HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2014-01-14
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
TOWN BOARD 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Board Room/Rooms 202/203
Board Room
4:30 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions.
4:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
4:45 p.m. Briefing on Colorado Campaign Reform Act.
(Attorney White)
Rooms 202/203
5:15 p.m. Break for Dinner.
5:30 p.m. Parking Structure Design Review.
(Director Zurn)
6:15 p.m. FLAP Grant – Next Steps & MOU.
(Administrator Lancaster & Director Zurn)
6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn.
“Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m.”
AGENDA
January 14, 2014
January 28, 2014
Review of Town Property Inventory
February 11, 2014
PRPA Strategic Plan Update
2014 Citizens Survey Discussion
February 25, 2014
Commercially Zoned Properties Discussion
March 11, 2014
2014 Objectives - Progress / Review
Committee Appointments / Definitions
June 2014
Review Strategic Plan – Goals and Objectives
Items to be Scheduled
Senior Center/Museum Master Plan
Town’s Role in Events
Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for Parking
Structure
Review Capital Investment Plan
Discussion of the Fire District Agreement and Revenue Sharing
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
6 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
By the Honorable Donetta Davidson, U.S. Election Assistance CommissionMy VieW
HAVING BEEN A COLORADO
election official most of my life, I took
the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”
route and accepted a federal
appointment as commissioner at the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
(EAC). If you recognize that reference
(from the “olden days,” according to my
granddaughters), then you will
appreciate the significance of just how
fast technology keeps changing,
especially in elections.
When I went to Washington, I built on
my experience with voting technology at
the state and local levels by serving as
the designated federal official (DFO) for
the Technical Guidelines Development
Committee (TGDC) — the federal
advisory committee tasked with helping
develop Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines (VVSG) and working on
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
technology related mandates. I also had
the opportunity to compare innovations
with other countries, especially related
to overseas voting.
To be honest, sometimes the research
and work led to more questions than
answers, but with the 2012 elections
approaching and the attention that will
be focused on us as election officials,
we have to look at both short-term and
long-term needs for voting systems.
(Advances in social media as a method
of communicating with voters are in yet
another technology-related category for
election officials, but are a subject for
another day.)
Between the years 2000 and
approximately 2006, the vast majority of
election jurisdictions in the United States
purchased and deployed new voting
systems.
Like our personal computers, voting
systems have a lifecycle. Assuming
those lifecycles follow the average of
about three to four years between
refresh times, many state and local
jurisdictions are facing the 2012
presidential elections with aging voting
systems in an environment where
expectations are high.
Although no system’s life can be
extended indefinitely, we know that in
this time of dwindling budgets state and
local election officials must find suitable
strategies for extending the useful life of
voting systems. For instance, expensive
equipment maintenance and software
update contracts appear enticing to cut
from budgets when looking for short-
term savings; however, in the long run,
they keep equipment running longer,
and software updates are far less
expensive than purchasing new
hardware and software.
Now, looking at the short and long terms
regarding voting equipment ...
in the short term
There have been innovations in optical
scanners for central and precinct
counting; direct recording electronic
(DRE) voting machines have made
improvements and address accessibility
issues. For larger jurisdictions, Ballot-
on-Demand and e-Pollbooks have been
proven cost effective in meeting
unpredictable demand at polling
locations.
Countries like Australia, France,
Mauritius, Malaysia, Singapore,
Namibia, and South Africa, among
others, are moving toward some form of
electronic voting. I had the opportunity to
visit and see firsthand what Austria,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
are doing along these lines with special
focus on overseas voting.
At the U.S. federal level, we are looking
at UOCAVA voting improvements.
Congress mandated that EAC and the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) assist the
Department of Defense’s Federal Voting
Assistance Program (FVAP) in
developing guidelines to explore
overseas electronic voting. EAC’s
Testing and Certification Program is
always on the lookout for ways to help
state and local officials balance between
providing quality services and saving
money.
EAC’s Research Division seeks best
practices and makes them available in
quick and easy-to-read printed or
electronic reference materials. The
agency website (www.eac.gov) also
offers a place where election officials
across the nation can contact each other
baCk To THe FuTure
FebruAry 2012 7
to share information and ideas.
You may want to contact colleagues
in surrounding counties directly as well.
Some Colorado counties have already
been leading the way in utilizing
electronic UOCAVA ballot transmission,
especially since ballots must be mailed
out 45 days prior to the election.
looking long term
Who knows with certainty what the
future will bring? While it may not be a
flying DeLorean like the one in the “Back
to the Future” movies, it could be just as
radically different from what we are
currently used to.
We could be looking at voting on tablet
computers or smart phones in the future.
Or maybe there is something else on the
technology innovation horizon that
seems just as far-fetched today as
space travel did to our forefathers who
traveled by horse and buggy. Whatever
comes, we as election officials must
think ahead and be prepared to ask
manufacturers to work with us to
develop secure, reliable, usable, and
accessible equipment that can be
upgraded without breaking the bank
every few years.
In the meantime, take into consideration
the costs of replacing equipment as well
as maintenance and storage costs. As a
populist state, Colorado has special
election needs. Long ballots with
numerous initiatives, judicial retention
voting, and a large number of federal,
state, and local elected offices listed
require not only printing costs but also
storage costs for the nearly two years
retention required by law.
Those of you facing equipment
purchases in the future, start putting
aside money now. No matter what route
you take, careful budgeting with both
short-term and long-term priorities in
mind will make the difference. As a life-
long election official, I know this is easier
said than done, but nonetheless it is
something that must be considered.
With all the questions surrounding future
technology innovations in voting, there is
one thing I do know: For me, returning to
my roots in state and local elections is
where the future is. State and local
election offices are driving innovation
even though federal standards and
testing for basic requirements is helpful
and cost effective. Please let us know
about your innovations — those in
practice and ideas in progress. By
sharing our thoughts, we can collectively
find the answers we are all seeking.
In May of this year, the EAC held a
roundtable to hear various points of view
about “Preparing for 2012 and the Life
Cycle of Voting Machines” to explore the
needs of election officials in large,
medium, and small jurisdictions, what
manufacturers’ capabilities are, costs,
and how EAC could help. To view that
roundtable and learn more, go to
www.eac.gov/preparing_for_2012_
the_life_cycle_of_voting_machines_/.
Whatever comes,
we as election
officials must
think ahead
and be
prepared to ask
manufacturers to
work with us
to develop
secure,
reliable,
usable, and
accessible
equipment that
can be upgraded
without breaking
the bank every
few years.
