HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-11-11NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 28, 2014, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated October 28, 2014, and Town Board Budget Study Session Minutes dated
October 3, 10 and 17, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services, October 23, 2014.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 7, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
5. Closure of Town Offices on December 26, 2014.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Superintendent Baker.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - EVEREST KITCHEN LLC., DBA FAMOUS
EASTSIDE GROCERIES, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% BEER OFF
PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
Prepared 11/3/14
*Revised: 11/7/14
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
2. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, LLC., DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, 101-201 ST. VRAIN AVENUE, HOTEL &
RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT ETAL., DBA HANGAR RESTAURANT AT THE ESTES PARK GOLF
COURSE, 1480 GOLF COURSE ROAD, HOTEL & RESTAURANT WITH
OPTIONAL PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - TWO DOLPHINS INC., DBA THE GRUBSTEAK
RESTAURANT., 134 W. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR
LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
5. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - M & S. INC. AND LA SIERRA LLC., DBA LA
HACIENDA BAR & GRILL , 165 VIRGINIA DRIVE UNIT #18-1 & 18-2, TAVERN
LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING – 2015 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland.
Continue Public Hearing and Board Action on November 25, 2014.
2. REQUEST A SPECIAL ELECTION REGARDING BROADBAND SERVICES PER
C.R.S. 29-27-201. Administrator Lancaster.
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
DEVOLUTION OF BUSINESS HWY 34 FROM MORAINE TO WONDERVIEW.
Director Muhonen.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER
COUNTY AND AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING
COMMISSION BYLAWS. Senior Planner Shirk.
5. USE OF CONTINGENCY FUND TO COMPLETE SECOND STORY OF THE
EVENT CENTER SILO. Director Winslow.
6. AMENDNG GOVERNING POLICY 1.5 – BOARD MEMBERS’ CODE OF
CONDUCT. Administrator Lancaster.
7. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW TEAM APPOINTMENT.
Town Clerk Williamson.
5. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 28, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 28th day of October, 2014.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed November 13, 2014 as National Philanthropy Day.
PRESENTATION:
Jason Gdovicak/Glen Haven Fire Chief and Tony Fink/Glen Haven presented the Town
of Estes Park with a Certificate of Appreciation for the Town’s support to the community
of Glen Haven during the 2013 flood.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Betty Harrison/vacation home owner thanked the Town for reviewing vacation home
regulations and shared a positive review from a renter of the home she and Ed
Peterson operate.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Ericson reminded citizens to cast their ballots on or before Tuesday, November
3, 2014 by 7:00 p.m.
Trustee Phipps stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission held its monthly meeting
and reviewed the revised plan for Falcon Ridge and revised bylaws. The next meeting
would be held on November 18, 2014.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig announced a special Sister Cities meeting would be held to
discuss the Estes Park Institute taking over the program. The Professional Rodeo
Cowboys Association's (PRCA) 2014 Mountain Circuit Award for Best Mid-Sized Rodeo
was awarded to the Rooftop Rodeo.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Parks Advisory Board met in October to work on an Art in
Public Places policy to be presented to the Town Board in early 2015. He congratulated
Brian Wells for receiving a degree in Public Administration.
Trustee Norris attended the CDOT meeting where the final rebuild of Highway 34 was
discussed. Construction of the project would begin fall of 2015 with design work and
public input session taking place throughout the year. WAPA would hold an open house
on October 30, 2014 to discuss the Flatiron project and hold a formal hearing following
the open house.
Board of Trustees – October 28, 2014 – Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster had no report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 14, 2014 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated October 14, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes: None.
4. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated September 17, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated September 18, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - MURPHY'S RESORT AT ESTES PARK, LLC DBA
MURPHY'S RESORT, 1650 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO,
BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the
application for a new liquor license for Murphy’s Resort, stating all applicable
fees and paperwork were submitted. The applicant filed a concurrent review
with the state. Pat Murphy/applicant stated TIPS training had been completed
by four members of the staff. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb)
to approve a new Beer and Wine Liquor license for Murphy's Resort at
Estes Park, LLC dba Murphy's Resort, 1650 Big Thompson Avenue, and it
passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #28-14 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 2015. Visit Estes Park President
& CEO Fogarty presented the 2015 Operating Plan reviewing key areas such
as destination product development, state tourism, wellness tourism, event
support, regional tourism, advertising objectives, media objectives,
VisitEstesPark.com website, and destination branding strategy.
Trustee Nelson thanked Visit Estes Park and staff for a proactive view of
marketing to make the Town of Estes Park a premier mountain resort.
Trustee Ericson stated the marketing plan presented was well written and
transparent. He encouraged the district to take the culturalization of the
branding to the citizen level.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve Resolution #28-14
approving the 2015 Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and
Operating Plan, and it passed unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE #16-14 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS. Chief Building Official Birchfield stated the Town Board
approved Ordinance #13-13 on November 12, 2013 as an interim measure to
establish the high-water mark of the 2013 flood pending revisions to the flood
insurance rate maps. The maps are used by the Floodplain Manager to
regulate special flood hazard areas, i.e. those areas with a 1% annual chance
of flooding. The Ordinance provided regulations for the permanent
construction adjacent to drainages affected by the flood and established
Board of Trustees – October 28, 2014 – Page 3
building permit submittal requirements such as a FEMA Elevation Certificate
and high water marks from the flood. The Ordinance expires on November
11, 2014. Staff recommends the adoption of a new Ordinance to allow for
permanent construction in these same areas while taking appropriate
measure to reasonably protect life and property from future flooding, and
minimizing potential non-compliance with FEMA regulations. Staff would use
the best available data at the time a building permit is submitted, which may
change over the year as new information becomes available. The Ordinance
if passed would take effect upon passage and expire on November 10, 2015.
Attorney White read Ordinance #16-14. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Ericson) to approve Ordinance 16-14, and it passed unanimously.
3. PURCHASE OF AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE. Director Williamson
presented an additional employee benefit that would help reduce insurance
cost related to emergency transport to the valley for employees and their
families through the purchase of a membership with AirMedCare. The $50
annual membership would cover all residents living at a household for air
ambulance service and any medical services provided during the flight at no
cost to the member. The current cost to the employee would be their
deductible plus 10%. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to
approve the addition of AirMedCare ambulance membership as a benefit
for employees in 2015, and it passed unanimously.
4. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 2014 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS. Public Information Officer Rusch reviewed
the 2014 citizen survey outcomes and comparing them to the previous 2011
survey results. A summary of the results yielded the following: community
characteristics ranked similarly with the Town below the national average as a
place to raise children; mobility and transportation were generally ranked lower
than the last survey and below the national average; economic sustainability
and development were ranked equal to or above the 2011 survey with the
creation of the Economic Development Council; public safety ranked high;
natural environment ranked high with air quality above national benchmark;
built environment ranked low for affordable housing and housing options;
community engagement was equal to the response of 2011; and public trust
and engagement ranked similarly. Overall the residents of Estes Park enjoy a
high quality of life with 4 out 5 ranking Estes as excellent or good.
Board comments were summarized: suggested staff seek more involvement
from the Spanish community, use Salud as a conduit to get information to the
Spanish community; 70% of the respondents were above the age of 50 years;
87% of the respondents own their own home; the information provided is
weighted by those that responded; the budget and priorities are well aligned
with the survey results; need more outreach to the young families; and the
Board does not see a need for additional discussion of the results at a study
session.
2. FLOOD RECOVERY UPDATE. Director Chilcott stated master plans for Fall
River and Fish Creek corridors are being prepared with the support of experts
in a number of disciplines, including engineering, ecologists, geomorphologists,
biologists, and risk experts. The master plans consider the risks associated
with geomorphic hazards in addition to flood hazards and identify potential
mitigation projects for the corridors, including the corridor running through
downtown. The result of master planning efforts and subsequent project
implementation would be to increase resiliency in the community, economy,
and river systems. The plans would provide a prioritize list of project in which
funding can be sought to complete. To date, the master plans have yielded
grant funds from the Colorado Water Conservation Board in conjunction with
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District and the Estes Valley Land Trust.
