Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2015-02-24 Tuesday, February 24, 2015 TOWN BOARD 4:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203 4:00 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:10 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:20 p.m. Sign Code Project. (Director Chilcott and Finance Officer McFarland) 4:30 p.m. Community Center Presentation. (Executive Director Rorabaugh) 5:10 p.m. Dinner Served. 5:20 p.m. Museum and Collection Storage Facility Update. (Director Fortini) 5:50 p.m. Proposed Bear (Wildlife) Ordinance Changes. (Police Chief Kufeld) 6:20 p.m. EVDC Amendment – Animal Retail Sales and Small-Scale Animal Grooming in CD Zone District. (Planner Kleisler) 6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn. AGENDA                    March 10, 2015  Review of Draft Policy on Public Forums  Proposed New Water Rates March 18, 2015  Special Study Session – Presentation of Draft Results from NEPA Screening Process March 24, 2015  Amending Policy Governance 1.4, 1.6 & Policy 101  Discussion of Community Service Grants  ULI Report Discussion  Pride Awards  How to Add an Executive Session to the Town Board Agenda April 14, 2015  Possibility of Joining RTD  Discussion of 5 Year Plans for Infrastructure Projects April 28, 2015  Discussion of Town Owned Fish Hatchery Property Items Approved – Unscheduled: (Items are not in order of priority)  International Property Maintenance Code (Dangerous Buildings Code) and Adoption of New International Building Code Draft Reviews  Town of Estes Park Financial Policies  Downtown Development Authority  Discussion of How to Better Involve and Reach Out to the Hispanic Members of the Community Study Sessions Items for Board Consideration:  FEMA Community Rating System (Request for Approval to Engage Public in Discussions About Joining CRS Program)  Local Preference Purchasing Policy Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items February 24 2015 Community Development Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 24, 2015 RE: Sign Code Revisions: Sign Committee Objective: Obtain direction on forming a sign advisory committee. Present Situation: Sign code revisions will be completed by consultant Randal Morrison working with staff and Town Attorney White. Proposal: Staff requests direction on the following. A. Whether or Not to Form a Committee? Options include: 1. No Committee. If there is no committee, sign code revisions will be reviewed by staff prior to forwarding to Town Board for review in a public meeting. Standard public notice and outreach to community groups will be provided. 2. Committee: Ad Hoc or Advisory? If a temporary committee is formed, its purpose would be to advise and assist the Town Board and staff in sign code revisions. a. Ad-Hoc Task Force Town Board Governance Policy 102.4.1.5 Ad‐Hoc Task Forces: Task forces are special ad-hoc panels created by the Town Board for a specific project or task. Task forces are limited in duration and are not ongoing entities. The responsibilities of the task force shall be designated by resolution by the Town Board at the time the Town Board authorizes the formation of the task force. The Town Board will consider the input of task forces, as well as other community members, in making decisions on issues. The Town Board may or may not take action that is in agreement with the advice of a Town task force. Task forces may not speak for the Town, and are to advise the Town Board or the appropriate department only, and are not to take independent positions on issues with the public or the press. Examples – Bond Park Committee, Transportation Visioning Committee b. Advisory Committee (Content-Advice Giving) Town Board Governance Policy 102.4.1.2.2 Content-Advice-giving Committee This type of advisory committee is created to give advice to the Town Board or appropriate department to aid with decision making processes. Varied interests and opinions are encouraged, and the advisory committee may be asked to develop specific proposals and products for Town Board or department consideration. Membership is selected to encourage a wide variety of input from respected individuals from the community with specialized expertise. This advisory committee may or may not be a demographic reflection of the community as a whole. Example – The Tree Board Staff requests direction on if, and what type of committee to form. B. What is the Committee membership, if formed? Preferably the committee will consist of five members from various groups of interest as listed: • A representative from the Town Community Services Department. • A member or two from Visit Estes Park, EDC or ARD. • A member from retail association such as Downtown Partners for Commerce. • A member from a sign company, preferably local to Estes Park. • A member of the Board of Realtors. A sign advisory committee agenda would be prepared in advance to keep the group on task and ensure all deadlines are met. C. What is the appointment procedure? The standard procedure per Town Board governance Policy 102.4.4 Selection Process specifies appointment procedure involves Town Board selecting which Trustee will participate in an interview committee, advertising openings, taking applications, interviewing applicants, and bringing a recommendation back to the Town Board for a final decision on who to appoint. The downside to this process is that it will take at least a couple months to form the committee. Town Board governance Policy 100 Policy 1.4 Mayor’s Responsibility, 1.4.7.3 Special Committee’s states in part that “The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees.” This could be interpreted to mean that the Mayor can choose to follow an expedited process for appointment. The Community Development Department requests that the Board authorizes Town Administrator Lancaster to be the designated representative of the Board to aid staff in the selection of committee members. Citizens of the Estes Valley would be selected based on specialized expertise to allow for varied interests and opinions. Policy 1-2.4.4 Selection Process would not be followed in its entirety. D. Will the Committee have a Town Board liaison? Advantages: Advantage of a committee per Randall Morrison: • Better buy in from the public if they are part of the process. • Helps to ensure the Town Board objective of having a simplified, user friendly code is met. Disadvantages: Disadvantage of a committee per Randall Morrison: • Can drag the process out and waste time if the committee is not kept on track. Action Recommended: Does the Town Board of Trustees want staff to move forward with forming a sign advisory committee and authorize Town Administrator Lancaster to be the designated representative of the Board to help choose committee members? Action Date Identify potential committee members Late February Contact potential committee members Late February Approval from Town Administrator Lancaster Early March Form committee and hold first meeting to discuss process and objectives. Early March Level of Public Interest Moderate. Sample Motion: Not applicable Attachments: Town Board Governance - Policy #100, Policy 1.4 Mayor’s Responsibilities. Town Board Governance – Policy #102 Town Committees   Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    1        102.1  Purpose:  To establish a uniform Policy and Procedure process for Town of Estes Park  committees and to provide reference for cross training and training new personnel.  102.2   SCOPE: This Policy and Procedure applies to all Town citizen volunteer boards, commissions  and task forces, herein collectively referred to as “committees” and the appropriate staff  who support the functions of these entities. This Policy and Procedure does not apply to  internal staff committees, committees not appointed by the Town Board or outside  independent committees.  102.3   RESPONSIBILITY: The Town Administrator and Town staff shall be responsible for the  implementation of this Policy and Procedure.  102.4   PROCEDURES  NOTE: In instances where federal or state regulations and laws differ from this policy/procedure, the  federal and state laws and regulations will be followed.  102.4.1 DEFINITIONS:  102.4.1.1 COMMITTEE TYPES: Committees serve many different roles within the Town. It  is important that staff and committee members fully understand the role of each  committee and the authority and responsibility for the committee and its members. To  help define these roles, each committee will be designated as to type, as defined below:  102.4.1.2 Advisory Committees: An advisory committee serves a forum of citizens to  advise and assist the Town Board and/or a requesting Town department, providing  them with technical and non‐technical advice on issues. Advisory committees are not  authorized to make decisions on behalf of the Town. The Town Board will consider the  input of advisory committees, as well as other community members, in making  decisions on issues. The Town Board may or may not take action that is in agreement  with the advice of a Town advisory committee.  Advisory committees may not speak  for the Town or take independent positions on issues with the public or the press. Its  purpose is to advise the Town Board or the requesting department only.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    2      102.4.1.2.1 Constituent Advisory Committee: This type of advisory committee is  used as a polling type committee used to develop a sampling of community  reaction and opinion on an issue or program(s). The membership on this type of  committee should be broad based and accurately reflect the total diversity of the  larger public. Example:  The Transportation Advisory Committee  102.4.1.2.2 Content –Advice‐giving Committee: This type of advisory committee is  created to give advice to the Town Board or appropriate department to aid with  decision making processes. Varied interests and opinions are encouraged, and the  advisory committee may be asked to develop specific proposals and products for  Town Board or department consideration. Membership is selected to encourage a  wide variety of input from respected individuals from the community with  specialized expertise. This advisory committee may or may not be a demographic  reflection of the community as a whole. Example – The Tree Board  102.4.1.2.3 Working Group: This type of advisory committee may reflect both the  content or advisory type of committee, but is further charged with implementation  of a project or program.  Example – The Police Auxiliary   102.4.1.3 Quasi‐judicial Committees: Some committees and commissions are defined in  state statute and have certain statutory responsibilities and authorities, as designated  by statute. Often these committees have the authority to hold formal hearings, accept  testimony, and make decisions which have some level of legal standing. These  decisions may or may not be subject to review by the Town Board. Members of these  committees must be cognizant of protecting the unbiased quasi‐judicial nature of the  committee and its formal hearings. Activities of these committees are limited to those  authorities granted in statute or specifically by the Town Board. Example – The  Planning Commission  102.4.1.4 Decision‐making Committees: Decision‐making  committees are bodies that  either statutorily or as granted by the Town Board have authority to make decisions  which may include some of the following: approving citizen requests and applications,  allocating resources, hiring or firing employees or adopting regulations. The specific    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    3      authority of each decision‐making committee is defined in statute or in the bylaws as  approved by the Town Board. Examples – The Board of Adjustment, Board of Appeals  102.4.1.5 Ad‐Hoc Task Forces: Task forces are special ad‐hoc panels created by the Town  Board for a specific project or task. Task forces are limited in duration and are not  ongoing entities. The responsibilities of the task force shall be designated by resolution  by the Town Board at the time the Town Board authorizes the formation of the task  force. The Town Board will consider the input of task forces, as well as other  community members, in making decisions on issues. The Town Board may or may not  take action that is in agreement with the advice of a Town task force. Task forces may  not speak for the Town, and are to advise the Town Board or the appropriate  department only, and are not to take independent positions on issues with the public  or the press. Examples – Bond Park Committee, Transportation Visioning Committee  102.4.1.6 Outside and Independent Committees– These are committees that may or may  not be appointed wholly or partially by the Town Board, but are independent  autonomous committees, often serving a governance role for another entity.  This  includes, but is not limited to the Estes Valley Library Board, the Local Marketing  District, the Estes Park Housing Authority, and Western Heritage Inc.  102.4.1.7 TOWN BOARD LIAISON: The Town Trustee assigned to the committee pursuant to  Governing Policy 1.7   102.4.1.8 STAFF LIAISON: A staff position responsible for the coordination and communication  with the assigned committee and the day‐to‐day support for the committee.  102.4.2 TERMS: The term for committee membership shall be defined in the bylaws of each  committee.  Terms for outside committees are the responsibility of the specific committee and  not the Town of Estes Park.  102.4.2.1 Terms for all committee members will be staggered with the exception of ad‐ hoc or temporary committees, which may have a finite sunset.  102.4.2.2 Mid‐term appointments to positions that become vacant may be made at any  time or may be postponed to the regular term period, at the discretion of the Town Board.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    4      102.4.2.3 Unless otherwise specified by statute, members of a committee serve at the  pleasure of the Town Board, have no property interest or entitlement in their membership  or office and may be removed at any time for any reason by the Town Board.   102.4.3 RECRUITMENT:     102.4.3.1 The Town Clerk will publicize and advertise committee  vacancies each year,  and on an as‐needed basis throughout the year, utilizing paid advertising, press releases to  electronic and print media, the Town website, and other produced materials that might  engage interested residents. Applications shall be available on the Town website, at Town  Hall and at the Estes Valley Library.     102.4.3.2     RECRUITMENT  Current committee members are encouraged to help recruit  potential committee members, especially when specific targeted populations or expertise  is required.  Staff and Trustees may encourage individuals to apply for any open committee  position, however they must be clear that the authority to appoint to a committee is solely  the responsibility of the Board of Trustees, and there is no implied promise or guarantee of  appointment.  