HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-07-14The 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, July 14, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report on Policies 3.3, 3.12 and 3.13
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 23, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development & Community Services Committee, June 25, 2015.
4. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated May 7, 2015 and June 4, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 2, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Audit Committee Minutes dated June 26, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
7. Resolution #12-15 - Setting the public hearing date of July 28, 2015, for a new
Beer and Wine Liquor License for Himalayan Curry & Kebob, Inc., dba Himalayan
Curry & Kebob, 101 B W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2014 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer
McFarland.
Prepared 7/6/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. FUNDING FOR CASCADE COTTAGES. Trustee Nelson.
3. CONTRACT TO REPAIR CONFERENCE CENTER ROOF. Manager Landkamer.
4. SCOTT PONDS REHABILITATION DESIGN DIRECTION. Director Muhonen.
5. FUNDING OF MID-YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND POLICE BODY
CAMERAS. Administrator Lancaster.
6. PARKS ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW TEAM APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk
Williamson.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Manager
Ash.
4. ADJOURN.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14th, 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, Policy 3.12,
General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 – Town
Organizational Plan, are all scheduled for reporting to the Board in July.
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.”
Policy 3.12 states: “With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.”
Policy 3.13 states: “With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town,
the Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational
chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The
Town Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be
included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and
presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election.”
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 budget for all town funds do not contain any plans for
expenditures in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to
be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. However it is
important to note that there is considerable amount of uncertainty in the current
budget due to flood recovery expenditures and the fact that we have not yet
received much of the planned reimbursement from the State, FEMA and other
agencies. I therefore report compliance, with caution.
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: The ending general fund balance for 2014 was 20%, 5% below the
25% level set by the Board of Trustees. The anticipated fund balance at the
end of 2015 should remain at the 20% level. Although this is below the 25%
fund balance level set by the board, this is a direct result of using fund
balance for flood recovery activities and this was done with full disclosure to
and agreement of the Board. I therefore cannot report full compliance,
however based on the extenuating circumstances I am not reporting non-
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 is being presented to the board
today. 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.
3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.
REPORT: We are continuing to update the internal procedures for the Town.
The drafts of revised financial policies and personnel policies will be completed this
month. I am therefore reporting partial compliance at this time.
3.13 With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan
(organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through
the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually.
The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
REPORT: There have been no changes to the organizational structure of the Town
since my last report to the board. I am therefore reporting compliance.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 23, 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 23rd day of June 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Randy Williams, Assistant Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Bob Holcomb, Trustee
Greg White, Town Attorney
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
SWEARING IN:
Town Clerk Williamson performed the swearing in of Officer Plassmeyer.
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed July 6 – 12, 2015 as “Rooftop Rodeo Week”. The Mayor
encouraged all to attend the rodeo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Pat Newsom/Town citizen informed the Board of the dangers created by the Dairy
Queen (East Riverside Drive) parking lot north exit and the need to sign the driveway as
an exit only for vehicles pulling off of Elkhorn Avenue.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Ericson stated the Community Development/Community Services Committee
would meet on June 25, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. The Town Board would
hold a study session on June 25, 2015 to discuss the 2016 strategic planning and to
begin the budgeting process. He stated the meeting would be open to the public.
Trustee Nelson agreed with Mrs. Newson’s observations at the East Riverside Drive
parking lot and would request staff review the access in and out of the lot.
Trustee Phipps commented the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting was
cancelled for June. He thanked the Parks division for the beautiful plantings downtown.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Rooftop Rodeo has a new stock contractor this year
and has seen an increase in entries. She complimented the Western Heritage
organization for their efforts in improving the rodeo and thanked the downtown
businesses for their support of the event.
Trustee Norris noted individuals are driving too fast on Hwy 34 and passing cars on the
right which can be dangerous. He reviewed the highlights from this year’s CML
conference: Local broadband – Top 5 issue in the region with DOLA providing limited
funding currently; Economic Development of Small Communities – workforce housing
widespread need, downtown visioning, and consider different sets of incentives for large
and medium businesses versus small businesses; Growing Primary Jobs – small
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2015 – Page 2
communities to seek knowledge jobs; and Climate Change and Community Resilience –
State creating a risk and vulnerability assessment tool and a list of best practices.
Mayor Pinkham thanked staff that provided support for the Estes Park Marathon which
had approximately 1,000 participants. The Town is a co-applicant for the Go NoCo RTA
application that includes the Stanley Hotel and Stanley Village. The final application
would be submitted to the State in October with a final decision in December. He
thanked Charley Dickey for joining the Board and his efforts to date. A number of ribbon
cutting have also taken place for the new George Hix memorial sculpture, the outdoor
beer garden (The Barrel), and the Stanley Hotel maze.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The intersection of Hwy 34/36 has been restriped along Hwy 36 to alter the right left
turn lane to allow cars to travel straight through the intersection as well as turn left.
This should add capacity to the intersection.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District requested time at the July 14, 2015
Town Board Study Session to provide an update on the Community Center. The
Board agreed to add the item to the agenda on the 14th.
The Downtown Plan RPF continues to be developed; however, staff requested
direction from the Board on the inclusion of the mostly residential area north of the
downtown. Discussion followed: Trustee Nelson requested inclusion of the area in
order to allow their participation in the process; Trustee Phipps stated opposition to
including the area; Trustee Ericson would suggest consistency be created with the
plan and possible future EPURA or DDA and suggested the inclusion of Lot 4 and
Stanley Village; and Trustee Norris and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig would not include
the residential area and stated concern of the implication of including the residential
properties and possible cost implication of including a wider area. The Board
requested the item be further discussed at the July 14, 2015 study session and be
provided in advance a better understanding of the cost implications.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 9, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated June 9, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, June 11, 2015:
1. Purchase GMC 3500 Sierra Truck, Markley Motors - $35,748,
Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 20, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 8, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
Trustee Ericson request the removal of Consent Item #5. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1-4, and it
passed unanimously.
Consent Item 5: Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 8, 2015: Trustee
Ericson requested clarification on the number of Park Advisory Board members as
the meeting minutes outline six member while he understood there to be seven
member. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve the Consent
Agenda Item 5, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2015 – Page 3
2. LIQUOR ITEMS
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM CARL E. SCOTT DBA COFFEE ON
THE ROCKS TO COFFEE ON THE ROCKS LLC DBA COFFEE ON THE
ROCKS, 510 MORAINE AVENUE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Tavern liquor
license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was
issued on May 21, 2015. TIPS training has been completed. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the transfer from Carl E. Scott
dba Coffee On The Rocks to Coffee On The Rocks LLC dba Coffee On The
Rocks, 510 Moraine Avenue, Tavern Liquor License, and it passed
unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEM:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #8, PHASE IX - Stone Bridge
Estates Condominiums, 1185 Fish Creek Road, Hanson Holdings,
LLC/Applicant. Planner Kleisler.
B. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – Lot 7, Marys Lake
Subdivision Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Greg Coffman/Applicant. Item
withdrawn by the applicant.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Consent
Agenda with the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommendations,
and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #10-15 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE 10.15.010
REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Chief Kufeld stated staff has
received requests from residents to extend the hours a recreational vehicle can
be parked on the public right-of-way to allow individuals to prepare for the
departure or return from vacations. Staff recommended increasing the current
regulation from 18 hours to 48 hours. The proposed Ordinance would continue
to restrict parking of recreational vehicles on Town owned property, including
parking lots, to 18 hours. Attorney Williams read the Ordinance. It was moved
and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #10-15, and it passed
unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE #11-15 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE 9.18.20 REGARDING
BICYCLES. Chief Kufeld stated the current Town ordinances prohibit bicycles
from traveling through municipal parking lots and the Town’s Transportation
Center at the fairgrounds. Staff recommends amending the ordinance to allow
bicycles; however, continue to prohibit them along sidewalks, the Riverwalk and
specific locations as outlined in the Municipal code. Attorney Williams read the
Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Nelson) to approve
Ordinance #11-15, and it passed unanimously.
3. SELECTION OF OPTIONS FOR DRAFTING A WILDLIFE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE. Staff has been working with the Bear Education Task Force
since the fall of 2012 to develop and implement educational efforts to prevent
bears from entering trash receptacles. Efforts have proven effective in
reducing the incidents. The Estes Park Police Auxiliary Unit initiated a litter
patrol in 2014 to increase enforcement efforts to support the Bear Education
Task Force efforts. These efforts have reduced incidents; however, there
continues to be issues with potential human/wildlife which could be reduced
significantly with trash management. Police personnel spend substantial time
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2015 – Page 4
in addressing bear related activities each year and better trash containment
would allow officers to focus on other public safety issues. The Board agreed
to consider a wildlife protection ordinance and requested a menu of options be
presented. Staff has reviewed the ordinances of other similar communities
within the State and developed options for the Board’s consideration as it
relates to residential, commercial and special event trash management. With
direction from the Board, staff would prepare a draft ordinance for the Board
and public review before final adoption later this summer. Staff recommended
a period of education on any new regulations prior to enforcement beginning in
2016. Chief Kufeld reviewed the menu options.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned if there have
been issues with containers with four sides and a top; concerned with the 7:00
a.m. regulation as a number of citizens leave town earlier to travel to work
down in the valley and have the same concern for the 7:00 p.m. requirement for
trash cans to be removed; suggested the hours trash can be left out be
extended to no more than 24 hours; questioned how many warnings a property
owner may receive before a violation would be issued; how would public trash
containers be addressed in the new ordinance; are there grant opportunities to
help defray the cost of residential trash containers; and would the County adopt
similar regulations for properties in the unincorporated areas of the valley.
Larry Rogstad/Dept of Wildlife stated the Bear Education Task Force has been
working toward a common goal to reduce conflict in the valley. He stated the
same discussion continues to be had throughout other Colorado communities.
Some of these communities have passed stringent regulations. Each
community needs to develop regulations that work for their community, stating
one size does not fit all. He commented the County’s involvement in the
process would be integral to the success of the ordinance.
Paul Brown/Town resident commented the bear sighting map does not
demonstrate bear issues in his neighborhood; however the proposed options
would require he obtain a wildlife-resistant container. Construction trash has
not been an issue in the past and should not be required to have a special
container. He questioned why vacation rentals are exempt from having a
special container. He asserted the Police would be busier with the passage of
the ordinance as they would have to enforce the new regulations.
Michael Whitley/Larimer County Planning and Bear Education Task Force
member stated Commissioner Donnelly supports the recommendations and
would be open to discussing the adoption of similar regulations in the County.
He would like to Town to take the lead on the issue for the community and then
adopt a consistent regulation for the valley.
Jim Sweeney/County citizen applauded the efforts of the Bear Education Task
Force and would support the wildlife protection ordinance.
Sid Doering/Doering Disposal commented he does not disagree with the
proposed regulations; however, he stated concern with the residential
requirements. He suggested the regulation allow individuals to leave a trash
can attached to a post during the week. This would allow individuals to place
their bag in the can in the morning of trash pickup. His company has been
picking up trash for the Town for years and has encountered bears in the
downtown area at all times of the day and especially in areas that are not well
lite such as Performance Park and the Riverwalk. The public cans contain a lot
of residential trash that attract the bears and other animals.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Nelson) to approve the drafting of a
wildlife protection ordinance to include staff’s recommended options for
trash containment requirements and consider the public input tonight and
input received during the drafting of the ordinance, and it passed
unanimously.
