying Inc.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
TOTAL GUARANTEED
MAX.TOTALRELEASE PRIOR TO END OF WARRAHTYPBMOD
FINANCIAL GUARANTEE -CURRENT BALANCE
TOTAL RELEASE REQUESTED
FINANCIAL GUARANTEE -REQUESTED BALANCE
Revised 1'10/201«
Note;Complete onlywhena request forreductionor release ofsecurity is submitted
Percent of Work Complete CertifiedBy:
Ovmer/Engineer's signature
Name of Owner/Engineer
Address
Plione
Note:Certification by an engineer is required for public improvements and private drainage Improvements.
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
This Subdivision Improvement Agreement made this 12 day of June
20 06 , by and between Curtis J. Thompson , ("Developer") and the TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, a Municipal Corporation, ("the Town").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Developer seeks to subdivide a tract of property within the Town to be
known as Streamside Condominiums ("the Subdivision"); and
on Fall River
WHEREAS, the Town seeks to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
community by requiring the completion of various improvements in the Subdivision and thereby
to limit the harmful effects of substandard subdivisions, including incomplete subdivisions which
leaves property undeveloped and unproductive;
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to protect the Town from the cost of
completing subdivision improvements itself and is not executed for the benefit of material men,
laborers, or others providing work, services or material to the Subdivision or for the benefit of lot
or home buyers in the Subdivision.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
I. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this Agreement will be the date that
final subdivision plat approval is granted by the Board of Trustees of the Town.
2. IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer will construct and install, at his own expense,
those on-site and off-site subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference ("the Improvements"). The Developer's obligation to
complete the Improvements will arise upon final plat approval by the Town, will be independent
of any obligations of the Town contained herein, and will not be conditioned on the
commencement of construction in the development or sale of any lots or improvements within
the development.
3. SECURITY: To secure the performance of his obligations hereunder, the Developer
will deposit with the Town on or prior to the effective date, cash, certified funds, or an
irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ 83.643.00 . The Letter of Credit will be issued
by a financial institution approved by the Town ("Bank"), will be payable at sight to the Town,
and will bear an expiration date not earlier than one (1) year after the effective date of this
Agreement.
Revised 11/25/03
The Letter of Credit will be payable to the Town at any time upon presentation of (i) a sight draft
drawn on the issuing bank in the amount to which the Town is entitled to draw pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement: (ii) an affidavit executed by an authorized Town official stating that the
Developer is in default under this Agreement; and (iii) the original of the Letter of Credit.
4. STANDARDS: The Developer will construct the Improvements according to the
standards and specifications required by the Town's Subdivision Regulations, Water Engineering
Standards, and any other Town improvement standards, as applicable.
5. WARRANTY: The Developer warrants that the Improvements, each and every one
of them, will be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of two years from
the date that the Town accepts the dedication of the last improvement completed by the
Developer. The Developer shall file with the Town, at the time of completion and acceptance of
said improvements, a separate Warranty Collateral Agreement for this warranty period.
6. COMPLETION: The Developer is obligated to complete the Improvements in
accordance with the timeframes specified in the Estes Valley Development Code.
7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: The Developer will comply with all relevant laws,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of final subdivision plat approval when fulfilling
his obligations under this Agreement. When necessary to protect public health, the Developer
will be subject to laws, ordinances and regulations that become effective after final plat approval.
8. INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION: The Town will inspect the
improvements as they are completed and, if acceptable to the Town, certify such improvements
as being in compliance with the standards and specifications as set forth in Paragraph 4 herein.
Certification by the Town does not constitute a waiver by the Town of the right to draw funds
under the Letter of Credit on account of defects in or failure of any improvement that is detected
or which occurs following such certification.
9. NOTICE OF DEFECT: The Town will provide notice to the Developer whenever
inspection or improvement failure reveals that an improvement does not conform to the
standards and specifications or is otherwise defective. The Developer will have 30 days from the
issuance of such notice to cure the defect. In the event the defect or failure of the improvement
requires emergency repair in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the Town may
make said emergency repair without the necessity of notice to the Developer. The Developer
shall be responsible to the Town for the reasonable cost of said emergency repairs.
Revised 11/25/03 Page 2
10. DEFECTS AFTER ACCEPTANCE: The Developer will have no right to cure
defects in any improvement found to exist or occurring after the Town accepts the improvement.