102.4.3.3  APPLICATIONS: All citizens interested in serving on a committee shall complete an  official Town application. These applications will be available from the Town Clerk’s office  and on the Town website. Applications must be returned by the deadline to the Town  Clerk’s office. Online applications are accepted from the Town website.    Citizens may apply for up to three committees at a time.  When applying for more than one  committee, applicants should prioritize their requests on the committee application form.  102.4.3.4 ELIGIBILITY: Eligibility for any committee shall be defined in the bylaws of each  committee. However, except by special circumstance as approved by the Town Board, all  members of any Town committee shall be residents of the Town of Estes Park.  No  individual who is currently serving a sentence after being convicted of a felony may serve  on any Town board.  Due to the time commitment involved, and to allow as many citizens  the chance to participate in Town committees, serving on more than one Town committee  at a time is discouraged.  However, the Town Board reserves the right to appoint  individuals to multiple committees when, in the opinion of the Town Board, it is in the best  interest of the Town.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    5      102.4.4 SELECTION PROCESS: The Town Board will seek the most qualified diverse applicants  with applicable special interest and expertise. In general, only the Town Board will select  appointments to a Town committee.  Existing committee members may assist with the  recruitment of new members, but should not screen, interview or make recommendations for  appointments, unless specifically requested to do so by the Town Board.  102.4.4.1 Selection to the committees will be carried out as follows:   102.4.4.1.1 The Town Board or its designee(s) will review the applications.  102.4.4.1.2 The Trustees or their designee(s) may screen applicants to select a pool for  interviewing.  102.4.4.1.3 The Trustees or their designee may conduct reference checks or background  checks on applicants when, in the opinion of the Town Board or its designee(s), it is in  the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Estes Park. No such checks will be  completed without the informed consent of the applicant.  102.4.4.1.4 Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or  its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.   102.4.4.1.4.1  Personal interviews shall be conducted prior to any appointment to a  Town committee, unless specifically waived by the Town Board, or as  excepted below.  102.4.4.1.4.2  Prior to candidate interviews, the Town Board or its designee(s)  assigned to conduct the interviews shall develop selection and evaluation  criteria for review of the candidates.  102.4.4.1.5 The Trustees may request assistance from the staff liaison and other  committee members.  102.4.4.1.6 Recommendations from the interview team will be made to the Town  Board, which will make the appointment(s).  102.4.4.2 Incumbent committee members who are eligible for reappointment will be  contacted by the Town Clerk’s office to assess their interest in being reappointed.     Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    6      Members who desire reappointment will be considered along with all other applicants.   Incumbents may be interviewed by the Town Board or its designee, at the discretion of the  Town Board.  102.4.4.3 By agreeing to serve on a Town committee, the member agrees to abide by this  policy of the Town Board. Any committee member who violates the terms of this Policy  and Procedure or the bylaws of the committee may be asked to resign or be removed from  the committee by the Town Board.  102.4.5  NOTIFICATION: The Town Clerk’s office will notify applicants of scheduled interviews. The  Town Clerk’s office will promptly notify applicants and incumbents requesting reappointment,  of appointments and the status of their applications  102.4.6 VACANCIES:  102.4.6.1 The Town Clerk’s office will keep all applications on file for one year. If  vacancies occur during the year, the position may be filled from the current list of  applicants using the selection process delineated or through advertising for interested  volunteers. For difficult to recruit committees, applications may be kept on file for two  years.  102.4.6.2 Resignations from any committee should be addressed in writing to the Town  Board or Town Administrator.  102.4.7      COMMITTEE ALTERNATES:   102.4.7.1      No Town committee will have members designated as alternates. All members,  other than those designated as ex‐officio or associate, shall have full membership and  voting privileges on all Town committees.  102.4.7.2       Where federal or state laws or municipal ordinances require alternates Section  102.3.7.1 is waived.    102.4.7.3      Alternate/non‐voting members who wish to become regular members must  complete an application for the appropriate committee.      Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    7      102.4.8     STAFF SUPPORT: Staff support is available to committees through the staff liaison assigned  to support each committee.  102.4.8.1      It is the responsibility of the Town Board, in coordination with the staff liaison to  provide the necessary budget and other resources for any committee to perform its assigned  duties.  102.4.8.2      It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to ensure the committee has adequate and  reasonable staff support within budgeted resources.  102.4.8.3      Staff support and staff liaisons will not be members of the committee to which they  are assigned.     102.4.8.4      It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to make requests for the Trustees' liaison to  attend assigned committee meetings through the Town Clerk.      102.4.9     TRUSTEES’ LIAISON: Individual Trustees may be assigned as liaisons to a committee by the  Town Board.  The role of the Trustee liaison is:  102.4.9.1     To serve as the primary two‐way communication channel between the Town Board  and the committee.    102.4.9.2     If so designated by the Town Board, to review applications, interview candidates and  make recommendations to the Town Board for approval.    102.4.9.3     Serve as the primary Town Board contact with the committee.    102.4.9.4     Attend assigned committee meetings when requested or whenever appropriate, in  the opinion of the Trustee liaison.  Trustee liaisons are not expected to attend every  meeting of the committee.    102.4.9.5     Any Trustee may attend the meeting of any committee; however they should notify  the official Town Board liaison in advance of attending.  This notification will allow the  liaison to know when a quorum of the Town Board may be attending the committee  meeting and to notify the Town Clerk so the appropriate public notifications can be made,  in compliance with the Colorado Open Meetings Act.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    8        102.4.9.6     The liaison is not a member of the committee and when in attendance at a committee  meeting, shall be there as an observer for the Town Board.  Participation in committee  discussions should be minimal and restricted to clarification of Town Board positions or  collection of information to bring back to the full Town Board.     102.4.10     ORIENTATION AND TRAINING: Staff liaisons should provide new committee members  with pertinent materials that will assist new members in becoming fully functioning members  of the committee, including a copy of the bylaws and a copy of this policy. Staff liaisons should  clearly inform all new members of the role of the committee and the responsibilities and  authority of the committee. Established committee members are encouraged to share their  experience and knowledge with new members. New members are encouraged to attend  meetings before their term begins.  All new committee members shall receive and  acknowledge the receipt of the Town of Estes Park Volunteer Manual.  102.4.11     BYLAWS: Each committee shall adopt bylaws that are consistent with these policies. A  copy of the bylaws shall be sent to the Clerk’s office prior to adoption, for staff and Town  Board review. This Policy and Procedure shall be incorporated, by reference, into the bylaws of  all Town committees, The bylaws shall include a description of the objectives and duties or  tasks of the committee, as set by the Town Board or the appropriate department.  102.4.12     RECOGNITION: The Town Board shall recognize the Town’s volunteers annually, in a  manner determined by the Town Board.    102.4.12.1      The Town Board will send a letter of appreciation to all outgoing committee  members in good standing.  102.4.13     OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:  102.4.13.1      Any documents, articles, reports or correspondence, recommendations or other  products produced by a Town committee shall be the sole property of the Town of Estes  Park.  102.4.13.2      No committee or member of a committee may copyright or in any other way  take ownership for any documents, articles, recommendations or other products produced  as a function of the Town committee.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    9      102.4.13.3      All documents and correspondence produced as part of the regular business of  any committee shall be subject to the same open records policies applicable to all Town  documents and correspondence.  102.4.13.4      All documents and publications of any Town committee must be clearly  identified as belonging to or originating from the Town of Estes Park.  102.4.14    OPEN MEETINGS: All meetings and actions of any committee shall be in full compliance  with state statutes governing open meetings. It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to be  familiar with these statutes and regulations.  102.4.15     DECISION MAKING:  102.4.15.1      Any actions, recommendations or discussions of any committee shall be limited  to the defined objectives of the body as described in the approved bylaws.  102.4.15.2      A common point of misunderstanding with committees and citizens is the role  of the committee in decision making and the type of decision making to be employed by  the committee for a particular issue. The Town Board realizes that not one method of  decision making fits all situations; however it is important that the type of decision be  declared early in the process of public discourse. The type of decision process is dependent  on the issue involved, the time frame available and the amount of public participation  desired.  102.4.15.3      It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to assist the committee in its decision‐ making process and to train new and existing members in the appropriate responsibilities  and authorities of the committee and its members. Staff liaisons are not to exert undue  influence during the decision‐making process, but only to keep the decision making of the  committee in agreement with the objectives set by the Town Board.  102.4.16     COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT:  102.4.16.1    COMPENSATION: Citizens who serve on Town committees do so as volunteers.  There will be no financial compensation or reimbursement of expenses, except as noted  below, for any volunteers on any committee.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    10      102.4.16.2   MILEAGE: Committee members may request reimbursement for mileage to  attend any committee function if the member must travel greater than 10 miles from their  residence. Mileage will be reimbursed at the rate currently adopted for Town travel by the  Town Board. The staff liaison is responsible for approving mileage reimbursements for  committees within the budget provided by the Town Board.  102.4.16.3   MEALS: Meals may be provided by the Town as part of regular meetings of the  committee, as budgeted.  102.4.16.4   EXPENSES: Members of committees may be reimbursed for out‐of‐pocket costs  associated with the business of the committee provided the expenditures have been  previously budgeted by the Town Board and authorized in advance by the assigned staff  liaison or Town Administrator. (For example, office supplies, copies, printing, etc.) Other  expenses may be reimbursed if, in the judgment of the staff liaison, such reimbursement is  in the best interest of the Town.  102.4.17     INSURANCE COVERAGE:  102.4.17.1     General liability (liability other than auto, including general, law enforcement  and professional) is provided to all volunteers.  102.4.17.2     Volunteers are not covered by the Town’s workers’ compensation coverage.  Any injuries incurred while volunteering is the responsibility of the individual volunteer.  102.4.17.3     Specific to automobile insurance, both physical damage and legal liability for  bodily injury or death is covered for all volunteers driving town vehicles, subject to  coverage limits pursuant to the Town’s coverage. In addition, liability is covered for all  volunteers driving their personal vehicles on Town business; however the following claims  are excluded from coverage.  102.4.17.3.1     Bodily injury or death to passengers (including friends and family) who  are not on official town business.  102.4.17.3.2     Physical damage to non‐Town owned vehicles used on Town business.  102.4.17.4     Property insurance is not provided to any personal property of the volunteer.    Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    11      102.4.18     CONFLICT OF INTEREST:  102.4.18.1     A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or  interests conflict so that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the  person’s actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage.  102.4.18.2     Members of committees shall not use their membership for private gain, and  shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or  individual.  102.4.18.3     A member of any committee who has a personal or private interest in a matter  proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the committee; shall not vote on the  item; and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the  matter.  102.4.19    GIFTS:  102.4.19.1     Acceptance of or giving of any gifts by a committee member, which could lead to  a conflict of interest, is prohibited.  In particular, no member of any committee may accept  or give a gift in excess of the value specified in Article XXIX of the Colorado State  Constitution, from any individual, organization, contractor, or any other entity which does  business with the Town or has any control of or interest in Town business related to the  activities of his or her particular committee.  102.4.20    MINUTES:  102.4.20.1    Minutes shall be recorded of all meetings of any Town committee that are subject  to the Colorado Open Meetings Act.  Approved or draft minutes should be posted as soon  as practicable after the meeting in question. Committees are strongly encouraged to post  draft minutes prior to the final approval of the minutes at the next meeting of the  committee.  