Board of Trustees – October 28, 2014 – Page 4
Grant funds have been requested and are pending from FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grant program/HUD Community Development Block Grant.
The Fall River Coalition and Fish Creek Coalition are now transitioning to
formal watershed coalition structure, e.g. a non-profit organization with a formal
board, staff, mission and vision, with the goal of a formal structure in place by
the end of 2014. The two coalitions would merge into the Estes Valley
Coalition and expand to represent the Big Thompson and Black Canyon Creek.
The Town was awarded grant funds from the Colorado Division of Local Affairs
to fully-fund a two-year staff position for an Environmental Planner/Planner III.
The primary purpose of this staff position would be to assist with the flood
recovery work.
3. CODE COMPLIANCE UPDATE. Code Compliance Officer Reichardt provided
an update on code enforcement efforts throughout the valley. A final Code
Compliance policy has been completed which established a prioritization
method for cases. The ranking provides staff a mechanism for prioritizing
complaints as it relates to potential danger to life or the environment. Staff
continues to focus on education to bring cases into compliance. A majority of
the cases, 83%, are closed with a courtesy letter requesting compliance with
the codes. Staff has utilized Eagle Rock students to help bring property owners
into compliance and would continue this relationship moving forward. Staff
occasionally works on the weekends with a the primary focus on the downtown
area to help staff address code violations and to a large extent, establish new
relationships with the downtown business owners.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 28, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of
October, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Attorney White, Deputy Town
Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
In response to an inquiry from Trustee Phipps, Town Administrator Lancaster reported
that a summary of comments gathered at the October 8th public meeting regarding the
Downtown Estes Loop realignment project is being compiled by the consultant. He said
in addition to summarized comments, the report will contain a frequently asked
questions section to provide information to help alleviate confusion about the NEPA
process and explain why a downtown parking structure is not being addressed. He said
it is unclear as to when the Town will receive the report. PIO Rusch noted that once
received the information will be broadly distributed to help lessen confusion related to
the process and the project.
Trustee Norris said CML has a publication that addresses affordable housing in small
communities that might be of interest to the Board. Town Administrator Lancaster said
he would distribute the booklet information electronically to the Board and a hard copy
of the booklet is available in the Town Clerk’s office. On the subject of Estes
Performance, Inc. (EPIC), Town Administrator Lancaster said an update will be
forthcoming at a November Town Board meeting, and also noted that he is expecting to
receive an update in the next few days related to the Wellness Center project. Trustee
Norris brought up the proposed national park fee increases and the Board agreed they
would not be taking a position on this matter. Trustee Norris attended a CDOT meeting
related to repairs on Highway 34 in Big Thompson Canyon. He said the design phase
will extend through most of next year with construction to begin in the fall of 2015.
Trustee Ericson said that public input on the 2015 budget will be taken at the November
11th Town Board meeting and the adoption will take place at the second Town Board
meeting in November. He said discussions related to funding requests for the Scottish
Festival and Visit Estes Park that may affect the budget are not scheduled until
December 9th and asked if the Board wanted to speak to these topics prior to the
adoption of the budget. After brief discussion, the schedule was not changed and the
Scottish Festival and Visit Estes Park will remain on the agenda for the December 9,
2014, Town Board Study Session. Additionally, Trustee Ericson requested that a
conversation about investing in infrastructure and contributions to the infrastructure fund
be held in early 2015.
Town Administrator Lancaster provided initial information about the air ambulance item
on the Town Board agenda. He noted that the air ambulance service is being proposed
as a new addition to the employee benefit package at an approximate cost to the Town
of $6,000 annually. He said for a relatively small cost the air ambulance coverage
Town Board Study Session – October 28, 2014 – Page 2
would provide peace of mind, as the cost of air ambulance services can run into the
tens of thousands of dollars.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
PIO Rusch will be presenting the results of the Citizen’s Survey at the Town
Board meeting. If further review of the results is necessary it will be scheduled
for the November 25th Town Board Study Session. Logo discussion is tentative
for November 25th.
Request of Additional Funding to Support the Scottish/Irish Highland Festival and
Visit Estes Park; and Discussion of Community Service Grants – December 9,
2014.
Cancellation – The Town Board Study Session and the Town Board meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, December 23, 2014, will be cancelled due to the
Christmas holidays.
Vacation Rental Discussion – January 27, 2015.
Vision for the Downtown Area will remain on the Future Study Session Agenda
items list as unscheduled at this time. Staff will prepare to speak to a
neighborhood approach to redevelopment in the downtown area.
Dangerous Buildings Code Discussion will be incorporated into the adoption of
the building code in late 2015.
TOWN’S ROLE IN HOUSING & FORMATION OF STUDY COMMITTEE.
Town Administrator Lancaster said that the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA), the
Economic Development Corp., (EDC) and the Town of Estes Park are interested in
working together to discuss and address housing in the Estes Valley. He noted that
even though the EPHA has been concentrating primarily on affordable and low income
housing, the organization has the expertise and ability to address housing on any level.
In addition, the EDC Board has identified housing as a key topic to potentially address
through a project committee in 2015. All three entities are interested in identifying
community-defined needs in order to choose a focus and more forward.
The Town of Estes Park is a member of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST).
At a recent meeting of the organization, the CAST executive director reported that the
group is interested in using the expertise of its membership to provide assistance
programs to member municipalities. As a first project, it was proposed that a team
experienced in dealing with housing issues come to Estes Park to meet with staff,
community members and business owners to evaluate the situation, share their
experiences and offer ideas/options/solutions, and talk about what types of solutions
work and don’t work when addressing housing issues. Town Administrator Lancaster
said that the assistance program would be provided at no cost to the Town and
suggested this as a starting point, prior to forming a study committee.
Discussion is summarized: sounds like a great idea; work with CAST prior to the
program to gather necessary and useful information; gather information about workforce
turnover from local employers; consider seasonal housing issues; Estes Park is not the
only community with housing issues; joining forces will help to identify successful
solutions; rather than provide solutions, the Town may take on a catalyst role in helping
to make solutions happen; deed restrictions, public/private partnerships, and code
changes may be considered; focus on comprehensive and long-term planning; agree on
terminology and use a standard lexicon; buy-in from the business community is key;
EPHA has the ability but not the resources; federal and state funding sources define
specific qualifying groups for housing developments; and vacation rentals are a different
issue and will be addressed as a separate subject.
Town Board Study Session – October 28, 2014 – Page 3
Town Administrator Lancaster will contact the CAST executive director to express the
Town’s interest in the assistance program and work on getting the program scheduled
for March or April of 2015.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:07
p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 3, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY
SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of October,
2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees, Ericson, Holcomb, Koenig,
Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland,
Directors Bergsten, Muhonen and Winslow, Manager
Fraundorf and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
2015 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Finance Officer McFarland provided a review of the General fund and stated the Town
Board has determined a 25% fund balance would be appropriate. The 2015 budget has
been prepared with a 23% fund balance, not including the required Tabor reserve of
approximately $403,284. The 2014 revenues are projected to exceed the original
budget by $385,000 to $8.15 million and the 2015 revenues budgeted at $8.4 million, a
3% increase over 2014. Flood recovery efforts continue to present challenges in
relation to cash flow because the Town must pay for expenses up front and wait for
reimbursements by FEMA, State and others. The Board requests a monthly update
on the flood expenses and reimbursements to review the fund balances
throughout the year. Staff would keep the board informed on the status of
reimbursements and fund balance. Staff and the Town Attorney continue to work with
the Town’s insurance broker in relation to medical insurance rates, which are estimated
to increase by 30%. The 2015 budget contains a 25% increase which is reflected in all
the department’s personnel budget line item. The new Event Center would be fully
operational in 2105 with an annual operating budget of $750,000. The center would
operate at a loss, requiring an increase in the transfer from the General fund.