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2015 – Page 5
4. COST SHARE FOR CDOT BARNES DANCE STUDY. In an effort to address
the ongoing complaints the current traffic and pedestrian configuration is
delaying traffic downtown, staff contacted CDOT to conduct a study during July
2015. The study would be a direct comparative study with the Barnes Dance
signal timing and conventional signal timing of the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection
on Saturdays, July 11th and July 18th. The Board requested staff ask CDOT to
expand the study by two additional weekends to evaluate the effectiveness of
utilizing CSO personnel to actively enforce traffic and pedestrian compliance
with traffic and crosswalk signal commands during peak traffic periods. CDOT
solicited a fee proposal for the proposed four week study and received a
response of $60,637, double the initial two week cost of $30,318. CDOT
requests the Town fund the additional expense of the four week study. Staff
recommends foregoing the additional two week study and support CDOT’s two
weekend study to be funded solely by CDOT and engage the CSOs for two of
the 4 hours each weekend to demonstrate their impact on traffic flow.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to extend the meeting until
the agenda is complete, and it passed unanimously.
Joe Holtzman/Town citizen stated the Barnes Dance was used after football
games that moved large numbers of pedestrians. He would support the use of
the dance in downtown.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to
approve staff’s option to approve the CDOT two weekend study and
engage the CSO personnel for two hours during each of the four hour
studies on July 11 and July 18 at no additional cost to the Town, and it
passed unanimously.
5. BOARD OF APPEALS - REAPPOINTMENT OF ANTHONY SCHIAFFO.
The Board of Appeals was modified in 2013 with the adoption of the 2009
International Building Code which requires 5 members with specific technical
qualifications. Five members were appointed with staggered terms. Anthony
(Tony) Schiaffo’s appointment expired in May 2015. Staff recommended
foregoing advertisement for the technical position and reappoint Mr. Schiaffo for
an additional 5-year term. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to
approve the reappointment of Anthony (Tony) Schiaffo to the Board of
Appeals beginning July 1, 2015 for a term expiring on May 1, 2020, and it
passed unanimously.
6. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT (LMD) BOARD APPOINTMENT.
Trustees Norris and Holcomb along with LMD Board Members Webermeier and
Shake interviewed candidates for the vacancy created when Lynette Lott
moved outside the district boundary. The interview team recommended the
appointment of Steve Kruger to complete the term of Lynette Lott through 2015
and a four-year term expiring December 31, 2019.
Bill Almond/ LMD Board thanked the Town for their commitment to the success
of the district.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the appointment of
Steve Kruger to the Local Marketing District beginning July 1, 2015
completing Lynette Lott’s term and an additional 4-year term beginning
January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2019, and it passed unanimously.
7. SECOND AMENDMENT TO YOUTH CENTER AGREEMENT. Town Clerk
Williamson stated the IGA with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District for
the operation of the Youth Center expires on June 30, 2015. Staff recommends
entering into a second amendment to the agreement to extend the Agreement
through December 31, 2015 to allow the agreement to be thoroughly reviewed
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2015 – Page 6
and recommend changes to address current operational conditions such as
property and liability issues. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Nelson) to
approve the Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement
between the Town and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District for
the operation of the Youth Center, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 25, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
25th day of June, 2015.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Absent: Trustee Holcomb
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Directors Chilcott, Winslow
and Fortini, Coordinators Jacobson, Claypool and Wells, and
Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Trustee Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Status of the Downtown RFP – Director Chilcott stated the Town received a grant
from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in the amount of $190,000 to fund a
consultant for the Downtown Neighborhood Plan. Staff would draft a Request for
Proposal (RFP), and place it on the Town’s website for community review and
comment. The RFP would be presented at the Town Board Study Session on July
14, 2015.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Chilcott introduced new Code
Compliance Officer Linda Hardin. Chair Ericson thanked Chilcott for the list of
current projects with quasi-judicial status and requested an updated list be sent out
monthly as a reminder to the Trustees and public. Chilcott informed the Committee
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has been awarded a final round
of funding to help with stream restoration and bank repair. The Town would request
funds to assist with the Fall River and Fish Creek Master Plans and work with the
Watershed Coalition to identify which properties would benefit most. NRCS would
conduct damage survey reports and apply funding as deemed necessary. The Town
or Larimer County must apply as the sponsor since the Watershed Coalition is not
eligible. Community Development acted as the sponsor previously and found it to be
difficult to manage. Staff would request the State provide funds for project
management as well as technical assistance.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Event Report – Events Coordinator Jacobson distributed the 25th Annual Wool
Market calendar and provided updates on the Irish Festival, Bike to Work Day, and
Rooftop Rodeo. New events and a new stock contractor have been added to this
year’s Rooftop Rodeo which has attracted world class competitors.
Senior Services Quarterly Report – Program Coordinator Claypool described the
increases seen in attendance in every program offered by the Senior Center. The
addition of part time Program Coordinator Headley has made a significant
improvement to the quality and variety of programs offered. Claypool also reported
Manager Mitchell continues to work with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks
Department on the Community Center, a donation of $3,500 was received to help
Community Development / Community Services – June 25, 2015 – Page 2
offset the costs of art and cultural trips, and the Senior Center received an additional
grant to continue the N’Balance class in the fall.
Shuttle Update – Shuttle Coordinator Wells stated the free shuttle season would
begin on June 27, 2015. A new trolley would operate the silver route with additional
stops at the Event Center and the hospital. There has been a 54% increase in
ridership to date. A trial would be conducted during the month of July on Thursdays
to coincide with the Farmer’s Market for downtown employees to board the Silver
Route Trolley at the Event Center and be dropped off at Bond Park. If the trial route
is successful, it would continue through September 10, 2015 and be considered for
continued use in 2016.
Museum Expansion Status Update – Director Fortini introduced the new Curator of
Collections Naomi Gerakios-Mucci and described the work being done to further the
Museum expansion. Focus is being placed on developing the site plan and
organizing a successful fundraising kick off effort in the fall.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Winslow described the
difficulty related to banner placement at the intersection of US Highways 34/36.
Community Services has received numerous competing requests for placement of
banners at this location. Staff attempts to decide which banners get placed at the
location based on the event need. Jane Schoen of the Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary
informed the Committee the banner for Autumn Gold was being removed this year
due to a conflict with the Peak Flavors Fest and requested a contact for the appeal
process. Mayor Pinkham expressed concerns regarding the promotion of competing
events. He suggested staff research similar municipality’s policies and develop a
strategy that would work best for Estes Park. Administrator Lancaster stated staff
continues to work on making the Event Center self-sufficient and suggested taking
advantage of the information radio station recently acquired by the Town.
Chair Ericson inquired about street performers, using the Event Center as a winter
walking track and the progress of booking the Event Center. Director Winslow stated
ten musicians have been booked by the Town to perform at Tregent Park and the
George Hix Plaza, plans are in place to allow the Event Center to be utilized by
citizens during the winter on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 8:00 a.m. until
5:00 p.m., and Sales and Marketing Manager Lynch has been diligently working on
building positive long term relationships to fill the Event Center calendar.
There being no further business, Trustee Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Members Klein, Spooner, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Permit
Technician Charlie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were three people in the audience (Division of Building Safety staff and one local General
Contractor).
Chair Spooner opened the meeting, stating this meeting would be a review of the International Fuel
Gas Code (IFGC) Significant Changes for 2012 and 2015. He explained the reasoning behind reviewing
two years: the Town adopted the 2009 codes, and is planning to skip the 2012 and adopt the 2015
codes. However, in order to do this, the 2012 changes still apply.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from April 2, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Klein) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously.
REPORTS
Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield stated Larimer County is hosting free energy training on
June 30th, facilitated by the Colorado Energy Office. If anyone is interested in attending, please contact
the Division of Building Safety.
The scope of the International Residential Code (IRC) is for one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses. It is a self-contained code. Parts of the IFGC are pulled out and placed into the IRC. The
IFGC deals with piping systems and appliances and venting of fuel gas appliances. Fuel gas is natural
gas, manufactured gas, liquid propane gas, or any combination of those. Any piece of equipment that
is not operated by one of those gases is not covered in this code. They are regulated by the
International Mechanical Code (IMC). The IMC will be discussed in June.
CBO Birchfield stated all the ICC codes are written as minimum standards. These regulations are a
target to aim past, not a target to shoot for.
CBO Birchfield stated most of the changes are in the 2015 code.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2012 Significant Changes to the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
Identification, Testing & Certification. Each section of pipe, tubing, and each fitting in a gas piping
system must bear the identification of the manufacturer. Gas piping materials will be restricted to only
those that are labeled.
Clearance to Combustible Materials. Clarified gypsum board is considered a combustible material for
clearance to combustibles. In the Fuel Gas Code and the Mechanical Code, gypsum board IS
considered combustible. However, in the International Building Code, gypsum board is NOT
considered combustible. There has always been confusion in this area.
CSST (Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing) Piping Systems. All have to be installed in accordance with
their listing and per the manufacturer’s installation instructions. The Division of Building Safety will
have the authority to inspect and enforce that code.
Prohibited Devices. This change concerns excess flow valves. This has not been an issue in Estes Park,
as we typically have medium pressure. If the gas piping system has been sized to accommodate an EFV
fitting or devise placed in the gas piping system, the valve is allowed to be installed.
Excess Flow Valves. These valves are now required to be listed, and must also be sized and installed
per the manufacturer’s instruction. Estes Park typically does not need to use these.
Prohibited Sources. Return air may be taken from a garage provided with a dedicated forced-air
system. If you have equipment heating the garage, you can pull return air from the garage. You cannot
heat a garage with a forced-air furnace that is also heating the house.
End of 2012 Sig Changes
2015 Significant Changes to the IFGC
CBO Birchfield stated if the changes were made in the IFGC, those changes are also in the IRC.
Condensate Pumps. If you have a condensate pump where it is not visible (crawl space, attic, etc.) you
have to interconnect it to the appliance so if the condensate pump fails, the equipment shuts off.
Member Schiaffo stated the issue is whether you want to have damage from the condensate or
damage from frozen pipes. With so many homes that do not have full-time residents, and many of
them with condensing boilers and water heaters, he is not sure the solution is to hook up the switch
and possibly freeze all the pipes. The other alternative is concern about a faulty pump. Options could
include an indicator light to the pump, or some type of alarm system, which seems to be a better
option when people are not living there year-round. Member Klein stated he could understand using
the shut-off switch on an air conditioning system, but would be hesitant to use it with heating. If a
switch was required, he would recommend some type of alarm that would actually alert someone if
the house was unoccupied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
There was discussion about how much condensate a boiler created in cold weather. Comments
included but were not limited to: humidity as a factor; there could be at least one gallon per day
coming off as condensation; should there be a concern about the appliance that could take on water if
the condensate pump fails; the county says tankless water heaters or small condensing boilers in
crawl spaces are no longer acceptable; if appliances are in the crawl spaces, you will have to protect
the floor joists; if there is no equipment in the crawl space you will not have to protect the floor joists;
suggested that condensating equipment not be allowed in crawl spaces, which would not be possible
in some areas; new construction only. There was general consensus to table this item and revisit it
later to allow time to come up with an appropriate amendment. Secondary containment will need to
be looked at.
Electrical Bonding of Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). This change is specific to CSST piping.
After research and testing, it has been determined the electric bonding can be run up to 75 feet with a
certain size cable. Not too many long bonds in Estes Park.
Maximum Gas Demand for Pipe Sizing. There used to be a table that said we could assume certain
BTUs when sizing a gas pipe. Now you are required to know the BUTs. Not an issue in Estes because
the Division of Building Safety already requires a sizing diagram with gas line as-builts.
Plastic Pipe, Tubing and Fittings. PVC and CPVC are expressly prohibited for supplying fuel gas.
Drilled and Tapped Metallic Pipe Fittings. CBO Birchfield stated he has never seen this done in Estes
Park. He recommends amending the code stating that tapping gas lines is prohibited unless done by
the gas supplier.
Fittings in Concealed Locations. The IFGC now tells you what you can conceal instead of what you
cannot conceal. Bushings and unions cannot be concealed. It is not considered concealed if it is behind
a cabinet door or ceiling tile, but if it is behind permanent construction, it’s concealed.
Protection of Concealed Piping against Physical Damage. This has been rewritten with detailed
specifics as to how it must be done. Protection has to be installed down the entire run of the joist.