At a minimum, minutes shall be published on the Town website within seven  days of approval by the committee.    102.4.20.2   Minutes should record any formal actions taken by the committee.  Minutes are  not intended to be verbatim transcripts of the meeting.  The amount of detail included in  the minutes beyond the recording of actions is left to the discretion of each committee.      Effective Period: Until Superseded  Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January  Effective Date: May 15, 2013  References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles    TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE  TOWN COMMITTEES  102    12      102.4.21  AGENDAS:  102.4.21.1    Agendas for all public committee meetings will be posted on the Town website a  minimum of six days prior to the meeting, whenever possible.    102.4.22    WAIVERS:   102.4.22.1    Any section of this policy can be waived by a majority vote of the Town Board.      ___________________________________  William C. Pinkham  Mayor  15 1.4.5.2 Signs all warrants (see section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code). 1.4.5.3 Executes all ordinances and resolutions authorizing expenditure of money or the entering into a contract before they become valid. The Mayor has the authority to disapprove such ordinances or resolutions in writing, subject to Board of Trustees override. 1.4.5.4 Mayor with, Town Board approval, appoints members of committees, and other entities that may be necessary from time to time for the effective governance of the Town. 1.4.5.5 Facilitating policies and procedures for the effective management of the Board, establishing Town goals in conjunction with the Town Board, promoting consensus and enhancing Board performance. 1.4.6 Mayor Pro Tem - Mayor Pro Tem shall assume all duties of the Mayor in the Mayor’s absence in accordance with Section 2.16.010 of the Municipal Code. 1.4.7 – Mayoral Appointments 1.4.7.1 – Board Standing Committees - “At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following standing committees: community development, public safety, public works and utilities.” (Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 7-03 §1, 2003; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010) 1.4.7.2 Special Assignments – The Mayor may appoint other trustees to serve on temporary committees, community groups, interview panels or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall inform the entire board of any special assignments and will make every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board. 1.4.7.3 Special committees.- Special committees may be established by the Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010) Community Services - Museum Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Derek Fortini, Director and Curator of Exhibits Date: February 24, 2015 RE: Museum and Collection Storage Facility Update Objective: With our Master Plan completed in 2013, the Museum needs to take the next steps towards getting a new facility. The most immediate need is a new Collections and Research Center, which is being proposed as Phase I of the Master Plan. The Museum is seeking feedback from the Board on the proposed timeframe and financial commitments from the Town so that the Museum can position itself to better cultivate a passion for our history. Present Situation: There are a number of issues with the current Museum building. Every area is crowded – whether staff offices, exhibit space, programming space, or the shop, space is at a premium. Along with these constraints, we have run out of ways to further improve and professionalize the environment of off -site storage at the “old Light and Power warehouse.” Furthermore, Light and Power has notified us that they need the warehouse back. The space was loaned to the Museum in 1992 with intentions of the Museum being out of the space within two years. Light and Power has been more than generous in accommodating the Museum and allowing facility use for over twenty years. They would like to have the building back for their use in two years. Phase I also has a growing importance since the Estes Valley Library passed a resolution (see attachments) to begin to migrate their collection of local history to us. This means the Museum will become the only professional repository in Town for local history. This is even more cause to care for our collection responsibly. A larger facility would allow the Museum more opportunity to conduct activities that define, share, and respect the unique history of Estes Park. Proposal: In order to improve our present situation, it seems more than appropriate, for a number of reasons, to begin Phase I of the 2013 Master Plan. While the Master Plan identified the corner of Highway 36 and Community Drive as the preferred alternative site for Museum expansion, it is now being proposed on its current site of Highway 36 and Fourth Street. The Master Plan site plan can be housed on the current property and Phase I would have minimal interruption of normal operations of the Museum main building and the Senior Center. Phase II is assumed to take place after the move of the Senior Center facility. The proposal to fund the Museum facility expansion would roughly break down to 50% Town funded, 25% Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. (EPMF&F) funded, and 25% grant funded. In 2012, the Town Board approved putting aside $250,000 on an annual basis (scheduled to end in 2017) towards a new Museum facility. Within the year, the fund was reduced to $200,000 and then suspended after the first year. In 2011, the EPMF&F received a solitary donation of $250,000 to go towards a new facility (specifically a collections and research facility). The proposal for the remainder of Phase I funding will be presented during the study session. The Museum has been working closely with Community Development, Public Works, and Fairgrounds to start initial planning for the Master Plan. The Museum has also been working with the EPMF&F to prepare for a major capital fundraising campaign, as well as contacting a number of grant organizations. Advantages: The following improvements will result from Phase I of the Master Plan:  Centralize and increase space for Collections on-site; current space allocated is 680 square feet (sf) on-site and 2,250 sf off-site. Proposal includes 5,800 sf for collections and research for more professional collections stewardship and future growth.  Dedicated space for researchers (there is not a dedicated space for researchers currently, they work in the staff office or in the meeting room, depending on availability).  Integrated compact storage (rolling shelving units) to maximize storage space .  Adequate work space for Curator of Collections including a processing and quarantine space for donations (an industry standard which we currently do not have).  A new Collections space would allow for proper environmental controls for all of our artifacts (not just on-site like our current situation). This includes: humidity, light, temperature, and pest control. Collections are the foundation of our institution. Each artifact we receive is comparable to getting a piece to a large puzzle (representing history). Each piece lends itself to research, which leads to interpretation and defining our history, which leads to public information (through programs, exhibits, publications, etc.). As donations grow, so does the puzzle, its connections, and the history it represents.  Increased office space; current space allocated for staff offices is 600 sf, the Master Plan proposes 1,650 sf to accommodate five offices, a meeting area for 6-8 individuals, designated space/office for EPMF&F, staff kitchen/break room (there is not currently a break room), and staff restroom .  Increased mechanical room; current allocation is 40 sf with a proposal of 400 sf. This would be adequate to host a server room (which is needed with our increasing digital collection/digitization of collection artifacts), security (currently exposed in staff offices), as well as HVAC, a humidification system, and a riser/sprinkler (which our current building does not have). This mechanical room would be large enough to serve Phase I and Phase II of the Master Plan.  The Museum currently has a workshop located in the Senior Center basement of roughly 500 sf. The proposed work shop, which makes it possible to do 90 -95% of our exhibit work in-house and keep costs down, would be 500 sf but located within Phase I and built as an air-tight, independent space with double wide doors, utility sink, adequate storage and ventilation, all of which are not currently present. Phase II benefits would include:  An expanded exhibit space would greatly enhance visitor experiences.  An expanded Museum Shop would improve shop operation and lead to a larger revenue produced by EPMF&F.  An expanded meeting room would accommodate larger audiences and greatly enhance audience experiences. Disadvantages: While there is an immediate need, there could be some disadvantages with Phase I:  Completion of Phase I locks us into the current site, however, the site can accommodate the entire Master Plan and Phase I would be designed to be expanded on in the future (Collections are one aspect of a Museum that is in constant growth). Also, no matter how long it takes for Phase II to be constructed, all main Museum building operations would be on one site and no longer utilizing the Senior Center or the Light and Power warehouse.  Another disadvantage is the timeframe and cost. Because it is a short timeframe, there is a larger request from all funding agencies. However, there are funds that have already been contributed (making grant possibilities more likely) and this is a great opportunity for the Museum and EPMF&F to pursue one of their goals for community engagement and membership growth. It is important to note that costs will only continue to rise. Level of Public Interest The Museum Master Plan, and specifically Phase I, is a high interest item from the public. There are several components individuals or groups would be interested in:  The surrounding neighborhood shows interest in activity adjacent to the residential area. There is opportunity to host public meetings to gather input and find something atheistically pleasing and valued by them.  There is a growing interest of the possibility of Phase I with local service clubs. Phase I offers a huge opportunity to engage and offer archival space for local service clubs. This would allow for their artifacts to be professionally cared for and protected, allow the Museum to build relationships with these groups, encourage groups to grow their collections, and make for opportunities to display group contributions to our history (which is so prominent in building our community). Some of the groups interested include the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (which we have been collaborating with for signage along public pathways), Estes Park Sister Cities Association, Inc., Summer Residents Association, Cheley Camps, Estes Park Western Heritage, Town of Estes Park Clerk’s Office, Estes Valley Library District (as an institution but also with their current collection that includes League of Women Voters, Lions Club, New Comers, Sunrise Rotary, Noon Rotary, and the Women’s Club). There are a number of other organizations yet to be contacted.  The Museum is currently gathering feedback from a number of individuals who helped move the three historic structures (known as our out buildings) to the Museum property to help determine what possibilities we could have with each structure’s future.  EPMF&F and their 420 members have a vested interest in the future and progress of the Museum.  Initial and planned future conversations will take place with Visit Estes Park in relations to their approach to economic diversification and heritage tourism, of which the Estes Park Museum could be a major leader in.  We have a number of consistent researchers who will be interested in what plans there are to accommodate their needs as well as accessibility to collections during any transition stages.  There have been a few potential donors with large collections (such as the largest collection of Estes Park postcards assembled) that have remarked of a desire to donate to the Museum, but have withheld because of current conditions. These donors follow Museum news closely and will be highly interested in a new Collections facility. Attachments: Estes Park Museum Master Plan Site Plan Estes Park Museum Master Plan Building Plan Letters of support: Support Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. Support Dr. James Pickering Support Estes Valley Library District Resolution from Board of Estes Valley Library District Support Estes Park Western Heritage Foundation, Inc. February 7, 2015 Derek Fortini Director, Estes Park Museum 200 Fourth Street Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Derek: I am moved to write because of the continuing lack of adequate Museum storage space for Estes Park’s historical collections. This deficiency was highlighted again this week when the Board of the Estes Valley Library discussed the need to relocate its local history materials to another repository, and no firm decision could be reached. All of Estes Park’s historical materials should, of course, be located in one central repository. The continuing duplication of resources in their preservation and use makes little sense financially and otherwise. Much of the argument for adequate storage facilities has, of course, to do with public stewardship—what we owe to those who have contributed materials of various kinds for the educational benefit of those to follow. When materials are accepted by Museum staff it is because their acquisition is deemed sufficiently important to the historical record of this historically-rich community. Their acceptance also represents a tacit reciprocal commitment to their donors, many of whom are parting with one-of-a-kind materials of great personal and family value, that their gifts will be both adequately stored and protected and be made available to qualified researchers. But there is another compelling reason for my concern as will. What happens in Estes Park today is tomorrow’s history. It is imperative that the physical record of today’s events, in whatever form it may exist, including electronic, be preserved so that future historians can interpret and tell our history. Nowhere is this more important than with respect to documents produced by the Town of Estes Park, by its several departments, and by the other taxing districts and institutions that are part of this community. On a number of recent occasions I have searched in vain for research reports and studies, commissioned and paid for by the Town, that have apparently vanished from the public record. What is also singularly missing from the public record are the papers of our mayors and town administrators—not to mention those who head the other taxing districts, institutions, and organizations who also call the Estes Valley home. Yet it is precisely on the records of such