A number of cost-saving measures were taken to maintain the General fund balance at
or near 25%, including each department and fund cutting operational funds, in
aggregate totaling nearly $1,500,000, elimination of the 2% merit pool, reduction of
money collected from services charged by Information Technology and Vehicle
Replacement funds, reduction of the transfer from General fund and Community
Reinvestment fund, and delaying of maintenance/efficiency related projects. Finance
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 3, 2014 – Page 2
Officer McFarland stated that the budget would operate $900,000 in the red for 2015.
The philosophy moving forward would be to cut back on expenses over the next couple
of years to get back to a balanced General fund and meet the 25% reserve. The 2015
budget includes the results of the market rate compensation study conducted in
June/July, compensation adjustments from last year’s study not fully implemented and a
few compression issues.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the 2015 budget was established by each
department requesting all needed and projects, and then were requested to cut the
department budgets to meet the 25% fund balance in the General fund. This allowed
Administration to understand each department needs moving forward. Administration’s
goal for 2016 is to present the Board with a balanced budget. He stated the importance
of following the compensation policy established by the Town Board in 2013, and
therefore, funding the market increases for 2015 outlined in the compensation study.
The Community Service grants have been reduced by 5% in an effort to focus funds on
Town programs. Services for 2015 would remain static with the proposed budget. He
stated a General fund balance of 25% would be a healthly fund balance and stated the
Town should not let the balance drop below 10%. The Town’s financial position after a
major disaster has only dropped by 2% over the past year. He reminded the Board and
the citizen the new sales tax collected by the Town has been earmarked to specific
objectives and all funds collected would be placed in one of four newly created funds.
Trustee Ericson questioned when the Community Service fund would be consolidated
into the General fund. He also stated concern with permit fees for outside entities that
affect the revenues of Town departments such as Community Development. Finance
Officer McFarland stated staff would merge the funds prior to the budget review in
November.
Mayor Pinkham called a break at 9:35 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND
Finance Officer McFarland commented transfers out of the General fund account for
25% of the expenses in the fund. The transfer to the Community Reinvestment fund
would decrease with the street improvement funds moving to the new Street fund. Staff
recommended decreasing the transfer from the General fund to the Community
Reinvestment fund from $800,000 to $520,000 to cover the Certificate of Participation
loan payment. Community Service fund transfer would increase from $1.7 million to
$2.1 million in 2015 to cover the new Event Center operations. The General fund would
transfer $30,000 to the Emergency fund for the new radio station in order to install and
have the station operational by the end of the year. The Emergency fund would repay
the General fund in 2015.
It was noted by staff that the $800,000 transfer from the General fund to the Community
Reinvestment fund has taken place since the Local Marketing District was formed. No
formal Board action was taken to mandate the transfer in the future, and only
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 3, 2014 – Page 3
statements were made suggesting the marketing funds saved with the creation of the
Local Marketing District could be used for infrastructure improvements for tourist based
improvements. Administrator Lancaster stated conditions change over time and the
Town now needs those funds to operate programs or cut operational expense further to
transfer funds for potential improvements.
Trustee Ericson stated with the formation of the Local Marketing District the Town
agreed to set aside the funds saved on marketing for infrastructure. He agreed a policy
was not adopted; however, the budgets along with the transfer were adopted each year
and it did become a part of the culture. He agreed the transfer could be lowered for
2015 with the understanding it would be increased in the future to the $800,000. He
requested a five year plan for the Community Reinvestment fund to review capital
projects. Trustee Norris stated support for the reduced transfer in 2015 with the
understanding the reduction would not be permanent.
Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the revenues and expenses in the fund: Revenues
include $520,000 transfer from the General Fund, $330,000 in grant funding, $4.2
million for the devolution of Hwy 34 business loop, approximately $1 million from the
sale of Lot 4, and $10,000 in investment income; Expenses include Elm Road landfill
mitigation of an additional $97,500 and a total project budget of approximately
$400,000, $4.4 million for the construction of the parking structure, $520,000 for the
Certificate of Participation payment for the Event Center and Pavilion, $771,528
transferred to the new Street fund, $398,550 for the Fall River trail, FLAP grant
expenses of $1 million, $165,000 Conference Center roof repair, and $30,000
Performance Park overlay. At the end of 2015 the fund balance would be $987,686
with $200,000 set aside for the museum storage facility and the rest of the devolution
funds of $3.1 million.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned how the Town would build the parking garage if the
bids for construction come in higher than the grant funds allocated for the project.
Administrator Lancaster commented the Town may need to consider value engineering,
requesting additional funding from the grantors, use of Lot 4 funds, or use of
contingency funds from the Event Center/Pavilion project. The Town has been able to
use grant funds for design development; however, if the Town does not move forward
with building the structure the Town would be required to repay the grant funds used.
Trustee Ericson requested the Board continue to discuss the need to set aside funds for
a second stall barn at the fairgrounds.
INTERNAL SERVICES FUNDS
MEDICAL
The fund maintains the medical premiums and fund balances as the Town moved to self
insurance in 2012. The 2015 budget contains a 25% increase in medical and no
increase in dental or vision premiums.
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 3, 2014 – Page 4
FLEET MAINTENANCE
The fund maintains all equipment and charges the appropriate department for the
services related to equipment owned and operated by the department. In 2015, the
division would focus on extending vehicle life for an extra year in lieu of the departments
contributing to the Vehicle Replacement fund in 2015. Revenues would remain flat in
2015, expenditures increase with the replacement of a floor lift, expand diagnostic and
training for the fleet staff, and personnel costs increase with the hiring of two vacant
positions in 2014. The fork lift would be removed from buildings and added as a
capital line item.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
Each department pays a fee based on the equipment the department utilizes (laptops
and computers, servers, audio and video components, software, copiers and telephone
components). The contributions by department would be reduced in 2015 by $100,000
and decrease the overall fund balance. An additional staff position has been requested
to continue providing customer service. The division continues to update, simplify,
consolidate and tune servers and network components to increase reliably and
decrease expenses overall. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig expressed concern over the
need to set aside funds for new updated accounting software.
Mayor Pinkham called a break at 11:15 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:20 a.m.
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
The Internal Services Fund maintains a fund balance for future vehicle purchases.
Contributions to the fund for 2014 were suspended from the General Fund, Special
Events and the Museum. In 2015 the General fund would contribute half of the
revenues required for depreciation of the Town’s fleet. Light and Power has increased
the replacement rate of their vehicles and thereby increase the contributions to the fund.
The Police vehicles are retained for five years. Beginning in 2014 old Police vehicles
would be assigned to officers as take home vehicles for transportation to and from work.
The vehicles would be maintained by fleet. Chief Kufeld stated the Police would extend
the life of the vehicles to six or seven years.
GENERAL FUND. Each fund was reviewed and requests for additional information is
noted below:
Legislative – In 2015 the budget reflects the new salaries for the newly elected
officials and the benefits elected. O&M increases with the shifting of board room
computers to this fund.
Judicial – The 2015 budget remains flat with no material changes over 2014.
Executive – The Assistant Town Administrator position would be filled in 2015.
The personnel and O&M budgets remain static.
Administrative Services – A special election has been budgeted for 2015 in
relation to broadband and the elimination of the restrictions outlined in Senate Bill
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 3, 2014 – Page 5
152. In lieu of additional staffing the department has requested funding for
contract labor and the purchase of NeoGov software to streamline the application
tracking process, decrease staff time and eliminate publication costs. Staff
removed funding request for document management, and the remodel of the
records room and the completion of the Administrative Services office. The 2015
budget increased training to the 2013 level.
Finance – Personnel costs decrease in 2015 due to staff changes. O&M costs
decrease overall with IT costs decreasing by $8,000.
Employee Benefits – This fund contains the homeownership program, tenure
awards, wellness program, post employment benefits and employee gatherings.
There are currently eight employees participating in the homeowner program with
four additional participants anticipated for 2015. The budget also contains an
increase in the number of eligible retirees for post-employment benefits. The
2015 also contains funds for an RFP for benefit consulting services and an
actuarial study for post-employment services.