“To avoid having protection plates run parallel with a member, the installer could simply place the
pipe or tube on ‘standoffs’ such that the pipe/tube is not less than 1 ½ inches from the nearest edge
of the face of the member.”
Pipe Cleaning. Prohibits using fuel gas as a medium for flushing foreign matter and debris from fuel-
gas piping.
Medium-Pressure Regulators. CBO Birchfield stated you now have to have a union on each end so you
can service the regulator. He stated this is not an issue here because it has been standard practice.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Connecting Portable Outdoor Appliances. There is now a standard, ANSI Z21.54, and portable gas
appliances must comply with that standard. Typically used with fire pits and natural gas grills with an
outlet attached to the gas line to the house. The IFGC does not want people using flex hoses that can
crack and leak.
Connectors for Commercial Cooking Appliances. Specific installation requirements for safe installation
of ANSI Z21.69 connectors for commercial cooking appliances. The options to connect the cooking
appliance with semi-rigid tubing or rigid pipe have been removed. “Movement of appliances with
casters shall be limited by a restraining device installed in accordance with the connector and
appliance manufacturer’s instructions.”
Door Clearance to Vent Terminals. There is now a provision requiring the termination of the vent for a
gas fired appliance be a certain distance from doors. Doors cannot swing within 12 inches horizontally
of the vent terminal. CBO Birchfield stated the concern is heat exposure up against the door. Member
Klein stated there could be some manufacturers that have designed the vent terminals to be installed
with minimal clearance. Member Klein and CBO Birchfield may want additional discussion on this
change.
Plastic Piping for Appliance Vents. Approval of plastic pipe for venting appliances is no longer a
responsibility of the CBO. Instead, the responsibility lies with the appliance manufacturer and the
appliance listing agency. This is an important life safety issue.
Sizing of Plastic Pipe Vents. This modification means the code is no longer silent on the sizing of vents
that do not fall under the definition of “vent”. For category II, III and IV appliances, the sizing shall be
in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Venting System Termination Location. If there is a side wall termination, it has to be at least 10 feet
from the opening to a building. Residential applications are required to be at least 10 feet between
buildings. You cannot side-wall terminate on a zero lot line (commercial building). CBO Birchfield
stated he was not sure if there are any residential buildings in Estes that would be affected by this.
Dryer Exhaust Duct Power Ventilators (DEDPV). The changes state you can have booster fans that are
approved for installation on dryer ducts. These are used when the duct is too long for the appliance.
DEDPVs are required to be equipped with features such as interlocks, limit controls, monitoring
controls and enunciator devices.
Prohibited Location of Commercial Cooking Appliances. Modification to clarify the code to not
inadvertently prohibit the installation of cooking appliances that are listed as both commercial and
domestic appliances. There is a current local amendment that states you can have commercial
appliances in a residential building as long as the manufacturer’s instructions are followed. Appliances
now have to be listed for both domestic and commercial, not just commercial. It was agreed to keep
the local amendment for commercial cooking appliances.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated the changes have also been made in the residential code. This will also take
place with the other codes, such as the energy code, plumbing code, etc.
PROPOSED LOCAL AMENDMENTS
CBO Birchfield stated the current amendments to the IFGC would be reviewed to see if they needed to
be amended. Each time the new codes are adopted, the amendments also need to be readopted, and
changes proposed, if that is the desire of the Board.
CBO Birchfield stated the following local amendments will be reviewed: Condensate pumps; dryer
exhaust duct power ventilators; direct vent terminals; and commercial appliances in residential
applications.
The proposed amendments apply specifically to the IFGC, and if it also applies to the IRC, CBO
Birchfield will indicate such.
Provisions in Chapter 1 of the 2015 IBC will be applicable to the IFGC. This will include fees, re-
inspection fees, inspections, day-to-day operations, etc.
Board of Appeals. CBO Birchfield stated it is staff’s recommendation to delete the appeals process
from each of the individual codes, and use the appeals process from the IBC. Appeals processes in
each individual code differs, and it will be less confusing to have one appeals process.
Temporary Equipment, Systems, and Uses. The current amendment states you cannot use permanent
equipment in the construction process unless the manufacturer says you can. Construction dust and
fumes gum up the internal works in the equipment and decreases the life expectancy of the appliance.
Member comments included but were not limited to: duct systems have to be cleaned after
construction; you are basically selling your customers a used piece of equipment if you use it during
construction; if the manufacturer says you can, we can’t say no.
Prohibited locations. The current amendment prohibits the use of unvented gas appliances. The
altitude of Estes Park means limited oxygen, and with tighter buildings, it can be a life safety issue to
have unvented gas appliances. There was consensus among the board to retain the local amendment
to prohibit unvented gas appliances.
Interconnections. CBO Birchfield stated this amendment will assist emergency responders in
identifying which meter goes with which unit. He stated this is a conflict with the residential code,
specifically townhouses. The fuel gas provisions say you cannot run gas lines for one unit through
another townhouse unit. If meter banks are in the same place, we could be running gas lines around
the entire building. We could either delete the local amendment, or state that is doesn’t apply to
townhouses where the gas lines cannot run through other units. Member comments included, but
were not limited to: the gas lines could be run underground; it is convenient to have meter banks in a
central location; there will be some areas where it’s hard to comply; amend with townhouses being a
separate option; maybe do something where natural gas meters are required to be numbered and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 6
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
listed when installed; meter identification is not a standard practice in Estes Park. This could be a good
reason for a property maintenance code. CBO Birchfield stated the amendments to the IFGC would
apply to new construction. If the original construction was permitted and approved, all the owner
needs to do is maintain the property in a safe condition to the code it was built under. Comments
included but were not limited to: if a gas line needs to be changed it must be brought up to current
code; it is very difficult to install a replacement to meet code, especially if there is a meter bank;
downtown buildings have a lot of issues with existing conditions; it is a life safety issue. CBO Birchfield
stated the building department has a fundamental policy that whatever we do, we cannot make it
worse. We require it to be safer than it was before, and as close to current code as is reasonable.
There was general consensus of the Board to have additional discussion on this local amendment, for
both commercial and residential properties. It only applies to real property lines where there are
multiple property owners. The meter bank provision is now at odds with existing property lines.
Above-ground outdoor piping. CBO Birchfield stated the code now says above-ground outdoor piping
must be elevated three inches, not six. He amended to code to require the full six inches above grade
elevation because foundations also have to be six inches above grade. After brief discussion, it was
agreed to keep the amendment at six inches.
Minimum burial depth. CBO Birchfield stated the code was changed to a 12-inch minimum burial
depth. There was general consensus among to Board to keep the local amendment requiring an 18-
inch minimum burial depth.
Individual outside appliances. There was general consensus among to Board to keep the local
amendment requiring an 18-inch minimum burial depth.
Outlet closures. The local amendment states gas outlets and fittings which allow for future gas line
expansion and do not connect to appliances shall be provided with approved gas shutoff valves with
the ends plugged or capped gas tight. CBO Birchfield stated you will be required to do both, a valve
and plug or cap. There is an exception for drip/dirt legs which are installed at the floor level of
appliances.
Test pressure. Member Klein stated typical gas pressure in Estes Park is three or four ounces. Medium
pressure is considered two to five pounds. CBO Birchfield stated if the normal pressure is three
pounds, we need to test for a higher level of pressure for safety. There was general consensus of the
Board to require a pressure of 10 pounds for testing gas lines.
Venting of regulators. Pressure regulators shall be designed to prevent entry of insects, water, and
foreign objects. Excel Energy does not want vents to terminate less than three feet from openings into
the building. If there is a gas leak, this will help prevent the leak from going into the building.
Protection from damage. Connectors and tubing shall not be installed through the sidewall of the
appliances served. CBO Birchfield stated these need to be hard piped, as it has to do with the vibration
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 7
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
of the appliance and the wearing down of the connectors and tubing. He stated there should be an
exception for gas log fireplaces, because those appliances do not vibrate.
Appliances not required to be vented. The local amendment states electric ranges do not require
venting. Built-in domestic cooking units listed and labeled for optional venting do not require venting
if installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. Type I clothes dryers are ventless gas appliances (these
are not vents, but ducts). Refrigerators and counter appliances would not require venting. Items
deleted in the local amendment include single booster-type automatic instantaneous water heaters,
room heaters listed for unvented use, direct-fired makeup air heaters, and other appliances listed for
unvented use and not provided with flue collars. Member Schiaffo requested additional discussion
concerning direct-fired makeup air heaters. There was brief discussion about how appliances are
categorized (I, II, III, etc.).
Well-ventilated spaces. Deleting this subsection. CBO Birchfield stated the town does not have large
warehouses where this code could apply.
Log lighters. A log lighter is a piece of gas pipe with holes on the end of a gas line, lit with a match. The
problem is there is no safety valve to shut off the gas if the fire goes out. These are not listed as an
approved appliance, and the CBO does not want to be responsible for them. The current local
amendment prohibits them, and it is recommended this local amendment remain in the code. This
was fully supported by the Board.
Installation. Dryer exhaust duct termination shall not be located within 3 feet of openings into the
building. CBO Birchfield stated this is not a vent, but it can still carry combustible materials and
moisture that needs to stay out of the building.
Unvented Room Heaters. The current amendment deletes the provision for unvented room heaters.
This is a life safety issue. The Board fully supported the prohibition of using unvented fuel gas room
heaters in Estes Park.
Prohibited location. The current local amendment has an exception that allows commercial appliances
to be installed in residential applications, when installed with all the requirements of the product’s
listing and the manufacturer’s instructions. The code states you cannot put commercial appliances in a
residence. This exception will allow it, if the manufacturer’s installation instructions are followed.
Domestic appliances. The current local amendment states cooking appliances installed within
dwelling units and areas where domestic cooking occurs shall be installed per the manufacturer’s
listing in regards to clearance to combustibles. This amendment was supported by the Board.
Residential kitchens. Residential kitchens with gas ranges shall be supplied with an exhaust system
vented to the outside. They shall not terminate in an attic or crawl space or areas inside the building
and shall not induce or create a negative pressure. After a brief discussion concerning life safety, the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 8
May 7, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board agreed this local amendment needed to remain in the IFGC. This vent requirement would apply
to any type of conversion from electric to gas, including existing buildings.
Appendix A. Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping. The appendices are not included in the code unless
specifically adopted. This appendix provides design guidance, useful facts and data and multiple
examples of how to apply the sizing tables and sizing methodologies in the IFGC Chapter 4.
Appendix B. Sizing of Venting Systems Serving appliances Equipped with Draft Hoods, Category I
appliances, and Appliances Listed for Use with B-Vents. This appendix contains multiple examples of
how to apply the vent and chimney tables and methodologies of IFGC Chapter 5.
Appendix C. Exit Terminals of Mechanical Draft and Direct-Venting Systems. This appendix consists of
a figure and notes that visually depict code requirements from Chapter 5 for vent terminals in
relationship to openings in the exterior walls of buildings.
CBO Birchfield stated most of the time the contractor will refer back to the manufacturer, but
sometimes there are some unusual existing conditions. The appendices offer alternatives. After brief
discussion, the Board supported keeping all the current appendices in the local amendments to allow
for flexibility in the codes.
CBO Birchfield stated he will research the issues that were addressed by the Board at today’s meeting
and will report back to the Board at a future date.
Public Comment
None.
There was discussion as to the lack of attendance by stakeholders. One member’s thought was that
the stakeholders had confidence in the professionals that make up the Board of Appeals, and would
rely on them to make good decisions. It was suggested to have conversations with stakeholders when
you see them in the field, and encourage them to attend meetings or provide written comments.
CBO Birchfield stated the June meeting will deal with the International Mechanical Code, which will
include electrical appliances.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior
Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Member Darling
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were two people in the audience (Fire Marshall Marc Robinson, one citizen).