individuals will need to rely that historians of the future will need to rely in their efforts to understand the fast-moving present in which we now live. With respect to the Estes Valley Library, it is not simply a matter of relocating research collections and materials. At present, as you know, the Library is the only place in the Valley where researchers can sit at a comfortable table in a climate- controlled environment and pursue their work. An adequate storage facility will, of course be expensive. And there is never a good time to commit what some perceive as discretionary tax dollars to public projects. But now that the decision has apparently been made to leave the Museum in its present location, there are few excuses not to charge the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, Inc. to move ahead with a fund-raising plan. The Town, it is my understanding, has already put aside funds for this purpose. A generous gift toward the construction of an adequate research and storage facility has already been made by a member of the Friends Board. These two commitments are, in my judgment, a sufficient enough sign of a public-private partnership to use as the basis for a dedicated fund-raising effort. Sincerely, Dr. James H. Pickering Historian Laureate Town of Estes Park Cc: Frank Lancaster Town Administrator, Town of Estes Park Claudine Perrault Director, Estes Valley Library Resolution to Authorize Development of a Joint Plan with the Estes Park Museum for Management of the Library’s Local History Archive WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Library maintains an archive of historic and artistic items related to the Estes Valley, and makes those materials available to the public, and; WHEREAS, the Library has filled the space available to preserve and store these materials, which hinders continued collection, proper preservation, and public access, and; WHEREAS, the interests of the Library and the Estes Park Museum overlap in collecting, preserving and providing access to historic materials, and; WHEREAS, the interest of the community in the donation, preservation and availability of historic materials can best be supported by consolidating these items in a single facility designed for archive protection and research, and; WHERAS, the Library and the Museum believe that through a cooperative effort they can preserve the material and can provide improved public access better than they can by each pursuing a separate strategy, and; WHEREAS, the Library staff has made a preliminary recommendation to transfer the materials to the Museum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Estes Valley Public Library District Board of Trustees approves the direction recommended by the Library staff regarding the transfer of historic archival materials currently housed at the Library to the Estes Park Museum; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Estes Valley Public Library District proceed to develop with the Town of Estes Park an intergovernmental agreement prior to initiation of archival material transfer, such agreement to address for various types of materials, their ownership, custody, loaning procedures, and a digitization and electronic access plan for key historic research materials; and be it further RESOLVED, that such agreement with the Town of Estes Park provide assurances that the Estes Park Museum can provide adequate space with appropriate environment for preservation of all materials transferred from the Library plus anticipated future growth, that all transferred materials will be available for public access and research, and that the Town of Estes Park is committed to digitization of historic documents to facilitate creation of a searchable electronic database available to the public through both the Museum and the Library; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Library staff will be available to work with the Museum staff to devise transfer plans that determine materials to be transferred, create a general timeline with priorities in which material is transferred, incorporate public input when appropriate, provide notice of the transfer to organizations that have entrusted the Library with their historic materials, determine which materials should be digitized to facilitate electronic research, and create a cost and time estimate plus funding options for digitizing the historic documents; such plans and progress reports to be presented to the Board of Trustees for comment, direction and approval prior to initiating that phase of the material transfer project. ADOPTED, this 17th day of February, 2015. ATTEST: _______________________________ Estes Valley Public Library District Board of Trustees _______________________________ Estes Valley Public Library District Board of Trustees   Estes Park MuseumFuture of the FacilityDEREK FORTINI, DIRECTOR & CURATOR OF EXHIBITS Facility Expansion Funding/TimeframePhase I2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total %Town $200K $275K $275K $275K $1.025M 36%EPMF&F $250K $250K $250K $250K $1M 35%Grants $50K $775K $825K 29%Total $250K $200K $0 $0 $525K $575K $1.3M $2.8MPhase II2018 2019 Total %Town $200K $200K $400K 57%EPMF&F $100K $100K $200K 28%Grants $100K $100K 14%Total $285K $285K $700KPhase III2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total %Town $300K $300K $300K $300K $300K $300K $1.8M 37.5%EPMF&F $300K $300K $300K $300K $300K $300K $1.8M 37.5%Grants $250K $250K $750K $1.25M 25%Total $600K $850K $850K $600K $600K $1.35M $4.85M POLICE DEPARTMENT Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Wes Kufeld, Chief of Police Date: February 24, 2015 RE: Discussion of Proposed Bear (Wildlife Protection) Ordinance Objective: To engage in a comprehensive discussion with the Town Board and determine if a standardized and separate Wildlife Protection Ordinance should be considered within the Town limits of Estes Park, or if the current Littering Ordinance 9.16.070 of the Municipal Code should be amended to allow enforcement to address wildlife concerns and trash abatement in residential and commercial areas. Present Situation: For the past several years the Town of Estes Park has experienced a noticeable increase in wildlife encounters, particularly bears in search of food. These begin annually in the early spring with problems escalating until bears return to dormancy in the late fall. The encounters consist of bears spilling trash cans, dumpsters, grease bins and in some cases breaking into cars, sheds or residences in order to obtain food items. The attached map illustrates the locations of documented bear calls/incidents within the Estes Valley in 2014. Since 2012, the Estes Valley Bear Education Task Force has been successful in educating visitors and local residents about bears and the importance of maintaining proper trash storage. Those educational efforts, supported by increased enforcement action by the Police Auxiliary members and sworn officers, have resulted in a noticeable decrease in bear conflicts within the Town Limits of Estes Park. However, conflicts still occur regularly and are likely to increase in dry years when natural food supplies are limited. With increased activity and increased community awareness, there is greater concern for the welfare of bears in the Estes Valley, including their potential to ingest toxic materials, or be injured/killed by a vehicle or by a citizen in self defense, or to become a habitual offender that must be euthanized by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The police department is cognizant of increased bear-human encounters in populated areas and therefore officers are vigilant in efforts to educate citizens not to approach bears. The department also utilizes negative conditioning to move the bears away from populated areas when necessary. Within Town limits, the current Littering Ordinance (9.16.070) of the Estes Park Municipal Code (attached) is enforced and has resulted in summons being issued to repeat offenders who fail to secure their trash, resulting in litter. However, as it pertains to securing trash from bears and other wildlife, the Police Department has determined the Littering Ordinance does not provide the proper backing for enforcement opportunities that could ultimately increase public safety and wildlife safety. Although the Littering Ordinance has been utilized and supported by the Estes Park Municipal Court, it is cumbersome to navigate and makes it difficult for the Police Department to present a clear case of enforcement relating to bear and other wildlife attractants. Proposal: Staff proposes the Town Board consider replacing the current Municipal Littering Ordinance with a new ordinance that supports specific elements of enforcement to better protect humans and wildlife. A Wildlife Protection Ordinance could include container specification, enclosure specification, and/or time of day requirements for putting trash out for collection. Staff could draft for the board’s consideration a new ordinance consistent with those of comparable Colorado mountain communities, and which fits the culture of Estes Park. If asked to proceed, staff would also recommend he Town ask for input from community stakeholders. The recommendation to consider a new ordinance has also been made to staff by members of the Estes Valley Bear Education Task Force (attached). Advantages:  An improved, detailed ordinance would increase awareness and safety of local residents and guests, as well as wildlife, and support the Town’s Mission and 2015 Strategic Plan.  The adoption of a clear Wildlife Protection Ordinance would allow consistent enforcement within the Town of Estes Park.  A Wildlife Protection Ordinance would inherently support and reinforce educational messages to residents and businesses that trash must be protected from. Disadvantages:  Depending on the final ordinance adopted by the Town Board, some residents and businesses could be required to change their current trash management practices and/or purchase wildlife-resistant containers or other means to secure trash.  Some citizens and visitors may not comply with requirements to secure trash.  Educational efforts will need to be expanded to include the adopted ordinance.  Unless changes are implemented in the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley, incident reduction will only be seen within Town limits. Action Recommended: Staff are asked to draft a proposed Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Budget: No budget implications at this time. Level of Public Interest A high level of public interest is expected. Sample Motion: No motion at this time. Estes Park Municipal Code 8.04.010 Keeping of waste material prohibited. (a) It is unlawful to deposit, accumulate, store, keep, abandon or to allow the deposit, accumulation, storage, keeping or abandonment of waste material, including but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, trash, waste metal, waste paper products, waste lumber, discarded building materials, discarded furniture or furnishings, abandoned or inoperable vehicles, abandoned or discarded machinery or machinery parts, feces or debris on private or public property within the Town; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply if the same is stored or collected in conjunction with a business enterprise lawfully situated and licensed for such storage or collection. (b) The deposit, accumulation, storage, keeping, abandonment of any of the types of waste material or debris described in Subsection (a) above, or the allowance or granting of permission to do the same, on public or private property within the Town is declared to be a nuisance and to be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens. (c) Any law enforcement, community service or code enforcement officer is authorized to investigate  any matter at any place within the Town which reasonably appears to be in violation of the provisions of  this chapter. (Ord. 15‐97, 1997)      9.16.070 Littering of public and private property. (a) It is unlawful to commit littering. (b) Any person who deposits, throws or leaves any litter on any public or private property or in any waters commits littering. (c) It is an affirmative defense that: (1) Such property is an area designated by law for the disposal of such material and the person is authorized by the proper public authority to so use the property; (2) The litter is placed in a receptacle or container installed on such property for that purpose; or (3) Such person is the owner or tenant in lawful possession of such property, or he or she has first obtained written consent of the owner or tenant in lawful possession, or the act is done under the personal direction of the owner or tenant. (d) Definitions. (1) Litter means all rubbish, waste material, refuse, garbage, trash, debris or other foreign substances, solid or liquid, of every form, size, kind and description. (2) Public or private property includes, but is not limited to, the right-of-way of any road or highway; any body of water or watercourse, including frozen areas or the shores or beaches; any park, playground or building; any recreation area; and any residential, farm or ranch properties or timberlands. (Ord. 2-84 §2(part), 1984; Ord. 15-97, 1997)   LAKE ESTES MARYS LAKE MountOlympus8808' Rams HornMountain9555' KrugerRock9355' Giant TrackMountain9091' Eagle CliffMountain8806' DeerMountain10013' CastleMountain8894' ProspectMountain8900' DeerRidge' EmeraldMountain9237' Old ManMountain8304' ParkHill' Buck Creek BigHorn Creek Black CanyonCreek EastFork FishC reekWindRiverAspen Brook G l a c i e r C reekFishCreekB e aver Brook B ig T h o mpsonRiverF allRiver HermitPark OpenSpace UV7 UV66 £¤36 £¤34 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 £¤36 [ 0 1½Mile ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK Black C a n y o n C reek £¤36 0 1,200 2,400 Feet Bear Sightings Zoned Co mmercial Parks Town Boundary RMNP Boundary YMCA Boundary 2014 Reported Bear Incidents in Estes Valley See Inset Inset Updated: 2/17/2015File: BearSightings24x36.mxd 1 inch = 1,200 feet YMCA 0 275 550 Feet 1    Rocky Mountain National Park North American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Incidents Report‐ 2014 Background Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) initiated the third year of a Federal Lands Recreation  Enhancement Act (FLREA)‐funded project to improve visitor experience through reducing bear damage  and confrontations.  This summary provides data on several of the activities of interest including  property damage due to bears, hazing, and food rewards to bears as well as detailed incident data.  This  information was compiled from Bear Management Report forms, phone calls, emails from dispatch,  wildlife observation forms and direct observation from calendar year 2014.  All data was entered into  the wildlife database. Once data was entered, interactions defined as bear incidents were placed into  separate spreadsheets for further analysis.   