8 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
introduction
In most situations, the use of
government money or resources to
influence an election in Colorado is
against the law. The Fair Campaign
Practices Act (FCPA), Colorado Revised
Statutes, Section 1-45-101, et seq.
and Article XXVIII of the Colorado
Constitution govern, among other things,
the use of public moneys in a campaign
involving the election of any person to
any public office or involving any
election question. The purpose of this
article is to help explain the types of
conduct that are allowed and not
allowed under the FCPA, specifically
under C.R.S. §1-45-117 (“Section 117”).
This article does not address every
situation that might occur, but it covers
many of the questions that arise most
frequently. This article does not
substitute for legal advice; you should
consult your attorney to apply the FCPA
to specific facts.
The FCPA’s restrictions apply to the
State of Colorado and any political
subdivision of the state, including
counties, cities, towns, school districts,
and special districts, as well as any
associated agency, department, board,
division, commission, or council.
Throughout this article, the term
“government” includes all the
governments covered by the FCPA.
basic provisions
Section 117 limits the ability of Colorado
governments to use public moneys to
influence the outcome of elections. The
FCPA’s general rule prohibits any of
these bodies from making a contribution
to a campaign for public office, and from
expending public moneys to urge
electors to vote for or against any ballot
issue or referred measure.
The use of public moneys can occur
even when they are not directly spent to
urge voters to take a position in an
election. Examples include the use of
publicly owned facilities or equipment,
including meeting rooms, phones, fax
machines, copiers, computers, Internet
access, and vehicles.
To understand the basic provisions of
Section 117, certain terms should be
defined. “Contribution” is defined by the
Colorado Constitution as any payment,
loan, pledge, gift, or advance of money
to any candidate or issue committee.
The definition includes any payment
made to a third party for the benefit of a
candidate or issue committee. Further,
the definition of a “contribution” includes
anything of value given directly or
indirectly to a candidate for election
purposes. However, services provided
without compensation by volunteers do
not constitute a contribution.
“Public moneys” is not defined by either
the FCPA or the Colorado Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has
interpreted the term “public moneys” in
the context of Section 117. The General
Assembly’s inclusion of the phrase “from
any source” when referring to public
moneys demonstrates that the concept
of public moneys is expansive. Thus, for
the purposes of Section 117, any
moneys contained in the account or fund
of the state or any of its political
subdivisions constitute public moneys.
effectiveness
Typically, Section 117 does not
take effect until ballot measures have
been submitted for their titles to be
designated and fixed. Confusion over
the application of Section 117 often
arises with local ballot measures
because Section 117 does not take
effect until a measure has been
submitted for the purpose of having a
title designated and fixed pursuant to
CRS § 31-11-111 (“Section 111”).
However, Section 111 provides that a
title cannot be fixed until an election has
been ordered by the legislative body of
the municipality.
Therefore, Section 117 does not apply to
local elections until a ballot measure has
been submitted for a title to be fixed and
an election has been ordered. Section
117 takes effect on the date that both of
these requirements are fulfilled. Until
both of these requirements have been
met, a government is free to expend
public moneys on a measure because
the proscriptions of Section 117 do not
apply. However, a government will
violate Section 117 if they incur costs
before Section 117 is applicable but pay
the bill after the effective date.
exceptions
The FCPA sets out six exceptions that
allow government entities, members,
and employees to expend public
moneys or otherwise participate in the
political process to varying degrees.
Limited expenditures by policymakers
First, members or employees who have
policymaking responsibilities within a
government may expend public moneys
to express their opinions on a particular
issue. Such expression may be in the
form of letters, telephone calls, or other
incidental activities if the amount spent
does not exceed $50. If such a
policymaker is writing a letter, the $50
limit applies to the cost of envelopes,
letterhead, and postage, as well as to
additional staff time needed to produce
the letter, including desktop publishing.
Thus, policymakers may quickly find that
they have exceeded the monetary limit
and should be careful to keep track of
such costs. Policymakers should be
aware the $50 exception is not
applicable to candidate campaigns. Both
administrative law judges (ALJs) and
Colorado Court of Appeals judges have
By Paul F. Wisor, Sherman & Howard L.L.C. associateFeaTure
MuniCipal FundS, eleCTionS, and THe laW
8 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
FebruAry 2012 9
HoW To Win approVal For FiSCal balloT iSSueS beFore a CaMpaign eVen STarTS
By Eric Anderson, SE2 principal
CITIES AND TOWNS HISTORICALLY HAVE TRIED TO AVOID GOING TO THE BALLOT WITH TAX OR DEBT
measures during tough economic times. But as the economic malaise that started with the Great Recession in 2008
lingers — with little sign of abating — municipal leaders may wonder if or when they’ll ever enjoy a fertile climate for
revenue measures.
Colorado Municipal League statistics show that local voters have approved debt questions more than two-thirds of the time
and tax measures more than half the time since 1992. (See CML’s election tables at www.cml.org/municipal_issues.aspx.)
Yet the November 2011 results were ominous. Voters rejected three of the five debt measures posed by municipalities and
approved just one of eight tax increases.
Is this the new normal and, if so, how should cities address their fiscal needs at the ballot?
Typically, proponents focus their energy on election season — the period between when a measure is officially certified for
the ballot and Election Day. But often the success of the measure is determined before a formal campaign. And this
preliminary period is when a municipality has the most latitude in using official resources to engage citizens.
Here are steps you can take to pave the way for approval of a ballot issue before you ever get to the starting line of a
campaign.
Demonstrate the problem you are trying to solve. Voters are unlikely to approve a proposed solution — especially if it
has fiscal impacts — unless they understand the problem that it is addressing. Like parents who maintain a brave face in
front of their children even while they worry about household bills, city and town leaders should be commended for
protecting their citizens from the effects of a stressed budget. But if they are too successful at glossing over the challenges,
how will residents (who may be dealing with their own financial problems) appreciate the full implications of a fiscal crisis?
Leaders can remain committed to maintaining the highest possible level of public services even while they shine a spotlight
on the problems behind the scenes.
Don’t ask voters for what you want. Focus on what you absolutely need. Sure, it would be nice if you could tackle your
entire wish list. But you are better off winning approval for a modest package than shooting for the moon and falling short.
Shave off everything that’s not absolutely necessary — and then cut a little further.
Take the temperature of your residents. Whether through a comprehensive community survey, a telephone poll that
interviews a sample, or a facilitated public dialogue, you can test your ideas before they are formalized into ballot
language. Ideally, you will be able to use the public feedback to hone the measure, demonstrating to citizens how you
heard them and made substantive changes in response. This increases the likelihood that they will be positively inclined
toward the proposal — and maybe even feel a sense of ownership — before any campaign begins.