Chair Spooner opened the meeting, stating this meeting would be a review of the International
Mechanical Code (IMC) Significant Changes for 2012 and 2015. He explained the reasoning behind
reviewing two years: the Town adopted the 2009 codes, and is planning to skip the 2012 and adopt
the 2015 codes. However, in order to do this, the 2012 changes still apply.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from May 7, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Calvin) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously.
REPORTS
Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield stated he attended a Structural Engineers Association of
Colorado (SEAC) webinar and received information concerning snow loads. It appears the previous
design criteria was too low along the Front Range and a little high in the mountains. Some mountain
communities may see a little decrease in snow loads. SEAC is developing a formula for snow loads
based on evaluation. CBO Birchfield stated the Town currently uses the ground snow load from the
2007 SEAC study, which recommended 45 pounds per square foot for Estes Park. Snow loads are
currently increased for higher elevations. He stated having a formula will be a positive change and will
remove the need for estimation. Larimer County CBO Eric Fried also attended the webinar. He and
CBO Birchfield will discuss aligning the County and Town snow loads in order to maintain consistency
within the Estes Valley.
CBO Birchfield stated portions of the IMC are also in the International Residential Code (IRC). He
reminded the Board that all the ICC codes are written as minimum standards. These regulations are a
target to aim past, not a target to shoot for. The significant changes being discussed today are part of
the publications from the ICC. CBO Birchfield reviewed the changes and will focus on the changes
significant to the Estes Park community. The ICC publications are available for check out through the
Division of Building Safety.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Equipment and Appliances on Roofs or Elevated Structures. If equipment is more than 16 feet above
the surface, you must have a permanent ladder to reach it. In most cases, these stairs/ladders would
be locked.
Labeled Assemblies. The listing on the appliance will indicate how far away it has to be from
combustible materials. There is a way to reduce some of those clearances based on construction. The
change states allowable clearance reductions must now be based on listed and labeled reduced‐
clearance protective assemblies in accordance with UL 1618. Concrete board and other similar
materials are no longer acceptable without a listing.
Intake Opening Location. The minimum clearance between an air intake opening and any public way is
now measured from the opening to the lot line, not to the centerline of the public way. Vertically, the
minimum clearance is now 25 vertical feet.
Minimum Ventilation Rates for Nail Salons. The significant changes now requires each nail station in
nail salons to have a dedicated exhaust system. CBO Birchfield stated there must be added concern
for the toxicity of the chemicals used. This has been addressed one time in Estes Park.
Domestic Kitchen Exhaust Systems. Exhaust ducts are now required to be independent from all other
exhaust systems. Builders in Estes Park are already doing this.
Grease Reservoirs. CBO Birchfield stated this is an addition to the IMC. It states criteria are now
provided for the construction of a grease reservoir in a grease duct system where the reservoir is not a
manufactured product. This pertains to large buildings with long grease runs, and will most likely not
apply to any structures in Estes Park.
Grease Duct Cleanouts and Other Openings. This modification states that, in addition to the
reformatting of the previous criteria for grease duct cleanouts, gasket and sealing materials on grease
duct cleanout doors must now be rated at a minimum of 1500°F.
Grease Duct Horizontal Cleanouts. CBO Birchfield stated this change is a modification stating criteria
for cleanouts serving horizontal grease ducts have been rearranged for ease of use and clarification,
and several technical provisions have been added or modified. He stated this is not an issue in Estes
Park because we do not have long grease duct runs. All the grease provisions are to eliminate grease,
which lessens the risk of fire.
Field‐Applied Grease Duct Enclosures. Duct wrap or one‐hour shaft enclosure systems are now
specifically prohibited from being used to reduce clearance to combustibles. CBO Birchfield stated this
concerns the practice that some have used where the entire duct is not covered. The change now
requires covering the entire duct. Estes Park is already practicing this, so it will not be an issue.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Type I or Type II Hood Required. A Type I or II commercial kitchen hood is not required for appliances
with listed integral downdraft exhaust systems. Any time there is grease or smoke, a Type I hood is
required. Type II hoods are for odors, steam, etc. The downdraft exhaust systems must be listed and
labeled for the application. An example of this type of system is used in Asian grills.
Type I Hoods. CBO Birchfield stated Type I hoods must be properly listed and installed to contain a fire
when it occurs. The significant change states Type I hoods are no longer required to be installed where
complying electric cooking appliances are being used. He emphasized the equipment must be listed
and labeled. If the equipment is listed and labeled and electric, it can be installed without a Type I
hood. Member Schiaffo stated it depends on what type of food is being cooked in these types of units,
and he requested additional discussion on this change. CBO Birchfield stated this change aligns the
IMC with the NFPA Standard 96. Fire Marshall Robinson stated typically the electric ones are smaller
and meant for heating sandwiches, as they have lower BTUs and less heat. Larger units are common
for pizza. All units are still required to be listed, and would be non‐compliant if the user changes the
product for which it was designed. Pizza restaurants are continually adding additional non‐pizza
products, and it will be important to keep an eye on them to see what type of grease is coming off of
them. Building and Fire inspectors will control it the best they can. Member Schiaffo was concerned
that users would install them correctly and possibly change them after the final inspection/sign off
without the knowledge of the building or fire departments.
Operation of Type I Hoods. A method is now required to keep the pilot burner on a gas cooking
appliance from being extinguished when the kitchen exhaust fan interlock shuts off appliances. CBO
Birchfield stated the fan is supposed to be on any time the cooking operation is taking place. If you
turn the exhaust fan off, it should not kill the pilots. A method of interlock between an exhaust hood
system and cooking appliances shall not involve or depend upon any component of a fire
extinguishing system. This is different than what we have been doing.
Exhaust Flow Rate Label for Type I Hoods. In order to move the grease under the hood, a certain
amount of air has to be moved. Manufacturers of listed Type I commercial cooking hoods are now
required to provide information on a label attached to the hood specifying the listed minimum
exhaust air flow in cubic feet per minute per linear foot of hood based upon the cooking appliance
duty classification.
Type II Hoods. Fire suppression systems are not required. A Type II hood is now required to be
installed above all appliances that produce products of combustion but do not produce grease or
smoke. CBO Birchfield stated this will probably not apply much in Estes Park, as this procedure is
already being done.
Hoods Penetrating a Ceiling. Field‐applied grease duct enclosure systems are now specifically
prohibited from being used as enclosures over the top of Type I hoods. CBO Birchfield stated grease
ducts that attach the top of the hood to the fan are supposed to be enclosed in a minimum one‐hour
enclosure. This is frequently seen in Estes Park. The entire area of the hood above the ceiling is to be
protected in a one‐hour shaft. Member Schiaffo stated an option could be to have a zero clearance
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
hood. This portion of the code could also become a health department issue. CBO Birchfield stated
there is currently a local amendment to delete 506.3.10.4 Duct enclosure not required. This was
removed from the code because all of the buildings in downtown are constructed of wood. By
deleting this code language, all ducts are required to be wrapped. There was discussion concerning
the significant change, with comments being: possibly revise the code to state the duct has to be
enclosed, but if the hood is at least 18 inches away from combustibles you don’t have to protect the
hood; possibly add a statement requiring 5/8 X gypsum board; it will be a problem if we don’t arrive at
a solution; one solution would be a zero clearance hood; drywall is combustible in the IMC; there is
difficulty in Estes park to keep all combustibles at least 18 inches away from the hood and duct. There
was general consensus among the Board to continue this discussion after CBO Birchfield completes
some additional research.
Contamination Prevention in Plenums. CBO Birchfield would like to see a local amendment to the
building codes prohibiting plenums in commercial buildings. He stated plenums create a lot of
problems, including but not limited to moving dirty air, creating issues with the energy code
requirements, etc. Comments included: possibly allow plenums in residential buildings and prohibit
them in commercial buildings; plenums could be in a stud base or concealed above the ceiling;
everything in a plenum has to be rated differently; in some cases, smoke detectors are required in
plenums; it was recommended to have additional discussion about changes that can be made in
buildings that could affect the air circulation in the plenums; this is mostly a commercial issue, and not
widely seen in Estes Park; Fire Marshall Robinson supported prohibiting plenums in commercial
buildings. Chair Spooner stated it was good to identify all the issues and then have a session or two to
work out the details and possible amendments.
It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Klein) to move forward with a local amendment to prohibit
plenums in commercial buildings and the motion passed 4‐0 with one absent.
Materials within Plenums. Clarifies that material or assembly that encloses a combustible material in a
plenum must be noncombustible, gypsum board, or listed and labeled as part of a tested assembly or
system.
Rigid Duct Penetrations. CBO Birchfield stated this has been a point of confusion for a long time. This
is a modification stating ”In relationship to the required garage/dwelling separation, only those ducts
that penetrate a wall or ceiling between the dwelling and the adjacent private garage need comply
with Section 603.7.” This means the furnace can be located in a garage, and you can hard duct into the
house for your supply and return, but you cannot cut holes in the ductwork being used to heat the
house.
Duct Joints, Seams, and Connections. Unlisted duct tape is no longer permitted as a sealant on
nonmetallic ducts. It has never been approved as a connector. There are products specifically for
connecting.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Factory‐Built Chimney Offsets. The maximum offset in a factory‐built chimney is now specified and the
number of offsets has been limited. No part of the chimney shall be at an angle of more than 30
degrees from vertical at any point in the assembly and the chimney assembly shall not include more
than 4 elbows.
Fireplace Accessories. Solid fuel burning. Fireplace accessories must now comply with UL907, which
has been added to Chapter 15. Fireplace accessories include, but may not be limited to glass door
assemblies, combustion air vents, smoke chambers, surfacing materials, and termination caps.
Evaporative Cooling Equipment. Requirements for the installation of evaporative coolers (swamp
coolers) have been introduced into the IMC in the new Section 928. CBO Birchfield stated with this
addition, swamp coolers will now require a building permit.
That concluded the significant changes to the 2012 International Mechanical Code.
2015 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Fall‐Arresting Restraint Systems. If you have permanent anchors on the roof for fall protection, you do
not have to have guards. Guards are still required if you are close to the edge or if the slope is steeper
than 4/12 pitch.
Access. More than just appliances are now required to have access for inspection, service,
replacement and repair. You cannot have permanent construction around HVAC system components.
Condensate Drain Line Maintenance. Requires that condensate drains be configured or equipped to
allow maintenance of the drain without the drain pipe or tubing being cut. This is an addition to the
code to prevent blockages as a result of debris and biological growth in the system.
Condensate Pumps in Uninhabitable Spaces. Condensate pumps located in uninhabitable spaces and
used with condensing fuel‐fired appliances and cooling equipment must be connected to the
appliance or equipment served by the pump to prevent water damage in the event of pump failure.
Comments on this addition to the code include, but were not limited to: this item was tabled last time;
if you are going to do this you have to have a sensor; the county is not allowing equipment pits in
crawl spaces; there is concern about condensate and ground water issues; there may be a local
amendment with the county that changed this; if this is allowed in the crawl space, you will now have
to protect the joists with drywall; this would apply to new construction only; this item needs
additional discussion. CBO Birchfield directed Inspector Traufield to take this addition to the next
Colorado Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (CAPMO) to get input from members on
how other jurisdictions are dealing with this. CBO Birchfield also wanted other opinions about
placement of condensate pumps in the crawl space.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 6
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Outdoor Air and Local Exhaust Airflow Rates. New text introduces the basic requirements of ASHRAE
62.2 related to mechanical ventilation for Group R‐2, R‐3, and R‐4 buildings three stories or less in
height. This is an addition to the code with requirements for outdoor air and local exhaust, which
amounts to a whole building exhaust system.
Manicure and Pedicure Station Exhaust Rate. This is a modification to the code, stating the exhaust
system must move at least 50 cfm per station.