The next Budget Study Session is scheduled October 10, 2014, 8:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 10, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY
SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of October,
2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Koenig,
Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland,
Chief Kufeld, Director Muhonen, Commander Rose and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
COMMUNITY SERVICES FUNDING REQUESTS (General Fund)
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Ericson and Town Clerk Williamson met to evaluate
the grant applications and reviewed each to determine the number of people served and
affected by the services provided to citizens of Estes Park. A few applications were
denied because it was determined local government should not fund other government
entities or faith based programs. A number of new organizations applied to provide
similar services to the same population, especially the youth population. Funding was
cut an additional 5% once preliminary letters were sent to the organizations.
Specific funding by category is outlined below with funding totaling $132,900 as follows:
ORGANIZATION 2015 BUDGET
Arts & Education:
Art Center of Estes Park, $500
Cultural Arts Council, $500
Estes Park Repertoire Theater Company, $500
Estes Valley Historical Preservation, $1,000
Estes Valley Community Garden, Inc., $1,000
Estes Park Village Band, $500
Oratorio Society of Estes Park, $850
$4,850
Transportation:
Special Transit, $30,000
$30,000
Youth:
Boys & Girls Club of Larimer County, $5,000
Estes Park Learning Place, $3,000
Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success, $25,000
$33,000
Food Tax Refund $11,000
Human Services:
Audio Information Network of CO, $250
Crossroads, $20,000
Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center, $5,000
E.P. Salud, $20,000
Estes Valley Victim Advocates, $5,000
Estes Park Gun & Archery Club, $800
Food Back for Larimer County, $1,000
$52,250
Sister Cities Int’l. Conf. Student Participation, $3,500 $2,000
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 10, 2014 – Page 2
Administrator Lancaster stated the support for intergovernmental entities such as the
Housing Authority and the Economic Development Council (EDC) would receive 5%
less than requested. The Fire District funding is a percentage of sales tax and therefore
would not be adjusted. The EDC received a federal grant in which the Town acts as
the fiscal agent. The Town would manage the grant and all expenses would be paid
through Finance.
Those speaking on behalf of their agencies including Fran Gruders/Cross the Divide;
Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority, Nancy Almond/Estes Valley Investment
in Early Childhood Success, Connie Dedon/Community Garden, Sharon Gardner/Gun
and Archery Club, Jill Lancaster/Estes Park Non-Profit Resource Center, and Nick
Molle/Sister Cities Association. Mrs. Gruders thanked the Board for their consideration
of their application and provided details on the organizations efforts to bring geocaching
to Estes Park. Mr. Blackhurst thanked the Board for their continued support. He stated
with the addition of Falcon Ridge and a new stream of income the Housing Authority
would continue to reduce funding requests from the Town. Mrs. Almond thanked the
Board for their continued funding of EVICS and stated the funds provided by the Town
fund the operations of the program in which grant funding is not available. The
Community Gardens continues to work on developing gardens in Estes Park and has
been working with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District to identify land that
could be used. The Gun Club, Estes Park Non-Profit Center and Sister Cities
Organization thanked the Board for their continued support.
POLICE
The Police Department includes services for Patrol, Support Services, and Community
Services divisions. The 2015 budget for the department would include increases to the
Tiberon annual fee from $10,000 to $20,000. Grants to fund the Restorative Justice
program are not available; therefore, to continue the program staff requests the addition
of one-full time employee. The budget contains $50,000 to fit each Police vehicle with
an in-car camera. Total revenue for 2015 of $168,337 has decreased due to the lack of
grants to offset the Restorative Justice case worker position. O&M increases with
additional personnel costs and equipment costs.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND (SPECIAL REVENUE FUND)
The fund was created by the April 2014 passage of the 1% sales tax for 10 years. The
fund would receive 2.5% of the new tax for capital acquisitions associated with
emergency response capabilities of the Town, such as emergency public radio and
emergency operations center equipment and associated costs. In 2014, the Town
would purchase and install an emergency radio station with an antenna located on
Prospect Mountain in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation at a cost of $37,402.
The station should be fully operational by mid-December. The funds to complete this
project would come from the General fund with the Emergency Response System fund
repaying the General Fund in 2015. The priorities for the fund over the next 10 years
would be to strengthen the 800 MHz emergency radio system for multiple use, support
alternative emergency communications center, employee emergency preparedness
training, community emergency preparedness education, and equipment and
installation for large community meetings with live streaming capability. In 2015, staff
would review a notification system complete with signage and flashing beacons, an
Emergency Operations Center/Joint Information Center, equipment/installation at the
Event Center, hazardous material encountered in a disaster, training, and equipment,
and consulting company to revise the Emergency Operations Plan. Trustee Ericson
requested a five year plan for the use of the funds. Administrator Lancaster
noted information would be placed on the website outlining what the new 1% tax
would be used for and provide quarterly reports to the Town Board.
Mayor Pinkham called for a five minute break at 9:55 a.m. and resumed the meeting at
10:10 a.m.
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 10, 2014 – Page 3
PUBLIC WORKS
Buildings – Manages 20 Town owned structures and maintenance contracts for
janitorial services and other systems. The division would add a Facilities
Manager in 2015; a position cut in 2013 after the flood and put on hold in 2014.
No capital projects are being proposed in 2015. The new Facilities Manager
would develop a replacement program for 2016.
Engineering – A division of Public Works which oversees capital projects,
authorizes construction work in the public right-of-way, review development plans
and building permits for compliance, guidance with improvement projects related
to traffic, drainage, streets and parks, and transportation engineering and long-
range transportation planning with federal and state agencies. The division has a
number of projects including coordination with CDOT on permanent repairs of
flood damage to Highways 34 and 7, Downtown Loop project, Elm Road landfill,
design and construction of Dry Gulch Road, possible multi-use path and
underpass at Highway 34 and Estes Trail, construction of Visitor Center parking
structure, repairs to Fish Creek Road, preliminary design and NEPA study for
Fall River Trail extension to National Park, overlay of Performance Park parking
lot, school zone traffic safety study, upgraded street maintenance program, hire a
Pavement Manager to oversee the improvements to the street improvement
program, and explore using updated pavement management program utilizing an
Infrastructure Management System. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig expressed
concern over using a portion of the new 1% sales tax allocated to streets
for personnel costs. Staff stated the Town could hire an employee to oversee
the street improvement projects or pay a consultant to complete the work
because the current staff does not have the capacity to take on the additional
work load. There are street improvement projects that would be completed by
the current staff; however, larger improvement projects would need to have an an
employee or a consultant managing contracts, quality engineering, change
orders, and determine what type of treatment should be applied. Board member
Nelson Phipps and Mayor Pinkham commented the 1% sales tax did not
explicitly state the funds would be used on materials only and would be
comfortable using a portion of the funds on personnel costs to complete
the work. Additional conversation ensued on the topic with staff suggesting the
General fund could pay for the position from the $435,000 transferred to the
Street Improvement fund.
Streets – The division of Public Works is responsible for 57 miles of roadway
including snow removal, street sweeping, striping and street maintenance
program, over 100 miles of drainage ways and roadside ditches, signage
replacement, maintenance, and installation of traffic control devices during
special events. The division would add a new equipment operator to be funded
25% from the General fund and 75% from the Street Improvement fund. Staff
proposed the expansion of in house capability to perform annual crack sealing,
and shallow, early detection pothole patching with the purchase of a new crack
sealing hot pot to be rolled over from the Vehicle Replacement fund in 2014 and
a new pothole patching truck to pre-emptively repair shallow, emerging potholes.
Parks – The division of Public Works is responsible for the maintenance,
renovation and management of all Town-owned-park land and assists with the
removal of snow. In 2015, the division would oversee the design and
construction of the irrigation system and landscaping of the Event Center and
Pavilion, continue to mitigate trash issues related to bear concerns, oversee the
design and construction of landscaping surrounding the Visitor Center Transit
Hub Parking structure, assist with the development of a master plan for an
arboretum and river restoration at the Visitor Center parking lot, and continue
America in Bloom effort and evaluate the possibility of entering the international
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 10, 2014 – Page 4
competition. All expenses remain flat or below the 2014 budget and the capital
purchase of an additional musical instrument to be placed at the east end of the
Riverwalk and renovations of the holiday displays.
STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND (SPECIAL REVENUE FUND) – The fund was created
by the April 2014 passage of the 1% sales tax for 10 years. The fund would receive
60% of the new tax for the construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation and
renovation of streets within the Town. The budget for 2015 contains personnel costs for
a Street Project Manager and Municipal Service Worker discussed under Street
division. No O&M has been budgeted for 2015. Staff would be developing a street
improvement plan and come back to the Board during mid-year adjustments in 2015.
Funding to the Vehicle Replacement fund would be added to the Street
Improvement fund for the pothole patcher. The Board requested an estimate for
the repair to Dry Gulch Road be added to the budget as a placeholder for 2015.
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
This fund contains revenues from the State lottery and is used to fund bark beetle
management, weed mitigation and tree replacement for Arbor Day. Staff determined
costs associated with the municipal ice rink could be paid for using Conservation Trust
fund, therefore, portion of the cost has been allocated to this fund for 2015.
OPEN SPACE
The Open Space Fund reflects the Town’s portion of a one-quarter of 1% sales tax
increase that was passed by Larimer County voters in 1996. The funds are for trails
and open space purchases and maintenance; the Fund will sunset in 2018. The 2014
ballot contains a ballot question to extend the tax beyond 2018. Revenues in the
amount of $290,000 are estimated for 2015, with expenses totaling $540,417. Mayor
Pro Tem Koenig questioned the status for completing the Bond Park Master Plan. Staff
would provide an update on the status of the plan and the next steps to complete the
plan.
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER FUND – (SPECIAL REVENUE FUND)
The fund was created by the April 2014 passage of the 1% sales tax for 10 years. The
fund would receive 25% of the new sales tax increase, to be used for the construction of
a community center by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. If a development
application for the center has not been filed by January 1, 2016 and a building permit for
said facility has not been issued by January 1, 2017, the funds shall be used for
expansion and construction of the Estes Park Senior Center and Estes Park Museum
facilities. The account would hold funds until such time.
TRAILS FUND – (SPECIAL REVENUE FUND)
The fund was also formed with the passage of the new 1% sales tax and would receive
12.5% of the new tax for the construction and expansion of public trails within the Estes
Valley planning area. No projects have been planned for 2015.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 17, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY
SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of October,
2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Koenig,
Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland,
Directors Bergsten, Chilcott, and Winslow and Town Clerk
Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The department provides planning services for the entire Estes Valley and building
safety services for properties within Town limits. Planning received a Department of
Local Affairs (DOLA) grant to add an Environmental Planner position for 2-years to
address flood recovery efforts. The grant fully funds the position including all benefits.
The department would implement the up to date software Energov for development
review, permitting and code compliance. The new software would streamline the review
processes, provide quicker access to information, and provide a new citizen portal to
allow citizens the ability to review status of permits and development reviews online.
Staff anticipates the software would be implemented by late 2015 after the County has
implemented the software. In 2015, staff would review the development fee schedule to
ensure the appropriate fees are being charged.
Protective Inspection (Building) has seen an increase in permit activity; however, it does
not reflect an increase in revenues. Funds have been budgeted to implement Energov
for the building division as well and would include permitting and code compliance
software. Funds have been budgeted for continued floodplain management efforts and
are estimated to cost $60,000 in 2015. A re-write of the sign code to improve its
usability has been budgeted at an estimated cost of $35,000.
The Board had a number of questions related to floodplain management, the possible
reclassification of properties, staffing needs to complete flood recovery efforts, and the
office space to properly house staff. Staff stated the implementation of the master plans
would reduce risk to properties along the river corridors and lessen the need for
reclassification. The Environmental Planner would provide needed staff support to
address flood recovery; however, staff may need the assistance of temporary staffing to
complete workload. The department would complete a small remodel to address office
space needs.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
The Special Revenue Funds of the Community Services department encompass the
Visitor Services, Transportation, Senior Center, Fairgrounds/Events, Event
Center/Pavilion and Museum. The department would increase expenses in 2015 with
the addition of the full operation of the Event Center and Pavilion facilities with the total
expense for the department budgeted at approximately $3.15 million and revenues
estimated at $1.18 million
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 17, 2014 – Page 2
Visitor Services – The Visitor Center operates with 6.35 FTEs and 50 volunteers.
The Center would purchase new touch screen information kiosk with the financial
support of the Local Marketing District. A part-time position left unfilled since
June 2013 would be filled to alleviate the need for volunteers to cover the hours.
Staff would hold its second annual open house in April for the community to learn
more about the Visitor Services division. Trustee Ericson questioned the need to
expand the restroom facilities in the Visitor Center due to the removal of the
restroom facilities in the parking garage. Staff continues to monitor the use of the
facilities to understand the need.
Event Center/Pavilion – As the new facilities reach full completion this year, staff
continues to market the facilities to develop a year round economy through trade
shows, exhibitions, and other similar indoor events. Staff has successfully
booked in 2015 an Irish gathering, car show, Colorado Wind Ensemble, Simply
Bluegrass, Colorado Festivals and Events Conference, and USA Gymnastics to
name a few. Revenues are estimated at $490,000 for 2015 with O&M costs of
approximately $660,000.
Senior Center – The Senior Center staff continues to work with the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District to establish a new Senior Center in a future
Community Center. The division proposes the addition of a part-time Program
Coordinator to provide assistance with operations and programming.
Management of rentals would be dispersed to the individual divisions of the
department such as the Museum meeting room shifting to the Museum staff to
manage. Staff would develop and implement a sponsorship program to generate
a new revenue stream for programs and operational support. The expansion of
programming is limited due to the lack of space in the current facility. Revenues
decrease with the move of the hydro plant picnic area fees moved to Special
Events. O&M remains flat.
Fairgrounds and Events – The division plans and executes a number of Town
events and assists with local events throughout the year. In 2015 revenues are
anticipated to increase with new shows and event and an increase in expenses
related to new events and judging stands for equestrian events. A decrease in
personnel costs is associated with the transfer of personnel to the Event
Center/Pavilion division. The division would add a new Event Coordinator in
November of 2014, continue to work with the Event Advisory team, develop new
events, manage the rental of the hydro plant picnic grounds and move to the new
offices in the Event Center. Mayor Pinkham questioned the need for signage at
the Event Center for upcoming events. Director Winslow stated staff continues to
review options with a sign most likely located on the corner to the property. Staff
continues to investigate naming rights for the facility.
The Town received a letter from Dr. Durward requesting an increase in funding
for the Scottish/Irish Festival from $35,000 to $55,000. The Board requested the
item be discussed at an upcoming Town Board study session with a staff
recommendation and an outline of in-kind services provided for the event.
Transportation – The budget funds the shuttle services providing 5 routes and 63
stops throughout the valley, operates 12 weeks during late June through early
September, and provides services from 8-9 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. The shuttle
system would celebrate 10 years of service in 2015. The budget includes minor
shuttle stop modification to improve service, use of clean diesel buses to address
increase in ridership and ADA accessibility, and design modification of shuttle
route shapes/symbols to enhance user recognition. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
questioned if staff has discussed a cost sharing of the Brown route with
the YMCA. This could help the Town extend the service into and through
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 17, 2014 – Page 3
October. Staff has not approached the YMCA; however, staff continues to look
at funding sources and grants to provide year-round services.
The Board discussed the lack of use of the transportation hub, methods for
increasing the use by visitors to decrease traffic downtown, and the use of the
hub by downtown employees. Staff continues to investigate methods for
directing visitors to the hub through signage, the new emergency radio system,
variable message boards, etc. The Transportation Advisory Committee and staff
would review options.
Museum – The Museum staffing levels have been returned to previous staffing
levels with the addition of a Curator of Collections last year; however, the
Museum Director continues to double as the Curator of Exhibits. Staff added this
position to the 2015 requests and has since removed to assist with budget
shortfalls. Revenues and expenses in 2015 would remain flat. Staff would
continue to develop programs including coordinating events with the National
Park’s Centennial, refine the collection through deaccession, evaluate museum
environment through data collectors, install new security cameras and fire alarm,
and take on rental of the meeting room. Staff continues to assess the lack of
adequate climate controlled storage and have looked at offsite storage.