The Developer shall be responsible to the Town for the reasonable cost of repair or correcting the
defect in the accepted improvements.
! I . REDUCTION OF SECURITY: A request for reduction of security will be
accompanied by a letter from the Public Works Department verifying that the improvements
have been completed satisfactorily, and the requested reduction is in order. After the acceptance
of any improvement, the amount of which the Town is entitled to draw on the Letter of Credit
will be reduced by an amount equal to 90 percent of the estimated cost of the improvement. At
the request of the Developer, the Town will execute a certificate verifying the acceptance of the
improvement and waiving its right to draw on the Letter of Credit to the extent of such amount.
A Developer in default under this Agreement will have no right to such a certificate. Upon the
acceptance of all of the improvements, the balance that may be drawn under the Letter of Credit
will be available to the Town for 90 days after expiration of the Warranty Period.
OTHER PROVISIONS
12. EVENTS OF DEFAULT: The following conditions, occurrences or actions will
constitute a default by the Developer.
a. Developer's failure to complete construction of the Improvements within one year
of final subdivision plat approval;
b. Developer's failure to cure the defective construction of any improvement within the
applicable cure period;
c. Developer's insolvency, the appointment of a receiver for the Developer, the filing of
a voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy respecting the Developer, or
Developer's abandonment of the development.
13. MEASURE OF DAMAGES: The measure of damages for breach of this agreement
will be the reasonable cost of completing or repairing the improvements. For improvements
upon which construction has not begun, the estimated cost of the improvements as shown on
Exhibit "A" will be prima facie evidence of the minimum cost of completion; however, neither
that amount or the amount of the Letter of Credit establishes the maximum amount of the
developer's liability. However, the parties agree that any sums received by the Town from
drawing on a Letter of Credit for the reasonable cost of completing or repairing the
improvements, are liquidated damages for breach of this agreement. The parties further agree
that in the event the reasonable cost of completing or repairing the improvements is greater than
the amount of the liquidated damages, Developer shall be responsible for said deficiency as
Revised 11/25/03 Page 3
provided in Paragraph 14 of this agreement. Said deficiency shall also be damages for breach of
this agreement by Developer.
14. TOWN'S RIGHT UPON DEFAULT: when any event of default occurs, the Town'
may draw on the Letter of Credit to the extent of the face amount of the credit, less 90 percent of
the estimated cost (as shown on Exhibit A) of all improvements theretofore accepted by the
Town. The Town will have the right to complete improvements itself or contract with a third
party for completion, and the Developer hereby grants to the Town, its successors, assigns,
agents, contractors, and employees, a nonexclusive right and easement to enter the property for
the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and repairing such improvements. Alternatively, the
Town may assign the proceeds of the Letter of Credit to a subsequent developer (or a lender)
who has acquired the Subdivision by purchase, foreclosure or otherwise who will then have the
same rights of completion as the Town if, and only if, the subsequent developer (or lender)
agrees in writing to complete the unfinished improvements. In addition, the Town also may
suspend final plat approval during which time the Developer will have no right to sell, transfer,
or otherwise convey lots or homes within the Subdivision without the express written approval of
the Town, or until the improvements are completed and accepted by the town. The Developer
also agrees to pay any deficiency remaining after the application of the proceeds of the Letter of
Credit to the Town in the event that the amount of the Letter of Credit is insufficient to complete
the improvements. Also, the undersigned agree that they shall pay to the Town all reasonable
attorney's fees, expert's fees, and court costs incurred by the Town in enforcing the terms of the
Letter of Credit or this improvement agreement. These remedies arc cumulative in nature.
15. NO WAIVER: No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be deemed or
constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor will it be deemed or constitute a continuing
waiver unless expressly provided for by a written amendment to this Agreement signed by both
the Town and Developer; nor will the waiver of any default under this Agreement be deemed a
waiver of any subsequent default or defaults of the same type. The Town's failure to exercise
any right under this Agreement will not constitute the approval of any wrongful act by the
Developer or the acceptance of any improvement.
16. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION: The parties to the Agreement may amend
or modify this Agreement only by written instrument executed by the Town and by the
Developer.
17. SCOPE: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and
no statement(s), promise(s), or inducement(s) that is/are not contained in this Agreement will be
binding on the parties.
