HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-10-27The 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, October 27, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: National Philanthropy Day.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance 3.3 Update.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 13, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated October 13, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, October 8, 2015.
1. Light and Power Building Remodel Contract - B&E Builders, Inc.,
$159,524.55 – Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 17, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated September 18, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY FUND FINAL REPORT. Gordon Thibedeau.
Prepared 10/18/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL LICENSE – MURPHY'S RESORT AT ESTES PARK, LLC DBA
MURPHY'S RESORT, 1650 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO, BEER
& WINE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
2. RENEWAL LICENSE – BOWL FORT COLLINS LLC DBA CHIPPERS LANES
ESTES PARK CENTER, 555 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE.
Town Clerk Williamson.
3. RENEWAL LICENSE – CABLES ESTES, LLC, DBA CABLES PUB & GRILL, 451
S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson.
4. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM STANLEY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER,
LLC TO VILLAGE WOOD FIRED PIZZA LLC, DBA THE VILLAGE, 543 BIG
THOMPSON AVENUE, BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING – GRANT CLOSE OUT FOR FISH CREEK UTILITIES,
WINDCLIFF UTILITIES, AND FISH CREEK RESILIENCY PLAN CDBG-DR
GRANTS. Directors Bergsten & Chilcott.
2. ORDINANCE #15-15 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. Chief
Building Official Birchfield & Planner Kurtz.
3. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER. Assistant
Town Administrator Machalek.
4. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW PANEL SELECTION. Town
Clerk Williamson.
5. DOWNTOWN PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE INTERVIEW PANEL SELECTION.
Town Clerk Williamson.
5. ADJOURN.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 13th, 2015
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires
quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates from
statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in compliance with applicable statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in following the Board stated priorities expressed during the budget
adoption process. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget was prepared with adequate information as
requested by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current adopted and proposed revised 2015 budget does plan for
any expenditures of funds greater than are projected to be received that have not
been previously approved by the Board. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
REPORT All Town funds, other than the General Fund, which are subject to this
provision are within the Board determined limits. The fund balance in the General
fund is anticipated to fall below the 25% level set by the board due to use of the
fund for emergency flood recovery expenditures. I have kept the Board informed
of the status of the fund balance and the use of funds for flood recovery and this
drop in fund balance is not unanticipated. I am therefore reporting conditional
compliance.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget includes appropriate contingency funding. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The 2014 audit has been completed and presented to the board. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: Nothing in the current budget as adopted fails to protect the integrity of
the current or future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: No new positions or additions to the staffing document have been
added without specific approval of the Board of Trustees other than temporary
positions or those grant positions that are 100% grant funded, as allowed by
adopted policy. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.8.1. With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly,
pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not change his or her own
compensation and benefits.
REPORT: I have not changed my own compensation or benefits. I am therefore
reporting compliance.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 13, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 13th day of October 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATION:
Keri Kelly/Park Maintenance and Brian Berg/Parks Supervisor attended the America In
Bloom Symposium and Community in Bloom Symposium, an international competition.
The Town competed in the Circle of Champions and received “Outstanding
Achievement in Landscaping”. The Town improved its rating from 4 blooms to 5 out of
5 blooms. The Town also received a 5 bloom rating at the international competition and
was a finalist in the landscaping category out of 29 other countries.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Elizabeth Fogarty/CEO & President of Visit Estes Park informed the community the
Estes Park Arts District continues to accept applications for Board members.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen encouraged citizens to donate candy for the merchants to
hand out during the annual Halloween trick-or-treating downtown. The fall sidewalk sale
was a successful event. He requested the Town include changes to the event to allow it
to take place through 9:00 p.m. and to allow sandwich boards.
Rebecca Urquhart/Town citizen stated the Town should place a temporary cap on the
number of vacation homes to be licensed in Estes Park.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris recognized Estes Valley Investment in Early Childhood Success (EVICS)
for receiving a grant to train two new bilingual home daycare providers. He thanked
everyone supporting the vote for the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
Community Center. The Town’s new pothole patching truck has filled over 1809
potholes to date. The Town Board would discuss the 2016 Visit Estes Park (Local
Marketing District) Operating Plan at the October 27th Study Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig complimented Keri Kelly/Park Maintenance for her efforts with
the America In Bloom program. Sister Cities would meet on October 14th and all are
invited to attend. The Rooftop Rodeo has been nominated for medium sized rodeo for
2015.
Trustee Phipps stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission October meeting has
been cancelled.
Board of Trustees – October 13, 2015 – Page 2
Trustee Ericson commented the Transportation Advisory Board would meet October
21st. The Community Development/Community Services meeting would be held on
October 22nd. The next Budget Study Session would be held on October 16th.
Mayor Pinkham stated the nonprofit organization Go NoCo, on behalf of the
governments of Loveland, Windsor and Estes Park and Larimer County and private
partners, has submitted its final Regional Tourism Act application to the Colorado Office
of Economic Development and International Trade. The project would include a 500-
seat auditorium, classrooms, digital audio and film mixing studios, a sound stage, film
discovery center and archive. The Town would know if the project was accepted in
November.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy 3.3 would be delayed to the October 27, 2015 meeting. Finance Officer
McFarland reminded the Board and the community of the second budget study session
meeting on October 16th.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 22, 2015 and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated September 22, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development & Community Services Committee, September
24, 2015.
4. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated September 3, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Audit Committee Minutes dated September 25, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Purchase a 2015 Spartan Hi Flow Ultimate Warrior Jetter from Williams
Equipment, LLC for $47,260.
7. 2015 Street Overlay Contract Award to Coleson Excavating Company, Inc. for
$206,448.97.
8. 2015 Pavement Condition Assessment Contract Award to Borstead
Consulting Services LLC for $30,000.
9. Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) Metered Fuel Vendor
Agreement.
10. Park R-3 School District School Resource Officer (SRO) Agreement for 2015-
2018 School Years.
11. Estes Park Housing Authority Board Appointments.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM LOCAL'S GRILL, INC. DBA LOCAL’S
GRILL TO ELK EXPRESS, INC. DBA LOCAL'S GRILL, 153 E. ELKHORN
AVENUE, HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Hotel and
Restaurant liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and
Board of Trustees – October 13, 2015 – Page 3
a temporary was issued on September 10, 2015. TIPS training has not been
scheduled. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve the
transfer from Local's Grill, Inc. dba Local’s Grill to Elk Express, Inc. dba
Local's Grill, 153 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License,
and it passed unanimously.
3. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER BALLOT ISSUE 4C AND 4D. David
Batey provided an overview of the proposed Community Center, programming,
costs, and alternative funding options. The multi-generational facility would
include programming for all ages, including a Senior Center, daycare facilities,
indoor track, gym, library, multi-use facilities, expanded pool facilities, fitness
center, meeting rooms for social, educational and cultural events, and indoor
gardening. Ballot Issues 4C and 4D to build and operate the center would cost
approximately $153.12 per year for a $400,000 residential property and
$509.06 for a commercial property. The Community Center fee schedule would
be consistent with other Colorado communities with no charge to use the main
lobby, library, senior services, reduced fees for lower income families, and
reduced fees for students and seniors. The 1A sales tax funding would
provided approximately $5 million in funding over 10 years and would reduce
the initial bond amount and pay off the bond early saving taxpayers money.
The center would have a number of positive impacts on the community’s
health, wellness, quality of life, local economy and property values.
2. PLATTE RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING. Jackie Sargent/
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) General Manager provide the Town Board
with an overview of the organizations resource planning while providing a
balance between competitive price, reliability, environmental responsibility and
safety. PRPA has existing wholesale power generation resources that include
coal, hydropower, gas, and wind. A new solar resource would be on line late
summer 2016 and would generate up to 30MWh or power approximately 8,000
homes at a third of the cost of rooftop solar. The State of Colorado has
developed a statewide implementation plan to meet the new EPA rules for the
Clean Power Plan. The plan would reduce carbon dioxide by approximately
25% to 40% in 2030. The current energy mix contains 75% coal, high in
carbon dioxide emissions; therefore, the PRPA Board has reviewed a number
of options to reduce the use of coal and increase the use of renewable
resources, including solar and wind generation. Wholesale power costs would
increase significantly over the next 20 years to address the Clean Power Plan
from $50/MWh in 2015 to $150/MWh in 2035. PRPA has the lowest wholesale
rate in the area for the past 10 years; however, the cost would rise faster than
others due to the high coal energy profile.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. SINGLE AUDIT. Finance Officer McFarland stated the Town completed the
annual Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and submitted the report to the
appropriate authorities. The Town was required to complete a single audit
because the Town expended more than $500,000 in federal grant funds. The
audit was presented by Paul Niedermuller/CliftonLarsenAllen for the Board’s
review. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Nelson) to approve the 2014
Single Audit, and it passed unanimously.
2. DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONSULTANT SELECTION.
Planner Kleisler requested the Board authorize staff to execute a contract with
Logan Simpson for the preparation of the Estes Park Downtown Plan to be
funded by a $190,000 grant awarded through the Colorado Department of
Local Affairs, State Energy and Mineral Assistance fund. A formal Request for
Proposals was issued in late July and a selection committee was formed to
review the proposals and provide a recommendation to the Board. The
Board of Trustees – October 13, 2015 – Page 4
committee reviewed eight (8) proposals and conducted extensive reference
checks on two finalist.
Paul Brown/selection committee member stated the top two ranked proposals
went through a thorough reference check. Logan Simpson was chosen as it
offers a community based approach and has provided similar services with
other resort communities. The company has partnered with Basis Architect, a
local business.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to
authorize the Town to execute a Professional Services Contract with
Logan Simpson for the preparation of the Downtown Plan for the price
not to exceed 190,000, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #16-15 FORMATION OF DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMITTEE & BYLAWS. Planner Kleisler presented Resolution #16-15
establishing the Estes Park Downtown Plan Steering Committee. The
committee would provide overall guidance to the planning process for the
Downtown Plan and ensure ample public participation in the development of
the plan. The members of the committee would be residents of the Estes
Valley Development Code boundary. The committee would have 15 members
with 11 appointed by the Town Board and 4 members selected by staff and the
consulting team to ensure all sectors of the community are adequately
represented. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve
Resolution #16-15, and the Downtown Selection Committee bylaws, and it
passed unanimously.
4. SCOTT PONDS NATURAL AREA DAMS MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT AWARD AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
AWARD. Engineering Manager Ash commented a Request for Bid was
advertised to construct a jurisdictional dam for the Upper Carriage Hills pond
and construct a non-jurisdictional dam for the Lower Carriage Hills pond, which
were damaged during the 2013 flood and maintenance of the dams was
mandated by the State Dam Inspection Office. Two bids were submitted by
Kelley Trucking, Golden, CO and Dietzler Construction, Berthoud, CO and were
within 4% of each other; however, both bids exceed the current funding
available. Town staff and its consultant coordinated the bid evaluation with the
State Engineer’s Office and recommend Kelley Trucking as the Scott Ponds
Natural Area Dam construction company. Staff recommends allocating
$780,000 for construction and $70,000 for construction management services.