Mayor Pinkham called for a five minute break at 10:07 a.m. and resumed the meeting at
10:25 a.m.
UTILITIES
Light & Power – The projected revenues and ending balance for 2015 would
meet debt service. The personnel costs increase slightly and expense increase
with flood recovery projects being completed in house. The personnel costs do
not include the grant funded position awarded the Town by DOLA for a Project
Manager. Staff would underground the service along Hwy 43, repair and replace
service in Fox Creek, North Fork, and long Fish Creek and Windcliff. The
division would extend the useful life of larger vehicles, replace a one ton pickup,
and improve automated meter reading. Platte River would take over the
management of the SCADA system at the substation. The Light and Power shop
on Elm Road would be remodeled and a back-up generator would be installed.
The division would purchase an underground vault detector to increase the
reliability of service. The Utilities department has hired a consultant to review
insurance coverage for both utilities with CIRSA dropping coverage for poles and
overhead lines in 2014. Director Bergsten stated the rate study would be
completed and a rate increase would not be substantial; however, discussions
have been heard on increasing the current 90 day O&M to 200 days to improve
the utilities bond rating to AA.
Water – The division would increase expenses over revenues in 2015 to
complete project work, which would decrease the overall fund balance. The
division has been building its reserves over the past three years to complete
capital projects. The goal would be to increase revenues in order to complete $1
million in capital projects annually. The division is financially constrained. The
division would replace the Fish Creek corridor waterline, replace analyzer,
complete automated meter reading installation, water tap fee study, phase I of
pipeline replacement on North Court and 3rd and 4th Streets, and continue to
review/design of treatment processes at Glacier Creek water treatment plant.
THEATER FUND
The funds were to be dispersed in 2013; however, the distribution was delayed and the
funds continue to be held until such time a final decision has been made on how to
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 17, 2014 – Page 4
disperse the funds in 2017 if EPIC has not raised the required funding to build the
theater.
MISCELLANEOUS
Finance Officer McFarland stated the Town could fund the flood recovery projects and
have reserves in the General fund. He suggested the TABOR funds be moved to the
Vehicle Replacement fund to provide the Town with additional flexibility in the General
fund. He recommended the Board approve a contingent transfer from the Light and
Power fund to the General fund in 2014 to cover flood recovery projects and the delay in
reimbursements. The funds would be transferred back to Light and Power as
reimbursements are received. This would be a conservative move. The Board
consensus was not to transfer funds at this time.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Town received a letter from Visit Estes Park for
$25,000 in funding for 2015. The Board discussed the request and suggest the item be
added to the same study session to discuss funding of the Scottish/Irish festival.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 23, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
23rd day of October, 2014.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Absent: None
Also Attending: Town Clerk Williamson, Directors Winslow, Chilcott and
Fortini, Manager Salerno, Coordinator Jacobson, Senior
Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Trustee Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Museum Quarterly Report – Director Fortini discussed the decrease in the third
quarter attendance due to a change of venue for the Coolest Car Show in Colorado,
the receipt of the Estes Park Trail-Gazette’s archive which would be supplemented
with the Estes Valley Library’s Trail-Gazette archive to create a complete collection,
and the receipt of a Lyman Byxbe painting.
Visitor Center Quarterly Report – Manager Salerno stated the Visitor Center saw an
increase in visitation and retail sales in the third quarter, yet phone calls were down
by 12.36%. Staff struggled with fewer volunteers over the past season, and
continues to recruit new volunteers through current ambassadors to bring the
numbers back to previous levels.
October – November Event Report – Coordinator Jacobson informed the Committee
of the success of the Pumpkins and Pilsners event and the expansion of activities
the weekend of the Catch the Glow Parade. Santa’s Workshop at the Event Center
would be featured on the following Saturday and Sunday in an attempt to keep
guests in Town.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Winslow provided an updated
Event Benefit Report per the request of the Committee which more accurately
represented the sales tax income collected in 2013.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Community Development Quarterly Report – Director Chilcott discussed the
increase in building permit and inspection activity, the approval of the Addressing
Policy, the dissolution of the Creative Sign Program and Review Board, the
consultant to be hired in 2015 for sign code revisions, the progress of the Falcon
Ridge Development, the Mountain Center to be built at the YMCA, the upgrades
and expansion of cell phone service, the opening of the Saint Vrain Brewery in 2015,
completion of the Code Compliance Policy, and the open position on the Estes
Valley Planning Commission.
Community Development / Community Services – October 23, 2014 – Page 2
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – The Committee inquired about
affordable housing development, requested an update on potential changes to the
zoning code which would allow for affordable housing, and expressed staffing
concerns should the department’s work load continue to increase in 2015.
There being no further business, Trustee Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:41 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
October 7, 2014 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom,
and Pete Smith
Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau and Newsom
Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Smith and one vacant position
Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance.
He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence. There were three people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the September 9, 2014 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacant position.
3. RIVERS EDGE CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT 12; 1605 ZIOLA COURT #12
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This request is for a variance from Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which sets a minimum building and
structure setback distance of 15 feet in the A-1–Accommodations zone district. The
applicant requests to encroach approximately five feet into the side setback to replace a
deck that was not legally permitted, and destroyed by the 2013 flood event. Planner
Kleisler explained the circumstances around reconstruction of nonconforming structures
destroyed by flood, fire, etc. Because the deck was not legally permitted, those
exceptions do not apply. Planner Kleisler stated the EVDC establishes a 50-foot river
corridor setback for all buildings and accessory structures. The location of the proposed
deck is precisely 50 feet from the annual high water mark of Fall River. River setbacks are
intended in part to preserve wildlife corridors and habitat and are required to be
unobstructed from the ground to the sky. At this point, we do not know the extent of future
regulatory floodplain maps as a result of the 2013 flood event.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
October 7, 2014
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. No significant concerns were expressed. He stated when the units were
designed, there was a five foot distance between the property lines and utility easements.
The development was built in compliance with the 30-foot river setbacks in effect at the
time of construction. During the 2013 event, many structures along the rivers were
undamaged because of the current 50-foot setback requirement. Planner Kleisler stated
there were no other units in this development with similar decks.
Staff Findings
1. Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions do not exist. The Estes Valley
Planning Commission approved the Rivers Edge development plan in April, 2004. This
planned development consisted of 12 residential/accommodations units designed to
meet the setback requirements of the A-1 zone district. The site is adjacent to Fall
River and now requires a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark. The
applicant’s site plan states that the proposed deck replacement would be exactly 50
feet from the high water mark, making an extension to the north not possible.
2. In determining practical difficulty, staff finds:
a. Residential use may continue and the existing deck may continue to be utilized.
b. The variance is not substantial.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with
the approval of this variance. However, the extension would not be consistent with
other end units in the Rivers Edge development.
d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance. The location of the proposed deck will directly abut a public utility
easement. The proposed deck will limit access along the side of the property by
requiring residents and grounds keepers to travel along the public utility easement.
e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the home
in 2010, after the adoption of the current setback standards.
f. A variance is the only option to extend the existing deck in any location due to the
side setback and river setback.
3. The EVDC requires “No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or
circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for
such conditions or situations. Staff finds the conditions as submitted in this variance
petition are general and recurrent in nature.
4. The EVDC requires “No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained
in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of
lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the
applicable zone district regulations. Staff finds the variance, if granted, will not reduce
the size of the lot.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
October 7, 2014
5. Staff finds the existing deck may still be utilized. If authorized, a variance would
represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use
not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Staff finds residential and accommodations uses are permitted in the A-1–
Accommodations zone district.
7. In granting such variances, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as
will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified. Staff commented should the variance be obtained, staff could verify
the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended denial of the variance request.
Board and Staff Discussion
Planner Kleisler clarified the existing deck was permitted. The deck extension destroyed
by the flood was not permitted. The applicant is requesting to replace the portion of the
deck that was not permitted.