Manicure and Pedicure Station Exhaust System. This is an addition to the code specifically covering
manicure and pedicure stations and states exhaust requirements in addition to those in Table
403.3.1.1. Manicure tables and pedicure stations not provided with factory‐installed exhaust inlets
shall be provided with exhaust inlets located not more than 12 inches horizontally and vertically from
the point of chemical application.
Dryer Exhaust Duct Power Ventilators. This is an addition to the code, recognizing the use of dryer
exhaust duct power ventilators (DEDPVs) for installations that exceed the allowable exhaust duct
length for clothes dryers. It means a booster can be added, as long as it is listed and labeled, to a dryer
duct. We were allowing these before, but the fans weren’t listed. There is now a standard to allow for
moist air.
Dryer Exhaust Duct Installation. Instead of prohibiting all duct fasteners such as screws and rivets, the
code now limits the penetration of fasteners where installed. When you put the duct together for a
dryer, every edge can catch lint, which is combustible. Appliances overheat when not installed
properly. Flexible pipe is not allowed for that reason. The code has been modified to allow screw
fasteners as long as they do not protrude more than 1/8 inch into the duct. Comments included: this
portion of the code is not enforceable; contractors are currently using clamps and tape; a local
amendment should prohibit screws to connect the duct; UL listed duct clamps are very expensive;
tape is good for sealing but not connecting; clamps alone are not holding everything in place; tape
keeps the air from blowing through the joints but is also helping to keep the joint together. Inspector
Traufield has done some research, and thinks the clamp/tape combination, with good support, will
reasonably satisfy the concerns he has about mitigating the concerns. There was general consensus
for Inspector Traufield to determine what is being done in other jurisdictions concerning this code
change.
Domestic Range Hoods. Scope of domestic kitchen hoods coverage has been expanded to beyond
dwelling units. Domestic hoods are mandated in new Section 505.4.
Domestic Kitchen Exhaust Systems in Multi‐story Buildings. This addition will not affect Estes Park, as
we do not have any buildings like this.
Grease Duct Reservoirs. If there is a need, you have to add a reservoir. Not a problem here because
there are no long grease duct runs.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 7
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Grease Duct Cleanouts and Openings. The cleanout spacing provisions have been added to be
consistent with Section 506.3.9 for horizontal ducts. Cleanout openings shall not be spaced more than
20 feet apart and not more than 10 feet from changes in direction greater than 45 degrees.
Grease Duct Enclosures. This modification prohibits the installation of fire and smoke dampers in
grease ducts.
In‐Line Fan Location in Exhaust Ducts Serving Commercial Kitchen Hoods. This is not typical for Estes
Park. This is an addition to the code addressing the enclosure requirements for in‐line exhaust fans
located in kitchen hood exhaust ducts, in effect treating them the same as ducts. If you put a domestic
range in a commercial building, you should have a Type I hood. CBO Birchfield stated decisions will
need to be made concerning domestic appliances being installed in commercial buildings, e.g.
community centers, churches, etc.
Hinged Up‐Blast Fans for Type I Hoods. The code now requires that hinged exhaust fans be provided
with means to limit the travel of the fan assembly to prevent injury to personnel and damage to the
building and fan. These fans are on top of the grease duct, are hinged and heavy. They can no longer
fall freely.
Type I Hood Installation. If someone wants to put in a Type I hood, they have to ensure compliance
with all aspects of a Type I exhaust system, whether the Type I hood is required by the code or
installed by choice. This is for people that want to put in a Type I hood when only a Type II is required.
If a Type I hood is installed, it must have all the bells and whistles, so when the next tenant comes in
they can expect to have a complete Type I hood set‐up if that is what was installed by the previous
tenant.
Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Hood System Operation. The requirement for automatic activation of
the exhaust system has been revised to provide the intended performance requirements and to clarify
that an interlock arrangement is an alternative to automatic hood operation. The Fire Marshall will
inspect this during his fire suppression system inspection.
Heat Sensors for Multiple Commercial Kitchen Hoods. New text prohibits the use of a single sensor
mounted in the common ductwork for commercial kitchen hood systems having multiple hoods
manifolded together.
Type I Hood Grease Filters. CBO Birchfield stated field‐fabricated hoods will no longer be allowed. All
must be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 1046.
Air Balance for Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Systems. This new section requires that an air balance
schedule be submitted with the design plans for commercial kitchen ventilation systems. The Town
has been doing this for some time, so this will not be an issue. CBO Birchfield stated this is one place
where the health department and the IMC are at odds. The IMC wants a little bit of negative pressure
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 8
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
in the kitchen, while the Health Department wants it under positive pressure. His stance is that if the
Health and Fire Departments are accepting of the balance, the Division of Building Safety will accept it.
Hazardous Exhaust Systems. Text in previous editions of the code that alluded to the recirculation of
hazardous exhaust has been deleted. Hazardous exhaust systems are not common in Estes Park.
Energy Recovery Ventilation Systems. These ERV systems of the coil‐type heat exchanger (run‐around
coils) are no longer limited in their application. You can use them anywhere.
Plenums Limited to One Fire Area. If we prohibit plenums this will not be an issue. CBO Birchfield
stated to his knowledge, only the medical center and the assisted living center were built with more
than one fire area.
Plenum Construction. This will not be an issue if we prohibit plenums.
Discrete Plumbing and Mechanical Products in Plenums. Again, not an issue if plenums are prohibited.
Duct Construction Minimum Sheet Metal Thickness for Single Dwelling Units. The table for duct gages
for dwelling units has been replaced with thicknesses consistent with the SMACNA sheet metal
construction standard.
Duct Joints, Seams and Connections. Duct sealant tapes used on sheet‐metal ducts must be listed to
UL 181B as is required for sealing tapes and mastics for flexible ducts.
Dampered Openings. Where dampers are installed on combustion air openings, the code now
requires an interlock with the appliance to prevent operation of the appliance when the damper is
closed. Manual dampers are prohibited on combustion air openings.
Door Clearance to Vent Terminals. To prevent damage to the vent, door or surrounding materials,
doors are not permitted to swing within 12 inches of an appliance vent terminal.
Gasketed Fireplace Doors. Gasketed (sealed) doors are prohibited on factory‐built fireplaces except
where the fireplaces are listed for use with such doors.
CURRENT LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (2009)
Chapter 1 references items that are included in the Building Code, e.g. appeals process, violations,
penalties, etc. Text about fines were removed, since the Town handles those items in court. The Town
establishes building permit and other associated fees, but does not determine fines for violations and
penalties.
Temporary Equipment. During construction, the manufacturer has to say it is appropriate to use the
equipment during construction. Otherwise, you cannot use the permanent equipment during
construction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 9
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Heating and Cooling Load Calculations. This will be addressed in the Energy Code.
Balancing. If the inspectors have reason to believe the mechanical system is not balanced properly,
they will ask for a function test to determine if the air is moving properly.
Close Dryer Exhaust Installation. Exhaust termination cannot be within 3 feet of an opening to a
building.
Kitchens with gas ovens. Exhaust system is required.
Duct Enclosure. The section stating duct enclosure was not required was removed. Duct enclosure is
required in the Town of Estes Park. This portion of the code may be revised pending further
discussion.
Termination through an exterior wall. Exhaust outlets cannot terminate within five feet horizontally of
an area used for public access.
Type I Hoods. Clarifies and lists types of equipment that would lead to the requirement of Type I
hoods. Griddles, fryers, ranges, ovens. CBO Birchfield stated the list came from the Larimer County
Health Department.
Plenums. This amendment states what cannot be used as air plenums.
Duct sizing. Ducts must be installed in accordance with the Energy Code. Various manuals assist with
the calculations.
Duct protection during construction. Ducts have to be protected from construction debris during
construction so they will be clean when you fire up the equipment.
Combustion air ducts and combustion air openings. Shall not penetrate fire rated assemblies where
fire dampers, smoke dampers, or fire and smoke dampers are required.
Access and Identification. Fire and smoke dampers must be provided with an approved means of
access. Fire and smoke dampers are built into the assemblies, so access panels are required. This
amendment spells out what the access needs to look like.
Multi‐story prohibited. Common venting systems for appliances located on more than one floor level
shall be prohibited, except engineered systems where all of the appliances served by the common
vent are located in rooms or spaces that are accessed only from the outdoors. The Board discussed
whether or not to prohibit this all together. For new construction, there was general consensus of the
Board to prohibit multi‐story venting. Engineered systems are acceptable for existing buildings, but
would not be allowed in new construction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 10
June 4, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Log Lighters. Log lighters without an automatic shut‐off safety feature are prohibited. There was
discussion as to whether to add an amendment stating gas lines to fireboxes are prohibited unless
they are connected to a fuel‐fired appliance. Based on the discussion, CBO Birchfield will draft an
amendment.
Unvented gas log heaters. An unvented gas log heater shall not be installed in a factory‐built fireplace.
CBO Birchfield clarified that a gas log heater is an appliance that is inserted into an existing fireplace.
Chair Spooner stated the next meeting will be held Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4 p.m. The International
Plumbing Code will be discussed. He encouraged the Sanitation Districts and Town Water Department
be represented at the next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 2, 2015 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, John Lynch, Jeff Moreau,
Wayne Newsom
Attending: Smith, Lynch, Newsom
Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Members Moreau & Darling
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance.
He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence. There were two people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the April 7, 2015 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 3-0, with two absent.
3. LOT 1, THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION, 610 Pinewood Lane
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application is for a variance from Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25-foot
setbacks in the E-1–Estate zone district. The applicant, Steven Rusch, requests to
encroach entirely into the side setback for construction of a proposed storage shed.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant recently received Town Board approval to vacate an
easement in the area of the proposed shed. The property was platted in 1972, and there
was a 10 foot utility easement platted along the west side of the lot. Since the subdivision
was built out, utilities have been built along the street rather than along the property lines.
Staff determined that in order for the shed to be built along the property line, the utility
easement would need to be vacated, and a variance would need to be granted.
The location of the proposed shed will be located on the eastern portion of the lot,
approximately two feet from the property line, and would be adequately hidden from street
view. The proposed shed will be 120 square feet or smaller, and will not require a building
permit. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners.
There were no concerns expressed. Two letters of support from adjacent neighbors were
received. The easement vacation request required sign off by each utility agency, and
there were no concerns expressed at that time.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Other areas of the lot, particularly the easterly area, become seasonably wet and
boggy. Such conditions may pose substantial maintenance issues.
2. Practical Difficulty:
a. The residential use may continue without the variance
b. The variance is not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood
would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby
homes have adequate separation from the project site and many have similar
sheds. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
June 2, 2015
approximately 40 feet to the east, and has provided a letter of support for the
project.
d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance.
e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the
property in 2013, after the adoption of the current setback requirements.
f. A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct the shed, as
proposed.
3. Staff found the seasonal conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not
general and recurrent in nature, and it would not be reasonably practicable to form a
general regulation for such conditions or situations.
4. Staff found the variance, if granted, will not result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the
applicable zone district regulations.
5. Staff had no comment in determining if a variance shall represent the least deviation
from the regulations that will afford relief.
6. Staff found this accessory use is permitted in the E-1–Estate zone district.
7. Staff had no recommended conditions of approval.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the variance request.
Public Comment
Steven Rusch/applicant stated the shed will not exceed 120 square feet or 12 feet high. It
will not require a building permit. The exterior will most likely be cedar siding, at the
request of the nearest neighbor. The east side of the property is a muddy bog, and placing
the shed at that location is not practical.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
The members were supportive of the location.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to approve the variance request with
the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with two absent.
4. REPORTS
A. Planner Kleisler reported an application was received for the Rocky Mountain
Performing Arts Center, previously referred to as EPIC. A variance received
approximately two years ago has lapsed, and the applicant has submitted a new
application. Due to a code amendment a couple of years ago, the variance will be the
last part of the development to be heard. If the application moves forward according to
the review schedule, the variance will be heard at the September meeting. The
variance requests will most likely contain a height variance, river setback variance,
and a possible variance to the floor area ratio. Details are still being verified. The
application also includes review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, with
decisions to be made by the Town Board.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17
a.m.