Construction Management services were included with the original design
consultant bids, but not contracted. The funding available would be adequate
to restore the Upper Carriage Hills pond and regrade the lower dam to safely
convey storm runoff with a completion date of March 31, 2016.
Joel Holtzman/Town citizen thanked staff for their efforts and he would request
the Town approve the contract. He would like the Board to search for
additional funds to complete the repairs of the east dam.
Kent Pridey/Town citizen stated as a neighboring property they have enjoyed
the ponds and found them to add to the quality of life.
Mary Born/County citizen thanked staff for their professionalism. She offered to
help provide labor for items such as weed removal that would not be covered
by the grant.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve of a construction
contract for the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification: Carriage
Hills Dam #1 rehabilitation and Carriage Hills Dam #2 rehabilitation, to
Kelley Trucking, for a project cost not to exceed $780,000, and it passed
unanimously.
Board of Trustees – October 13, 2015 – Page 5
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve construction
management services contract for the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam
Modification: Carriage Hills Dam #1 rehabilitation and Carriage Hills Dam
#2 rehabilitation, to Cornerstone Engineering, for a project cost not to
exceed $70,000, and it passed unanimously.
5. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY WATER TAP FEE WAIVER – 821 KUNDTZ
LANE. Mark Wandas/President stated Habitat for Humanity would build its 14th
home in Estes Park in the Kundtz Lane. The building permit has been
prepared including $11,308 for a water tap, $1,441.75 for the building permit,
and $937.14 for the plan review fees. He stated the cost of building affordable
housing has increased and in order to make the houses affordable 35 year
mortgages are being written. Habitat requested the Town waive the fees
associated with the building permit to make the homes affordable. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the fee waiver for Habitat
for Humanity’s water tap fee, permit fee and plan review fee for the third
home on Kuntz in the amount of $13,687, and it passed unanimously.
6. SPRAY PATCHER AGGREGATE TENT MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION
CONTRACT AWARD. Facilities Manager Landkamer presented a proposal to
install an aggregate tent in the Elm Road yard to protect the aggregate used by
the pothole patcher from snow, cold and soil contamination, allowing it to fill
potholes during warmer winter days. The project was advertised in the local
paper and Town website and received two bids from Cover Solutions Grand
Junction Natural Light Fabric Structures for $63,610 and Accu-Steel Iowa Accu-
Steel for $47,596. The project would require the purchase of concrete barrier
foundations from Colorado Precast at a cost of $10,800 and miscellaneous
items and lighting for $3,600. Staff recommends the low bid from Accu-Steel
for a total project cost of $61,996. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve a contract with Accu-Steel in the amount of
$47,596 for the Aggregate Storage Building and additional costs for a
total cost of $62,000, and it passed unanimously.
7. ORDINANCE #14-15 MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
VACATION HOMES. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to table
Ordinance #14-15 indefinitely, and it passed with Trustee Phipps voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 13, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town
Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of
October, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Finance Officer McFarland, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Director Muhonen, Attorney White, Deputy Town
Clerk Deats
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
STAFF UPDATE ON TOWN’S REQUEST TO CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS.
Director Muhonen provided the Board with an update on the Town’s request to Central
Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) to include the construction of a downtown
parking garage in its Environmental Assessment (EA) and consider construction of the
parking structure as a Phase One improvement alternate to the downtown loop. The
parking structure had previously been identified as a Phase Two improvement. In
response to this request, CFLHD agreed to include the parking structure in the EA,
however, traffic analysis data collected related to improving access to Rocky Mountain
National Park (RMNP) indicates that the structure would likely not be selected as the
preferred project because it does not provide a significant benefit over the original one-
way couplet proposal. Based on data collected, the one-way couplet is more effective
in improving access to RMNP.
Director Muhonen reported that as design options, and hydraulics and hydrology
components for the one-way couplet are explored, it appears the project budget of
$17.2 million is inadequate to address the raising of three downtown bridges above the
100 year floodplain. He noted that the one-way couplet project would include replacing
the Ivy Street bridge, however, elevating the Rockwell and Riverside bridges and
associated channel improvements may be proposed and considered in the future, as
Part Two to the one-way couplet. He reported that the EA will include hydraulic and
hydrology analysis downstream to the bridge at Highway 36 and noted that this will
provide valuable information if, and when, the Town seeks future funding sources for
improvements downstream. Director Muhonen said that as a result of the added scope
of the hydraulic and hydrology studies, and the addition of the parking garage as an
alternate project, the delivery of the EA will be postponed until late winter or early spring
of 2016. He said that the members of the project’s Technical Advisory Committee are
committed to supporting and moving forward with the one-way couplet as submitted on
the original application.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig said the information that was previously provided by the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) regarding bridge heights, replacement,
and channel improvements has changed. She expressed concerns about inconsistent
messages that have been told to the Board and relayed to the public. Director
Muhonen acknowledged that previous information addressed channel improvements
and bridge work beginning downstream and working upstream and included the Ivy
Street, Rockwell and Riverside bridges. He said that in addition to CDOT, various state
agencies are weighing in on this project, and stated that none of the bridges are unsafe
and that bridge replacement is directly related to capacity.
Town Board Study Session – October 13, 2015 – Page 2
The Board’s discussion is summarized: tentative approval has been received to replace
the Moraine Avenue bridge which is an upstream bridge and conflicts with previous
information; raising the elevation of bridges also means raising the elevation of roads
which will affect more properties and involve property acquisitions; construction of the
one-way couplet (Part One) is a transportation project and is not designed to solve
floodplain issues; funding is in place for Part One, the one-way couplet; if the Town
completes the one-way couplet, is there an obligation to complete channel
improvements and replace the Rockwell and Riverside bridges in the future as a Part
Two to the one-way couplet?; don’t want to evoke a domino effect; there is no obligation
to move forward with Part Two, and timing and funding are unknown; the Board
requests a new agreement, or an amendment to the existing agreement to document
that the Town is not obligated to act on Part Two; and clarification is needed related to
requirements, priorities and jurisdictional issues involved with this project.
PROCESS FOR INTERVIEWING BOARD & COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Pinkham reviewed the process currently utilized when interviewing applicants for
Town volunteer boards and commissions. He said that as a public entity, the Town is
accountable to its constituents, and subject to applicable state laws, to ensure that
applicants are treated equitably and consistently throughout the interview process. He
stressed the importance of preparing in advance for the interview; asking questions that
are appropriate and specific to the position; posing the same questions to each
interviewee; staying on topic during the interview; practicing fairness and objectivity;
utilizing a numeric system to rate the candidates; and scheduling time between
interviews for discussion among the interview panel. He suggested that once all
interviews are complete, a document summarizing the ratings for each interviewee be
created to be used to compare the candidates. This document would be maintained by
Human Resources (HR) and used by staff in the event inquiries about the appointment
process were received. He also suggested reviewing the interview questions with HR
staff well in advance of the interview so that if changes are required, they can be made
and distributed to all interviewers in a timely manner.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
The Board discussed rearranging the order of items on the agenda for the Town Board
meeting. The Platte River Power Authority presentation was moved to the first item
under 3. Report and Discussion Items (Outside Entities). The Board discussed the
removal of Action Item #7 – Ordinance #14-15 Moratorium on the Establishment of
New Vacation Homes from the agenda. The ordinance would remain on the agenda
and be discussed at the beginning of the Town Board meeting.
Trustee Nelson asked for an update related to the Broadband Initiative and research
regarding feasible take rates for broadband service. In Town Administrator Lancaster’s
absence, PIO Rusch reported that this topic is on the Town Administrator’s “front
burner” and a topic that will be addressed during the report and presentation to be given
by the Avalanche Consulting at an upcoming study session.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The Special Study Session with Avalanche Consulting will be held on November
2, 2015.
Discussion of Noise Ordinance will be moved to early 2016.
Follow Up on Broadband Issues will be scheduled for November 10, 2015, in
place of the Noise Ordinance discussion.
The Board will work with staff to schedule the Fish Hatchery Property Discussion and
Update on Construction Schedules for Major Projects through 2020.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 8, 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 8th day of October, 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
Bergsten and Muhonen, Superintendent Lockhart, Managers
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 updated the Committee
on the interview process taking place for the open Communications Manager
positon and the four Police Officer vacancies. He thanked the Committee for the
approval of Police Officer pay scale adjustments and stated the quality and
quantity of applicants has improved. The Police Department noticed an increase
in wildlife resistant trash containers since the passing of the Wildlife Ordinance
and anticipates minimal enforcement would be needed after April 1, 2016.
UTILITIES.
LIGHT & POWER SHOP REMODEL CONTRACT AWARD. Superintendent Lockhart
requested approval of the contract with B&E Builders, Inc. to complete the remodel of
the Light & Power shop to include a functional area for staff to complete administrative
duties and storage lockers. The contract came in under budget at a cost of
$159,524.55. The Committee recommended approval of the contract with B&E
Builders, Inc. be included on the Consent Agenda at the October 27, 2015 Town
Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Superintendent Lockhart informed
the Committee the Platte River Power Authority contracted with Larimer County,
the Forrest Service and American Civil to install conduit along County Road 43
and the Town has been invited to add conduit as well. This would save costs,
time and provide redundancy for Platte River Power Authority.
Director Bergsten updated the Committee on the conversations taking place with
the smaller water systems within the community. Staff met with the Hondius
users group to explain the business structure, costs and procedure of
transitioning the takeover of the water system. Bergsten explained the purpose of
tap fees and funding options being investigated to help the smaller water
systems pay for necessary upgrades.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – October 8, 2015 – Page 2
PUBLIC WORKS.
SCOTT PONDS NATURAL AREA DAMS MODIFICATION CONTRACT AWARD.
Manager Ash provided an update on the rehabilitation of Scott Ponds. Two bids were
received to complete the modification project mandated by the State and the lower bid
by Kelly Trucking was selected although it well over budget. Staff reexamined the scope
of work with the contractor and the State and was able to submit plans that meet State
requirements for the upper pond. The lower pond remains an issue as funding has not
been secured to install a functional dam. The Committee suggested issuing a press
release to inform residents of the current situation and continue to investigate future
funding sources to complete the lower dam. The Committee recommended approval
of the contracts with Kelly Trucking for construction services not to exceed
$780,000 and Cornerstone Engineering for project management services not to
exceed $70,000 be included as Action Items at the October 13, 2015 Town Board
meeting.