Revised 11/13/03
Page 4
18. SEVERABILITY: If any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by the
courts to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect
the validity of any other part, term, or provision and the rights of the parties will be construed as
if the part, term, or provision was never part of the Agreement.
19. BENEFITS: The benefits of this Agreement to the Developer are personal and may
not be assigned without the express written approval of the Town. Such approval may not be
unreasonably withheld, but any unapproved assignment is void. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the burdens of this Agreement are personal obligations of the Developer and also will be binding
on the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the Developer. The Town may
assign its rights under this Agreement, including the accompanying Letter of Credit, to any third
party without notice.
20. NOTICE: Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement will be deemed
effective when personally deliver in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the
U.S. Postal Set-vice, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as
follows:
Developer: Curtis J. Thompson
1260 Fall River Rd.
P.0 Box 2390 (Mailing)
Estes Park, CO 80517
Town: Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
21. RECORDATION: Either Developer or Town may record a copy of this Agreement
in the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Latimer County, Colorado.
22. IMMUNITY: Nothing contained in this Agreement constitutes a waiver of the
Town's sovereign and/or governmental immunity under any applicable state law including, but
not limited to, Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
23. PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE: Personal jurisdiction and venue for
any civil action commenced by either party to this Agreement, whether arising out of or relating
Revised 11/25/03 Page 5
BY:
Curtis J. Thompson
ATTEST:
to the Agreement or Letter of Credit, will be deemed to be proper only if such action is
commenced in District Court for Latimer County. The Developer expressly waives his right to
bring such action in or to remove such action to any other court whether state or federal.
24. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: the terms of this agreement shall be binding upon
the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day
and year first above written.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ATTEST:
a.':-..BY: -
%I.
C F•• • • • .` •..)• • e 400,,,a,.. Mayor
.0 .1...; .%
,- •t• 71.1i
r. • • • ;
5: r • : 0 5177 .• •• .-4 .,,,1
0 "P ''• I • 0 .d
A° 1:4914 liC1 I Pi 1 itif 1710 916
, ,1.4 ,4%
DEVELOPER
Revised 11/25/0.3 Page 6
Streamside Condominiums Phase I
Public Facilitates Cost Estimate
Water
Fire Hydrant = $3,000
Waterline Main Extension Cost Estimate
Trenching 180' of line @$40/LF = $7,200
$10,200
Electrical (cost is considered to be part of the Development Plan 05-05)
Road Crossing = $5,000 (Completed)
**Town Electric Department estimate = $26,578
(**- from Todd Stichen @ Town Electric Department)
-$26,578
Sewer
8" Main Extension 330' of line @$45/LF = $14,850
8" Main Estension across river 40' of line @160/LF = 6,000
Service Line (6") — 100' of line @$30/LF = $3,000
Man Hole — 3 @ $1,500 each = $4,500
-$28,350
Roads (Public Works)
Expand existing roads to meet town standards-
Dirt work = 8 days @$1,000/day = $8,000
Paving = 800' (10' wide) =150 tons @$60/ton in place = $9,000
Trail Construction = 110' of concrete trail @ $40/LF = $4,400
ADA ramps = $3,000
-$24,400
Gas (cost is considered to be a part of the Development Plan 05-05
Lump Sum Estimate = $5,000
Approximate Total Cost $94,528.00
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Date: November 2, 2015
Project Identification: Streamside Resort
Location: 1260 Fall River Road
Referral: Streamside Resort Extension of Subdivision Improvements Agreement
(Two Years Extension)
The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the
proposed project referenced above, and has no comments or concerns regarding those plans.
However, when future developments and / or changes are made to this area, the Fire District
shall require new plans for review.
All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International
Fire Code (2009 Edition), and Larimer County Code and Standards.
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does
not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will
require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc W. Robinson
Fire Marshal
970-577-3689
mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org
Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516
Fax: 970.586.4712
Estes Park Sanitation District
PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517
November 16, 2015
Phil Kleisler
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Utility Extension - Streamside
Dear Mr. Kleisler
The owner of the Streamside Resort and their representative has requested a two year exten-
sion to their requirement to make improvements to road infrastructure and utilities (electri-
cal and sewer) at 1260 Fall River Road. The requirements are part of their Subdivision Im-
provement Agreement.