___________________________________
Pete Smith, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 26th, 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in
said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of June, 2015.
Committee: Mayor Bill Pinkham, Committee Chairman/Trustee John
Ericson, Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Assistant
Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Finance Officer Steve
McFarland
Attending: Committee: Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson, Town
Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, and Finance Officer McFarland
Also attending: Assistant Finance Officer Deb McDougall,
Eric Miller, CPA – CliftonLarsonAllen (auditing firm).
Absent: None.
Chairman Ericson called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
1. 2014 Audit Overview
a. Process/progress – CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) has completed its 2014
audit of the Town’s financial results for the year ending December 31,
2014. CLA has also worked with the Finance Staff to complete the Town’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the same period. The
CAFR is expected to be ready to submit to The Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) by the June 30, 2015 due date, to be
considered for the Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting Award.
The CAFR is also due to the Office of the State Auditor by July 31, 2015.
b. In past years, the Audit Committee reviews the CAFR in mid-June. The
CAFR is then presented to Town Board prior to submission to the GFOA.
This is not a required timeline/task order – it is simply historic practice.
Due to calendar issues/conflicts and time needed to complete the CAFR,
the Audit Committee was authorized by Town Board to sign off on the
CAFR prior to the presentation of the CAFR to Town Board on July 14,
2015. This would allow the Town to meet the June 30, 2015, GFOA
deadline.
(*) Secretary’s note, July 8, 2015: The Town requested and was granted
a one-month extension (from June 30 to July 31, 2015) by GFOA to
submit the CAFR. The CAFR was submitted to the GFOA and State
Auditor on July 8, 2015.
Audit Committee – June 26, 2015 – Page 2
2. 2014 CAFR
a. CLA will be issuing a clean, unmodified opinion on the 2014 CAFR.
b. Eric Miller, CPA (audit manager for CLA) reviewed the financial portion the
CAFR with the Audit Committee. Mr. Miller and Finance Officer
McFarland discussed several items in the CAFR, and the reader is
encouraged to review the various components of the CAFR (transmittal
letter, management discussion and analysis, financial statements, notes to
the financial statements, and the statistical tables).
c. The impact of the 2013 Flood resulted in financial complexities caused by
multiple grants and reimbursement processes from repair work. Resulting
deficiencies in internal control processes were noted in the Management
Letter in the areas of Audit Entries, Journal Entry Processes, Purchasing
Processes, User Access Rights, Control Procedures, Year-end Financial
Reporting, Accounts Payable and Liability Accounts, and Visit Estes Park
(Grant Reporting). These areas were discussed, and controls/procedures
will be implemented to correct the noted areas.
d. Mr. Miller will be presenting CLA’s report on the CAFR to the Town Board
at the July 14, 2015 7:00pm meeting.
3. Audit Committee Composition
a. The Audit Committee was created by a Policy Directive on February 3,
2003. Its composition and directives have remained unchanged.
Chairman Ericson requested that, at a future Town Board Study Session,
Town Board discuss a potential modification of membership of the
Committee. The gist of the modification would involve the removal of Staff
as Committee members, since the audit is in part a report on the activities
of Staff. The Committee agreed with the suggestion.
4. Extension of CliftonLarsonAllen contract
a. CLA completed year 3 of a series of 5 one-year contacts. The Audit
Committee recommends continuing our relationship with CLA for Fiscal
Year 2015.
OTHER NEW BUSINESS
There was no other new business.
There being no further business, Chairman Ericson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
RESOLUTION # 12-15
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New BEER and WINE Liquor License, filed
by HIMALAYAN CURRY & KEBOB, INC., 101 B W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is
June 24, 2015.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 3.13 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audit Committee (Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson, Town Administrator
Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, and Finance Officer
McFarland)
Date: July 14th, 2015
RE: 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Background:
The Town of Estes Park undergoes an annual independent audit of its financial statements.
The audit report for the year ended December 31, 2014 has been completed and has been
delivered to the Audit Committee by the independent auditing firm of CliftonLarsonAllen,
LLP. The independent auditors’ report expressed an unmodified (“clean”) opinion that the
financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the
funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP). The comments made by the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) in conjunction with the 2013 CAFR award have been addressed.
Historically, the Audit Committee meets with the auditors prior to the second Town Board
meeting in June. This year’s Audit Committee meeting was held June 26th, 2015. The
auditors from CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, were represented by Eric Miller, CPA. The minutes
from the meeting are included in the Consent Agenda section of the Board packet.
Approval of the CAFR is sought at this time annually because the CAFR must be submitted
to the State of Colorado (via submission to the Office of the State Auditor) by July 31, 2015.
The CAFR is also submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for
consideration for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting award.
Typically the CAFR is submitted by June 30th, but this year an extension was granted by the
GFOA and the CAFR was submitted for the award on July 8, 2015.
The Committee is in possession of the DRAFT version of the CAFR, along with its
component elements (introductory letter, Management’s Discussion & Analysis, and the
statistical tables). Perhaps the most important aspect of the June 26th, 2015 meeting was
to review topics that will appear in the Auditor’s Letter to Management. The Letter to
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
Management cites areas in which the Town can improve its financial management
practices. Relevant information as cited in said report was discussed in detail by the Audit
Committee in its review of the CAFR at the Committee meeting. Areas for improvement
noted in the Management notes included audit entries, journal entry processes, purchasing
processes, user access rights, control procedures, year-end financial reporting, accounts
payable and liability accounts, and Visit Estes Park (grant reporting). While there was no
areas of material weakness cited, one area of significant deficiency was noted in grant
reporting/management. These items have already been addressed, and in the area of grant
reporting/management, the Town hired (February 2015) an accountant (DOLA – funded) to
specifically address flood/grant – related accounting tasks.
As was the case in 2013, the Town will be subject a Single A-133 Audit section. A Single
Audit is triggered and required when the Town expends more than $500,000 in
governmental grants during a calendar year. The Single Audit will be completed prior to the
end of September 2015, and will be presented to Town Board at that time.
The 2014 CAFR not only satisfies government and legal accounting standards, but also
reflects the professionalism and determination of the Town administration and staff to
effectively manage the Town’s finances. It is clear that the Town Board and staff share a
strong sense of fiscal responsibility to ensure the continued economic well-being of the
Town.
The CAFR information that you have is complete, but has not yet been assembled and
bound (due to time constraints). It is expected that a bound CAFR will be delivered at the
Town Board meeting.
Eric Miller, CPA, of CliftonLarsonAllen LLC, will attend the July 14th, 2015, Board meeting
and will provide comments and answer questions in regards to the audit and CAFR process.
It is important to remember that the Auditors work for the Town Board and not Staff, and as
such, are accountable to the Town Board.
Staff Recommendation:
The Audit Committee recommends acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Page 3
FINANCE Memo
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2014.
LEGISLATIVE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Ward Nelson, OLAB Liaison
Date: July 14, 2015
RE: Cascade Cottages Acquisition
Objective:
Assist RMNP / Rocky Mountain Conservancy in the acquisition of Cascade Cottages.
Present Situation:
Cascade Cottages is a private resort within Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) and
is the largest remaining private inholding within the park. The property contains
approximately 40 acres and is bisected by U.S. Highway 34, which is a designated All
American Road (there are only two such roads in Colorado). The north half of the
property is undeveloped. Cascade Cottages is located approximately ½ mile inside the
park boundary near the Fall River Entrance to the park. The resort consists of 13
cabins ranging in size from 275 sq. ft. to 710 sq. ft. and a main house containing 1,344
sq. ft. All of the structures were constructed in the 1920s and have been in use since
that time as a summer resort. The property is zoned T-Tourist in Larimer County,
which allows hotels, motels, lodges and resorts as uses permitted by right.
Cascade Cottages is one of only two private resorts that remain within the authorized
boundary of the park. It is estimated that 2 million visitors drive past Cascade Cottages
each year as they are inbound or outbound on Highway 34.
The property belongs to a family-owned Limited Liability Company (LLC). The younger
generation is not interested in continuing to operate Cascade Cottages. The older
generation, which has been operating the resort, is no longer able to do so as several
family members have passed away.
This property is of particular importance to Rocky Mountain National Park because of its
location just inside one of the park’s three major entrances. Protecting the visual
integrity and natural quality of this property and providing access to Fall River is critical
for maintaining a high quality visitor experience.
This property is located within the authorized boundary of Rocky Mountain National
Park. No change in legal authority is needed in order to acquire the property.
The family approached Rocky Mountain National Park in 2009, expressing interest in
selling the property to the NPS. Total acquisition cost is expected to be $3.6 million.
• RMNP has obtained the assistance of the Trust for Public Land (TPL) and the
Rocky Mountain Conservancy (RMC) to acquire the property. If TPL acquires the
property they expect to be reimbursed.
• RMNP has submitted this acquisition to the NPS Land Acquisition Ranking
System (LARS) in hopes of securing Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
monies to acquire the property. It is RMNP’s No. 1 priority for land acquisition. In
order for this project to compete well for LWCF monies, it will be critical for the
RMC to raise matching funds. Their fundraising efforts will promote this
acquisition as a RMNP Centennial Project.
TPL has obtained an Option Agreement from the landowners. The Option Agreement
expires at the end of calendar year 2015. RMC is embarking on a Centennial
fundraising campaign designed to raise matching funds that would enhance the
chances of obtaining LWCF monies.
If the property can be acquired, RMC has expressed an interest in evaluating some of
the structures on the property for potential development as an educational field camp for
youth and students. This would complement the park’s efforts to reach diverse and
underserved audiences.
Proposal:
RMNP and RMC requested $100K of assistance from OLAB of Larimer County. Larimer
County responded with a $50K commitment to the project; “challenging” the Estes
Valley Land Trust and the Town of Estes Park to match their funding. EVLT has
committed $25K. A contribution of $25K from the Town’s open space fund would
complete the request.
Advantages:
Local municipal monetary support will assist other fundraising / grant awarding.
Collaboration with RMNP, RMC, EVLT, Larimer County, and the Town sends a strong
message of unity re the Estes Valley experience.
Disadvantages:
Possible other uses for Open Lands funds:
Bond Park
Trail Construction
Action Recommended:
The Town of Estes Park’s commitment would be the last piece of this $100K
“challenge”. Prompt approval would allow RMC to move forward in the acquisition not
only in real dollars, but as evidence of multi governmental support.
Budget:
Open Lands
Level of Public Interest
Moderate to low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of allocating $25K of Open Lands funding towards the
acquisition of the Cascades Cottages RMNP inholding by the Rocky Mountain
Conservancy.
Attachments:
None.
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Date: July 9, 2015
RE: Conference Center Roof 2015
Objective:
Re-roof the Conference Center to repair the current condition of the failing roof
membrane.
Present Situation:
The Conference Center roof has been leaking in multiple places and causing damage to
the interior of the building. This damage has resulted in numerous stained and replaced
ceiling tiles and also damage to the drywall in two significant locations. This is the
original roof, which had a fifteen year warranty, and has been in place for twenty -four
years.
Proposal:
Public Works advertised this project in the local paper, as well as in the Loveland and
Fort Collins papers. We received interest from several front-range contractors, and had
four contractors and one consultant attend the mandatory pre-bid site walks. We also
approved the use of three different manufacturers of PVC Roofing Membranes. Public
Works has received one proposal to re-roof the Conference Center with similar, or
better, quality roofing materials.
1. RTN Roofing Systems, out of Loveland, was the only contractor to submit a
qualifying bid on the project, with a bid proposal of $118,700.
Action Recommended by Staff:
Public Works is recommending that RTN Roofing Systems be awarded the project,
using a Duro-Last PVC roofing membrane.