Demonstrate how your package will help enhance the economy and create jobs. There is plenty of public skepticism
about federal-style stimulus programs. But you won’t be able to convince citizens to invest in their municipality unless you
convincingly link these investments to future prosperity.
SpoTligHT
FebruAry 2012 9
held that the specific $50 exception
relates only to ballot issues.
However, the $50 exception does not
apply to salaried elected officials.
Several ALJs have found it is too difficult
to distinguish between official time spent
advocating a position and personal time
doing so. Thus, they have ruled that
there is no violation of Section 117 when
elected officials campaign for a
particular measure.
Responses to unsolicited questions
The second exception provides that a
member or employee of the government
may respond to questions about any
ballot issue as long as that member,
employee, or public entity did not solicit
10 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
What you Can do under FCpa• The council or board may adopt a resolution recognizing an election issue as one of “official conce
r
n
.
”
• The council or board may adopt a resolution taking a position of advocacy in support of or against an issue.
• The resolution may recite facts and/or arguments in s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
the position.
• The passage of the resolution may be reported in esta
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
,
customary ways.
• The council or board may authorize the expenditure of
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
o
neys and make contributions to disseminate a factual summary
o
n
a
n
i
s
s
u
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
must include arguments both for and against.
• A board member or government employee may respo
n
d
t
o
questions about election issues during work time, so l
o
n
g
a
s
questions not solicited.
• Responses should be impartial.
• Responses should not urge electors to vote one way
o
r
t
h
e
o
t
h
er.• A board member may expend up to $50 of public mon
e
y
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
letters, phone calls, or other activities incidental to expr
e
s
s
i
n
g
h
i
s
o
r
h
e
r
opinion on an issue.
• Elected officials may express a personal opinion on a
b
a
l
l
o
t
i
s
s
ue at any time and place, so long as the time and place does no
t
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
a
contribution by the government or use of government
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
• Government employees may endorse an election issu
e
o
n
h
i
s
o
r
h
e
r personal time. A board member or government employ
e
e
m
a
y
e
x
p
e
n
d
personal funds, make personal contributions, or use p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
t
i
m
e
t
o
u
r
g
e
an elector to vote in favor of or against an issue.
• A public entity may allow interested groups, both propo
n
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of issues, to rent space and/or use facilities so long as
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
i
s
provided even-handedly.
10 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
the question. This exception allows
government members and employees to
continue communicating with the public
about ballot issues. Such requests can
come from either the general public or
other government agencies. However,
covered entities should retain evidence
of any unsolicited requests, because an
ALJ might look for proof of such a
request before the exception will be
recognized.
Distributing a factual summary
Section 1-45-117(1)(b)(1) of the
FCPA permits a government to use
government money and resources to
discuss an election if the government is
providing “a factual summary, which
shall include arguments both for and
against the proposal.” The summary
may not include a conclusion or opinion
in favor of or against any particular
issue, and a government may only
prepare a summary regarding an issue
that will appear on the ballot within its
jurisdiction.
Typically, a carefully crafted publication
that provides a list summarizing the
arguments in favor of and against the
proposed issue would qualify for this
exception. The list should present
“reasonably framed, legitimate positions”
of both viewpoints and need not include
the best arguments available to either
side. The summaries of the pro and con
positions do not have to be equal in
length.
Although a neutral, factual summary,
including arguments for and against a
proposition, is expressly permitted by
Section 117, some governments have
distributed communications without
the arguments for and against.
These governments argue that such
communications do not violate Section
117 because they do not urge voters to
vote for or against the ballot issue.
ALJ decisions in this area have been
inconsistent. Some decisions have found
no violation where the communication
did not urge voters to take a position.
Other decisions have found a violation
where the communication appeared too
supportive of a position on the ballot
issue, even if it did not expressly urge
voters to cast a ballot in support or
opposition. Therefore, even when
producing a publication that fits within
the factual summary exception,
government entities are well served to
FebruAry 2012 11FebruAry 2012 11
What you Can’T do under F
C
pa• Public funds, f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
,
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
b
u
l
k
m
a
i
l
p
e
rmits
may not be ex
p
e
n
d
e
d
o
r
u
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
e
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
u
r
g
e
a
v
o
t
e
in favor of or a
g
a
i
n
s
t
a
n
i
s
s
u
e
,
e
v
e
n
w
h
e
n
c
o
s
t
i
s
r
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
d
.
• A public entity
m
a
y
n
o
t
a
l
l
o
w
o
t
h
e
r
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
a
d
v
o
c
a
t
i
n
g
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
on any issue t
o
u
s
e
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
• No preferential
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
o
r
f
e
e
s
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
governmental f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
.
• Public employ
e
e
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
w
o
r
k
o
n
a
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
hours and ma
y
n
o
t
u
s
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
r
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
campaign.
• A public entity
m
a
y
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
to work for an
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
(
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
f
a
c
t
u
a
l
summary).
• A government
m
a
y
n
o
t
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
political commi
t
t
e
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
t
o
r
a
i
s
e
a
n
y
f
u
n
d
s
and make any
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
o
f
a
n
election issue.
• The governme
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
a
c
c
e
p
t
c
a
s
h
o
r
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
contributions fr
o
m
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
f
o
r
u
s
e
b
y
t
h
e
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
i
n
connection wit
h
a
n
y
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
• The governme
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
n
a
m
e
s
,
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
o
r
phone number
s
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,
u
s
e
r
s
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
public facilities
,
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
that are owne
d
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
.
include language that indicates to a
voter, “you should decide for yourself.”
Expressing personal opinions
The FCPA permits members of the
governing body of a government, such
as a city council or town board, and
other elected government officials to
publicly voice their personal opinion
about an issue. The FCPA does not limit
the right of public officials and
employees to speak out on a matter
before the voters. However, in
expressing their personal opinions,
officials and employees may not use
government money or resources.
Government resolution of support
Any government may pass a resolution
or take a position of advocacy on a
particular issue. ALJ opinions make
clear that it is permissible for a
governing body to pass a resolution in
support of a particular measure without
violating Section 117. Additionally,
governments may report the passage of
a resolution if such communication is
through established, customary means
that are regularly provided to the public.
For example, a governing body is free to
communicate its position on an issue to
the electorate through a government-
sponsored newsletter that is regularly
used to report government news.
Not on public time
The final exception provides that
members and employees of any
government may expend personal
funds, make contributions, or spend
personal time on any candidate
campaign or ballot measure. Therefore,
during free time, elected officials and
public employees can discuss any issue
of public concern.