Bear incidents from 1979 – 2013 were defined as a report containing one or more specific components  (e.g. property damage, food reward, hazing, aggressive behavior, injury/death to visitors/staff and a law  enforcement written warning or citation). In 2014, there were numerous reports of bears attempting or  successfully entering human “structures” (buildings, tents, or vehicles) without property damage.  Due  to the serious nature of these activities and their potential for human harm or property damage these  reports were also considered incidents in 2014.  In previous years a total number of reports that  contained one or more components of interest (i.e. food reward, property damage, hazing, etc.) were  tallied to determine the total number of incidents for the year.  This number was designed to indicate  the number of situations where human‐bear interactions were negative.  Over the past several years  many “hazing‐only” incidents have been recorded.  Hazing is important to track as these incidents  represent bears behaving in a manner which requires hazing; however, hazing can be interpreted as a  positive action by visitors or staff to deter a bear who appears to be searching for food or exhibiting  other unwanted behaviors.  In order to account for these positive outcomes separately from those that  are clearly negative, such as property damage, an attempt has been made throughout this report to  include comparisons of individual activities and reduce comparisons when all incidents are lumped  together.  We believe this change will better inform management on where future effort may be needed  to address the specific bear and human behaviors that are of concern.     2    Yearly Comparisons Bear incidents can vary from year to year based on a variety of factors including snowpack, weather,  degree of previous habituation, or other factors.  For over ten years RMNP bear incident data on a  standard form designed to collect similar, specific information, from each park observation or incident  including bear description, behavior, date and time of incident and other factors such as property  damage and food reward.  Prior to initiating this project in 2012, the Park summarized data from the  previous 5‐year timeframe (2007‐2011) to establish a baseline number of incidents per year in various  categories to which our current efforts are compared.  We will consider the current project a success if  we 1) reduce reportable property damage attributed to bears, 2) reduce incidents of food rewards  (including trash) to bears, and 3) increase visitor knowledge of bears particularly by campers and  picnickers using park facilities.  Knowledge will be inferred through a change in visitor behavior in bear  country to reduce confrontations.   Goal 1: Reduce reportable property damage attributed to bears Prior to implementation of this project the 2007‐2011 average baseline was 24 reportable property  occurrences annually.  In both of the last two years (2013 and 2014) the number of incidents involving  property damage has been below our baseline measure, at 20 and 16 incidents respectively (Figure 1).      Figure 1: Property damage reported in RMNP prior to (2007‐2011) and during (2012‐2014) the current bear program.  It appears we are succeeding at reducing property damage.  One property item where the trajectory of  damage has drastically changed is vehicles (Figure 2).  Prior to the start of this program, vehicle damage  was steadily increasing each year.  Specific actions we have taken that are likely responsible for the  decrease are the addition of 178 food storage lockers in campgrounds and select trailheads and  increased visitor education and signs regarding food storage.  31 20 16 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2012 2013 2014 2007‐2011 Avg. RMNP Property Damage 2007 ‐2014 3      Figure 2: Vehicle damage reported in RMNP prior to (2007‐2011) and during (2012‐2014) the current bear program.  Goal 2: Reduce incidents of food rewards (including trash) to bears A second measure of the current bear initiative is whether food rewards to bears are decreasing.  Prior  to implementation of this project the 2007‐2011 average baseline was 19 food rewards documented per  year.  Annual results from the first three years of our program are mixed and indicate that continued  focus on additional ways to reduce food rewards is needed.  In 2012, rewards increased to 30, with a  sharp decrease in 2013 to 10, before increasing again in 2014 to 21 (Figure 3).     Figure 3: Food rewards reported in RMNP prior to (2007‐2011) and during (2012‐2014) the current bear program.  1 2 5 9 10 13 4 2 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Vehicle Damage Incidents 2007 ‐2014 30 10 21 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2012 2013 2014 2007‐2011 Avg. RMNP Food Rewards 2007 ‐2014 4    Goal 3: Increase visitor knowledge of bears particularly by campers and picnickers using park facilities. Knowledge will be inferred through a change visitor behavior in bear country to reduce confrontations. The third goal for our bear program is difficult to measure without structured surveys to  test baseline knowledge or change in knowledge of bears based on our education efforts.  One way to infer a  change in knowledge is to measure the change in a  specific behavior,  hazing, that we have emphasized in our messages. Prior to implementation of this project  the 2007‐2011 average baseline was 22 hazing efforts documented per year.  Annual  results from the first three years of our program are mixed but primarily indicate an  increase in hazing with 37 in 2012, 21 in 2013, and 34 in 2014 (Figure 4).      Figure 4: Hazing reported in RMNP prior to (2007‐2011) and during (2012‐2014) the current bear program.   Perhaps another indicator of whether hazing is successful is the number of incidents that involved  hazing only. Two out of the three years the current bear program has been in place the number of  hazing‐only incidents are substantially higher than the previous five year average (Figure 5).  These  incidents represent times when visitors or staff proactively took action towards a bear exhibiting  potential problem behavior.   37 21 34 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2012 2013 2014 2007‐2011 Avg. RMNP Hazing 2007 ‐2014 5      Figure 5: Hazing only incidents reported in RMNP prior to (2007‐2011) and during (2012‐2014) the current bear program.  Although hard to surmise what “would have happened” had a bear not been subjected to hazing, our  data show that hazing is effective, and in most cases caused a bear to retreat. Hazing is defined as  visitors or staff yelling or making other loud noises, using aversion rounds, chasing, looking large, shining  lights or throwing objects to repel a bear.  Hazing resulted in the bear retreating immediately 68% of the  time (23 of 34 cases). Yelling or making other loud noises were the most frequently used and effective  hazing methods, resulting in the bear retreating immediately 50% of the time (19 of 38 cases) (Figure 6).   Figure 6: Bear reactions to various types of hazing in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014.    The first three years of the Park’s enhanced bear management program show success in some areas but  also show the need to continue our efforts.  In 2015, we will hire a bear technician position and take  time to re‐evaluate where and why incidents are continuing to occur and develop the next strategies  and tactics needed to reach our bear management goals.  22 12 19 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 2012 2013 2014 2007‐2011 Avg. RMNP Hazing Only Incidents 2007 ‐2014 0 2 4 6 8 10 Yelling Making other noise Chasing Throwing object Paintballing Looking big Strobe light Type of Hazing Used Bear Responses to Various  Hazing Techniques Immediate retreat Retreat and return Retreat to other human area Continue behavior Make noise Slow retreat Approach visitors 6    2014 Summary 2014 Overview In 2014, there were 61 incidents which included one or more activities of interest (property damage,  hazing, food reward, attempted vehicle entry, attempted building entry, attempted entry into a tent,  vehicle entry and building entry). Many incidents included more than one activity, such as property  damage combined with hazing; therefore the total number of activities/outcomes when tracked  individually exceeds the total number of incidents.  The first incident of 2014 occurred on May 25th, and  the final incident occurred on September 13th. Incidents peaked in July, followed by August, and then  June which accounted for most of the incidents.  September had five incidents, May had one and there  were no incidents in the rest of the year.   On a weekly basis, incident numbers varied by day of the week with the highest number of bear  incidents occurring on Saturdays (13 incidents), followed by Mondays (12 incidents), and Thursdays (9  incidents). Wednesdays and Sundays had 8 incidents each, followed by Fridays (6 incidents) and  Tuesdays (5 incidents).    The majority of incidents (28) occurred between the hours of 19:00 and 7:00.  The second most frequent  time of day in which incidents occurred was evenings (15:00 – 19:00) with 12 recorded incidents,  followed by mornings (7:00 – 11:00) and afternoons (11:00 – 15:00) with 7 incidents each (Figure 7).     Figure 7: Bear incidents by time of day in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014    The most common incident activities were hazing with 34 and food rewards with 21 (Figure 8). There  were 16 cases of property damage and no cases of aggressive bear behavior or injuries to staff or  visitors.    Morning (7:00 ‐11:00) 13% Afternoon  (11:00 ‐15:00) 13% Evening  (15:00 ‐19:00) 22% Night  (19:00 ‐7:00) 52% Time of Day when  Incidents Occurred N=54 incidents with reported times 7    Figure 8: Incident activities in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  It is important to distinguish incidents in which hazing was the only component from those in which  hazing occurred alongside other activities.  Hazing is used when bears are behaving in an undesirable  manner; however, unlike the rest of the incident activities/outcomes, which have purely negative  outcomes, hazing is an indicator of visitor awareness and can often have a positive outcome (negative  reinforcement of bear behavior, no food reward, no property damage, etc.).  The breakdown of incident  activities excluding hazing only is shown below (Figure 9). This graph better represents the activities that  require additional management attention and/or response.      Figure 9: Incident activities/outcomes, excluding hazing only, in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014   57% 35% 27% 17% 8%7% 2% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Hazing Food reward Property damage Building entry Attempted entry (building) Vehicle entry Attempted entry (vehicle) Attempted entry (tent) Incident Activities, 2014 N=92 total activities recorded 62% 47% 24%29% 15%12% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Incident Components 2014 (Hazing‐Only Excluded) N=34 activities when hazing‐only is excluded 8    Incidents (including hazing only) primarily occurred in the frontcountry with 43 events and only 18 in the  backcountry.  Table 1 below shows the number of incidents that occurred at locations throughout the  park in both the frontcountry and the backcountry. Notable frontcountry bear incident hotspots  included Kaley Cottages (6 incidents), Glacier Basin Campground (5 incidents) and Aspenglen  Campground (4).  In the backcountry, North St. Vrain, Bighorn and McGregor Mountain campsites had  the highest number of bear incidents, with two each (Table 1).  Table 1. Frontcountry and backcountry incident locations in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  Frontcountry Locations Incident Backcountry Locations Incidents  McGraw Ranch 1 Onahu Creek Campsite 1  High Drive 1 Cub Creek Campsite 1  Sterling House ‐ Fall River Road 1 Arch Rocks Campsite 1  Hines Cabin ‐ Moraine Park 1 Golden Banner Campsite 1  Timber Creek Campground 1 North Long's Peak Trail 1  East Portal Trailhead 1 Pear Lake Campsite 1  Sandbeach Lake Trailhead 1 Cutbank Campsite 1  Moraine Park 1 Wild Basin Trail 1  Backcountry Office 1 Ouzel Lake Campsite 1  Sprague Lake 1 Goblin's Forest Campsite 1  Mill Creek Ranger Station 3 Wind River Bluff Campsite 1  Tuxedo Park 3 Lawn Lake Patrol Cabin 1  Machins Cottages in the 3 McGregor Mountain 2  Moraine Park Campground 3 Bighorn Campsite 2  Bear Lake/Nymph Lake Trail 3 North St. Vrain Campsite 2  Headquarters Housing 3 Total 18  Aspenglen Campground 4 Glacier Basin Campground 5 Kaley Cottages 6 Total 43 District Comparisons A number of distinctions were found between the four park districts in terms of bear incidents in 2014.   The primary difference was the number of incidents reported in each district.  Thompson River District  (TRD) reported the largest number of bear incidents throughout the summer with 39 out of a total of 61  (64%).  TRD was followed by Fall River District (FRD) with 13 incidents (21%), while Saint Vrain (SVD) had  7 (11% of total) and Colorado River District (CRD) had 2 (3%).  Hazing bears occurred more frequently in TRD than the other districts and was the most commonly  reported activity for TRD. In FRD, food rewards and hazing were most commonly reported, and in SRD,  property damage was the main component of concern.  Building/vehicle entries were reported in TRD  more than any other district.  Two of these 13 entries were vehicles and 11 were buildings.  Two of the 3  attempted or successful entries in FRD were vehicles, and the other was a tent.  No attempted or  successful entries occurred in SVD or CRD (Figure 10).  9      Figure 10: Types of incidents for each district of Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014    Looking at incidents in each district by month, it appears that the majority of incidents in the SVD  occurred in August (5), whereas in the FRD bear incidents remained steady between June and  September with 3 per month (Figure 11).  The 2 incidents that occurred in the CRD occurred in June and  July. Thompson River District incidents increased rapidly from May to July and then decreased slightly in  August.  Incidents in TRD then dropped sharply in September.  The observed pattern in the TRD was  likely influenced by two blonde bears which were hard to distinguish from one another.  One of the two  were identified in over 40 incidents outside of the park (primarily along the Highway 66 corridor) and 20  incidents in the park; all in the TRD.    On August 4, one of the blonde bears was euthanized outside of  the park by Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff; which may account for the sharp reduction of incidents in  the TRD in September.  A more detailed discussion of the two blonde bears and their influence on RMNP  incidents can be found later in this report.      