While the District is not opposed to the extension it would like the language they have used in
their Statement of Intent be part of the agreement. They have stated that the utility work
for electrical and sewer are planned to be completed in fall/ winter of this year. Winter offi-
cially extends to March 19, 2016 and that time frame seems acceptable to the District to keep
the utility portion of the project on track.
If you have questions, please feel free to call me my office. Thank you.
Respectfully,
James Duell
District Manager
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: November 20, 2015
RE: Resolution # 23-15 – Supporting an Increase in H-2B Visas
Objective:
Support the federal H-2B temporary worker program and the retention of provisions of
the program that benefit seasonal industries.
Present Situation:
Many of our businesses in Estes Park depend on workers from overseas who are here
on H-2B visas. The reductions in the visa program did pose a hardship for some local
businesses this past summer and they have expressed concerns about being able to
get adequate staffing next year if the program is reduced further. We were approached
to provide input to our congressional delegation on this issue.
Proposal:
Encourage Congress to preserve H-2B language that is currently contained in certain
House and Senate Appropriations bills in any fiscal year 2016 conference report or
omnibus appropriations legislation.
Advantages:
Seasonal tourism businesses located in Estes Park and around the country depend on
the H-2B temporary worker program to supplement their American workforce and
operate their businesses when American workers are unavailable.
Disadvantages:
There has been some abuse of the H-2B program and of the workers participating in the
program in other areas of the country.
Action Recommended:
Pass a Resolution supporting the H-2B temporary worker program and the retention of
provisions of the program that will benefit seasonal industries that rely on H-2B
temporary workers for the success of their businesses.
Budget:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
High among local businesses that hire a seasonal workforce.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of Resolution #23-15
RESOLUTION #23-15
SUPPORTING AN INCREASE IN H-2B VISAS
WHEREAS, the H-2B temporary worker program permits employers to hire
nonimmigrants to perform nonagricultural labor or services in the United States for a
limited period of time such as a one-time occurrence, seasonal need, peak-load need or
intermittent need; and
WHEREAS, the H-2B temporary worker program uses prevailing wage and private
wage surveys to help ensure that H-2B and American workers are receiving the most
competitive wage for their occupational classification; and
WHEREAS, important seasonal industries such as seasonal tourism businesses
located in Estes Park and around the country depend on the H-2B temporary worker
program to supplement their American workforce and operate their businesses when
American workers are unavailable; and
WHEREAS, recent actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security and
the Department of Labor including a suspension of the H-2B temporary worker program,
a lack of transparency by the Department of Homeland Security regarding the availability
of H-2B visas, and long delays in the Department of Labor’s certification process, have
threatened to put these seasonal industries out of business; and
WHEREAS, seasonal businesses that rely on H-2B workers to help meet short-
term peak demand will not be able to continue to operate if stability is not restored to the
program while a long-term solution to streamline and bring transparency to the H-2B
temporary worker program is developed; and
WHEREAS, as funding levels for fiscal year (FY) 2016 are debated, Congress is
encouraged to preserve H-2B language that is currently contained in certain House and
Senate Appropriations bills in any FY 2016 conference report or omnibus appropriations
legislation. Support is given for maintaining the following provisions:
S. 1695 – Department of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act
Prevailing Wage and Use of Private Wage Surveys…
Staggered Crossings for H-2B Workers…
Relief from Burdensome Department of Labor Regulations…
S. 1619 – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
H-2B Program Transparency…
H.R. 3128 – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
Returning Workers Exemption…
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK to hereby support the H-2B temporary worker program and the
retention of provisions of the program that will benefit seasonal businesses in Estes Park
that rely on H-2B temporary workers for the success of their businesses.
DATED this day of , 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 19, 2015
RE: Parks Advisory Board Appointments
Objective:
To consider the appointments recommended by the interview committee for the Parks
Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
On May 27, 2014 the Town Board at their regular meeting approved Resolution 12-14
forming the Parks Advisory Board, formally known as the Tree Board. This change was
made for a number of reasons but one specific reason was to broaden the scope of the
Board and increase interest.
The proposed bylaws outline the membership of the board as 7 members with three
year terms staggered to ensure no more than three members expire on any given year.
The Board currently has two vacant positions and one position held by Dewain
Lockwood expiring December 2015..