SPRAY PATCHER AGGREGATE TENT MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION
CONTRACT AWARD. Manager Landkamer presented the need for covered storage of
the aggregate material used by the Spray Patcher so the equipment can continue to be
utilized during the winter months. The aggregate material continues to be stored in the
salt/sand storage building, but would need to be moved soon to make room for the
salt/sand necessary for the snow season. Two bids were received to construct the
Aggregate Storage Building and Landkamer recommended accepting the low bid of
$47,596 from Accusteel along with completing some work in house bringing the total to
$62,000. The Committee recommended approval of the construction contract with
Accusteel be included as an Action Item at the October 13, 2015 Town Board
meeting.
CULVERT JET TRAILER REPLACEMENT. Manager McEachern informed the
Committee of the need to replace the culvert jet trailer as it no longer performs to
expectations. The current piece of equipment was purchased used in 2009 and repairs
are becoming ineffective. Quotes were received from three vendors and staff
recommends purchasing a new Spartan Hi Flow Ultimate Warrior Jetter from Williams
Equipment, LLC. The Committee recommended approval of the purchase of the
2015 Spartan Hi Flow Ultimate Warrior Jetter from Williams Equipment, LLC for a
cost of $47,260 be included on the Consent Agenda at the October 13, 2015 Town
Board meeting.
2015 STREET OVERLAY CONTRACT AWARD. Manager McEachern presented the
contract to repair Scott Avenue and Stanley Avenue and to construct an asphalt pad for
the new Aggregate Storage Building. Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. honored the Larimer
County 2015 bid procurement prices for hot mix asphalt. Through a partnership with
Larimer County the Town would be able to repair two low rated streets and lay the
asphalt pad at a lower cost than bidding the work out to the open market. The
Committee recommended approval of the 2015 Street Overlay Contract award in
the amount of $206,448.97 to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. be included on the
Consent Agenda at the October 13, 2015 Town Board meeting.
2015 PAVEMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT CONTRACT AWARD. Engineer
Stallworth discussed the need for updated pavement management software to input
street condition data, run analysis and make educated decisions for the maintenance to
be performed to meet the street improvement goals set by the Town. Paver is the
software currently used and staff decided to stay with this software. To get the best
available data on current street conditions, staff recommended hiring Borstad
Consulting Services, LLC to complete the Pavement Condition Assessment for a cost
not to exceed $30,000. The data collected would build a successful Pavement
Management Program. The Committee recommended approval of the 2015
Pavement Condition Assessment Contract award to Borstad Consulting
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – October 8, 2015 – Page 3
Services, LLC be included on the Consent Agenda at the October 13, 2015 Town
Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Muhonen provided updates
on the spray patcher, the Transit Hub Parking Facility, the Elm Road drainage
project, and the status of Fish Creek Road.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:21 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 16th, 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 16th day of September, 2015.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Thom Widawski
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Kevin Ash, Town Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Absent: Bryon Holmes
Ann Finley
Vacancy
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
No public was in attendance, so public comment was not heard.
The vacant TAB position is being advertised by Human Resources; currently no
applications have been received. Trustee Ericson encouraged the board to seek out
potential candidates and persuade them to apply.
Chair Campbell asked for nominations for the Co-chair position left vacant by Cory
Labianca’s departure. It was moved and seconded (Rounds/Hamrick) to nominate Belle
Morris as Co-chair, with all voting in favor.
Minutes from the July 15th and August 19th meeting were reviewed by members. It was
moved and seconded (Hamrick/Rounds) to approve all aforementioned minutes with a
minor amendment, with the motion passing unanimously.
On behalf of Ann Finley, who was absent from the meeting, Amy Hamerick passed
along a website, www.vtpi.org, which contains very interesting and valuable information
Transportation Advisory Board – September 16th, 2015 – Page 2
about downtown parking concepts and solutions. TAB members were encouraged to
check out the site in their free time.
No shuttle committee update was provided.
STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS
A downtown parking structure was asked to be included as a third option in the EA for
the Loop project. Key assumptions were analyzed and it was determined the alternative
would not alleviate intersection traffic as effectively as the one-way couplet. The
alternative will not be supported by CDOT & CFL. The official response regarding the
request is anticipated to be received in mid-September. The EA will move forward with
the replacement of the Ivy Street bridge sufficient to sustain a 100 year flood, with the
future option of being renovated or expanded when other bridges are replaced.
The Town received the draft EA regarding the parking structure from the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Town cannot advance to formal design until the EA is complete,
including a 30 day public comment period. The FTA will then consider authorizing the
move to final design stage. A preliminary design meeting will take place with CDOT this
week.
Civil Engineer Ash reported that a new pavement manager was hired and started this
month. Kelly Stallworth will be responsible for projects funded by 1A money.
Public Works made a presentation on the Fall River Trail Extension to the Town Board
at the Study Session on August 25th. The Town Board directed staff to move forward
with final design using the Fish Hatchery alignment of the trail. Final design is scheduled
to be completed by May 2016, which gives the Town time to find additional grant money
to fund construction.
A new bid package is being put in place for the Dry Gulch Road Rehab project, focusing
on the Sombrero area and trail this fall, with paving to begin in May or June of 2016.
Staff is hoping to advertise for bids very soon.
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGY
Chair Campbell provided a proposed parking strategy framework for discussion. The
board discussed prioritizing the key points of the strategy. The key points were also
revised and reworded to fine-tune the strategy content. Chair Campbell will use these
key points to flesh out the parking policy and is hoping to present a draft for discussion
Transportation Advisory Board – September 16th, 2015 – Page 3
and vote at the October meeting. Her goal is to send out one or two sections each week
for review by TAB members.
With no other business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 18th, 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 18th day of September, 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
Tonya Ziegler, Parks Maintenance Worker
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Absent: Two Board Vacancies
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:04 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Moore/Lockwood) to approve the August 21st meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
Tonya Ziegler presented an idea for the Riverwalk pedestrian tunnel under Hwy 36 near
the Visitor Center. The artwork surrounding the tunnel works well, but the tunnel itself
remains dark and dank. A laser light product was proposed that would be bolted onto
the concrete and shine onto the opposite wall. The lights would create a slow-moving
and colorful lighting effect that would work well with the interactive nature of the ongoing
musical instrument installations along the Riverwalk. Concerns were expressed by PAB
members about the nature of the technology as well as the safety issue of reducing the
bright lights inside the tunnel. The lights could be programmed to project during the day
and early evening to light up the dark tunnel, with brighter lights programmed to switch
on at night for safety. Vandalism of the lights was also a concern. It was suggested to
contact CDOT regarding this project to find out if they would give it a green light. PAB
found the idea interesting and unique and encouraged Parks to move forward to see if
the project is possible and practical to implement.
Parks Advisory Board – September 18th, 2015 – Page 2
Brian Berg reported the Noontime Rotary Club, who was the original donor of the green
apple sculpture in front of the Library, would like to add a plaque to the sculpture giving
a history of the piece and its artist. They would like to appear before PAB at the October
meeting and justify this new addition to the sculpture.
REVISIONS TO AIPP POLICIES
Changes were made regarding the insurance portion of the Artwork Loan Agreement
form as approved at the last meeting. Brian Berg spoke with the Museum regarding
items they receive on loan and how insurance is applied to these pieces. Additional
insurance on such pieces is so minimal the cost is generally absorbed by the Town.
Documenting and photographing a loaned piece is key to making sure the item is
returned to its owner in the condition it was received by the Town.
Merle Moor is working with Terry Rustin and Jen Imber to produce a tri-fold pamphlet
advertising the AIPP program.
Discussion was held on the format of documents in editable pdf form. Given the limited
space allocated to form fields, the board suggested adding an “other” box to provide
room for extra text, if needed.
With no other business to discussed, a motion was made and seconded (Lebeau/Boles)
to adjourn the meeting at 11:54 am, with all voting in favor.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: Renewal License – Murphy’s Resort at Estes Park, LLC dba Murphy’s
Resort, 1650 Big Thompson Avenue, Beer and Wine Liquor License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at Murphy’s Resort on September 14,
2015.
Present Situation:
On September 14, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the
State’s Liquor Enforcement Division and the Town of Estes Park Police Department.
During this compliance check, an employee of Murphy’s Resort sold/served an alcohol
beverage to an underage person. Even though identification was requested and
presented to the employee, the employee proceeded to serve the underage customer.
The Beer and Wine Liquor License held by Murphy’s Resort at Estes Park, LLC was
originally issued in November 2014. There have been no previous violations at this
establishment. The licensee has provided the Town Clerk with a copy of the
establishment’s alcohol sales policy as well as a listing of permanent employees, all of
whom have received TIPS training and are TIPS certified.
The Liquor Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue will be
handling the administrative process related to this violation. The penalty for this type of
violation, which is a first offense, may include a written warning, up to a 15-day
suspension, or entering into a stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a
fine in lieu of an actual suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in
abeyance for a period of time, typically one year from the date of the agreement. If
further violations occur within a year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will
serve all or any days of the suspension held in abeyance.
All necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted for the renewal.
Proposal:
The LED is administering the violation, therefore, no administrative action will be taken
by the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State will determine the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and ensure that the penalty is served.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Beer and Wine
liquor license held by Murphy’s Resort at Estes Park, LLC dba Murphy’s Resort. The
Board has the option to move to approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Beer and Wine liquor
license is $662.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Beer and Wine Liquor License held by
Murphy’s Resort at Estes Park, LLC dba Murphy’s Resort.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: Renewal License – Bowl Fort Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park
Center, 555 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Tavern Liquor License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center
on August 24, 2015.
Present Situation:
On August 24, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the State’s
Liquor Enforcement Division. During this compliance check, an employee of Chippers
Lanes sold/served an alcohol beverage to an underage person. The employee failed to
request identification from the individual and proceeded to serve the underage
customer.
The Tavern Liquor License held by Bowl Fort Collins, LLC was originally issued in
December 2009. The establishment has two previous Sale to Minor violations,
occurring in January 2011 and July 2013. A fine in lieu of suspension was imposed for
the 2011 violation; and a 10-day active suspension was served for the 2013 violation.
The Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) of the Colorado Department of Revenue will be
handling the administrative process related to this violation, which will be viewed as a
first offense, due to the timing of the previous violations. The penalty for this type of
violation, may include a written warning, up to a 15-day suspension, or entering into a
stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an actual
suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of time,
typically one year from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within a
year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the
suspension held in abeyance.
The licensee has provided the Town Clerk with a copy of the establishment’s alcohol
sales policy as well as a listing of permanent employees, a record of T.I.P.S. training,
and has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees for the liquor license renewal. The
liquor license expires on December 1, 2015.
Proposal:
The LED is administering the violation, therefore, no administrative action will be taken
by the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State will determine the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and ensure that the penalty is served.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Tavern liquor
license held by Bowl Fort Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center. The
Board has the option to move to approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Tavern liquor license is
$869.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Tavern Liquor License held by Bowl Fort
Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: Renewal License – Cables Estes, LLC, dba Cables Pub and Grill, 451 S.
St. Vrain Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at Cables Pub and Grill on September
14, 2015.