Budget:
The preliminary project budget for this project was set at $165,000. The Bid Proposal
from RTN Roofing was for $118,700. There are two areas of the roof that fall outside of
the scope of the membrane system, and will require a coating system to insure the life
of these areas. RTN Roofing can also address these issues during the project, but we
would need to add approximately $10,000 for these areas. Publ ic Works is
recommending a total project budget of $129,000.
Level of Public Interest
This repair will have a direct impact on the interior operation of this facility. Many groups
using this facility, had disruption is their use during the rainy May we just encountered.
The Conference Director for Rocky Mountain Park Inn has been avoiding using the
areas impacted as much as possible, which is not an ideal operating system for them.
Sample Motion
I move for the approval/denial of a $129,000 budget for the Conference Center Roof
Repair project and Award of Contract to RTN Roofing Systems for this work.
Attachments:
Attached with this memo are project pictures submitted for information purposes only.
Existing conditions around the roof drains.
The dark spots are leaks, the other picture shows standing water along a parapet wall.
Other assorted repairs, not done to manufacturers specifications.
Crumbling capstone on the parapet wall in multiple places.
Stained and mismatched ceiling tiles, and staining of the drywall and sound fabric.
Bowing and stained ceiling tiles, can lights damaged and not being used, drywall damage
Crumbling cap stone outside the original scope. Valley by the pool with metal roofing over the
top of membrane, coating system recommended for repair.
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: July 14, 2015
RE: Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification: Design Direction
Objective:
Public Works seeks direction from the Town Board regarding the scope of the final
design bid documents for the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification Project. The
project completion deadline of March 2016 imposed by the grant funding creates
immediacy for design completion, bidding, and commencement of construction.
Present Situation:
The flood of September 2013 was responsible for the overtopping and damaging the
western dam at the Scott Ponds Natural Area (aka Carriage Hills #1). The flood also
breached the eastern dam (Carriage Hills #2). In an effort to address public concern
and a modification directive from the State Engineers Office (SEO) regarding this, the
Public Works Department held an Open House in January 2015 at the Events Center
that presented concepts, accepted public comment, and presented an aggressive
schedule for modifying these two dams. Results of this meeting showed passionate
community input to improve this area. Public opinion was divided with some advocating
for removal of the two dams and others arguing for the rehabilitation and retention of the
two dams.
A project funding opportunity was pursued in March of 2015 through a CDBG-DR grant.
It requires completion of the project within one year. An application was submitted and
a conditional grant award in the amount of $925,000 was received. This award was
partnered with another award in the amount of $146,000 for river restoration near the
Fall River power plant. In April of 2015, Public Works solicited proposals for consulting
services and awarded a design contract to Cornerstone/Deere Ault in May. The
consultant team submitted a Hazard Classification Study to the SEO in June 2015 and
is awaiting comments.
On July 7, 2015, the Town and its consultant team conducted a second open house
meeting. Two design concepts were presented to the public. Concept One focuses on
full removal of the dams, and Concept Two repairs both dams to safely retain the two
ponds in their current configuration. After the presentation, Questions & Answers with
the attending public were addressed. This was followed by individual discussions
between attendees and the project team. The State Office of Emergency Management
is currently managing an Environmental Assessment of the property. It is scheduled to
be complete by the end of July.
The need for a water augmentation plan and water rights acquisition has been
recognized by the design team and brought to Town Staff for evaluation. To create
ponds in a manner similar to what currently exists will require augmentation of water
and acquisition of additional water rights. Augmentation will not impact the current
project schedule, but will trigger the need for additional funding. The current CDBG-DR
Grant may not cover the cost for this effort – but a request to the funding agency has
been made. Augmentation funding is discussed below in the Concept 2 details.
Design Concept 1:
Concept 1 takes the existing ponds out of service (See Design Alternative 1 Exhibit).
The preliminary estimated construction cost is $360,200.
Advantages:
Meets the SEO inspection mandate.
Removes completely the risk for a dam failure and damage from it.
No ongoing state jurisdictional inspections or reports are required.
Maintenance and operational resources and costs will be minor and require
no additional Public Works staff time is triggered.
Highly specialized construction knowledge and experience are not required,
resulting in a larger number of potential bidders for the work.
A new raw water augmentation plan is not needed.
Lower construction and operating costs.
Disadvantages:
The community loses a recreational and wildlife amenity.
Adjacent property values may be diminished.
Design Concept 2:
Concept 2 retains the configuration of the ponds as you see them today (see Alternative
2 Exhibit). The associated dam structures (spillway and outlet works) will be
reconstructed to meet SEO requirements. Carriage Hills #1 dam would be classified as
“Significant Hazard” (no loss of human life, but damage to downstream infrastructure
and houses is expected from clear day breach). Carriage Hills #2 dam would be
classified as “Low Hazard” (no loss of human life and no significant damage to
downstream infrastructure and houses). The preliminary estimated construction cost is
$828,310 (construction labor and materials) + $133,000 (augmentation and water share
acquisition) = $961,310 TOTAL. Additional annual operational expenses are
summarized below.
Advantages:
Meets the SEO inspection mandate.
Maintains a community recreational and wildlife amenity and one “fishable”
pond.
Preserves the property values for parcel adjacent to the upper pond.
Preserves an existing water body amenity that influenced private purchases
of the adjacent homes.
Retains a water body source for fire protection.
Dam structures would provide an attenuation of runoff benefit in the peak flow
condition.
Disadvantages:
A water augmentation plan needs to be developed and maintained. Potential
costs for this plan include augmentation plan development, Windy Gap water
share acquisition, and annual operation/maintenance costs incurred by Public
Works. An additional source to provide $133,000 of funds needs to be
confirmed.
Public Works will need to allocate funds and resource time for administration
efforts and maintenance efforts to meet the state requirements of monitoring
this jurisdictional dam. We anticipate this to be an annual effort of 2
hours/week for a Parks Division staff member to inspect the dam condition,
monitor the water level and document the findings. Plus ½ day of field
maintenance work (quarterly) to keep the spillways clean and mowed. The
estimate cost is 2 hrs/week x 52 weeks/yr x $24.50/hr = $2,548 plus
4 hrs x 2 employees x $17.91/hr x 4 times per year = $573.12.
The Town will incur additional liability in the event of a breach of either dam or
an accident in the ponds.
Use of a Pre-Qualified Contractor list is recommended for bidding. This will
limit local contractor opportunities to bid on this work.
The estimated cost exceeds the available grant funding by approximately
$36,000.
Once final design of the selected option is complete, bid documents for construction will
be provided by Cornerstone and a complete construction schedule will be delivered.
The schedule delivered in the RFP anticipates construction will be underway by
September 2015.
Action Recommended by Staff:
Staff is presenting two options for modifying the two dams in the Scott Ponds Natural
Area which meet the grant funding requirement goal completing the work by March 15,
2016. Staff recommends the Board consider public input and the advantages &
disadvantages of each option and select one concept for staff to advance to final
design, bidding, and construction.
Budget:
The expectation is that construction will be funded from a CDBG-DR grant that the
Town was conditionally awarded in March 2015. The Town has reached out to the
State OEM office to confirm that the previously unknown costs for the water
augmentation plan ($25,000) and the raw water acquisition costs (estimated at
$108,000) required for Concept 2 would be eligible for grant reimbursement. A
definitive response has not been received. Grant funding of construction of the project
is dependent on the Environmental Assessment coming back with a favorable report
that supports the project.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project is high. This project directly impacts property owners
surrounding the Scott Ponds Natural Area and has impacts to downstream property
owners, utility and road infrastructure along Fish Creek, and the community trail system.
Sample Motion:
I move to direct the Public Works staff to proceed with design Concept 1/Concept 2
(choose 1) for the final design and construction of the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam
Modification.
Attachments:
Concept 1 – Remove Dams Option
Concept 2 – Rebuild Dam(s) Option
Deere & Ault Water Augmentation Plan Proposal – Additional material available online
Town Clerk <towncl erk@estes.org>
Fwd: Scott Ponds Meeting of July 7, 2015
2 mes s ages
Kate Rusch <k rus ch@es tes .org>Wed, J ul 8, 2015 at 4:23 P M
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@est es.org>
Kate Rusc h
Public Inf ormat ion Of ficer
Town of Est es Park
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded mess age:
From : Deb B iales c hk i <dbiales c hk i@ac acamps.org>
Date: J uly 8, 2015 at 4:15:58 P M MDT
To: "joeholtz man@gmail.com" <joeholtzman@gmail.com>, Mic hael Todd <mtodd@c es
c cc .com>, Greg Muhonen <Gmuhonen@es tes .org>
Cc: Kevin As h <kas h@estes .org>, "William C. \"Bill\" Pink ham" <bpink ham@es tes .org>, Wendy
K oenig <wkoenig@es tes .org>, Ward Nels on <wnels on@es tes .org>, Bob Holc omb
<bholc omb@est es.org>, Ron Norris <rnorris @es tes .org>, John Erics on <jeric s on@es tes .org>,
Frank Lancast er <f lanc ast er@es tes .org>, A llis on Chilc ott <Achilc ot t@es tes.org>,
"t s chetz s le@yahoo.com" <t s chetz s le@y ahoo.com>, Sue Doy len <mgpep@qwes toffic e.net >, Tom
S c haffer <goty ouc overed2@aol.c om>, J ohn Phipps <jphipps @es tes .org>, K Rus h
<Krush@es tes .org>, "Marv in.cris well@c olost ate.edu" <Marv in.c riswell@c olos tat e.edu>, "Walt
Hecox (R)" <WHec ox@ColoradoCollege.edu>
S ubject: RE: Scott Ponds Meeting of July 7, 2015
Thank you for holding the community meeting last night ( July 7, 2015) concerning the Scott Ponds. It was
nice to have a chance to hear in person about the plans and for folks to be able to speak up with comments
and concerns. Sounds like Kevin Ash deserves a special “pat on the back” or maybe a raise! I think the
information presented about the plan was thoughtful, evidence‐based, informative, and offered a
foundation for productive discussion.
I have voiced support for replacing the dams (Option 2 I believe) before and continue to advocate for that
position. The data were compelling when presented around the value of keeping the dams: actually helps
reduce flooding impacts, offers a water source in an emergency, raises property values, offers unique
wildlife habitat for our neighborhood, and supports wonderful recreational experiences with the
combinations of ponds, streams, wetlands, other vegetation. I hope the neighbors along Fish Creek can rest
a bit easier with the dams after hearing the details of the new plan. I hope that when the contractor and
crew are doing the work, they can find ways to remove some of the sedimentation fill that has occurred
over the years in both ponds and maybe find a way to let the lower pond be a bit deeper/bigger…. It’d be
nice for it to not get scummed over, especially in drier years when water levels drop.
I hope the Board of Trustees is satisfied with the plans discussed last night and that Option 2 (restoring the
dams/ponds as described) will get their final approval at next week’s meeting. Thank you for the
opportunity to engage in the process as an interested citizen.
Deb Bialeschki, Ph.D.
M. Debo rah Bialesc hki, Ph.D.
Direc tor of Researc h
765.342.8456 • 765.349.3318 direct
Pro fesso r Emeritus, UNCChapel Hill
5 00 0 State Ro ad 6 7 North
Martinsville, Indiana 46 151 79 02
2 41 9 Spruc e Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80 5 17 (direct mail)
w ww.ACAcamps.org
w ww.CampPare nts.org
Camp Moves Me 2015. Join t h e Movement!
Help Send More Kids to C amp
Please consi der the envi ronment befor e pr i nti ng thi s emai l
From: joeholtzman@gmail.com [mailto:joeholtzman@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 9:08 AM
To: Michael Todd; Greg Muhonen
Cc: Kevin Ash; William C. "Bill" Pinkham; Wendy Koenig; Ward Nelson; Bob Holcomb; Ron
Norris; John Ericson; Frank Lancaster; Allison Chilcott; tschetzsle@yahoo.com; Sue Doylen;
Tom Schaffer; John Phipps; K Rush; Marvin.criswell@colostate.edu; Walt Hecox (R)
Subject: Scott Ponds Meeting of July 7, 2015
Michael and Greg:
Thank you for holding the meeting last night ( July 7, 2015) concerning the Scott Ponds. I appreciate the
time and effort both of you have put into this community effort to assure the safety, viability, and
restructuring of the Scott Ponds. Also a special thank you to Kevin Ash for his “above and beyond the call
of duty”, in seeking/securing grant funding.