In some instances, if a lawsuit results,
the trier of fact will attempt to determine
whether the employee engaged in
prohibited activities while on salaried
time. However, without clear evidence
that such activity occurred during
salaried time, it is likely that no violation
will be found. This may create difficulties
for employees whose employment
contracts essentially put them on call,
such as a school superintendent or city
manager who normally attends many
night or weekend meetings. It might
never be possible for such employees to
voice their opinions in forums they could
conceivably visit in their official capacity,
unless the employment contracts or
personnel policies give the employee
personal or vacation time and the
employee uses it to express support or
opposition for a ballot issue.
procedure and remedies
Although Section 117 provides strict
prohibitions against the use of public
moneys, with only narrow exceptions,
the remedies for an alleged violation of
Section 117 are rather limited. Anyone
who believes that there has been a
violation of Section 117 may file a written
complaint with the secretary of state’s
office within 180 days of the alleged
violation. Within three days of filing, the
12 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
WHaT THe paSSage oF a bond iSSue Can do
By Jay Valentine, Grand Junction financial operations manager
LAST SPRING, A MAJORITY OF qUALIFIED VOTERS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GRAND JUNCTION
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), which include residents of the area, property owners, and business owners who
lease property in the area, voted to extend the ability of the City to issue bonds or other indebtedness for the purpose of
financing certain capital improvements within the DDA’s “Plan of Development” area. Specifically, the voters will allow the
DDA to issue bonds for a total of up to $65 million over the next 20 years, the duration of the recent extension granted to
the Grand Junction DDA by the state legislature.
Muncipal officials speculate that a combination of reasons helped the question succeed at the ballot. A number of visible
beautification projects over the past few years probably helped communicate the importance of an attractive downtown.
The excellent relationship of DDA staff with the business and real estate owners in the district, particularly the time spent
face-to-face, also is credited. Finally, the area visitor and convention bureau markets the downtown to tourists nationwide,
and an increase in investment of that attraction is seen as increased business.
The bonds will be paid off using incremental property and sales tax revenue from taxes levied within the DDA boundaries.
Unlike the incremental tax structure of the original incorporation of the DDA, the 20-year extension only requires the
levying entities to commit 50 percent of the incremental tax rather than the 100 percent required during the first 20 years.
Although the tax levying entities are only required to remit 50 percent of the incremental tax revenue, the individual
governing body may choose to pay 100 percent of the increment (or any amount in between) to the DDA. Because of this
revenue uncertainty, the recent measure approved by voters, allowing the DDA to issue bonds up to the $65 million, allows
a greater flexibility in the continuing role of the DDA to finance projects aimed at maintaining a viable business district in
downtown Grand Junction. According to Jodi Romero, Grand Junction finance director, “Having the voters approve the
total bonding capacity of the DDA for the next 20 years will allow the DDA to take advantage of capital opportunities and
community partnerships in a much more efficient manner. If the DDA Board wants to finance multiple projects over time
they can finance only the amount necessary when a viable project presents itself without having to go back and ask for a
vote on the project financing. The flexibility this provides is invaluable.”
The Grand Junction DDA
has not yet set its priorities
for the next 20 years, but
possible projects could
include renovations at the
Avalon Theatre downtown,
road projects, grants for
building facades, or perhaps
another parking garage.
SpoTligHT
secretary of state’s office refers the
complaint to an ALJ. The ALJ must hold
a hearing within fifteen days of the
referral and render a decision within
fifteen days of the hearing.
If an ALJ finds that a violation of the
FCPA has occurred, he or she may
grant “any order of relief, including
injunctive relief or a restraining order to
enjoin the continuance of the violation.”
A penalty anywhere between double
and five times the amount of the
violation may also be imposed. Although
remedies under Section 117 are limited,
complainants may seek a political result
rather than a legal one. As a
consequence, a complaint filed in the
weeks just prior to the election will
certainly produce news stories that
could affect the election result. Thus, a
conservative approach to using public
moneys in connection with ballot issues
may be necessary to avoid both political
and legal ramifications.
Conclusion
Section 117 limits Colorado
governments’ use of public money to
influence the outcome of elections.
This limit creates challenges for
governments, public officials, and
employees who consider it their duty to
communicate with the public about
important issues on upcoming ballots.
All those subject to Section 117 should
be aware exceptions exist that reduce
the otherwise broad scope of the statute.
However, the exceptions are narrowly
tailored, and triers of fact are likely to
strictly construe their requirements.
Therefore, only those actions that are
clearly outside the scope of Section 117
or clearly within one of its exceptions
should be undertaken if a complaint
under Section 117 is to be avoided.