Present Situation:
On September 14, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the
State’s Liquor Enforcement Division and the Town of Estes Park Police Department.
During this compliance check, an employee of Cables Pub and Grill sold/served an
alcohol beverage to an underage person. The employee failed to request identification
from the individual and proceeded to serve the underage customer.
The Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held by Cables Estes, LLC, was originally
issued in January 2013. The establishment had a previous Sale to Minor violation in
August 2013. A five-day active suspension was imposed and served in December
2013.
The Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) of the Colorado Department of Revenue will be
handling the administrative process related to this violation, which will be viewed as a
first offense, due to the timing of the previous violation. The penalty for this type of
violation, may include a written warning, up to a 15-day suspension, or entering into a
stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an actual
suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of time,
typically one year from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within a
year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the
suspension held in abeyance.
The licensee has provided the Town Clerk with a copy of the establishment’s alcohol
sales policy as well as a listing of permanent employees and a record of T.I.P.S.
training. The Liquor License expiration date is January 7, 2016.
Proposal:
The LED is administering the violation, therefore, no administrative action will be taken
by the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State will determine the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and ensure that the penalty is served.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Hotel and
Restaurant liquor license held by Cables Estes, LLC dba Cables Pub and Grill. The
Board has the option to move to approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant
liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held
by Cables Estes, LLC dba Cables Pub and Grill.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: October 23, 2015
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Stanley Village Shopping
Center, LLC, to Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC, dba THE VILLAGE, 543
Big Thompson Avenue, Beer and Wine Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing Beer and Wine liquor license located at 543 Big Thompson Avenue
to the applicant, Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC.
Present Situation:
A Beer and Wine Liquor License was issued to JDDCT, Inc., dba Village Pizza in 2011.
In early 2015, JDDCT, Inc., abandoned the premises located at 543 Big Thompson
Avenue, and per a court order dated May 14, 2015, Stanley Village Shopping Center,
LLC regained possession of the property and the existing Beer & Wine liquor license by
operation of law.
The applicant, Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC has requested a transfer of the Beer and
Wine license and submitted a complete application to the Town Clerk’s office on July
30, 2015. A temporary permit was issued on August 25, 2015. The temporary permit
authorizes the transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under
the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is
pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC dba THE VILLAGE.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Beer and Wine Liquor License to Village Wood Fired
Pizza, LLC.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Beer and Wine Liquor License transfer is
$1,112. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the
Town for a Beer and Wine Liquor License is $662 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Beer and Wine Liquor License
filed by Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC, dba THE VILLAGE.
Attachment:
Procedure for Transfer of Liquor License
April 2003
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed July 30, 2015 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as an LLC .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Village Wood Fired Pizza, LLC doing business as
The Village for a Beer and Wine License be approved/denied.
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Alison Chilcott, Community Services Director
Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: October 27, 2015
RE: Public Hearing – Grant Close Out for Fish Creek Utilities, Windcliff Utilities
and Fish Creek Resiliency Plan CDBG-DR Grants
Objective:
To conduct a public hearing as required by the grant agreements for HUD Community
Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funded projects:
1. Fish Creek Utilities, “Fish Creek Road Utilities Repair / Reconstruction” under the
IGA (Inter Governmental Agreement) partners including Upper Thompson
Sanitation District (UTSD), Town of Estes Park (TEP), and Estes Valley
Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD). This hearing will be on the Town of
Estes Park’s portion only. This is a cost share grant for FEMA (PW#240).
2. Utilities repairs for the Windcliff area, FEMA cost share grant (PW#258).
3. Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency (master plan).
The purpose of this hearing is to allow citizens to review and comment on the
performance of these three projects. Written comments are also welcomed and must
be received by Wednesday, November 4, 2015, at Town of Estes Park, P.O. Box 1200,
Estes Park, CO 80517.
For information concerning the public hearing, contact the following Town
representatives:
• Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director; 970-577-3583; subject line: Utilities Public
Hearing
• Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director; 970-577-3720; subject line:
Master Plan Public Hearing
• Or email: info@estes.org; subject line: “Utilities Public Hearing or Master Plan
Public Hearing
Present Situation:
Fish Creek Utilities project includes Town water and electrical lines. The project is
approximately 4.5 miles long and encompasses several stream crossings. The
construction began January 2015 and plans to finish in mid-October 2015.
Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency included 1) preparing conceptual design drawings and
developing management frameworks; and 2) prioritizing projects and developing short-
term and long-term implementation plans.
Windcliff Utilities project includes installing 2,465 linear feet of a new single phase
underground conductor in a new location to provide mitigation against future events and
restoring the previous functionality of looped power to several homes in the Windcliff
area.
Proposal:
A public hearing is required for CDBG-DR funded projects when the project is complete
or nearly complete.
Advantages:
This public hearing offers the citizens an opportunity to comment on this project.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
No Board action required.
Budget:
Fish Creek Utilities: The budget for this project has been approved and allocated. The
following is an overview of the budget.
General contractor’s contract
K.R. Swerdfeger Construction, Inc. (value through June 2015) 6,651,508
Town of Estes Park’s portion of the contract value above 1,248,768
Engineering and Design: Town of Estes Park’s portion 338,627
Construction Management Services (total value) 472,956
Town of Estes Park’s portion: (19.22%) 90,902
Town of Estes Park supplied materials and used its own work force to pull wire at the
five electrical sites where the contractor installed conduit banks.
Approximate value of materials supplied 29,500
Approximate value of wire supplied and installed 17,900
CDBG-DR covers 12.5% of the FEMA local cost share
Town of Estes Park CDBG-DR grant award amount is 172,757
The Town requested an additional $27,000 for increased costs and is expected to be
awarded this. Approximate improvement value of $106,000 is 100% funded by the
Town of Estes Park
- 2 -
Fish Creek Master Plan grant award was for $74,900 for consulting services. Additional
funds were received from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for this
project.
Windcliff Utilities: The budget for this project is $256,570.00 for engineering and
construction. The Town of Estes Park CDBG-DR grant award amount is $31,996.25
which covers 12.5% of the FEMA local cost share.
Level of Public Interest:
Medium.
Sample Motion:
N/A.
General Information:
A public hearing will be opened for these three projects; however, comments will be
taken in order of the projects listed in this memo. The Mayor will close each project
following public comments and then request comments on the next project.
This public hearing is being conducted at the Town Hall which is a handicapped
accessible building. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids
and services) are asked to contract the Town Clerk’s office at least five (5) business
days prior to this public hearing to request special accommodations. Hearing devices
are available for this public meeting upon request. Those with limited English proficiency
planning to attend this public hearing are asked to contact the Town Clerk’s office at
least five (5) business days prior to this meeting and accommodations will be made
available upon requests. The Town Clerk’s office contact
information: TownClerk@estes.org; 970-577-4777; 170 MacGregor Avenue, PO Box
1200, Estes Park, Colorado 80517.
- 3 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner
Date: October 27, 2015
RE: ORDINANCE #15-15 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS
Objective:
Extend and amend interim flood plain regulations adopted in November 2013 and
extended in October 2014.
The consideration of Ordinance 15-15, continuing the temporary building requirements
for development on lots adjacent to drainages established in Ordinance 13-13, adopted
by the Board on November 12, 2013.
This is the continuance of an interim measure pending new hydrology and hydraulics
information.
Present Situation:
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted by the Town Board on November 12, 2013. This
ordinance replaced emergency provisions that were put in place immediately following
the September 2013 flood that had limited permanent construction adjacent to
drainages.
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted as an interim measure to establish the high-water mark
of the 2013 flood as the regulatory floodplain pending revision to the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study and associated Flood Insurance Rate
Maps are used by the Town of Estes Park Floodplain Manager to regulate special flood
hazard areas (areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding). In many areas the study and
maps are no longer accurate and cannot be relied on to protect life and property.
Ordinance 13-13 provides regulations for the permanent construction adjacent to
drainages affected by the September 2013 flood. These regulations establish building
permit submittal requirements such as a FEMA Elevation Certificate and high water
marks from the flood. These regulations also require that construction be built a
minimum of one vertical foot above the flood of record.
Ordinance 16-14, adopted by the Town Board on October 28, 2014, continued the
provisions of Ordinance 13-13, and included a variety of minor revisions related to
effective date and terminology (“floodplain” replaced the term “building”) and authorized
the floodplain administrator to use best available data regarding peak flows (paragraph
2, Exhibit A).
Ordinance 16-14 is set to expire on November 11, 2015.
Proposal:
Ordinance 15-15 allows for permanent construction in areas affected by the 2013 flood,
while taking appropriate measures to reasonably protect lives and properties from
flooding and minimize potential non-compliance with FEMA regulations (namely,
updated floodplain maps).
The Ordinance further ensures that staff have all necessary information when reviewing
building and floodplain permit applications.
Ordinance 15-15 provides criteria for reviewing building permit applications for
structures on properties located adjacent to drainages.
Ordinance 15-15 will replace Ordinance 16-14 and changes the required permit
reference from “Building Permit” to “Floodplain Development Permit” in Exhibit A.
Effective Period
If passed, this ordinance will take effect immediately upon adoption by the Town Board
and continue until Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
Staff anticipates that requirements of this Ordinance will be in effect until new hydrology
and hydraulics studies are completed in mid- to late-2016.
Advantages:
• Allows for continued for new construction in areas affected by recent flooding.
• Lives and properties are better protected from future flood events and more likely to
be in compliance with future floodplain maps.
• Consistent with management practices suggested by FEMA.
• Increases likelihood that FEMA Public Assistance and the Federal Highways
Administration will fund public infrastructure improvements (e.g. bridge and culvert
replacements) designed for post-flood design flows. For example, instead of
rebuilding a bridge to accommodate 400 cfs it could be rebuilt to accommodate 900
cfs.
Disadvantages:
• Additional building permit submittal requirements for some customers.
• High water marks are not fully mapped.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 15-15.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Moderate
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/deny Ordinance Number 15-15 to extend temporary floodplain
development requirements for development on lots adjacent to drainages.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 15-15
2. Exhibit A
3. Memo from October 28, 2014 Town Board Meeting
4. Memo from November 12, 2013 Town Board meeting
5. Colorado Water Conservation Board FAQs
ORDINANCE NO. 15-15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO, EXTENDING INTERIM REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT TO DRAINAGES.