Figure 11: Monthly incidents for each district of Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  1 3 7 10 1 44 7 11 7 25 001 13 002 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Colorado River Saint Vrain Fall River Thompson River District Incident Components by District Food Reward Property Damage Hazing Vehicle/Building Entry Attempted Entry (Vehicle/Building/Tent) 001 010 3 9 11 3 17 0 5 3 12 0 1 3 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Colorado River Saint Vrain Fall River Thompson River District Monthly Incidents by District May June July August September 10      Distinctions also existed between districts in terms of the time of day that incidents occurred.  Both TRD  and FRD reported the largest number of incidents overnight (16 and 10, respectively).  Relatively few  incidents occurred in the afternoon in TRD and FRD, while SRD reported half of all incidents occurring in  the afternoon (Figure 12).    Figure 12: Incidents by time of day for each district of Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  Comparisons were also made between the frequency of frontcountry versus backcountry incidents in  each district.  As Figure 12 below shows, TRD reported far more incidents in the frontcountry than in the  backcountry.  Contrarily, SVD recorded more incidents in the backcountry.  Fall River District reported an  almost equal number of incidents in the frontcountry as in the backcountry as did the CRD (Figure 13).     Figure 13: Frontcountry and backcountry incidents for each district of Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  000 7 0 2 1 4 11 3 7 11 10 16 0 5 10 15 20 Colorado River Saint Vrain Fall River Thompson River District Timing of Incidents by District Morning (7:00 ‐11:00) Afternoon (11:00 ‐ 15:00) Evening (15:00 ‐ 19:00) Night (19:00 ‐ 7:00) 11 6 35 1 6 7 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Colorado River Saint Vrain Fall River Thompson River Frontcountry vs. Backcountry Incidents by  District Frontcountry Backcountry 11    Monthly Comparisons Results show that hazing occurred more frequently in July than in any other month.  The number of food  rewards peaked in August with 9, and property damage steadily climbed from May to September, at  which point it dropped off slightly.  Building and vehicle entries also increased steadily from May to  September, when they stopped entirely.  Attempted building, vehicle and tent entries remained fairly  steady throughout the season.  In June, all 5 attempted or successful entries were into buildings.  In July  and August, attempted or successful entries into vehicles increased, with 1 in July and 3 in August.   Buildings continued to be targeted in July and August with 5 attempted or successful entries in July and  4 in August (Figure 14).  Figure 14: Types of incidents that occurred each month in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014    Frontcountry versus backcountry incidents revealed similar trends, with low numbers before June, when  they began to increase.  The number of frontcountry incidents hovered between 10 and 15 from June  through August and then dropped off sharply in September.  The number of backcountry incidents  increased steadily from 3 in June to 7 in both July and August, and then also dropped off in September  (Figure 15).   11 000 2 4 8 3 2 5 7 14 6 2 5 99 5 2 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Incident Component Incident Components by Month May June July August September 12    Figure 15: Monthly frontcountry and backcountry incidents in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014  Specific Incidents Property Damage In 2014, property damage by bears was recorded 16 times.  Nine incidents occurred in the frontcountry  and 7 incidents occurred in the backcountry. Property was classified as structures, trash  cans/dumpsters, camping gear, vehicles, food containers or bird feeders.  Structures included privies  and buildings.  A food container was any vessel that stored food, including bear canisters. Camping gear  and structures were the most frequently damaged property (6 each). Two vehicles, two food containers,  one dumpster and one bird feeder were damaged by bears in 2014 (Figure 16).   Figure 16: Targets for property damage in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014.       1 0 10 3 15 7 13 7 4 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Frontcountry Backcountry Frontcountry vs. Backcountry Incidents by Month May June July August September Trash  cans/dumpster s 6% Bird feeders 6% Vehicles 11% Food  containers 11%Structures 33% Camping gear 33% Property Damage N=16  13    Key details for the 6 damaged structures are as follows:   July 1st:  At approximately 18:00 a park employee living at 141 Alpine Circle heard a noise near  the front door, and saw that a bear had pushed and collapsed the lower screen of the door and  was preparing to enter the house.  The resident yelled and ran toward the bear.  It hissed and  put its paw up on the door.  The resident continued to yell and walk toward the bear, which  retreated slightly, but continued to sit on the porch.  The reporting party then picked up the  damaged screen and threw it at the bear.  The bear left 141 Alpine and went toward 105  Ptarmigan.  It investigated that house and then left the area.   July 10th:  Two separate structures were damaged and observed at the same time at Kaley  Cottages.  At approximately 13:30, an inholder reported a blonde or cinnamon bear attempting  to enter a cabin south of Moraine Park Campground by the "Turner" Cabin.  Two rangers  responded.  They searched the area for the bear and noticed that a window on #703A Kaley  Cottages appeared to have been broken into (window open, screen ripped).  The rangers  continued searching and noticed similar damage to an open window on unit #706.  One of the  rangers shot the side of the house with a paintball and the bear popped its head out of the  window.  The bear was shot with 4 or 5 orange paintballs and immediately retreated (headed  west).  No extensive damage was reported inside the units, other than to food/food containers.  In 703A the trash was tipped over and a bag of pretzels was missing from the kitchen.   July 25th:  The owner of Machin’s Cottages in the Pines, an inholding inside park boundaries,  reported that a small "golden" bear had torn the screen off of a rental cottage door overnight or  early in the morning.  On previous nights, the same bear had apparently caused other physical  damage to the cottages and the surrounding area, and had entered a cottage while people were  eating dinner.   August 11th:  At approximately 1:30, a resident of #709 Kaley Cottages awoke to noises coming  from the screened‐in porch.  The reporting party moved toward the source.  When he reached  the porch, the bear was gone, but it had left numerous paw prints and a broken screen through  which it entered and exited.  No food reward was obtained and only the screen was damaged.   August 22nd:  A bear destroyed the privy behind the Lawn Lake Patrol Cabin to obtain food and  other attractants inside.    Key details for the 2 damaged vehicles are as follows:   July 25th: The owner of Machins Cottages, a private inholding, reported that a small "golden"  bear scratched a vehicle overnight or early morning.     September 3rd:  A bear (or bears) left paw prints and scratches on the side of a vehicle In  Aspenglen Campground.  These were potentially the same bears that obtained a cooler of meat  from an unlocked vehicle on September 1st.      14    Food Rewards In 2014, 21 food rewards were documented.  The sources of these food rewards included 1 each from a  food storage locker and a dumpster, 2 from park restrooms, 3 from frontcountry campsites and four  each from residences in the park and vehicles, and 6 from backcountry campsites (Figure 17).   Figure 17: Food reward sources, Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014.     Key Details for Incidents involving Food Rewards   Backcountry Campsites:   June 18th: At approximately 20:30, a bear appeared within 20 yards of the McGregor  Mountain backcountry site.  It seemed curious and exhibited non‐threatening behavior.   The bear left and returned to the site around 03:30 and attempted to get into bear  canister.  It returned again at 06:00 and watched the party pack up their campsite. The  bear obtained summer sausage out of the bear canister before it could be cleaned up.   July 26th: At approximately 20:30, despite warnings of a very active bear in the area and  the required bear canister, visitors at McGregor Mountain backcountry site chose to  hang food with an item they thought would make the food unscented. As they hung  their food at dusk, a bear came into the campsite and watched them. Around midnight,  they awoke to a bear in the tree and heard the food bag fall to the ground. In the  morning, the food was gone and the bear received a reward.    August 4th: Bear(s) got into both sites at North Saint Vrain, while campers were out  hiking in the afternoon.  At one of the sites, the campers did not use bear canisters and  food was obtained.  At the other site, bear canisters were used.  At both sites, camping  gear (e.g. tents) was damaged.   August 10th:  Based on a third‐hand report, a bear with two cubs received a food reward  from the Pear Lake campsite.  Food storage  locker 5%Trash receptacle 5%Park  restroom 9% Frontcountry campsite 14%Staff/inholder/ rental residence 19% Vehicle 19% Backcountry  campsite 29% Food Reward  Sources N=21 15     August 11th: At Cutbank campsite, campers didn't have enough room in their bear  canister, so they decided to hang the rest of their food and trash in a tree.  Overnight a  bear got into the food bags and received a food reward.   August 22nd: A bear destroyed the privy at Lawn Lake Patrol Cabin due to attractants  inside.  Vehicles:   July 19th: At approximately 2:30, a bear entered site 57 in GBCG, opened a canvas  topper on a truck and obtained food from a cooler (hershey bars).  No damage was done  to the topper. A bear box was located nearby but not directly in site 57.  They suspect it  was the small blonde juvenile with dark paws and face.  Collected a tuft of blonde fur  from the site.   August 21st: A bear got into trash in the back of an open truck at the Mill Creek staff  residence in the morning.     August 24th:  At approximately 0:30, a bear entered a vehicle at site 70 in MPCG and  received a food reward.  The bear was not hazed.  No food storage locker is located near  this site.   August 31st: Bear(s) received food rewards at Aspenglen CG site 40 at approximately  4:00.  The bear(s) entered the vehicle through an unlocked sliding back door and got  into a meat cooler.  The meat was scattered around the vehicle and in the woods  nearby.  Site 40 has its own food storage locker.    Residences:   June 12th: At approximately 4:00, a bear entered 715 High Drive. The occupants heard it,  but assumed it was another roommate returning home.  The door was shut but not  locked, and the bear ate a number of food items (apples, oatmeal, cereal, etc.).  The  same house was broken into by a bear the previous summer as well, and a food reward  was obtained.     July 10th: There were two food rewards obtained, one each from Kaley Cottages 703A  and 706.  At approximately 13:30, an inholder reported a blonde or cinnamon bear  attempting to enter a cabin south of Moraine Park CG by the "Turner" Cabin.  Two  rangers responded.  They searched the area for the bear and noticed that a window on  park house #703A appeared to have been broken into (window open, screen ripped).   They continued searching and noticed similar damage to an open window on unit #706.   No extensive damage was reported inside the units, other than to food/food containers.  In 703A, the trash was tipped over and gone through, and a bag of pretzels was also  gone from the kitchen.   August 22nd: A small bear, black in color, reached through an open window in a rental at  Machin’s Cottages in the Pines, a private inholder, and obtained a food reward from the  16    kitchen counter.   The bear had also been seen getting into trash on the property over  the last few days.  Frontcountry Campsites (established and illegal):   June 13th:  At approximately 7:00, a bear spilled a hummingbird feeder and bent the  pole at GBCG site 140.    June 21st:  At approximately 17:00, a sow and cub got into improperly stored food  approximately 200 yards from the Sterling House (staff residence), where friends were  tent‐camping.  The bear consumed a bag of popcorn before they were able to scare the  bears away.      July 16th:  Campers arrived late at Timber Creek CG site 81. They sought shelter in the  tent when rain/hail came.  They fell asleep without putting coolers in bear box.  It was  unintended since the camper knew and normally abides by the rules.  A bear raided two  coolers at 05:00.  No food storage lockers are located near site 81.  Dumpsters/Restrooms/Food Storage Lockers:   May 25th: A bear knocked over the large garbage dumpster at McGraw Ranch on Sunday  night or Monday early morning.  The locking bar had been taken off of the dumpster  over the winter and was never replaced.  The contents were scattered over a 20 yard  area.    July 3rd and 14th: A bear got into trash cans in the restrooms at Bear Lake overnight on  the 3rd.  There was a large amount of cleanup the next day.  It is unknown what food  rewards the bear obtained.  Rangers began locking all but one of the restrooms  overnight, and emptying the trash before leaving for the evening.  This strategy was  abandoned, and a bear again broke into the restrooms again on the 14th.  For the  remainder of the summer trash was removed completely from the restrooms, and no  more break‐ins occurred.     August 2nd: One of the food storage lockers at the Sandbeach Lake trailhead was left  unlatched, and a bear gained entry overnight and received a food reward.  Numerous  food packages were torn and scattered near the food storage locker.  A peanut butter  container was torn open and emptied.  Enough remnants remained to fill a bag with  trash.   The Juvenile Blonde Bears In 2014, two bears were involved in a large number of incidents occurring within RMNP.  One bear was a  juvenile female, likely between 2 and 3 years of age and weighing approximately 150 lbs.  She was highly  distinguishable because of her light blonde coat contrasted by a dark brown face, belly and paws.  The  other bear looked very similar to the juvenile female, but was slightly larger, had darker blonde  (cinnamon) fur and did not have the distinguishing dark brown face. This bear was also a juvenile, but it  is unknown whether it was a male or a female.   17    In July, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recorded more than 40 incidents involving one of two small  blonde bears entering houses and vehicles outside of the park (mostly along the Highway 66 corridor).   On August 4, CPW successfully trapped and euthanized the light blonde female bear off of Highway 66.    Based on descriptions of incidents in RMNP from June to September, it is believed that 20 of the  reported 61 incidents (33%) involved one of these two blonde bears.  The first incident was reported on  June 11, and the last incident was reported on August 1.  