12 COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES
VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 500'SHEET INDEXGENERAL NOTES:STATISTICAL DATA:TOTAL (PROPOSED STRUCTURE)39SURFACE LOT STALLSGRAND TOTAL24965TOP LEVELSTALLSSECOND LEVELLEVELSGROUND LEVEL5590210PARKING/ADA REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS:1. ALL PARKING ON THE SITE IS BEING CONSIDERED AS ONE PARKING AREA; THIS INCLUDES THEPROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE AND SURFACE LOT PARKING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THEEXISTING VISITOR CENTER.2. THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS IS BASED ON ALL SITE PARKING BEINGCONSIDERED ONE PARKING AREA.VARIANCES:ENGLEWOOD, CO. 801129570 KINGSTON COURT, SUITE 310PHONE: (303) 773-1605FAX: (303) 773-32975350 S. Roslyn StreetSuite 220Greenwood Village,CO 80111303.694.6622 Ph303.694.6667 FaxSTANDARDPARKING SPACES PROVIDED:ACCESSIBLECARACCESSIBLEVAN3925665TOTAL6290217AndersonMasonDale Architects, P.C.3198 Speer Blvd.Denver, CO, 80211303-294-9448303-294-0762RLEULLHOIV&T6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600Centennial, CO 80111tel 303.721.1440fax 303.721.08321COVER SHEET2SURVEY PLAN3CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN4FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN5PHASING PLAN6FIRE ACCESS PLAN7GROUND LEVEL PLAN8SECOND AND TOP LEVEL PLANS9GRADING PLAN10UTILITY PLAN11ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN12GROUND LEVEL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN13SECOND AND TOP LEVEL PHOTOMETRIC PLANS14LANDSCAPE PLAN15PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS16ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS17ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS18ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS19ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS20ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS21ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGSContact: Bob StanleySTRUCTURAL ENGINEERPRIME CONSULTANT ANDARCHITECTCIVIL ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTTRAFFIC ENGINEERKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNER(S) OF LOT 1, VISITORCENTER SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE:NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST ANDNORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST; OFTHE 6TH P.M.CONTAINING 5.442 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THE SAME TO BESURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLAT OF VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION, ANDDO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO AND FOR PUBLIC USE THE PARKING FACILITIES AS ARE LAID OUTAND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, AND DO ALSO DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THISPLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS THE DAY OF , 20 .OWNER(S)THE SIGNATURE(S) SHALL BE NOTARIZED AS FOLLOWS:STATE OF COLORADO)) SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER)THE FOREGOING DEDICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF ,20 . BY.NOTARY PUBLICMY COMMISSION EXPIRES.CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION(Ord. 8-05 #1)APPROVED BY THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THIS DAY OF, 20 . ALL DEDICATIONS ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE COUNTY FORCONSTRUCTION, REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ALLEYS, BRIDGES,RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT.CHAIRATTEST:CLERK OF THE BOARDBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL(Ord. 8-05 #1)1.ALL REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ACERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.2.THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE A.D.A. AND I.B.C.3.APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24,C.R.S., AS AMENDED.4.REFER TO SHEET 3 FOR CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS AND SHEET 4 FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS.ZONING:CD-COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN WITH VARIANCESGROSS PROJECT AREA:5.442 AC/237,141 S.F.AREA TO BE DEEDED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY:0 AC/0 S.F.NET PROJECT AREA:5.442 AC/237,141 S.F.NET SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA:PHASE 1: 2.085 AC/90,820 S.F.PHASE 2: 1.476 AC/64,288 S.F.GROSS FLOOR AREA (OF PARKING STRUCTURE):83,292 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (OF PARKING STRUCTURE):0.35LOT COVERAGE:EXISTING VISITOR CENTER:9,665 S.F.PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE:33,802 S.F.LOT COVERAGE RATIO:18%STRUCTURE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS:30 FEETSTRUCTURE HEIGHT (3 STORIES):PARKING STRUCTURE (TOP OF SPANDREL): 26'-6"STAIR CANOPY: 32'-0"LIGHT POLE: 37'-6"MEP ENGINEER3025 S. Parker Road, Suite 1100Aurora, CO 80014-2950303.696.2602 fax 303.696.0812www.ssgroupinc.comSSG MEP, Inc.MEPSSGACCESSIBLEVAN020202050505SEE STATEMENT OF INTENT AND VARIANCES DOCUMENT FOR DESCRIPTIONS ASSOCIATEDWITH THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED VARIANCES.1.BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS (SECTION 1.9.E.1)67$,5522)/,*+732/(62.OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING (SECTION 7.11.O.3)3$5.,1*02'8/(3$5.,1*63$&(/(1*7+$1'$,6/(:,'7+02',),&$7,2163.COLUMN ENCROACHMENTS INTO PARKING MODULE (NO LOCAL CODE REFERENCE)$//2:
´&2/801(1&52$&+0(17,17225/(662)3$5.,1*63$&(6
PTRIANGULARAREA PER PLANT,SQ. FT.RROW
1
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM
PROJECT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Project / Facility Name: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive
Project Route: CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1)
State: Colorado
County: Larimer County
Owner of Federal Lands to which the Project Provides Access: National Park Service
Entity with Title or Maintenance Responsibility for Facility: Town of Estes
Type of Work: The project is to include preliminary engineering, construction and construction
engineering for the reconstruction on Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive in the Town of Estes. The
routes are currently two lane routes at varying widths.
The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and
reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and
reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one-
way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include
upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to
one-way in the westbound direction.
This Agreement does not obligate (commit to) the expenditure of Federal funds nor does it commit the
parties to complete the project. Rather, this Agreement sets forth the respective responsibilities as the
project proceeds through the project development process.
2
Parties to this Agreement: Town of Estes (TOE), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
NPS, and Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD).
The Program Decision Committee approved this project on August 26, 2013.
AGREED:
Town of Estes Date
Colorado Department of Transportation Date
National Park Service Date
Director of Program Administration,
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Date
3
A. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement documents the intent of the parties and sets forth the anticipated responsibilities of each
party in the development, construction, and future maintenance of the subject project. The purpose of the
Agreement is to identify and assign responsibilities for the environmental analysis, design, right-of-way,
utilities, acquisition and construction as appropriate for this programmed project, and to ensure
maintenance of the facility for public use if improvements are made. The parties understand that any
final decision as to design or construction will not be made until after the environmental analysis
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is completed (this does not prevent the
parties from assigning proposed design criteria to be studied in the NEPA process.) Any decision to
proceed with the design and construction of the project will depend on the availability of appropriations
at the time of obligation and other factors such as issues raised during the NEPA process, a natural
disaster that changes the need for the project, a change in Congressional direction, or other relevant
factors.
If Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds are used for the development or construction of this
project, Town of Estes, Colorado agrees to provide a matching share equal to 17.21% or more of the
total cost of the project, as detailed more fully in Section J below.
B. AUTHORITY
This Agreement is entered into between the signatory parties pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C.
204.
C. JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT
Town of Estes, Colorado has jurisdictional authority to operate and maintain the existing facility and
will operate and maintain the completed project at its expense.
D. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY COORDINATION
Town of Estes, Colorado has coordinated project development with the National Park Service. The
National Park Service support of the project is documented in the original project application. Each
party to this agreement who has a primary role in NEPA, design, or construction shall coordinate their
activities with the National Park Service.
E. PROJECT BACKGROUND/SCOPE
The project traverses thru the Town of Estes Park via Elkhorn Avenue (US34/36), Moraine Avenue (US
36) and West and East Riverside Drive. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system
through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous
one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way
configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36.
The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic
from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction.
4
Figure 1 – Project Area Map
Roadway. The West and East Riverside Drive and Ivy Street segments will be
reconstructed/realigned using a 25-mph design speed with two 12 foot travel lanes. The
application did not include any shoulders but the Town discussed the desire for some sort
of on-street bicycle lane, and CDOT standards generally require a minimum 4 foot
shoulder. The application shows parallel on street parking on the southern section of the
roadway, but no on-street parking on the northern end of Riverside Drive where there are
existing driveways, which would lead to backing out onto the US highway.