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has adopted Estes Park Municipal Code
Chapter 17.28 Floodplain Regulations to identify and clarify where flood hazards may
exist and to ensure that potential buyers and builders are aware that certain properties
are in areas with special flood hazards; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2013, Estes Park was impacted by a severe flood
event; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Town of Estes Park enacted temporary
requirements for development on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the
Black Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big Thompson River drainages; and
WHEREAS, the temporary requirements enacted on November 12, 2013, will
expire on November 11, 2015; and
WHEREAS, due to the September 2013 flood event, the Town does not know the
final location of stream/river channels or banks; the final location of floodplains; and final
base flood elevations; and
WHEREAS, the Town wants to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations to
ensure businesses and residents are eligible to purchase flood insurance; and
WHEREAS, the Town recognizes that property owners may wish to initiate,
continue, and complete construction adjacent to stream/river channels; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that it is in the public interest
to adopt this Ordinance in order to adopt floodplain standards for properties located within
the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon Creek, Fish Creek, Fall River or the Big
Thompson River drainages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Temporary floodplain standards and regulations for properties located
within the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon Creek, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or
the Big Thompson River drainages is hereby established, as more fully set forth on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The temporary floodplain standards and regulations set forth in Exhibit A
shall take effect upon the effective date of this Ordinance and continue until November
11, 2016 unless amended, extended and/or terminated by further action of the Board of
Trustees.
WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to prevent
unsafe construction adjacent to drainages, and therefore the Ordinance shall take effect
and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, on this 27th day of October, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
William Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the 27th day of October, 2015, and published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of
__________________, 2015.
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Flood Protection Elevation
In order to account for the impacts of future development on flood depths and to ensure
the least expensive insurance rate for property owners, all new structures, substantial
changes and additions on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the Black
Canyon Creek, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big Thompson River drainages shall
be built a minimum of one vertical foot above the flood of record. The flood of record
shall be measured from the high water marks from the September 2013 flood event, as
minimum elevation regardless of the current regulatory flood location. When the high
water mark and FEMA regulatory floodplain are inconsistent with one another, the more
restrictive shall govern.
To administer the floodplain regulations, the Town floodplain administrator is authorized
to use best available data, including, but not limited to revised/increased peak discharge
flows for the 1% annual chance flood. At the present, these numbers are 990 cubic feet
per second (cfs) for Fish Creek and 1670 cfs for Fall River. These flows are
approximately 250% of pre-flood flows.
Floodplain Development Permit Submittal Requirements
Minimum requirements for Floodplain Development Permit application submissions are
as follows:
i. Site plan shall include:
a. Current Regulatory Floodplain.
Location of the current regulatory floodplain, including elevation points
adjacent to proposed development and distance to proposed
development; and
b. High Water Marks and Lines.
High water mark and line locations from the September 2013 flood event,
including elevation points adjacent to proposed development, and
distance from marks and lines to the proposed development.
ii. Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form
086-0-33; Revised 7/12). A FEMA Form 086-0-33, Revised 7/12 or
subsequent revisions, shall be submitted for each structure within a proposed
development, taken from the regulatory floodplain.
iii. A qualified Colorado registered professional engineer in good standing shall
direct or supervise floodplain projects within the regulatory floodplain and/or the
high water mark from the flood of record. Project designs within the regulatory
floodplain shall be certified and sealed by the Colorado registered professional
engineer of record.
iv. Measurements shall be taken in accordance with Estes Valley Development
Code §1.9.D.2.
v. The location of fill material to be imported to the site and confirmation from a
qualified expert that the engineering characteristics of the fill are appropriate
for development.
vi. The location where material being exported from the site will be deposited.
The land owner or agent accepting the deposit must be identified and
approval confirmed by staff.
vii. Identification of all structures on, or adjacent to the site that may be affected
by grading and development, and presentation of detailed mitigation
measures to reduce any negative impact to existing structures during
development.
viii. Staff may waive submittal requirements depending on the amount of
information necessary to perform a complete and reasonable review of the
development.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Alison Chilcott, Director
David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: October 28, 2014
RE: ORDINANCE #16-14 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS
Objective:
Extend and amend interim flood plain regulations adopted in November 2013.
The consideration of Ordinance 16-14, establishing temporary building requirements for
development on lots adjacent to drainages.
This is an interim measure pending flood recovery mapping and/or stream/river
restoration.
Present Situation:
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted by the Town Board on November 12, 2013. This
ordinance replaced emergency provisions that were put in place immediately following
the September 2013 flood that had limited permanent construction adjacent to
drainages.
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted as an interim measure to establish the high-water mark
of the 2013 flood as the regulatory floodplain pending revision to the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study and associated Flood Insurance Rate
Maps are used by the Town of Estes Park Floodplain Manager to regulate special flood
hazard areas (areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding). In many areas the study and
maps are no longer accurate and cannot be relied on to protect life and property.
Ordinance 13-13 provides regulations for the permanent construction adjacent to
drainages affected by the September 2013 flood. These regulations establish building
permit submittal requirements such as a FEMA Elevation Certificate and high water
marks from the flood. These regulations also require that construction be built a
minimum of one vertical foot above the flood of record.
This ordinance is set to expire on November 11, 2014.
Proposal:
Ordinance 16-14 allows for permanent construction in areas affected by the 2013 flood,
while taking appropriate measures to reasonably protect lives and properties from
flooding and minimize potential non-compliance with FEMA regulations (namely,
updated floodplain maps).
The Ordinance further ensures that staff have all necessary information when reviewing
building and floodplain permit applications.
Ordinance 16-14 provides criteria for reviewing building permit applications for
structures on properties located adjacent to drainages.
Ordinance 16-14 will replace Ordinance 13-13, and includes a variety of minor revisions
related to effective dates and terminology (“floodplain” replaces term “building”).
Ordinance 16-14 also authorizes the floodplain administrator to use best available data
regarding peak flows (paragraph two, Exhibit A).
Effective Period
If passed, this ordinance will take effect immediately upon adoption by the Town Board
and continue until Tuesday, November 10, 2015.
Staff anticipates that requirements of this Ordinance will be in effect until new regulatory
floodplains are established with revised Flood Insurance Study and associated Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
Advantages:
• Allows for continued for new construction in areas affected by recent flooding.
• Lives and properties are better protected from future flood events and more likely to
be in compliance with future floodplain maps.
• Consistent with management practices suggested by FEMA.
• Increases likelihood that FEMA Public Assistance and the Federal Highways
Administration will fund public infrastructure improvements (e.g. bridge and culvert
replacements) designed for post-flood design flows. For example, instead of
rebuilding a bridge to accommodate 400 cfs it could be rebuilt to accommodate 900
cfs.
Disadvantages:
• Additional building permit submittal requirements for some customers.
• High water marks are not fully mapped.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 16-14.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Moderate
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/deny Ordinance Number 16-14 to extend temporary building
requirements for development on lots adjacent to drainages.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 16-14
2. Exhibit A
3. Memo from November 12 2013 Town Board meeting.
4. Colorado Water Conservation Board FAQs
ORDINANCE NO. 16-14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO, EXTENDING INTERIM REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT TO DRAINAGES.
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has adopted Estes Park Municipal Code
Chapter 17.28 Floodplain Regulations to identify and clarify where flood hazards may
exist and to ensure that potential buyers and builders are aware that certain properties
are in areas with special flood hazards; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2013, Estes Park was impacted by a severe flood
event; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Town of Estes Park enacted temporary
requirements for development on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the
Black Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big Thompson River drainages; and
WHEREAS, the temporary requirements enacted on November 12, 2013, will
expire on November 11, 2014; and
WHEREAS, due to the September 2013 flood event, the Town does not know the
final location of stream/river channels or banks; the final location of floodplains; and final
base flood elevations; and
WHEREAS, the Town wants to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations to
ensure businesses and residents are eligible to purchase flood insurance; and
WHEREAS, the Town recognizes that property owners may wish to initiate,
continue, and complete construction adjacent to stream/river channels; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that it is in the public interest
to adopt this Ordinance in order to adopt floodplain standards for properties located within
the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River or the Big Thompson
River drainages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Temporary floodplain standards and regulations for properties located
within the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big
Thompson River drainages is hereby established, as more fully set forth on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The temporary floodplain standards and regulations set forth on Exhibit A
shall take effect upon the effective date of this Ordinance and continue until November
11, 2014 unless amended, extended and/or terminated by further action of the Board of
Trustees.
WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to prevent
unsafe construction adjacent to drainages, and therefore the Ordinance shall take effect
and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, on this 28th day of October, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
William Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the 28th day of October, 2014, and published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of
__________________, 2014.
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Flood Protection Elevation
In order to account for the impacts of future development on flood depths and to ensure
the least expensive insurance rate for property owners, all new structures, substantial
changes and additions on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the Black
Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big Thompson River drainages shall be built
a minimum of one vertical foot above the flood of record. The flood of record shall be
measured from the high water marks from the September 2013 flood event, as
minimum elevation regardless of the current regulatory flood location. When the high
water mark and FEMA regulatory floodplain are inconsistent with one another, the more
restrictive shall govern.
To administer the floodplain regulations, the Town floodplain administrator is authorized
to use best available data, including, but not limited to revised/increased peak discharge
flows for the 1% annual chance flood. At the present, these numbers are 990 cubic feet
per second (cfs) for Fish Creek and 1670 cfs for Fall River. These flows are
approximately 250% of pre-flood flows.
Building Permit Submittal Requirements
All applications for development review shall submit the following information in addition
to standard submittal requirements:
i. Site plan shall include:
a. Current Regulatory Floodplain.
Location of the current regulatory floodplain, including elevation points
adjacent to proposed development and distance to proposed
development; and
b. High Water Marks and Lines.
High water mark and line locations from the September 2013 flood event,
including elevation points adjacent to proposed development, and
distance from marks and lines to the proposed development.
ii. Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form
086-0-33; Revised 7/12). A FEMA Form 086-0-33, Revised 7/12 or
subsequent revisions, shall be submitted for each structure within a proposed
development, taken from the regulatory floodplain.
iii. A qualified Colorado registered professional engineer in good standing shall
direct or supervise floodplain projects within the regulatory floodplain and/or the
high water mark from the flood of record. Project designs within the regulatory
floodplain shall be certified and sealed by the Colorado registered professional
engineer of record.
iv. Measurements shall be taken in accordance with Estes Valley Development
Code §1.9.D.2.
v. The location of fill material to be imported to the site and confirmation from a
qualified expert that the engineering characteristics of the fill are appropriate
for development.
vi. The location where material being exported from the site will be deposited.
The land owner or agent accepting the deposit must be identified and
approval confirmed by staff.
vii. Identification of all structures on, or adjacent to the site that may be affected
by grading and development, and presentation of detailed mitigation
measures to reduce any negative impact to existing structures during
development.
viii. Staff may waive submittal requirements depending on the amount of
information necessary to perform a complete and reasonable review of the
development.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
Following the recent flooding events for Front Range communities in Colorado, property owners,
communities, and the National Flood Insurance Program are being presented with some new
challenges in the areas of floodplain administration and potential flood insurance impacts. In many
areas, the location and other characteristics of channels and streams have been altered
significantly.
As communities and property owners rebuild, they are presented with a unique opportunity to
build structures that are better, stronger, and more resilient. With the devastating impacts of the
recent floods fresh in our minds, we are poised to use the lessons we have learned to minimize the
damages from future events that, as history has shown us, will take place.