Public Comment
Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated Unit 12 was constructed in 2005-2006. The
original owner put on the deck extension in question. That owner was granted permission
by the condo association, and built the deck without applying for or receiving a building
permit. The current owner purchased the property in 2010, thinking everything was in
order. Following the flood, the contractor hired to rebuild the deck discovered the
extension had not been permitted. At that time, it was determined the extension had been
built in the setback. Mr. Reetz stated the deck has a natural screen/buffer to the east, and
has received written support from the neighbor on the east side. Concerning the effect on
the delivery of public services, Mr. Reetz stated one corner of the proposed replacement
would abut the public utility easement. He stated the deck was destroyed due to trees that
fell and traveled downstream, hitting the deck. Those trees have since been removed and
the bank has been armored for future flood events. He stated the previous 30-foot
setback requirement was grandfathered in when this development was originally
approved.
Jerome Lauer/applicant shared what happened during the flood, and the revelation of
finding out there was no building permit. He stated the risk of future damage is minimal.
The neighbors to the east are supportive of the deck replacement.
Public comment closed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
October 7, 2014
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance request with
the condition the property be surveyed to ensure the replacement deck does not
encroach further than what is requested, the deck does not encroach into the utility
easement, and all necessary permits are obtained; the motion passed 3-0 with one
absent and one vacant position.
4. LOT 9, MOUNT VIEW PARK, 250 Granite Lane
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 19-foot
setback in lieu of the 25-foot required side setback in the E-1–Estate zone district. The
purpose of the variance is to enclose the area below an existing deck to convert that area
to a garage. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance for a new covered deck in
November, 2010. The new property owner wishes to enclose the area underneath this
deck.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. There were no significant issues addressed with this variance request.
Planner Kleisler stated the lot size is inadequate for the E-1 zone district, being less than
one-half acre in a zone district with a one-acre minimum lot size. If zoned for the lot size,
the proposed enclosure would most likely meet the setback requirements. He explained
the building footprint would not change, and the structure was just over one hundred feet
from the easternmost neighbor. The applicant hired a contractor to enclose the garage,
not knowing it was in the setback, and also not knowing a building permit was required.
Construction began on the project prior to the application being submitted, but has been
halted until a final outcome is decided by the Board.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist. Staff finds the property is zoned E-1–
Estate, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The 25-foot setbacks are intended
for one-acre lots. This lot is .34 acres, which is closer to the ½ acre E-Estate zone
district, which has a side-yard setback requirement of ten feet. The house was built in
1977, before adoption of the EVDC. Portions of the existing house are within the
setbacks. At the time of construction, the property was zone R-2–Multiple Family. The
minimum required setbacks from all property lines were ten feet.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”, staff finds:
a. The existing single-family use can continue without enclosing the carport.
b. The variance is not substantial. Enclosing the area below the deck would not
expand the overall building footprint. The variance would have the least overall
impact on the site and the neighborhood. 110 feet of separation from structure to
structure towards the east would be retained, as well as 170 feet of separation
from structure to structure towards the southeast.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
October 7, 2014
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered
or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of
the variance, staff finds the single-family character of the neighborhood would not
be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no
impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc).
d. Staff finds the approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services such as utility lines, drainage, or roads.
e. The applicant purchased the property in the spring of 2014, and was unaware of
either the setback requirement or the previous variance. The applicant hired a local
contractor to perform the work. This contractor did not apply for a building permit.
This issue was brought to the attention of the Division of Building Safety, who
issued a Stop Work Order, pending outcome of the variance request.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance, staff finds a garage could be built that complies with the 25-foot
setbacks, though locating a building to meet setback requirements would result in
greater overall site disturbance.
3. Staff finds enclosing the area below the deck would have the least overall impact on
the site and the neighborhood.
4. Staff has no recommended conditions of approval. Because the enclosure would not
expand the building footprint, there is no need for a surveyor certificate.
Public Comment
Janice Whitmore/applicant was available to answer questions. She state was unaware of
the variance requirement, and assumed the contractor would take care of any necessary
permits.
Public comment closed.
Board and Staff Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request and
the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
5. REPORTS
A. Planner Kleisler provided an update to the Board concerning the variance approval for
the Ferris wheel at the Stanley Hotel over the July 4th weekend. The event was
monitored, and no complaints were received relating to the Ferris wheel. There was a
complaint about the parking situation. Town Attorney White has recommended not
requiring future variances for a Ferris wheel over the height limit.
B. Planner Kleisler invited the Board members to attend the Joint Work Session with the
Town Board, Planning Commission, and County Commission. The meeting will be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
October 7, 2014
held Wednesday, October 15th, at the museum. He reported the meeting agenda
included reviewing possible code amendments for mobile food vending, changes to
attainable housing criteria, and assembly space for weddings and other large
gatherings. Also, an update on the modernization of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan would be provided.
C. Planner Kleisler reported there would be a meeting in November, with one item on the
agenda.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40
a.m.
___________________________________
John Lynch, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: November 11, 2014
RE: Closure of Town Offices on December 26, 2014
Objective:
Closure of all Town offices on December 26, 2014
Present Situation:
This year Christmas falls on a Thursday. When Christmas falls on a Thursday, many
families travel over the holidays and include the following weekend. Demand for town
services is almost nil on these days.
Under Policy Governance 3.8.1, the Town Administrator may not change his own
compensation or benefits. Since the closure will result in an additional leave day for all
employees, including the Town Administrator, this requires the approval of the Town Board.
Proposal:
That the Town Board authorize the Town Administrator to close all Town offices on
December 26, 2014.
Advantages:
Will allow families more time for travel during the holidays
Good for employee morale in a year where staff has made extra effort during flood
recovery
Savings in building costs by not having facilities open during a day which has very
minimal demand for Town Services.
Disadvantages:
Town services will be limited on the day after Christmas
Action Recommended:
The Town Board authorize the closure of all Town offices on December 26, 2014.
Level of Public Interest: Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the closure of Town office on December 26, 2014.
Stipulation Agreement - Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain
Avenue, 3.2% Beer Off Premises Liquor License
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Stipulation Agreement - Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside
Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue, 3.2% Beer Off Premises Liquor
License
Objective:
To approve a Stipulation Agreement with Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside
Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue, for the sale of alcohol to a minor during a
compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution 21-14 at their meeting on Tuesday, October 14,
2014 setting a Show Cause hearing for Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside
Groceries, on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 for a violation of the Colorado Liquor Code
Section 12-47-901 (1) (a.5)(I) C.R.S, alleging the Licensee, through its employee, sold
alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one. During the past month, staff has been
in discussions with the owner of the business. The owner, Bipin Shrestha, has stated
no objections to the fact a violation occurred at his business and has been cooperative
in discussing a Stipulation Agreement.
The licensee was granted a liquor license in December 2012. He has stated to staff the
individual at the store during the compliance check was watching the store for him while
he ran errands. He has confirmed that he has reviewed the laws with his employees
and the need to check identification before selling alcohol. In addition, Mr. Bipin also
owns the Thai Kitchen next door and successfully passed the compliance check that
was conducted on August 21, 2013.
The establishment failed a compliance check on July 25, 2014 and entered into a
Stipulation Agreement with the Town on September 10, 2014. The licensee stipulated
to a 21-day suspension with 5 days served and 16 days held in abeyance under the
Town’s previous stipulation guidelines.
Proposal:
On November 4, 2014, the licensee agreed to enter into a Stipulation Agreement.
Through the stipulation process, Famous Eastside Groceries has waived their rights to
a Show Cause hearing before the Board of Trustees in order to determine if a violation
Stipulation Agreement - Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain
Avenue, 3.2% Beer Off Premises Liquor License 2
occurred. In reviewing the Town’s new stipulation guidelines, the current offense was
deemed to be a second offense within two years. Famous Eastside Groceries agrees
the violations occurred and has agreed to a 21 day suspension, with actual time served
of 14 days of its 3.2% Beer Off Premises Liquor License as a penalty for the violation.