Route Segments:
The project application stated current average daily traffic (ADT) as 10,000 with current
seasonal ADT of 17,900 and projected ADT of 14,000 with a projected seasonal ADT of
25,060. These numbers represent the general total ADT through the project area using
the existing and proposed roadway segments to travel through Estes Park towards Rocky
Mountain National Park. ADT information shown for each roadway segment is an
estimation of the current configuration verse proposed project configuration for each
segment (Current/Proposed).
Segment 1: Elkhorn Avenue (US 36/US 34 Business) from E. Riverside Dr. to
Moraine Ave.
Currently two lanes westbound and one lane eastbound with curb and gutter and attached
sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes
in a one-way configuration in the westbound direction expanding to two left turn lanes
and one through lane at Moraine Avenue intersection.
5
Figures 2 and 3 – Existing Elkhorn Avenue
Segment 2: Moraine Avenue (US 36) from Elkhorn Avenue to Crags Dr./W.
Riverside Dr.
Currently two lanes southbound and one lane northbound expanded to include an
additional northbound lane from Rockwell Street to Elkhorn Avenue. The existing
roadway has curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will
reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the
southbound direction expanded to include a left turn lane in addition to the two through
lanes from Elkhorn Avenue to Rockwell Street.
Figures 4 and 5 – Existing Moraine Avenue
Segment 3: W Riverside Dr./Ivy St./E Riverside Dr. (Moraine Ave. to Elkhorn Ave.)
Currently these three roadway segments make up the parallel alternative route to Moraine
Avenue/Elkhorn Ave. These segments currently include a northbound and southbound
lane with varied on-street and adjacent parking (parallel, diagonal, straight in,
driveways), and sections of curb and gutter and attached sidewalk. The Project will
reconstruct and realign these segments into a continuous roadway segment with two
northbound lanes with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk, and sections of parallel
parking. The proposed project includes creating a new intersection of Riverside
Drive/Crags Drive/Moraine Avenue to provide eastbound Moraine Avenue traffic a
through movement to this segment which will become the northbound section of US 36
through Estes Park.
6
Figures 6 and 7 – Existing Riverside Drive
Segment 4: Rockwell Street from Moraine Ave to E. Riverside Dr.
Currently one lane from Moraine Avenue for approximately 250 feet to the existing
adjacent public parking lots, then one lane eastbound and westbound to East Riverside
Drive. The Project will keep this configuration; however, the amount of traffic will
greatly increase as this will be the eastbound route for traffic traveling eastbound on
Elkhorn Avenue west of Moraine Avenue.
Figures 8 and 9 – Existing Rockwell Street
Bridge. The project includes the reconstruction of what was the Ivy Street bridge across
the Big Thompson River. This new structure will be on a skew and likely need to be
raised to provide the same or better clearance above the river. There is uncertainty in the
application if any improvements are needed at the Rockwell Street or East Riverside
Road bridges, they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project.
7
Figure 10 – Existing Ivy Street Bridge Figure 11 – Ivy Street Bridge Joint
Roadway segments 1 and 2 are classified as urban minor arterial in rolling terrain with a
design and posted speed of 25 mph. Roadway Segments 3 and 4 are classified as urban
collector in rolling terrain with a design speed of 25 mph.
Specific areas of concern or areas of required work by functional discipline are as
follows:
Right of Way
Right of Way mapping of existing parcels/property boundaries is required. There are
potentially 5-7 full relocations and 10-20 other partial right-of-way acquisitions, and
numerous TCE's. The Town of Estes Park will lead the right-of-way acquisition process.
Utilities
Numerous utilities will need to be relocated including City wet utilities (water, sanitary
sewer) and private dry utilities (electrical, gas, communications). New Street lighting
will be required for the project. Potholes and/or ground penetrating radar will be required
to locate utilities.
Environment and Permits
Due to the potential for Section 4(f)/6(f), 106 issues and the overall level of
change/chance for public concern, an Environmental Assessment is assumed.
Survey
Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be
used to develop topographical mapping.
Bridge
The Ivy Street bridge will be reconstructed on a new alignment, the bridge will be
skewed across the Big Thompson River. It is assumed that Ivy Street can be completely
closed during construction.
8
Hydraulics
A full hydrologic/hydraulic model of the Ivy Street bridge crossing is required. The
Town mentioned that the current Flood Insurance Study hydrology likely needs updated
and output needs to be verified against current Flood Models.
Highway Design
This 4R project is short in length but full of challenges from the typical section for a US
highway, curvilinear alignment, on-street parking and access, pedestrian movements, and
construction phasing.
Pavements
E. Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave are candidates for mill and overlay. Existing paving
should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used as high-quality fill or
base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures and review will be
required for any State Highway pavements.
Geotechnical
Field investigations are anticipated for reconfiguration of the Ivy Street bridge and
retaining walls at the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection. Right-of-entry
agreements may be required for the retaining wall boring access. All borings will also
require permitting from the Town of Estes Park and Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT).
F. PROJECT BUDGET
Figures are estimated from assumption in the original Application, Scoping
Report, and Project Delivery Documents. Cost(s) are subject to escalation
increases, depending on formal programming year.
Item Estimate ($) Comments
ROW $2,400,000
Utilities $850,000
Preliminary Eng. $1,400,000
Construction $9,000,000 Assumed 2016
construction
Construction Eng. $900,000
Contingency $1,455,000 10%
Total $16,005,000
9
G. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: for Red Dirt and Catamount Bridges
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
CFLHD Develop and sign the Project
Agreement
Develop and sign the Reimbursable
Agreement
Manage project development
schedule and preliminary
engineering costs
Perform pavement and geotechnical
investigations
Obtain necessary permits
Prepare environmental documents
and make project decisions based on
the NEPA documents
Prepare the PS&E
Advertise and award the contract.
Bids will not be solicited by CFLHD
until the EC and BLM have
concurred with the plans and
specifications.
10
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
Town of Estes Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Review and sign Reimbursable
Agreement
Attend reviews and meetings
Provide available data on traffic,
accidents, material sources,
construction costs, and any other
relevant information
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development support
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
Provide ROW and utility information
and coordination
Procure ROW
Provide water source(s) for design
and construction use
Coordinate utility relocations
Obtain permits other than those
required for Federal constructed
projects
PS&E activities will
not commence until
agreement(s) are
executed
Colorado Department of
Transportation
Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Attend reviews and meetings
Provide available data on traffic,
accidents, material sources,
construction costs, and any other
relevant information
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development support
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
Provide ROW and utility information
and coordination
Procure ROW
Obtain permits other than those
required for Federal constructed
projects
11
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
National Park Service Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Attend reviews and meetings
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development
support
In coordination with the CFLHD,
ensure that completed plans,
specifications, and estimates
(PS&E) are consistent with the
intended outcome.