I thought the meeting material was well presented, and the interchange of ideas, and information
productive.
Of particular importance ‐‐‐that was brought out, was without the dams possible flooding from
catastrophic water events would be WORSE downstream AND with the dams there are many benefits,
maintaining property values (such as my own at 1130 Scott Avenue), riparian habitat, recreation, flood
control, and safety as a potential source of water for fires in Carriage Hills that is lacking in many fire
hydrants. The water flow of CFM with the dams was considerable less (approx 60% less ) than without
the dams. In addition, I have intimate knowledge of the use of Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and
your presentation of the results of your FMEA analysis, to me – validated your specifics on the repairs
needed, and the resultant assurance of downstream safety/mitigation. As note in my prior letter to you I
am in favor of Option 2—restoration of the dams, with the suggestions I note to you.
I am looking forward to the City of Estes Park Board of Trustees Meeting on July 14,2015 concerning the
above noted subject.
Thank you again for the professional presentation and the meeting management.
Joe Holtzman
1130 Scott Ave.
Estes Park, Co. 80517
949 859 1223
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.av as t.c om
im age002.gi f
1K
Kate Rusch <k rus ch@es tes .org>Thu, J ul 9, 2015 at 12:16 P M
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@est es.org>
Kate Rusc h
Public Inf ormat ion Of ficer
Town of Est es Park
9705773701
krus c h@est es.org
www.est es.org
Lik e us: fac ebook .c om/townof est es park co
Follow us : t witter.c om/t ownofes tes park
Forwarded mes sage
From: Deb Bi aleschki <dbiales c hk i@ac ac amps.org>
Date: Wed, J ul 8, 2015 at 4:15 PM
Subjec t: RE: Sc ott Ponds Meet ing of July 7, 2015
To: "joeholtz man@gmail.c om" <joeholtz man@gmail.c om>, Mic hael Todd <mtodd@ces c c c.c om>, Greg
Muhonen <Gmuhonen@est es.org>
[Qu o te d te xt h idden]
Town Clerk <towncl erk@estes.org>
support letter for alt 2 scott ponds natural area
1 mes s age
Sue Doylen <mgpep@qwes tof fice.net>Thu, J ul 9, 2015 at 8:08 A M
To: townclerk@est es.org
To: Mayor Pink ham and Trus tees Koenig, Norris, Eric son, Holcomb, Phipps , and Nels on
RE: Support f or Sc ott P onds Option #2
July 8, 2015
Sinc e the flood of 2013 we have talked a lot about recov ery and res ilienc y. As a neighbor of t he Scott Ponds
Natural Area, it is my belief that t o acc ept any thing les s t han the opt ion 2 rest oring and reinforcing/improv ing the
ponds would be y et anot her sad c ons equenc e of the already tragic ev ent we s till rec ov er from ev ery day .
The tec hnic al informat ion prov ided by the des igning engineer at the meeting at the Mus eum last night giv es me
conf idenc e that s elec ting option 2 will not only c ontinue recov ery eff ort s but add t o t he c ommunities res ilienc y
should an ev ent lik e S ept ember 13th ev er occ ur again.
The improv ements will ins ure t hat t he rec reational, fire s afety, wildlife habitat and intrinsic aes thet ic v alues of
this s pec ial area c ontinue well int o the future, as it has for ov er half a c ent ury .
While t he Watershed Coalition and neighbors downst ream on Fis h Creek want to tak e any and all meas ures to
protect their indiv idual propert ies, many t hings c an be done by indiv idual homeowners t o c reate barriers that in
combination with the improv ements in bridge and riv er c orridor, y et t o be ac complished, will do far more to
protect their properties t han permanent ly dec ons truct ing this very special plac e.
Finally , the projec t as des c ribed in Opt ion #2 is well wit hin the grant budget, pleas e s upport this wort hy project
and the res ilienc y that it adds , and the recov ery it will bring, to the c ommunity as a whole.
Sinc erely,
Sus an L. Doy len
Town Clerk <towncl erk@estes.org>
Fwd: Town Meeting on Scott Ponds
1 mes s age
Kate Rusch <k rus ch@es tes .org>Thu, J ul 9, 2015 at 12:17 P M
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@est es.org>
Forwarded mes sage
From: Terry Riz z uti <tpriz zuti@gmail.c om>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subjec t: Re: Town Meeting on Sc ot t Ponds
To: Frank Lanc aster <flanc as ter@es tes .org>
Cc: Trus tees <Trus t ees @es tes .org>, Kate Rus c h <k rus ch@es tes .org>, Greg Muhonen
<gmuhonen@es tes .org>
Dear E s tes Park Adminis trators , I think I will s imply res tat e my two main points. Firs t, I am oppos ed to
rebuilding the dams at Sc ot t Ponds . The area should be returned to its nat ural stat e as s hown in Conc ept #1.
The Town s hould not t ake on the liabilit y of Concept #2. The longterm c os ts are f ar too signific ant. We all know
that, and we all know thos e c os ts will be borne by our future residents. Also, s hould one or both dams ev er
breac h again, the cost s as soc iat ed with downst ream damage to priv at e propert y through laws uits will fall on the
Town's shoulders , i.e., t he tax pay ers .
However, and this is my s ec ond point , as suming the Town Board v ot es in f avor of rebuilding t he dams , I think
the S c ot t Ponds area should bec ome a public park , a t rue publicac c es s f acilit y c omplete with s ignage, park ing
and picnic areas . And I think a redesign of Concept #2 and t he as s oc iated c osts ref lect ing this c hange s hould
be as ked of Corners tone Engineering bef ore final project approv al.
I thank you all for y our t ime and y our c ons ideration of thes e points . Sinc erely, Terry
Terry P . Riz z ut i
1523 Fis h Hatc hery Road
Estes Park , CO 80517
9702328456
"My t wo c ent s is worth ev ery penny ."
Position Statement – Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Public Input Meeting re: Scott Ponds, 7 July 2015, Estes Park Museum
The mission of the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC) is to promote ecologically healthy
watersheds in the Estes Valley that maximize public benefits and minimize public risk, through
community engagement and sound science. We work closely with the Town of Estes Park, and
other local government agencies, to acquire funding for, and to implement, watershed
improvement projects and post‐flood repair of our rivers and streams that will allow the Estes
Valley to respond to and recover from future flooding events with greater speed and less
disruption to our citizens and visitors.
The EVWC recognizes that the Town of Estes Park, as the property owner of the Scott Ponds
Natural Area, has the responsibility to make the best decision for the residents of Estes Park,
based upon environmental science, floodplain resiliency, public safety, and public benefits,
including economic considerations.
The decision by the Town will have impacts beyond the designated Natural Area, specifically
areas that EVWC serves downstream on the Fish Creek watershed. Therefore, EVWC has an
obligation to state our position on the restoration of Scott Ponds.
In alignment with our mission, the EVWC does support an environmentally resilient restoration
of the Scott Ponds Natural Area. We do not support the rebuilding of the dams since that is not
an ecologically resilient solution. Dams, history repeatedly shows us, always carry risks of
failure, risks to public safety, risks to ecological health. We do support a design of natural
ponds, wetlands, and stream channels for this Natural Area.
Finally, we have reviewed the July 1, 2015 Concept Design Report by Cornerstone Engineering
& Surveying, Inc. Of the two design concepts presented, Concept #1 most closely aligns with
EVWC’s mission and evaluation criteria, and has our support. Because Design Concept #2 is a
non‐resilient alternative, and carries greater risks, EVWC does not support this option.
The Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Board of Directors
Town Clerk <towncl erk@estes.org>
Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Project
1 mes s age
Wendy Hamby <hambywendy @yahoo.c om>Fri, J ul 10, 2015 at 2:04 P M
Reply To: Wendy Hamby <hamby wendy @yahoo.com>
To: "townc lerk @es tes.org" <t ownc lerk @es tes .org>
To Whom It May Concern:
We recently purchased our Estes Park home at 2041 Monida Ct. directly overlooking the
Scott Ponds Natural Area. This was one of the major factors in our decision to choose this
location for our new permanent residence. We love the fact that the community can use this
area and even more that we can watch the various wildlife use these ponds daily...it is truly
an incredible site to see.
Please choose Design Option #2 which would bring the dams up to code and keep the
ponds in tact for use by the local residence, tourists and wildlife.
Thanks for this consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris and Wendy Bell
(901) 8278960 or (901) 7513856
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: July 14, 2015
RE: Funding of mid-year Salary Adjustments and Police Body Cameras
Objective:
The objective of this memo is to seek approval to move forward with mid-year salary
adjustments and policy body camera purchases.
Present Situation:
During the course of creating and approving the 2015 Budget, approved last November
(2014), many items/projects did not make the “final cut”, and were deferred into 2015 for
future consideration. Two of the most important items as deemed by both Staff and Town
Board were 1) to complete the remaining recommended changes from the 2013
Compensation Study, and 2) to allow the Police Department to acquire requested body
camera equipment.
Since then, 2014 spendable General Fund fund balance finished at an acceptable level
(20%), and sales tax is up 10% between January and May 2015. As a result, funding is
available for both requests.
The annualized estimate, across all Funds, to complete the recommended changes from
the 2013 Compensation Study is roughly $22,000. As it is already past mid-year, the
actual 2015 cost will be a corresponding fraction of the $22,000.
The estimated cost for the Police Body cameras is $40,000. This will equip all officers
(20) with 2 additional units as backups, and will provide for adequate computer backup
and storage for resulting recorded footage.
These items were brought up at the June 25, 2015 Strategic Planning Session, at which
time Town Board members affirmed the need to proceed with both initiatives.
Proposal:
Staff requests approval to proceed with completing the 2013 Compensation Study’s
recommended changes, along with approval to move forward with body camera program
for the Police Department. Costs are not to exceed said amounts.
Advantages:
All staff wages will be within appropriate ranges for respective positions. The Police
Department will be outfitted with recommended Body Camera attire.
Disadvantages:
Both initiatives will draw down on fund balances in participating funds.
Action Recommended:
Staff is seeking Board approval to move forward with these two initiatives. Staff will
incorporate the financial results into the 2015 amended Budget, and will bring the entire
2015 amended Budget back for approval during the budget process at the end of 2015.
Budget:
In regards to the Compensation Study, Departments and Funds corresponding with the
affected staff positions will be charged.
The body cameras will be housed in the Police Department (General Fund, Department
2100). The Finance Department will need to see the itemized item list (not yet available)
to know specifically what line items will be used.
Level of Public Interest
The Compensation Study request should not generate a great deal of public interest. The
public may be interested, in a positive way, to know about the Body Camera technology.
Sample Motion:
I move of approval of allowing Staff to complete the compensation adjustments noted in
this memo, and for allowing Staff to pursue acquiring body cameras for the Police
Department.
Attachments:
N/A.
Parks 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: July 10, 2015
RE: Interview Committee for the Parks Advisory Board Appointments
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for position(s) open on the Parks
Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Parks Advisory Board is currently made up of seven volunteer community members. The
Board currently has one position open which has been vacant since September 2014 and may
have an additional position open in the near future. The interview committee decided to forego
appointing the position and requested the position remain vacant until a new pool of applicants
was established. Staff has published the position which will remain open through July 24, 2015.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed
by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board.
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 Parks 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
Parks Advisory Board interview panel.
TOWN BOARD MEETING
July 14, 2015
Report and Discussion Item #1. Dry Gulch
Road Rehabilitation Construction Contract.
This item will be a verbal report.