The Administrative Service department advertised for positions on the Board and
received 5 applications with one applicant withdrawing and one not meeting the
residency requirements. The interview team consisting of Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro
Tem Koenig and Parks Maintenance Supervisor Berg conducted interviews of the
applicants on November 17, 2015.
Parks Advisory Board Appointments
2
Proposal:
The interview team recommends the appointment of Carlie Bangs and Vicki Papineau
to 3-year terms expiring on December 31, 2018, and reappoint Dewain Lockwood for an
additional 3-year term expiring on December 31, 2018.
Advantages:
To appoint qualified individuals to the Board to meet the goals of the Parks Advisory
Board.
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made, the position would remain vacant until the position
could be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Appointment of Carlie Bangs and Vicki Papineau to 3-year terms expiring on December
31, 2018, and reappoint Dewain Lockwood for an additional 3-year term expiring on
December 31, 2018.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointments of Carlie Bangs and Vicki Papineau to 3-year
terms expiring on December 31, 2018, and reappoint Dewain Lockwood for an
additional 3-year term expiring on December 31, 2018.
Transportation Advisory Committee Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 19, 2015
RE: Transportation Advisory Committee Appointment
Objective:
To appoint a new committee member to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).
Present Situation:
The TAC was formed to support the comprehensive transportation planning for the
valley; to review and recommend transportation related capital projects, and to support
the safety and maintenance of the Town’s transportation system. The committee is
actively discussing the downtown highway reroute with the Federal Land Access Project
(FLAP) grant and the Visitor Center Parking structure.
The bylaws outline the membership of the committee shall consist of 9 members and
the member must be residents of the Estes Valley Planning district. The terms shall be
for 3 years and shall be staggered so the terms of 3 members would expire each year.
The committee had a vacancy created when Cory LaBianca stepped down from her
position earlier this year.
The Administrative Service department advertised for 1 position on the committee and
received 1 application. An interview team consisting of Trustee Ericson, Trustee
Holcomb and Committee Chair Kimberly Campbell conducted interviews on November
17, 2015.
Proposal:
The interview team recommends the appointment of John “Gordon” Slack” with a term
expiring on March 31, 2018 to complete Cory LaBianca’s term.
Advantages:
Filling the position would complete the nine member committee.
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could
be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Transportation Advisory Committee Appointments
2
Action Recommended:
Appointment of John “Gordon” Slack for a term expiring on March 31, 2018.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of John “Gordon” Slack for a term expiring on
March 31, 2018.
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: November 24, 2015
RE: Financial Report through October 2015
Background:
Attached is the Draft Financial Report through October 2015.
Dashboard page
After a long-time effort to display ever-increasing amounts of information on a
dashboard page, Staff is (temporarily?) giving up and moving to a slide for each sector.
Hopefully the slides will now present more summary information, both graphically and in
summary form.
Staff encourages review of the accompanying powerpoint presentation, which will be
discussed in further detail at Tuesday’s Board meeting.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
UPDATE: Financial and Sales Tax Report(through October 2015)Steve McFarland –Finance Officer
GENERAL FUND: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTSGENERAL FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES* $11,549,111 $13,843,422 ($2,294,311) 83.4%EXPENSES 13,347,824 15,617,634 2,269,810 85.5%Net increase/decrease ($1,798,713) ($1,774,212) ($24,501)*sales tax included through August 2015Sales tax up 12% over ’14, 14% over Budget.Event Center Revenues significantly lagging budget.Flood/grant activity to be amended for revised budget.Mid‐year fund balance hovering ~ 15%.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTS2 main projects (parking structure, MPEC) pending.Conference center roof repair complete. Interior repairs part of revised ‘15 Budget.Elm Road landfill mitigation continuing.Fund balance expected to be ~$70,000 by 12/31/16.COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES* $446,340 $2,762,756 ($2,316,416) 16.2%EXPENSES 659,869 2,825,008 2,165,139 23.4%Net increase/decrease ($213,529) ($62,252) ($151,277)
UTILITY FUNDS: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTSRevenues tracking closely with budget. Water revenues up in part due to Falcon Ridge tap fees.Expenses under budget due to capital/flood projects trailing budget.Fund balance and ratios being maintained.LIGHT & POWER FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES $11,556,361 $14,428,662 ($2,872,301) 80.1%EXPENSES 12,740,239 18,954,544 6,214,305 67.2%Net increase/decrease ($1,183,878) ($4,525,882) $3,342,004 WATER FUND2015 2015 % ofYear‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES $4,038,080 $4,236,253 ($198,173) 95.3%EXPENSES 3,894,188 5,988,164 2,093,976 65.0%Net increase/decrease $143,892 ($1,751,911) $1,895,803
FLOOD/GRANT UPDATE49 different flood/grant related projects being tracked.FEMA reimbursements picking up: $546,000 in 2014; $1,247,000 in 2015.Major concerns are project scope changes (approval).Update will be provided at following year end. Still major (construction) costs ahead.Thanks, Sharla, Christy, Linda, Tina!