These bears may have been involved in other  incidents in which the reporting party did not report a good description.  The 20 incidents discussed  here are those in which the reporting party described the bear as defined above.  Incidents involving one of the two blonde bears peaked in July and accounted for 59% of all incidents  that occurred during that month. After July, incidents involving the blonde bears dropped off  significantly, which is likely a result of the female blonde bear being euthanized on August 4.  Although  only one of the two blonde bears was euthanized, no incidents occurred for the rest of the summer by a  bear matching this description.  This provides an indication of the large impact the juvenile female  blonde bear had on the number incidents that occurred in the park throughout the summer.    The time of day during which the blonde bear incidents took place provides evidence of habituation by  these bears.  Twenty‐five of 35 incidents (71%) that were not identified with the blonde bears occurred  primarily at night (between 7 pm and 7 am) with only 29% during the day.  In contrast, incidents  attributed to the blonde bears only occurred at night 17% of the time and during the day 83% of the  time.   In many of the incidents that occurred at night the bear/s involved were not observed; therefore  the blonde bears may have been involved in more unreported night incidents reducing the stark  contrast in observed sightings.  Even with this in mind clearly the blonde bears were more actively  seeking food when it was more likely that they would encounter people.  Seventeen of the 20 (85%) blonde bear incidents occurred in the frontcountry rather than the  backcountry, providing further evidence that these bears were not averse to being around people.  In  contrast, 63% of all other incidents occurred in the frontcountry rather than the backcountry.  All 20  blonde bear incidents occurred within TRD, accounting for slightly more than half of all incidents in that  district.  New Management Actions in 2014 During 2014, new actions included installing a total of 72 food storage lockers to eastside campgrounds.  These food storage lockers were added at: Glacier Basin Campground (69), Longs Peak Campground (1),  Aspenglen Campground (1), and Moraine Park Campground (1). Informational stickers about proper  food storage were added to all new food storage lockers.    An electric bear unwelcome mat was deployed at an employee residence (703 Kaley Cottages; with prior  permission from the resident and approval by the management team) on August 4th.  The mat was  installed based on specifications set by Colorado Parks and Wildlife:  (http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Education/LivingWithWildlife/UnwelcomeMats.pdf).  The intent of  the mat was to negatively reinforce undesirable bear behaviors (e.g. attempting to enter a house)  18    immediately through a nonlethal electric shock, rather than waiting for an incident to occur and then  responding.  The mat was strategically placed directly underneath the kitchen window because in  previous weeks a bear (or bears) had attempted entry or successfully gained entry into Kaley residences  through screened windows.  A warning sign was placed near the electric mat, cautioning people to stay  clear of the area.  The unwelcome mat was in use between August 4th and October 10th when it was  uninstalled. No reports confirmed that a bear ever made contact with the mat although this could have  occurred when no one was present.  On August 11, a bear broke into a screened‐in porch at 709 Kaley, a  few houses away from the unwelcome mat location.  Recommendations and Plans for 2015 A large percentage of incidents occurred between the hours of 19:00 and 7:00. It would therefore be  advantageous for staff members that are on duty during these hours, to be trained and comfortable  with responding to bear incidents should they arise.  Additionally, because frontcountry incidents far  exceeded backcountry incidents (specifically in the Thompson River District), it follows that educational  roves should focus primarily on frontcountry locations.  This is especially true for locations in the Bear  Lake road corridor.  Additionally, it would greatly benefit the bear program to communicate with  entrance staff and frontcountry campground staff early on in the season about proper food storage and  bear safety for visitors.  It is especially important to stress the use of food storage lockers, rather than  vehicles, in frontcountry campgrounds, even if there is not a locker located directly in the campers’ site.  The number of backcountry incidents could be decreased even further through consistent and specific  messaging from the backcountry office about proper food storage.  Some of the food rewards obtained  by bears in the backcountry could have been avoided had campers ensured that all of their food fit into  the required bear canisters before beginning the hike.  Incidents likely could have been avoided if  campers were required to show their canister to backcountry office staff prior to beginning their trip.      The common example of property damage due to bears in 2014 was damage to camping gear.  Often, in  the backcountry, this was the result of campers leaving bear canisters near the rest of their gear while  they were away from the site.  This would be another important message to convey to campers prior to  entering the backcountry.  It was specifically mentioned by backcountry staff that it is difficult to  thoroughly discuss all aspects of bear safety to campers because it can become quite busy at times.  One  solution that other parks have used is to require anyone entering the backcountry to watch a 10 minute  video about bear safety prior to receiving their permit. This would reduce the amount of information  staff‐members would need to orally convey, while still informing visitors about how they can help keep  bears wild in RMNP.  For FY 2015, four lockers are awaiting installation in the Aspenglen Campground walk‐in sites and will be  placed when time allows in 2015.   The bear management program in RMNP will continue to benefit from frequent communication with  the Estes Park Bear Education Task Force, the YMCA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.  The information  19    afforded to the park from these contacts in 2014 was invaluable in understanding and accurately  predicting black bear behavior and movement inside and outside park boundaries.  Messaging about bear safety could also be improved by including additional information on the Rocky  Mountain National Park website.  Since the internet is becoming an increasingly important medium for  obtaining information, providing a short message about how to behave in bear country may be a good  way to reach visitors before they arrive at the park and become saturated with other information.    Oftentimes, during education roves in both the frontcountry and the backcountry, the bear  management technician would encounter a food storage violation or other potential bear issue, but  campers would not be around to discuss the issue.  Therefore, the bear technician would often inform  campground staff (if in the frontcountry) or leave a note (if in the backcountry).  A potentially more  efficient method for addressing this issue would be to have a generic message that is already typed up  and laminated to place at the campsite.    Staff housing roves were an extremely beneficial aspect of the bear program in 2014.  Starting a  conversation about bear safety and prevention of break‐ins with staff members early on will continue to  help reduce the number of food rewards and property damage experienced by residents within the  park.  Not only would staff housing roves assist in decreasing bear break‐in events, but a presentation  (perhaps during the first few weeks of training) by the bear management technician to all residents  about bear‐proofing their houses would also be very effective.  Especially important would be  emphasizing closing and locking all windows and doors when away from home and when sleeping.  Although results are lacking in terms of the success or failure of the bear unwelcome mat, it may be  beneficial to reinstall this mat should a bear attempt to or successfully enter a staff house in the future.   If it is reinstalled, it should be done immediately after the attempted or successful entry, and if possible,  it should be placed directly underneath the point of entry.    Electronic recording devices with the ability to upload information directly to excel spreadsheets may  increase efficiency of data management.  Piloting the use of such devices should be considered in future  years to determine their feasibility.  The bear management technician continues to be a valuable aspect of our program as a point of contact  and clearinghouse for bear information, concerns and response. This position will be hired again in 2015.  Bear Activity at the YMCA of the Rockies, Estes Park Center 2014 Summary This year was an exceptional year for bear activity at the YMCA. According to anecdotal evidence, this year the YMCA experienced more bear activity than any year previous. In order for a report to be generated in the case of a bear incident, it has to be more than a mere sighting. The bear has to be engaged in something out of ordinary wild bear behavior. Something that is disruptive or dangerous to humans, private or real property. Guests and staff are asked to report sightings of bears on YMCA property, but these are not considered an incident, and aren’t counted in this report. Bear - Human Conflict Prevention  Trash and food storage at the YMCA is 100% bear resistant.  Every guest registration packet includes “Bear Aware” information.  Bear information magnets are placed on every cabin refrigerator.  We place signs advising guests of bear activity on the property.  Immediate response to any bear sighting or incident. Bear(s) are herded off the property.  In areas where bear activity is most frequent, cabin guests receive a personal visit from knowledgeable staff on ways to prevent conflicts with bears. The location of the YMCA, being between RMNP and the Town of Estes Park, and the activity of family camping by our guests bring bears to the grounds. Conflicts and damage do occur in spite of our efforts to reduce or minimize them. Incident numbers and Type This year our bear incidents began June 15 according to the incident reports. The last incident was October 18. Bear activity directly coincides with guest numbers, with sightings beginning right after Memorial Day, tapering off significantly after Labor Day. In 2014 there were 124 bear related incidents reported at the YMCA. Incidents were reported by the following: Attempted entry or damage to cabins; cabin break in; trash; and vehicle entry or damage. No aggressive behavior by bears was reported as a separate incident, but aggressive behavior was noticed several times. On one occasion a staff member was bluff charged. The bear was one of two cinnamon colored sub adults that were seen often this year on grounds. Another bear, a larger black male first appeared on the YMCA in mid - August. This bear displayed bold behavior on a couple of different dates, growling and or popping his jaws at staff. Bears unsuccessfully attempted entry, or damaged windows and doors on cabins in 32 of the 124 incidents. Bears got inside cabins 33 times. They were able to defeat the bear resistant trash cans 49 times. Bears gained entry or damaged 10 vehicles. By the month, July and August were the busiest, with 37 incidents in July and 47 in August. June had 16 incidents and September 21. There were only 3 incidents reported in October. 3 21 47 37 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 OCTOBER SEPTEMBER AUGUST JULY JUNE Bear incidents by month 2014 32 33 49 10 Bear incident by type Attempts to enter cabins or damage Successful cabin entrys Bear resistant trash cans breached Vehicle entrys or damage   Memo  To:   Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator           Wes Kufeld, Police Chief    From:   Tom Gootz, Chris Daubin, Ann Schonlau, Barbara Sellers, Susan Wolf, Bear Education  Task Force Members    Date:    January 28, 2015    RE: Problem Statement for considering changes to the Municipal Litter Ordinance; guidance  for improving compliance with bear resistant trash containers    Objective  To consider the utility of a range of changes to the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 9.16.070  (Littering) that will improve compliance with bear resistant trash containers.    Present Situation  Over many years Estes Park has experienced black bears and other wildlife gaining access to  garbage containers in Town.  This problem peaks during the summer and fall months that  experience the largest number of visitors and highest volume of food garbage discarded in  commercial and residential waste containers.  This situation has often led to bear‐human  conflicts as bears come into Town during the daytime and evenings when the highest density of  people are on the streets.  Examples of bear‐human conflicts experienced so far include a bear  entering and walking through a bar when patrons were present, bears entering restaurant  kitchens during and after business hours, female bears with cubs coming into close contact with  visitors, and crowds pushing mother bears with cubs into trees adjacent to public sidewalks and  hiking paths.  This included a male bear that was trapped in a tree near the Subway store in  lower Stanley Village in 2014.  Each year there are also dozens of entries into rental and private  homes as bears come into Town attracted by garbage. To date, no humans have been injured  by bears.  However, in dealing with problem bears, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) reports  that at least thirteen human caused bear deaths have occurred in the Estes Valley since 2011.    The Town has responded to this growing problem by increasing “bear awareness” through  verbal and printed communications with business owners, residents, and visitors.  A Bear  Education Task Force including officers from CPW was formed in 2012, in an effort to increase  awareness by promoting the use of bear‐resistant metal garbage containers by restaurants,  food stores, lodges and businesses that use 2yd or larger garbage dumpsters.  In 2014, the Estes  Park Police Auxiliary began a litter patrol program, monitoring garbage containers for visual  garbage spills indicative of feeding bears and other wildlife.  Chief Kufeld has indicated that the  auxiliary has expended 318.50 hours in litter patrols between May 1st and November 28, 2014.   There were 227 calls coming into the Communications Center this year, including 30 (22%)  reporting bears entering buildings or homes.  Thirty‐one percent of calls involved police officers  or representatives from the CPW and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office for hazing bears in an  effort to “educate” them away from homes and buildings.    