Provide a Fire Plan for
incorporation with the Special
Contract Requirements.
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
Provide potential staging areas and
material sources as necessary to
aid construction.
Designate a representative who will
be the primary contact for
assistance during construction.
Attend the final inspection with
CFLHD and EC upon completion
of construction.
H. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – SCHEDULE (This section may be
abbreviated with only a tentative project schedule based on the application
pending a more in-depth scoping of the proposed project. If so, a more detailed
schedule thereafter should be developed and approved by the parties or the
Programming Decisions Committee, as appropriate.)
Responsible
Lead
Product/Service/
Role
Schedule
Start-Finish
Comments
CFLHD
Project
Development
Planning
See attached schedule Project
Development Plan
CFLHD NEPA EA
CFLHD Engineering
Design
Preliminary
through Final
PS&E
12
Responsible
Lead
Product/Service/
Role
Schedule
Start-Finish
Comments
CFLHD Geotechnical/
Pavement
Investigation and
Recommendations
Perform site
investigations and
provide
recommendations
TOE, CDOT, & NPS 100% PS&E
Approval
CFLHD Acquisitions Design and
Construction
Contracting
CFLHD Construction
Administration
Construction
Management and
Engineering
TOE, CDOT, & NPS Construction
Acceptance
PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS Final design standards will be determined
through the NEPA process.
Criteria Comments
Standard CDOT Possible width exception
on Riverside Drive
Functional Classification Urban Minor
Arterial
Surface Type Hot-Asphalt
Concrete Pavement
Design Volume 14,000
I. FUNDING
Fund Source Amount Comments
Colorado Federal Lands Access
Program Funds
$13,005,000
Local Matching Share – Town of
Estes via CDOT RAMP
$3,000,000 Contingent on RAMP
award
TOTAL $16,005,000
J. MATCHING SHARE REQUIREMENTS
Matching or cost sharing requirements may be satisfied following the obligation of funds
to the project by: allowable costs incurred by the State or local government, cash
donations, the fair and reasonable value of third party in-kind contributions (but only to
the extent that the value of the costs would be allowable if paid for by the party
responsible for meeting the matching share), including materials or services; however no
costs or value of third party contributions may count towards satisfying the matching
13
share requirements under this agreement if they have or will be counted towards meeting
the matching share requirements under another federal award.
Costs and third party contributions counting toward satisfying a cost sharing or matching
requirement must be verifiable from the records of the party responsible for meeting the
matching requirements. The records must demonstrate how the value of third party in
kind contributions was derived. Voluntary services sought to be applied to the matching
share will be supported by the same methods that the party to this agreement uses to
support allocability of personnel costs. Any donated services provided by a third party
will be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid by employers for similar work
in the same labor market. Supplies furnished will be valued at their market value at the
time of donation. Donated equipment or space will be valued at fair rental rate of the
equipment or space. All records associated with valuations or costs under section K shall
be accessible and be maintained for three years following project close-out.
A Reimbursable Agreement (RA) will be executed to commit the match contribution
and initiate project delivery for CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1). The CFLHD will bill Town
of Estes upon completion of the work in the RA, as tentatively outlined in the RA.
The CFLHD is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs incurred, as
reflected in the invoice provided by the CFLHD.
The CFLHD shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding the
maximum cost stated in the Reimbursable Agreement without authorization by Town
of Estes in the form of written modification.
K. PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS - POINTS OF CONTACT
The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the first
persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of each
party’s role and responsibility for this agreement.
Name/Title Organization Address/Phone Number/Email
Scott Zurn
Director of Public
Works
Town of Estes 170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 577-3582
szum@estes.org
Scott Ellis
Resident Engineer
CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 350-2104
corey.stewart@state.co.us
Larry Gamble
Chief of Planning
NPS- ROMO Rocky Mountain National Park
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-1320
larry_gramble@nps.gov
Micah Leadford
CFLHD
CFLHD 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Suite 380
Lakewood, CO 80228
14
Project Manager (720) 963-3498
micah.leadford@dot.gov
L. CHANGES/AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS
The agreement may be modified, amended, or have addendums added by mutual
agreement of all parties. The change, amendment, or addendum must be in writing and
executed by all of the parties.
The types of changes envisioned include, but are not limited to, changes that significantly
impact scope, schedule, or budget; changes to the local match, either in type or
responsibility; changes that alter the level of effort or responsibilities of a party. The
parties commit to consider suggested changes in good faith. Failure to reach agreement
on changes may be cause for termination of this agreement.
A change in the composition of the project team members does not require the agreement
to be amended.
It is the responsibility of the project team members to recognize when changes are needed
and to make timely notification to their management in order to avoid project delivery
delays.
M. ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES MATRIX
Issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible. The issue should be clearly defined
in writing and understood by all parties. Escalating to the next level can be requested by
any party. When an issue is resolved, the decision will be communicated to all levels
below.
FHWA Town of Estes CDOT R4 NPS Time
Project Manager:
Micah Leadford
Public Works Director
Scott Zurn
Resident Engineer
Scott Ellis
Chief of Planning
Larry Gamble
14 Days
Project Management
Branch Chief: Ed
Hammontree
Town Administrator
Frank Lancaster
Program Engineer
Corey Stewart
Park Superintendent
Vaughn Baker
30 days
Director, Project Delivery:
Michael Davies
60 days
Division Engineer:
Ricardo Suarez
90 Days
N. TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties. This
agreement may also be terminated if either the NEPA process or funding availability
requires a change and the parties are not able to agree to the change. Any termination of
this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to
termination. If Federal Access funds have been expended prior to termination, the party
responsible for the match agrees to reimburse CFLHD as outlined in the Reimbursable
Agreement.
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Lands Highway
AGREEMENT
DTFH68-14-E-00004
PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
Reimbursing Organization
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Organization to be Reimbursed
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
DUNS Number: 078355450
TIN:
DUNS Number
126129936
POINTS OF CONTACT FOR THE AGREEMENT
Reimbursing Organization
Finance Point of Contact
Name: Steve McFarland
Address: PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3560
E-mail: sMcFarland@estes.org
Organization to be Reimbursed
Finance Point of Contact
Name: Suzanne Schmidt
Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 720-963-3356
E-mail: suzanne.schmidt@dot.gov
Reimbursing Organization
Program Point of Contact
Name: Scott Zurn
Address: PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3560
E-mail: szurn@estes.org
Organization to be Reimbursed
Program Point of Contact
Name: Micah J. Leadford
Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 720-963-3498
E-mail: micah.leadford@dot.gov
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
LEGAL AUTHORITY
From: see date of signature below
To: June 30, 2017
23 U.S.C. 201 and 204
TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT
TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT: $3,000,000.00
PAYMENT TERMS AND SCHEDULE
EFT
DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND DELIVERABLES
See attached SOW
AUTHORIZED APPROVALS
For Reimbursing Organization For Organization to be Reimbursed
Signature Date
Signature Date
Title Title
Revised 3/2010
Statement of Work
Reimbursable Agreement No.