1A FUNDS: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTSAs with General Fund, 1A sales tax revenues are up 12% vs 2014, 14% vs Budget.A total of $2,969,994 has been collected since inception of 1A Funds (July 2014).SALES TAX ‐New 1A funds*1st Q2nd Q3rd QTotalEmergency Response 7,632 14,758 26,641 49,031 Community Center 76,324 147,576 266,415 490,315 Trails Expansion 38,162 73,788 133,207 245,157 Street 183,177 354,184 639,394 1,176,755 *info through September
INVESTMENTS: CONCERNS AND HIGHLIGHTSPooled rate increased .06% from last quarter (~$20,000/yr). We’ll take it.Looking to increase committed funds as soon as comfortable with flood costs.INVESTMENTS (Fair value)Aug‐15 Sep‐15 Oct‐15Town FundsMoney markets/CDs 15,281,571 16,938,400 17,577,236 U.S. Treasuries 3,082,278 3,083,095 3,078,282 U.S. Instrumentalities 5,615,774 5,124,998 4,423,297 Corporate 1,507,331 1,508,460 1,506,427 subtotal: 25,486,953 26,654,953 26,585,242 RestrictionsCOPs 1,255,534 1,255,736 1,255,962 L&P Bond requirements 450,590 450,662 450,743 FLAP 4,193,905 4,194,581 4,195,336 FOSH/Theater Fund 459,650 459,723 459,806 Total 31,846,632 33,015,656 32,947,090 annual govt mmf rate: 10/31/15 = 0.22% (up from 0.16%)
SALES TAX HIGHLIGHTSSales tax coming in at $9.56m pace (blue line).Increasing at 13.1%/yr (maroon line).All time record revenues at all time record pace. Sustainable?
SALES TAX: CAST (STATE WIDE), 2015 v 2014We rank 8th(of 27) in increase. Improvement from 16thin June.We rank 4th of the non‐marijuana communities (marijuana communities in green).
NEW SALES TAX INFO ON WEBSITE•www.estes.org/finance/salestax•Updates to new funds (including financial statements)•Emergency Response•Community Center•Trails•Streets•Five year history of General Fund•Sectors
END OF PRESENTATIONQUESTIONS?
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
November 24, 2015
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal,
or other property interest - Section 24-6-402(4}(a}, C.RS.
2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4}(b}, C.RS.
3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state
law, rule, or regulation - Section 24-6-402(4}(c}, C.RS.
4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations
Section 24-6-402(4}(d}, C.RS.
5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be
subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators - Section 24-6-402(4}(e}, C.RS.
6. For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-
disclosure provision of the Colorado Open Records Act - Section 24-6-402(4}(g},
C.RS.
2
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, "all or a portion" of the discussion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney's opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal
advice on specific legal questions under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) –
Litigation.
X For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) – MPEC / Stall Barn Contract.
3
To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies
that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following
federal or state law, rule or regulation: under C.RS. Section 246-402(4)(c).
For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations
under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.RS., the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-
72204(5.5) C.RS.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
4
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It is Tuesday, November 24, 2015 , and the time is (state the time) p.m.
For the Record, I am Bill Pinkham , the Mayor (or Mayor ProTern) of the
Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive
session is being electronically recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tern
Koenig. Trustees Ward Nelson. John Ericson, Bob Holcomb. Ron Norris. and John
Phipps; and Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, and
Town Attorney White.
This is an executive session for the following purpose of:
For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) – MPEC / Stall Barn Contract.
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor's discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.