While the education and patrol efforts conducted by the Town and CPW has been somewhat  successful in terms of convincing commercial establishments to use bear resistant dumpsters  provided by local vendors, there remain upwards of one‐third of businesses that do not use  dumpsters that can be secured based on an informal visual survey conducted in the fall of 2014.   Furthermore, those with bear resistant containers were observed to leave them unlocked at  the end of the day.  The current ordinance only includes a formal mechanism for warning and  monetary citation by Town officers in instances when litter from containers is visible on the  ground.  This makes enforcement of the existing ordinance for trash containers difficult.   Unsecured trash containers remain accessible by wildlife during all hours of the day.  There  currently is no Town ordinance addressing garbage storage to prevent access by wildlife.    Case Studies:    In the summer of 2014, a mother bear with cubs attracted a crowd near the Town library  parking lot, forcing the bears to climb trees next to a walking path near the “Ruins.”    An informal survey taken in November 2014 by two Bear Education Task Force members  revealed that out of 39 commercial dumpsters viewed for the presence of a “locking” device, 26  (66.6%) possessed a wildlife‐resistant latch.  Some of these contained plastic lids that can be  lifted or easily bent to gain access to garbage.     Proposal  We understand Town staff are seeking approval to consider a range of actions that will improve  compliance for securing trash from wildlife across Town.  It is stressed that the continued  presence of bears feeding on garbage is a problem not just in downtown areas, but in larger  rental accommodations, as well as residential neighborhoods.  For this reason, we would  recommend the Town consider several levels of improvement in securing garbage that would  be mindful of ease of enforcement, cost to consumers, as well as be realistic in terms of  implementation.    Advantages  The range of actions could be considered to include a review of the language included in  current bear resistant garbage container ordinances from other Colorado towns that address  many of the continuing problems experienced in Estes Park.  Staff could consider those aspects  of other ordinances that may be applicable to the situation in Estes Park.  Other actions could  also be evaluated such as taking steps to increase compliance with larger commercial  dumpsters, as well as adopting stricter guidance for securing individual, residential garbage  cans from bears and other wildlife.  Once a range of actions is considered, Staff could make  recommendations to the Trustees that will improve current compliance efforts.  Chief Kufeld  will provide feedback regarding the range of options proposed.    Disadvantage  At this time, there are no disadvantages in having staff evaluate a range of options for  increasing compliance with securing garbage from bears and other wildlife.  A “do nothing”  option may continue to jeopardize the safety of our citizens and visitors from the current rate  of bear‐human conflicts.  Estes Park should adopt a higher standard of garbage containment  that demonstrates our commitment to the safety of people and wildlife.  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Estes Park Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 24, 2015 RE: Estes Valley Development Code Amendment: Animal Retail Sales and small-scale Animal Grooming in the Commercial Downtown zone district Objective: Consideration of a request by a downtown business owner to amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to permit Animal Grooming in the Commercial Downtown zone district. Present Situation: Estes Park’s Current Regulations The EVDC separates various residential and non-residential uses by broad use classifications and specific uses (Chapter 4). Each use is then either Permitted by Right (i.e. “use by right”), Permitted by Special Review or Prohibited. Explicit use definitions and permissions such as a use by right allow communities to proactively address potential land use conflicts. An accessory use is a use that is customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use on the same site. The most common example of an accessory use is a hotel pool or restaurant, which are both designed primarily for on-site hotel guests. Uses that are permitted in a zone district are also allowed as an accessory use, while prohibited uses are not. Animal Grooming includes the bathing and trimming services for small domestic animals and short-term boarding (no more than 48 hours). Animal Grooming is only permitted in the CO Commercial Outlying zone district. Because this grooming use is specifically prohibited in the CD Commercial Downtown district it may not be permitted as an accessory use. An owner of a downtown pet boutique store has approached Town staff with a request to amend the EVDC to permit Animal Grooming as an accessory use in the CD district. As outlined in the attached letter, this owner receives consistent requests for grooming services throughout the summer, primarily after muddy day hikes. Additionally, staff is bringing the definition of Animal Retail Sales to the Board’s attention. Similar to grooming, Animal Retail Sales is only permitted in the CO district. This use may also be something the Board would like to consider in this code amendment process. Policy Direction The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of maintaining a unique blend of businesses in Community Wide Policies: 7.1: Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. The Town Board adopted a 2015 strategic plan, which includes a key outcome of a robust economy: a diverse, health year round economy. Proposal: Staff seeks direction about a number of questions listed below in the action recommended section. The following steps represent a draft timeline for this code amendment process: • March, 2015: Staff researches and drafts the code amendment. At this time the code amendment would likely benefit one (1) business owner. Because of this limited impact staff would likely pursue a relatively limited public outreach process, which may include the following: o Property mailings to owners in the Commercial Downtown district; o Individual discussions with business owners; Pet boutique with grooming area seen through an enclosed room Pet Grooming room Page 2 of 4 o Letters to groups such as the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, Estes Area Lodging Association, Visit Estes Park and the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation; and o Press Release. • March 17, 2015: Staff presents initial research to the Estes Valley Planning Commission • April 21, 2015: Planning Commission reviews and provides a formal recommendation • April 28, 2015: Ordinance is presented to the Town Board • May 18, 2015: Ordinance is presented to the County Commissioners Advantages: • Encourages a new type of downtown service not currently offered; • Dog-friendly amenities often strengthen the vibrancy of urban areas; • Such a service would bring some visitors downtown for several hours while their pet is being groomed. Disadvantages: • Downtown animal grooming may lead to some degree of land use conflicts, such as second-story residential units being disturbed by overnight boarding. Such conflicts will be discussed in the process outlined above. Action Recommended: Staff seeks direction about the following questions: 1. Does the Board wish for staff to begin preparing this code amendment? If so, does the Board want to consider both animal retail sales and animal grooming in the Commercial Downtown district? 2. Is the Board in agreement with the draft timeline outlined above? 3. Is the Board in agreement with the public outreach methods outlined above? 4. Does the Board have any initial comments about overnight boarding in the Commercial Downtown district? Page 3 of 4 5. Does the Board prefer that the Planning Commission review and recommend the final code amendment? Reach consensus on policy direction for this code amendment and comment on the timeline detailed above. Budget: • Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300); and • Limited staff time. Level of Public Interest Low. Attachment: 1. Request from business owner 2. EVDC definitions Page 4 of 4 From: Pam DeWitt [mailto:dewittpam@gmail.com] Subject: Grooming To Whom It May Concern: I am a new business owner on Elkhorn Ave, called; Fur Babies a Pet Boutique. I would like to offer a one table pet grooming, for tourist and locals. I was asked almost daily for pet grooming during the summer months and at least once a week after the tourist rush. I want a high standard, quality, environmentally sound grooming with; cleanliness a priority, one table-never more than two dogs at one time and no cages. Here is a list of the benefits of offering grooming down town: · Demand-Tourist traveling and their pets are untrimmed/dirty. They come in with dogs that are filthy from traveling, hiking or in the rivers and lakes. They want to drop off get their dogs cleaned while they go shopping · Shopping-While pets are being groomed or cleaned; owners can shop down town. Many shops do not allow pets in their stores; this frees them up to shop or eat. · Locals come in wanting a place to just drop off their pets’ quick, easy/conveniently. There is a drop off parking space right out front for easy access. Demand is there, need for quality grooming is there. This is a plus for downtown, something quick/convenient, unique and adds variety to downtown, which shoppers are wanting. I have a great response from many business owners and shoppers I have spoken too. I am not competition for the other groomers; I am not full scale, nor could I handle anything large scale to be any kind of competition. Besides, competition is not a bad thing, it makes businesses work harder to be better and that is a win/win situation for patrons. Thanks, Pam DeWitt Fur Babies 13-4 a. General Definition: Any facility or establishment that conducts as a principal use of the premises, or as a significant or substantial adjunct to another use of the premises, the sale, rental, display or other offering of live entertainment, dancing or material that is distinguished or characterized by its emphasis on depicting, exhibiting, describing or relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas as an attraction to the premises. b. Examples: Examples include, but are not limited to, the following specific types of uses: (1) Adult Bookstore: Any establishment that sells or rents adult material, including but not limited to books, magazines, movies, films, slides or other photographic or written material and/or devices. (2) Adult Cabaret, Restaurant or other Business: A cabaret, restaurant or place of business that features topless or bottomless dancers, waitresses, waiters or entertainers. (3) Adult Motion Picture Theater: Any theater in which the presentation of adult material is the primary or principal attraction. 4. Animal Sales/Services. a. General Definition: Any commercial facility or establishment that conducts as a principal use of the premises the sale or boarding of animals, or the provision of care, treatment or services for animals. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Animal Boarding: Provision of shelter and care for small or large animals on a commercial basis. This use includes activities such as feeding, exercising, grooming and incidental medical care. (2) Animal Grooming: Provision of bathing and trimming services for small or domestic animals only on a commercial basis. This use includes boarding of domestic animals for a maximum period of forty-eight (48) hours. (3) Animal Hospital: Establishments where small or domestic animals receive medical and surgical diagnosis and treatment. This use includes only facilities that are entirely enclosed, soundproofed and air-conditioned. Grooming and temporary (no more than thirty [30] days) boarding of animals is included if incidental to the hospital use. (4) Animal Retail Sales: Retail sales and boarding of small or domestic animals only, provided that such activities take place within an entirely enclosed building. This use includes grooming if incidental to the retail use, and boarding of animals not offered for sale for a maximum period of forty-eight (48) hours. (5) Animal Shows/Sales: Exhibitions of small/domestic or large animals for a maximum of seven (7) days. This use includes animal sales. (6) Veterinary Office: Any facility maintained by or for the use of a licensed veterinarian in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of animal diseases. Overnight care and boarding of small or domestic animals is permitted for up to thirty (30) consecutive days within the interior of such facility. Attachment: EVDC Definitions 13-19 § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: 1. Abutting or Adjoining shall mean to physically touch or border upon; or to share a common property line or border. 2. Accessory Building shall mean a building detached from a principal building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a single- family detached dwelling that is located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit" does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers. 4. Accessory Structure shall mean a structure detached from a principal building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building. 5. Accessory Use shall mean a use of land or a building that is customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and that is ordinarily located on the same site or lot as such principal use. 6. Accommodations Use shall mean the rental, leasing or occupancy of any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single- family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit, or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (Ord. 02-10 §1) 7. Acre shall mean a gross measure of land area equivalent to forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet. 8. Adequate Public Facilities ("APF") shall mean the public facilities and services necessary to maintain the adopted level of service standards. 9. Adjacent shall mean the same as "Abutting or Adjoining." 10. Administrative Appeals shall mean appeals where it alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative official or agency based on, or made in the application of, the standards or enforcement of this Code in a specific situation, with limited necessity for reference to general goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Adult Material shall mean any material including but not limited to books, magazines, newspapers, movie films, slides or other photographic or written materials, video tapes or devices that are distinguished by their emphasis on depicting, describing or relating to Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities. 12. Adverse Impact shall mean a condition that creates, imposes, aggravates or leads to inadequate, impractical, unsafe or unhealthy conditions on a site proposed for development or on off-site property or facilities. Attachment: EVDC Definitions