DTFH68-14-E-00004
January 7, 2014
1 | Page
I. Introduction: The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway
Division (CFLHD) will provide design and construction delivery services for the CO
FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive project. The Town of Estes,
Colorado will provide funding for the local match, per the federal requirements listed
below. The Town of Estes shall be referred to as the Requesting Agency and the
CFLHD shall be referred to as the Servicing Agency.
II. Location: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive, Estes Park, CO
III. Work Required: For the CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive
project, as selected by the Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) in the state of
Colorado, perform project environmental compliance, design, right-of way, permitting,
contracting and construction in accordance with CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine
Avenue and Riverside Drive Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Memorandum of
Agreement.
The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by
realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way
(eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way
configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US
Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to
accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the
westbound direction.
IV. Non-Federal Share of Costs: It is estimated that Federal Lands Access Program funding
will be used to fund the scoping effort as follows:
Design, construction and construction engineering cost(s) are summarized as follows:
Item Estimate ($) Comments
ROW $2,400,000
Utilities $850,000
Preliminary Eng. $1,400,000
Construction $9,000,000 Assumed 2016 construction
Construction Eng. $900,000
FHWA and Town of Estes, Colorado
Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004
January 7, 2014
2 | Page
Item Estimate ($) Comments
Contingency $1,455,000 10%
Total $16,005,000
As outlined in Section VIII.C, Town of Estes will provide funds in the amount of 18.7
% of the total Federal Lands Access Program funding required to complete the work in
this Agreement. The amount of matching funds provided by the Town of Estes shall not
exceed $3,000,000.00, but shall meet the minimum of 17.21% of total project funding.
The Requesting Agency is not required to reimburse the Servicing Agency for any costs
incurred by the Servicing Agency prior to the date of this Agreement.
V. Period of Performance: All work associated with this agreement will be completed no
later than June 30, 2017.
VI. Technical Representative: CFLHD Program Point of Contact for this Agreement is Mr.
Micah Leadford, Project Manager. Mr. Leadford can be contacted at 720-963-3498 or
micah.leadford@dot.gov.
The Town of Estes Program Point of Contact for this Agreement is Mr. Scott Zurn and
can be contacted at (970) 577-3582.
VII. Scope of Work:
Refer to Section III of this agreement and CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and
Riverside Drive Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Memorandum of Agreement.
VIII. Financial Administration:
A. Total Agreement Amount: Not to exceed $3,000,000.00
B. Funding Citations: 23 U.S.C. 201 and 204.
C. Reimbursable Payment:
The Servicing Agency will invoice the Requesting Agency on a monthly basis in the
amount of 18.6% of the total Federal Lands Access Program funding expended for the
project for preliminary engineering (project development), construction engineering
(administration and oversight of the construction contract) and progress payments made
to the construction contractor.
FHWA and Town of Estes, Colorado
Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004
January 7, 2014
3 | Page
The Servicing Agency is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs
incurred, as reflected in the invoice provided by the Servicing Agency.
The Servicing Agency shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding
the maximum cost stated in this Agreement without authorization by the Requesting
Agency in the form of written modification to this agreement.
Upon receipt of the invoice of costs incurred and authorized, the Requesting
Agency will issue payment via one of the methods listed below.
The Servicing Agency will furnish a final Project Status Report detailing the funding
usage on the project and calculations used to determine match funding requirements.
The Servicing Agency requests that these payments be made through the US Treasury's
website https://pay.gov. Pay.gov can be, used to make secure electronic payments to any
Federal Government Agencies via credit card or direct debit. Payment shall be
submitted referencing the FHWA/CFLHD-ID
Agreement Number: DTFH68-14-E-00004
Option 1 (Preferred Method)
Plastic Card or Automatic Clearing House Payment (ACH Direct Debit)
Go to Treasury's website, https://pay.gov.
Search for Agency Name
Select the appropriate Transportation Agency
Follow the form instructions to make your payment. Note: If making an ACH payment from
your bank account, please select ACH Direct Debit as the payment type.
FHWA and Town of Estes, Colorado
Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004
January 7, 2014
4 | Page
Option2
Mail Check payment to the following address for Paper Check Conversion (PCC) processing:
Regular Mail
MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO:
DOT FHWA
MAILING ADDRESS:
Enterprise Service Center Federal Aviation Administration
ATTN: AMZ-340, Mark Richardson
6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., HDQ Rm 285
Oklahoma City, OK 73169
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/
Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check:
Please notify Regina Monroe at 720-963-3460 or regina.monroe@dot.gov if mailing a
check.
When you provide a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your
Check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer from your account or to process the payment
as a check transaction.
When we use information from your check to make an electronic fund transfer, funds may be
withdrawn from your account as soon as the same day we receive your payment, and you will
not receive your check back from your financial institution. '
Privacy Act - A Privacy Act Statement required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) stating our authority for soliciting and collecting the information
from your check, and explaining the purposes and routine uses which will be made of your check information, is available 1Torn our
internet site at (PCCOTC.GOV), or call toll free;: at (1-800-624-137 to obtain a copy by mail. Furnishing the check information is
voluntary, but a decision not to do so may require you to make payment by some other method ,
FHWA and Town of Estes, Colorado
Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004
January 7, 2014
5 | Page
IX. Modifications:
Any modifications to the Agreement must be made in writing and agreed to by both
parties. Such modifications are not binding unless they are in writing and signed by
personnel authorized to bind each of the agencies.
X. Agreement Completion:
When the Requesting Agency has accepted all deliverables, the Servicing Agency will
provide a written project evaluation and final accounting of project costs to the
Requesting Agency contact.
XI. Termination:
This agreement will terminate upon the date specified in Section V or upon 30 calendar
day prior written notification to the other party. If this agreement is terminated by the
Requesting Agency its liability shall extend to 100 percent of actual and reasonable
costs of the items/services rendered and the costs of any non-cancelable obligations
incurred prior to the effective date of termination. If this agreement is terminated by the
Servicing Agency its liability shall extend only to the release of its work products and
related materials to the Requesting Agency by the effective date of termination.