The answers to some of the following questions are separated into two major categories:
a. What can be done in the short-term to get our communities operational?
b. How can we rebuild with long-term impacts in mind, such as building requirements, flood
maps, and insurance?
Q1: How does a town regulate fill and construction in and adjacent to waterways? Are
floodplain permits needed only for work in the mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs), and not near new channels and streams created by the flood?
A1a (short-term or “emergency” recovery): FEMA defines emergency protective measures as
“actions taken by the community … before, during, and after a disaster to save lives, protect
public health and safety, and prevent damage to improved public and private property.”
Many communities are currently working to ensure that their communities are safe and
functional. FEMA considers such activities, including the “restoration of access” (i.e., the
reconstruction of damaged roads), as emergency protective measures. For such work,
floodplain permits are indeed required, but the community is not required to obtain an
approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) before performing the work. The
community should certainly be aware of and take into consideration the impacts, both
upstream and downstream, of the emergency measures that they are proposing. A CLOMR is
encouraged but is not required.
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act permit is required for
dredging or placing fill in waters of the United States, including rivers, lakes, streams, creeks,
and wetlands (contact the USACE Denver Regulatory office at 303-979-4120). However,
division engineers are authorized to approve special processing procedures in emergency
situations. An emergency is defined a situation that would result in an unacceptable hazard to
life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic
hardship if corrective action requiring a permit is not undertaken within a time period less
than the normal time needed to process the application under standard procedures.
For any activities that are not emergency protective measures (i.e., permanent work or final
reconstruction), all regular permitting and regulatory processes apply, as outlined below.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
Therefore, communities should keep the long-term recovery requirements in mind as they
move through the initial construction stages of emergency protective measures.
A1b (long-term recovery): If a “waterway” has an identified SFHA on an effective FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the community participates in the National Flood Insurance
Program, then a floodplain development permit must be obtained for any proposed manmade
activity in the SFHA before work begins. This applies even if the proposed work is funded by
FEMA or completed by the community (or its contractor), with or without a loan requiring the
mandatory purchase of flood insurance.
Due to the recent flood events, new channels and streams may or may not be delineated on
the FIRM. If the community is able to obtain and use better data that displays a higher or
changed risk profile for a certain area, it is in the community’s best interest to regulate
construction in that area to the more conservative risk profile or larger floodplain. Any
changes in floodplain development requirements (such as using better data) must be
approved and adopted by the community.
As always, residents should contact their local floodplain administrator for specific rules and
locally adopted ordinances pertaining to fill and construction in the floodplain. A community
may be regulating construction in additional areas not shown as SFHAs on the effective FIRM.
Q2: How should a community regulate floodplain development now? Should it be based on
the high-water marks from this event, the mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs)
shown on the effective Flood Insurance Rate MAP (FIRM), or the new stream and river
channels?
A2: Communities are required to use the information shown on the effective FIRM for floodplain
management purposes, or to use State and local regulations if they are more restrictive.
However, the effective FIRMs will not reflect recently realigned stream and river channels. If
the high-water mark is greater or more conservative than the Base (1-percent-annual-chance)
Flood Elevation (BFE) on the effective FIRM, it is advised and would be beneficial for a
community to use this information as a point for consideration in regulating rebuilding
efforts. Thus, communities are advised to use all available risk information for
redevelopment purposes. This risk information could include high-water marks, new
topography/LiDAR, Advisory Base Flood Elevations, and local information and knowledge,
and it can be used to regulate construction until the FIRMs are updated.
New topographic data and risk assessment calculations (hydrology and hydraulics) can be
used to update community’s FIRM, although the information being used by a community
during the rebuilding process (such as high-water marks) may or may not be incorporated
into an updated study produced by FEMA. Note that FEMA’s process to produce a new Flood
Insurance Study and FIRM takes, on average, 3 to 5 years from start to finish. Interim
advisory maps, whether they are produced by the community, the State, FEMA, or other
Federal agencies, are just that – advisory. However, until FEMA can produce updated flood
maps that formally identify new or modified SFHAs, advisory maps allow the community to
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
rebuild structures that are stronger and more flood-resilient by referencing the local
information and knowledge.
Q3: Can fill be used to return streams/rivers to their pre-flood boundaries?
A3a (short-term or “emergency” recovery): Yes. However, communities should be cautious to
minimize the use of fill in the floodplain and should consider the impacts that the placement
of fill will have on properties upstream and downstream, as noted in answer A1a. We
understand that severe road erosion in several areas across the State has resulted in the
relocation of streams to the positions where the roads once stood. In many of these cases, the
placement of fill is the only alternative for restoring access . This is permissible with the
caveats outlined in answer A1a, and it is again recommended that communities keep in mind
the long-term recovery requirements outlined in answers A1b and A3b while implementing
their emergency protective measures.
A3b (long-term recovery): Yes. Fill material must be obtained from an existing stockpile or
permitted commercial operation. Any new or expanded sources of fill material must be
approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer (720-544-2810). Sediments deposited in
the channel may be used, provided the project sponsor obtains and complies with the
appropriate Federal, State, and local laws or ordinance and obtains the appropriate permits.
We recommend that local governments submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
application, followed by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) request to update the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). A CLOMR provides FEMA’s comments on a proposed project that
will, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source
and thus modify existing regulatory floodways, Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or Special Flood
Hazard Areas (SFHAs). It documents FEMA’s assessment that a proposed project complies
with the minimum criteria for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain
management. FEMA charges a fee for processing a CLOMR, and Endangered Species Act
documentation may be needed.
NFIP regulations do not require a CLOMR for all projects in the regulatory floodway or base
floodplain. However, a CLOMR is required for projects that will cause any BFE increase
within a regulatory floodway or that will cause the BFE to increase more than 0.5 foot (State
requirement) along streams with specified BFEs but no designated floodway. More
information about CLOMRs is available on the FEMA website at www.fema.gov/national-
flood-insurance-program-2/conditional-letter-map-revision.
Once a project has been completed, a community must request a revision to the FIRM to
reflect the project. “As-built” certification and other data will be needed to support the
revision request. All requests for map revisions should be submitted through the Chief
Executive Officer of the community, because the community must adopt any changes to the
FIRM. To help communities compile the data required to support map revision requests,
FEMA has developed a package of step-by-step instructions and forms. These forms and cost
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
information for map revisions are available on the FEMA website at www.fema.gov/mt-2-
application-forms-and-instructions.
Following a review of the community’s map revision request and supporting data, FEMA will
revise the FIRM and Flood Insurance Study report, if appropriate, by issuing a LOMR or by
republishing the mapping products through the Physical Map Revision process. FEMA uses
the shorter and more cost-effective LOMR process as much as possible. Both processes effect
official changes to BFEs, base flood depths, floodplain boundaries, regulatory floodways, and
other mapping features. All affected communities are provided with copies of the revised
information and given a review period. If appropriate, a statutory 90-day appeal period will
take place prior to the revisions becoming effective.
Q4: Does the local floodplain manager review and issue permits for channel modifications?
A4: Yes. A community that participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires
permits for all development in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and ensures that
construction materials and methods will minimize future flood damage. Permits ensure that
proposed projects meet both the requirements of the NFIP and the community’s floodplain
management ordinance. This is true for both emergency protective measures and permanent
work, even if the work is performed by the community and funded by FEMA (through the
Public Assistance Program, for instance).
For situations where the watercourse alignment has been significantly altered and the FEMA-
identified SFHA no longer reflects the area’s flood risk, the community may choose to use
better data to administer the floodprone areas, even if they are not identified on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). In such instances, the community would have to identify and
adopt (by resolution) the new data for the floodplain administrator to have authority to
regulate areas not shown on the FIRM and/or described in the community floodplain
ordinance.
Please note that a community must also review proposed development projects to assure that
all necessary permits have been received from governmental agencies from which approval is
required by Federal or State law. These permits and/or requirements may include, but are
not limited to, those from the following entities:
FEMA: CLOMRs;
State of Colorado: floodplain regulations;i and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit is required
to dredge or place fill in waters of the United States, including rivers, lakes, streams,
creeks, and wetlands (contact the USACE Denver Regulatory office at 303-979-4120).
Q5: What entity can provide advice on stream/river restoration or modification?
A5: The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) supports watershed planning as well as
projects designed to restore and protect watersheds. The CWCB partners with numerous
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
organizations to plan and undertake multi-objective projects designed to reduce flood
hazards, stabilize and restore stream channels, provide habitat, reduce erosion, and increase
the capacity to utilize water. Inter- and intra-agency coordination, communication, and
prioritization are essential components of the CWCB’s efforts. Specifically, the CWCB
supports watershed protection and restoration efforts through the administration of the
Colorado Watershed Restoration Program, Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund, and Fish and
Wildlife Resources Fund. If FEMA funding is requested to help with a floodplain restoration
project, the National Environmental Policy Act requires an Environmental Impact Statement.
Q6: What entity can assist with identifying areas where additional destabilization and
erosion could occur during the spring run-off, and what can be done now to
eliminate/minimize additional damage?
A6: The United States Army Corps of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service
“Stream Teams” can provide technical assistance related to identifying and controlling stream
bank erosion and destabilization. Please visit
www.cwcb.state.co.us/environment/watershed-protection-restoration/ for more
information on accessing the Stream Team resources.
Q7: In general, what post-flood recommendations do you have for local floodplain
managers?
A7: As floodplain managers, stormwater managers, scientists, engineers, and planners, it is
incumbent on us to work tirelessly to help our neighbors, friends, families, and visitors get
back on their feet. Floodplain professionals also have the obligation to provide future
generations with more resilient communities than the recent past or the present provided
against the floods that will visit Colorado and other States again.
Consider making detailed flood hazard assessments before issuing building permits, to
provide time for collecting post-flood information and creating community reconstruction
plans from that information.
Support the public safety intent behind the State Floodplain Regulations by instituting them
immediately for all rebuilding efforts. These regulations are available on the Colorado Water
Conservation Board website
(http://cwcb.state.co.us/legal/Pages/CWCBFloodplainRulesandRegulationsProcess.aspx)The
CWCB, in a special meeting on Oct. 21st, 2013, in Denver, issued a policy statement indicating
that because state funds are being offered for flood recovery, the processes associated with
the use of these state funds shall follow the established State Floodplain Regulations,
regardless of the status of local adoption. This policy statement may be found at
http://cwcb.state.co.us/legal/Documents/Policies/21FloodplainStandards.pdf
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
Develop Advisory Base Flood Elevations for rebuilding structures in and around flooded
areas. This analysis should include high-water marks from the 2013 flooding, historic flood
records, and FEMA Flood Insurance Study data.
Whenever possible, rebuild outside the floodplain to reduce the potential for future damage.
One of the most effective ways to mitigate future losses is to relocate structures and
infrastructure outside known hazard areas.
Support the implementation of master plans, locally and regionally, by executing them during
flood recovery rebuilding efforts, rather than replacing old plans in-kind.
Consider FEMA’s repetitive flood loss clauses that affect the cost of flood insurance in areas
most frequently affected by flooding. Local governmental entities should consider available
flood evidence and history before issuing permits in Special Flood Hazard Areas, especially in
the Front Range canyon watersheds and along the South Platte River.
Q8: Can a community realign a section of stream to its previous channel?
A8: This type of work is typically undertaken as permanent work. As such, the project sponsor
must obtain the appropriate Federal, State and local permits, including those issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Streams should not be altered unless the project proponent demonstrates through a floodway
analysis and report, sealed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer, that the project
will not have any adverse impact on the floodway. This requirement only applies to stream
reaches where Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) have been
established.
A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) provides comments on a proposed project that
will, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source
and thus modify existing regulatory floodways, BFEs, or Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
It documents FEMA’s assessment that a proposed project complies with the minimum criteria
for National Flood Insurance Program floodplain management. FEMA charges a fee for
processing a CLOMR, and Endangered Species Act documentation may be needed. More
information about CLOMRs is available on the FEMA website at www.fema.gov/national-
flood-insurance-program-2/conditional-letter-map-revision.
A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is used to modify the BFEs, base flood depths, floodplain
boundaries, regulatory floodways, and other mapping features shown on a Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). “As-built” certification and other data will be needed to support a LOMR
request that follows a CLOMR. All requests for map revisions should be submitted through
the Chief Executive Officer of the community, because the community must adopt any changes
to the FIRM. LOMR forms and cost information are available on the FEMA website at
www.fema.gov/mt-2-application-forms-and-instructions.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
Q9: If communities upstream or downstream from me realign their stream, how will this
affect my community’s effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)?
A9: If the realignment is reported to FEMA through a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) request, the
requirements of the LOMR process state that the model must extend upstream and
downstream far enough to match the previously published flood hazard information. Also,
Federal regulations – 44 CFR 60.3 (b)(6) and (7) – require that the adjacent communities are
notified and that the streams’ carrying capacity is maintained.
If multiple communities are affected by a new stream alignment (whether caused by a flood
event or a manmade effort), the LOMR process may not be appropriate and a larger study (i.e.,
a Physical Map Revision) may be necessary.
Q10: Are there efforts or resources in place to remap and/or assess new floodplains caused
by channel migrations?
A10: At this time, the resources to update, assess, or remap changed floodplains are limited.
To identify and record an altered watercourse and its floodplain that fall outside the Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) requires a
new flood hazard study. Completing a new study or restudying a stream affecting one or
more FIRM panels takes a considerable amount of time – the process includes identifying the
scope of the study, funding, and following the study processes and methodology that have
been established to ensure consistent application and regulatory compliance. On average, a
flood hazard study takes 3 to 5 years to complete after the scope has been established and
funding secured. In some cases, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) may be the best approach
for a community to report the altered watercourse and have the information reflected on the
FIRM. Under certain circumstances (with proper justification and documentation to support
the request), the LOMR application fee may be waived. For mapped watercourses with Base
Flood Elevations/floodways, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision may also be required.
In accordance with Section 72.5 of the NFIP regulations, review and processing fees are not
required for the following types of map change requests:
Map changes based on mapping or study analysis errors;
Map changes based on the effects of natural changes within the SFHA;
Requests for Letters of Map Amendments;
Federally sponsored flood-control projects where 50 percent or more of the project's
costs are federally funded;
Map changes based on detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies conducted by Federal,
State, or local agencies to replace approximate studies conducted by FEMA and shown on
the effective FIRM; and
Map changes based on flood hazard information meant to improve upon that shown on
the flood map or within the flood study. NOTE: Improvements to flood maps or studies that
partially or wholly incorporate manmade modifications within the SFHA are not exempt
from fees.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
Q11: How have communities in other disaster areas regulated development to their locally
adopted floodplain management ordinances in areas where the stream channel has
shifted both horizontally and vertically?
A11: Communities may use the “best available data” that is at their disposal for floodplain
management purposes. In this process, the community would identify areas that they want to
manage as a FEMA floodplain, although those areas are not included as a floodplain on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The community must identify and include these areas in its
ordinance in order to have regulating authority. The Federal flood insurance requirement
does not apply to structures in these more conservative areas.
Q12: If community officials are interested in remapping their floodplains, what process do
they need to follow, and what resources are available to them?
A12: Through the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, a community can submit scientific or
technical data to FEMA to improve the flood hazard information shown on an effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). A LOMR is one way FEMA modifies Base (1-percent-annual-
chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, floodplain boundaries, regulatory
floodways, and other mapping features. All LOMR requests should be submitted through the
Chief Executive Officer of the community, because the community must adopt any changes to
the FIRM. Following a review of the community’s map revision request and the supporting
data, FEMA will revise the mapping and the Flood Insurance Study report, if appropriate, by
issuing a LOMR or by republishing these mapping products through the Physical Map
Revision process. The LOMR application forms and cost information are available on the
FEMA website at www.fema.gov/mt-2-application-forms-and-instructions.
Because a LOMR officially revises the effective FIRM, it is a public record that the community
must maintain. Any LOMR should be noted on the community’s master flood map and filed by
panel number in an accessible location.
For available resources, contact the Colorado Water Conservation Board to express interest in
potential technical and financial resources.
Q13: Can the temporary construction of bridges, utilities, bank stabilization, and shoring up
buildings be exempted from local floodplain management requirements?
A13: A community that participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires
permits for all development in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and ensures that
construction materials and methods will minimize future flood damage This is true for both
emergency protective measures and permanent work, even if the work is performed by the
community and funded by FEMA (through the Public Assistance Program, for instance).
Permits ensure that proposed projects meet both the requirements of the NFIP and the
community’s floodplain management ordinance.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
The CWCB encourages communities to develop procedures for issuing temporary floodplain
development permits for emergency work. Temporary permits for emergency work must be
limited to repairs necessary to restore access and vital services and to prevent further
damages caused by erosion and bank failure. A temporary floodplain development permit
must be valid for a limited period of time, i.e., 180 days. The permit may be renewed upon the
condition that the applicant is working to meet the conditions of the local floodplain
ordinance. Any work permitted under a temporary, emergency permit must use methods and
practices that minimize flood damage. Any permanent repairs must meet the local floodplain
regulations and adhere to all map change requirements, including the requirement to obtain
necessary CLOMRs and LOMRs. The community should develop policies and procedures for
issuing temporary, emergency permits that stipulate requirements for the information to be
submitted and all permit conditions.
Recommended Best Practices:
Communities are encouraged to use the best practices for stream crossings and temporary
crossings in the FEMA booklet Private Water Crossings, P-778, June 2009, available from
FEMA at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/17542?id=3896
Emergency and temporary stream crossings should be sized and armored for the types of
flood flows to be encountered during the life of the project, e.g., spring snowmelt runoff
season, flash flood season, post-wildfire increased risk, etc.
For situations where the watercourse alignment has been significantly altered and the FEMA-
identified SFHA no longer reflects the area’s flood risk, the community may choose to use
better data to administer the floodprone areas, even if they are not identified on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). In such instances, the community would have to identify and
adopt (by resolution) the new data for the floodplain administrator to have authority to
regulate areas not shown on the FIRM and/or described in the community floodplain
ordinance.
A community must also review proposed development projects to assure that all necessary
permits have been received from governmental agencies from which approval is required by
Federal or State law, including those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Q14: Can the owners of extremely eroded properties rebuild using the effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map?
A14: FEMA recommends that these owners consult their local building department to determine
the requirements, elevations, and any construction requirements that apply to the property.
Q15: If a new river channel crosses a property so that a damaged structure is either
impossible to repair or rebuild, or the rebuilding or repair would create a high risk of
flooding in the future, what should a community do?
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
A15: Community officials are required to regulate based on their effective Flood Insurance Rate
Map; however, they should give additional consideration in situations such as this to the
dynamic nature of the stream channel. Those developing or redeveloping in the floodplain
are required to obtain a floodplain development permit from their local floodplain manager in
order to determine whether a building is substantially damaged. Substantially damaged
flood-insured structures could be eligible for Increased Cost of Compliance coverage, which
would help the owners rebuild in compliance with the current flood damage prevention
standards. FEMA is coordinating with State and local governments to understand the extent
of the stream migrations and to propose solutions, if required, for select areas. If the
community would like to acquire or relocate such structures, the community and State can
apply for funding from various Federal grant programs. For additional information on FEMA
Mitigation Grant programs, contact the State of Colorado Hazard Mitigation Officer.
i In order to assist the CWCB in carrying out its mission to protect the health, safety, welfare and
property of the public, through the prevention of floods in Colorado, the CWCB requires the
following:
A. Detention/flood control storage and LID should be considered, when practicable, as part of
a basinwide program for the watershed.
B. Flood control channels shall include a low-flow channel with a capacity to convey the
average annual flow rate, or other appropriate flow rate as determined through a hydro-
geomorphological analysis, without excessive erosion or channel migration, with an
adjacent overbank floodplain to convey the remainder of the 100-year flow. The channel
improvement shall not cause increased velocities or erosive forces upstream or
downstream of the improvement.
C. Channelization and flow diversion projects shall appropriately consider issues of sediment
transport, erosion, deposition, and channel migration and properly mitigate potential
problems through the project as well as upstream and downstream of any improvement
activity. A detailed geomorphological analysis should be considered, when appropriate, to
assist in determining the most appropriate design.
D. Project proponents for a mitigation activity must evaluate the residual 100-year floodplain.
Proponents are also encouraged to map the 500-year residual floodplain.
E. All public and private flood control structures shall be maintained to ensure that they retain
their structural and hydraulic integrity. Annual inspections including, as appropriate, field
surveys of stream cross-sections, shall demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory
jurisdictions that the project features are in satisfactory structural condition, that adequate
flow capacity remains available for conveying flood flows, and that no encroachment by
vegetation, animals, geological processes such as erosion, deposition, or migration, or by
human activity, endanger the proper function of the project. If any significant problems, as
identified within annual inspection reports, the facility or project owner shall notify the
CWCB within 60 days of the inspection. The inspections shall be conducted by the local
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Colorado 2013 Flood Event
jurisdiction for all publicly owned or publicly maintained facilities, and shall be conducted
by the property owner or facility owner for all privately owned and maintained facilities.
F. Any stream alteration activity proposed by a project proponent must be evaluated for its
impact on the regulatory floodplain and be in compliance with all applicable federal, state
and local floodplain rules, regulations and ordinances.
G. Any stream alteration activity shall be designed and sealed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer or Certified Professional Hydrologist.
H. All activities within the regulatory floodplain performed by federal agencies using local or
state funds, or by private, local or state entities shall meet all applicable federal, state and
local floodplain requirements.
I. Stream alteration activities shall not be constructed unless the project proponent
demonstrates through a floodway analysis and report, sealed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer, that there are no adverse floodway impacts resulting from the
project. This requirement only applies on stream reaches with Base Flood Elevations
established.
J. No adverse floodway impact means that there is a 0.00-foot rise in the proposed conditions
compared to existing conditions floodway.
K. Whenever a Stream Alteration activity is known or suspected to increase or decrease the
established Base Flood Elevation in excess of 0.3 vertical feet (or a more stringent standard
adopted by the local government authority), a Letter of Map Revision showing such changes
shall be obtained in order to accurately reflect the proposed changes on FEMA’s regulatory
floodplain map for the stream reach. The local community is responsible for ensuring that
this process is pursued. This section herein does not require a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision to be applied for, unless mandated by the local government having land use
authority.
Page 1 of 5
ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) is entered in to this ___ day of
____________, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), among Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
(the “District”), Estes Park School District R-3 (the “School District”), Town of Estes Park (the
“Town”), Destination Wellness Center (the “Wellness Center”) and the Estes Valley Public
Library District (the “Library”) (collectively, referred to as the “Parties” and individually, as a
“Party”).
I. PURPOSE AND DURATION
The Parties have entered into this MOU for the purpose of establishing certain terms,
conditions and obligations regarding the financing, design, construction, ownership and
operation of a community recreation center in the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer
(the “Rec. Center”). This MOU may be utilized by the Parties to provide information to the
general public regarding the planned Rec. Center and the ballot issue that is expected to be
placed on the November 3, 2015 ballot by the District (the “Ballot Issue”). This MOU shall
remain in effect until the Ballot Issue results have been certified. Upon final certification of
the Ballot Issue results, if the Ballot Issue has not been approved by the voters, this MOU
shall terminate and be of no further force or effect. If the Ballot Issue is approved by the
voters, this MOU shall remain in effect until the earlier of May 31, 2016 or execution by the
Parties of any subsequent agreement that replace the MOU.
II. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
The Parties hereby agree that the Rec. Center will be a joint use facility that provides space
for the specific programming needs of each Party. The cost to construct the Rec. Center will
be primarily covered by the voter-approved Ballot Issue, a contribution from the Town of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the sales tax increase that was approved by voters on April 1,
2014 (“Sales Tax”), and any grants or donations the District receives. It is the intent of the
Parties that the Rec. Center will be constructed on property currently owned by the School
District, as described in Exhibit A of this MOU (the “School Property”). The District shall
initiate and manage the design and construction of the Rec. Center, which is anticipated to
include, among other features, the current indoor aquatic center, a leisure swimming pool,
exercise rooms, weight rooms, two gymnasiums, locker rooms, an elevated track, childcare,
child watch, teen space, an indoor community garden, senior center, digital library, CrossFit
studio, health and wellness exam rooms, meeting space, and a commercial kitchen. The
District shall, to the best of its ability, address the specific needs of each Party for their
particular space when designing and constructing the Rec. Center (“Tenant Finishes”). The
District intends to enter into a lease agreement with each Party for their respective space
(the “Lease Agreements”). It is anticipated that the Lease Agreements will provide for the
terms and costs of any Tenant Finishes. Additionally, the Parties intend to form an Advisory
Committee (as defined below) that will provide the District with input and guidance
throughout the design and construction process.
Page 2 of 5
III. CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE PARTIES
As provided above, the primary financing mechanism for the Rec. Center shall come with
approval of the Ballot Issue. Supplemental funding through grants or other sources may be
utilized and contributions from the individual Parties will be required to complete specific
Tenant Finishes. Assuming voter approval of the Ballot Issue, it is anticipated that the
Parties will make financial and other contributions in the form and manner provided below:
a. District – The District shall provide funding to design and construct the entire Rec.
Center.
b. Town – The Town shall contribute the Sales Tax in accordance with the April 1, 2014
ballot language that was approved by the voters.
c. School District – The School District shall convey the School Property to the District in
accordance with the terms of a separate MOU that shall be entered into by the
District and School District.
d. CrossFit Estes Park – The Parties anticipate that CrossFit Estes Park will lease space
in the Rec. Center. If CrossFit Estes Parke leases space from the District, all
contributions necessary to design and construct any required Tenant Finishes for the
approximately 1,680 square foot health, fitness and wellness studio shall be
memorialized in the Lease Agreement with the District.
e. Wellness Center – The Wellness Center shall contribute the funding necessary to
design and construct required Tenant Finishes for its health and wellness exam
rooms.
f. Library – The Library shall contribute the funding necessary to design and construct
required Tenant Finishes for the digital library portion of the Rec. Center,
g. Other Participants – All other participants shall provide program input to the Advisory
Committee and make contributions to the Rec. Center that are consistent with their
specific lease or facility use agreements.
IV. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Parties have determined that, if the Ballot Issue is approved by voters, they will form a
committee that will provide advice and guidance regarding all matters related to the design,
construction and ongoing operation of the Rec. Center (“Advisory Committee”). This
Advisory Committee shall not have authority to institute binding decisions upon the Parties
but instead will serve as a means for the Parties to cooperate and address concerns and
issues relating to the Rec. Center. The Advisory Committee shall consist of the following
members: two (2) representatives from the District, one (1) representative from the Town,
one (1) representative from the School District, one (1) representative from the Wellness
Center and one (1) representative from the Library.
Page 3 of 5
V. OWNERSHIP OF FACILITY
The Rec. Center will be owned and primarily operated by the District. It is the intent of the
Parties that the Rec. Center will consist of seamless portions that will be controlled by each
individual Party who will staff and operate their area in compliance with their respective
Lease Agreement. The Parties recognize that portions of the Rec. Center will be used as
shared space and the District will be responsible for coordinating the management,
operation and staffing of such shared areas. Certain areas such as the existing lap
swimming pool will be jointly used and programmed by more than one Party. It is
anticipated that the Lease Agreements and, if necessary, other agreements will address the
joint use and operation of these shared areas.
VI. OPERATION OF RECREATION CENTER
The District shall operate the entire facility and pay all costs associated with its regular
operations including utilities and general maintenance, fire and security systems, technology
systems, upkeep and housekeeping, customer service and relations, as well as exterior
maintenance of the parking lot, landscaping and/or future park areas on the property. The
Parties will provide staff to manage and operate their specific portion of the Rec. Center in
coordination with District management of the Rec. Center.
VII. FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
The District shall fund and provide the common furnishings and equipment such as tables,
chairs, lamps and supplies. The Parties agree that each respective party shall fund and
provide the specialty furnishings and equipment to outfit each of their respective portions of
the Rec. Center. The Parties also agree that the District will provide all disposable
cleaning/housekeeping supplies for all areas of the Rec. Center.
VIII. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Parties agree that the District will be responsible for the design and construction
management of the Rec. Center and the other Parties will have input into those facets of the
project through the Advisory Committee.
IX. FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
The District shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the Rec. Center in such
amounts as are deemed appropriate for fire and extended coverage insurance on all
personal property located in the premises.
X. LIABILITY INSURANCE
The District shall maintain liability insurance in an amount to be agreed upon by the Parties,
upon advice from qualified insurance professionals, for all activities and operation of the
Rec. Center. The Parties intend that a unified insurance policy apply to the entire Rec.
Page 4 of 5
Center so as to avoid conflicts concerning insurance coverage when claims arise. The
Parties shall agree upon what additional insurance, if any, is required for the separate
operations of each of the Parties, and for policies concerning release of liability for users of
the Rec. Center. The Parties represent that their possession, occupancy, and use of the
premises will comply with all applicable federal, state, county and Town laws and
regulations. Nothing herein shall constitute a waiver of the privileges and immunities
provided to the Parties under Colorado law, including but not limited to the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, Sec. 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.
XI. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
The obligations of the Parties to expend any money are contingent upon the continued
availability of appropriated funds for each such Party. Any expenditure pursuant to this MOU
or implementing agreements shall only be made from available funds appropriated by the
respective Party.
XII. NON-BINDING
The Parties acknowledge that construction and operation of the proposed Rec. Center
depends upon obtaining voter approval of the Ballot Issue plus securing additional funding
through grants and other sources and that the Parties cannot fund the project from their
current budgets. The Parties agree to participate in this project as stated in this MOU, but
otherwise do not undertake any obligation with respect to the Rec. Center. Each Party
retains its independent authority to decide whether to expend funds for any aspect of the
Rec. Center beyond what is set out in this MOU. Each Party agrees to negotiate with the
others in good faith to complete the additional agreements indicated in this MOU, but
retains its independent authority to determine whether to enter into any such agreements.
XIII. SIGNATURES
In witness whereof, the Parties, through their authorized representatives, have executed this
MOU on the dates set forth below and certify that they have read, understood and agree to
the terms and conditions of this MOU as set forth herein. This MOU may be executed in
multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which,
when taken together, shall constitute one and the same.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally, Signature Page Follows]
Page 5 of 5
[Signature Page to Estes Valley Community Recreation Center Memorandum of
Understanding]
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT:
____________________________________
Board President
____________________________________
Attest
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
____________________________________
Mayor
____________________________________
Attest
ESTES PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT R-3:
____________________________________
Board President
____________________________________
Attest
DESTINATION WELLNESS CENTER:
____________________________________
Board President
____________________________________
Attest
ESTES VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY
DISTRICT:
____________________________________
Board President
____________________________________
Attest
Transportation Advisory Board Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: Interview Committee for the Transportation Advisory Board
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the one position open on the
Transportation Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Transportation Advisory Board is currently made up of nine volunteer community members.
The Board currently has one open position with Corey LaBianca stepping down. The open
position would complete the vacated position with a term expiring on March 31, 2018.
Administrative Services has posted the position and received one application to date.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed
by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board.
Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments at the Study
Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the Board meeting for
approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Transportation Advisory Board opening.
Trustees interested in serving would be identified at the Study Session and recommended for
Board approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Transportation Advisory Board interview panel.
Interview Committee for the Downtown Plan Steering Committee
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2015
RE: Interview Committee for the Downtown Plan Steering Committee
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the eleven positions on the
Downtown Plan Steering Committee.
Present Situation:
The Downtown Plan Steering Committee was formed with the passage of Resolution #16-15 by
the Town Board at the October 13, 2015 meeting. The committee is to consist of eleven (11)
committee members appointed by the Town Board and four (4) members appointed by staff.
The positions will be for approximately 9 months to work with the consultant to help development
a Downtown Plan. The positions are currently being advertised through November 2, 2015 with
a goal to hold interviews and appoint members at the second Town Board meeting in November.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed
by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board.
Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments at the Study
Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the Board meeting for
approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended: To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Downtown Plan
Steering Committee opening. Trustees interested in serving would be identified at the Study
Session and recommended for Board approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Downtown Plan Steering Committee interview panel.