The 7 days held in abeyance would be suspended on the condition no further violation
occurs during the one-year stipulation period commencing November 11, 2014. The
Stipulation Agreement is attached for the Board’s review. If approved by the Board, the
suspension would be served beginning November 14, 2014 through November 27,
2014.
If the Board does not accept the Stipulation Agreement, the licensee has the option to
withdraw the Stipulation Agreement and hold the Show Cause hearing scheduled for
November 25, 2014 as stated in the Stipulation Agreement under Section 5.
Advantages:
The approval of the agreement reduces the cost to the Town of a Show Cause
hearing and the time in finding a violation occurred, as the licensee has agreed a
violation has occurred.
Those subpoenaed are not required to attend the meeting.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Stipulation Agreement with Everest Kitchen LLC dba Famous Eastside
Groceries for the underage sale of alcohol during a compliance check conducted on
September 25, 2014.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest
High. The other liquor establishments are aware of the compliance checks and the
penalties being approved by the Town Board.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Stipulation Agreement with Everest Kitchen LLC dba
Famous Eastside Groceries.
Attachment
Stipulation Agreement
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK, COLORADO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
EVEREST KITCHEN, LLC
D/B/A FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES
ATTN: BIPIN SHRESTHA
381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 46-00058-0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Board of Trustees,
Town of Estes Park, (“the Town”), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and
EVEREST KITCHEN, LLC DBA FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES, 381 S. ST.
VRAIN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517, LICENSE NO: 46-00058-0000,
(“Licensee”) is offered for the purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference. The above-named parties submit and agree as
follows:
1. Licensee and the Town wish to avoid the time and expense of a full
hearing and possible subsequent litigation on this matter.
2. The Licensee represents and states as follows:
A. Licensee is willing to stipulate that the allegations set forth in
Exhibit A are true and correct.
B. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees
for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violation.
C. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the
Town to establish the said violation and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring
the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for
the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees.
D. Licensee’s entry into this Agreement is made voluntarily and is not
the result of any undo influence or coercion on the part of anyone.
E. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the
consequences of the Agreement and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its
own legal counsel.
F. Licensee understands that, by entering into this Agreement, the
Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Licensee
hereby waives the necessity of the establishment of a factual basis to support a finding
of said violations.
3. The Licensee agrees to:
(a) a 21-day suspension, with an actual time served of 14 days of its
3.2% Beer Off Premise Liquor License as a penalty for its violation of the
Colorado Liquor Code as set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Said
suspension of Licensee’s 3.2% Beer Off Premise Liquor License to take place as
follows:
From 12:01 a.m., November 14, 2014 through 11:59 p.m., November 27,
2014.
(b) The Licensee and Licensee’s permanent employees (as
determined by the Licensee) are required to attend certified T.I.P.S. Training
(Training for the Intervention Procedures by Servers of Alcohol) within 90 days
from the date of the Finding and Order of Suspension. Permanent employees
receiving certified T.I.P.S. training shall train their remaining employees within 12
months from the date of the Finding and Order of Suspension.
(c) The 7 days held in abeyance are suspended on the condition that
no further violations of the Colorado Liquor Code and/or the Regulations of the
Department of Revenue Liquor Enforcement Division occur within the one-year
stipulation period commencing on November 11, 2015.
4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Agreement shall prevent or
hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee’s 3.2% Beer Off
Premise Liquor License for any violation of the Colorado Liquor Code, subsequent to
the date of this Agreement. However, the Town shall comply with all of the
requirements of the Colorado Liquor Code in any subsequent proceeding.
5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the terms of
suspension set forth in Section 3 above of this Agreement, the Licensee shall be
permitted to withdraw its entry into this Agreement and proceed to hearing on all issues
set forth in the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its entry into this Agreement, nothing in
this Agreement shall be used as evidence or taken into account by the Board of
Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any subsequent proceeding concerning this
matter. In the event the Licensee does withdraw its entry into this Agreement, the Show
Cause Hearing scheduled in for this date and time shall be continued until November 25
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
6. The persons executing this Agreement for the Licensee have full
corporate authority to execute this Agreement and bind the corporation which is the
Licensee.
7. Licensee and the Town agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible
in any proceeding outside of the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 11,
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
DATED this ___________ day of ____________, 2014.
EVEREST KITCHEN, LLC
D/B/A FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Police Chief
_______________________________
Town Clerk
BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. BIPIN SHRESTHA
EVEREST KITCHEN LLC
D/B/A FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES
381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 4600058
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State
of Colorado, that Everest Kitchen LLC, dba Famous Eastside Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue,
Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated the statutes or the rules and regulations of the
Department of Revenue governing its tavern liquor license in the following particulars:
I) Pursuant to Section 12-47-901 (1)(a.5)(I), C.R.S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122,
C.R.S., it is unlawful for any person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or
deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any alcohol beverage to or for any
person under the age of twenty-one years.
A) It is alleged that on September 25, 2014, the Licensee, through its employee/agent,
Bishwa Bhakta Shrestha, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an
alcohol beverage to a juvenile under age of 21 years.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority
to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided.
A Show Cause Hearing is set for November 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an
attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a
postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the
scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations,
upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
Famous Eastside Groceries
Page 2 of 2
may be suspended or revoked.
Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of
any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing
Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or
aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any
sanctions previously imposed against you.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or
delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this ____
day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Town Clerk
Stipulation Agreement – Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn, 101-201 St.
Vrain Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant \ Liquor License
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Stipulation Agreement Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky
Mountain Park Inn, 101-201 St. Vrain Avenue, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor
License
Objective:
To approve a Stipulation Agreement with Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky
Mountain Park Inn, 101-201 St. Vrain Avenue, for the sale of alcohol to a minor during a
compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution 22-14 at their meeting on Tuesday, October 14,
2014 setting a Show Cause hearing Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky
Mountain Park Inn, on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 for violation of the Colorado Liquor
Code Sections 12-47-901 (1) (a.5)(I) C.R.S, alleging the Licensee, through its
employee, sold & served alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one.
Staff has been in discussions with the management of the business. The management
has stated no objections to the fact a violation occurred at the business and has been
cooperative in discussing a Stipulation Agreement. The licensee was granted a liquor
license in 1991 and has not had a previous violation of their liquor license on file with
the Town.
Proposal:
Police Chief Kufeld and Town Clerk Williamson met with the management to hold a pre-
hearing and discuss entering into a Stipulation Agreement. Through the stipulation
process Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC has waived their rights to a Show Cause
hearing before the Board of Trustees in order to determine if a violation occurred.
Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC agrees the violation occurred and has agreed to a
written warning as a penalty for the violation with no days served and no days held in
abeyance. The one-year stipulation period shall commence on November 11, 2014.
Staff reviewed the recommended practices with the licensee and determined a written
policy has been established and each employee is required to read and sign the policy;
staff is trained by the onsite T.I.P.S. trainer; management makes the ID checking guide
available; updates a daily white board with current legal age; hold shift stand up
Stipulation Agreement – Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn, 101-201 St.
Vrain Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant \ Liquor License 2
meetings to discuss issues including liquor; hold monthly department meetings; shift
manager and/or bartender monitoring staff’s conduct; and established disciplinary
actions are in place for employee’s not following the policies. Upon review it was staff’s
opinion a written warning was appropriate for this violation.
The Stipulation Agreement is attached for the Board’s review. If the Board does not
accept the Stipulation Agreement, the licensee has the option to withdraw the
Stipulation Agreement and hold the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 25,
2014 as stated in the Stipulation Agreement.
Advantages:
The approval of the agreement reduces the cost to the Town of a Show Cause
hearing and the time in finding a violation occurred, as the licensee has agreed a
violation has occurred.
Individuals subpoenaed would not be required to attend the Show Cause hearing.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Stipulation Agreement with Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC dba Rocky
Mountain Park Inn for the underage sale and serving of alcohol during a compliance
check on September 25, 2014.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High. The other liquor establishments are aware of the compliance checks and the new
violation guidelines approved by the Town Board in April.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Stipulation Agreement with Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC
dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn.
Attachments:
Stipulation Agreement
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK, COLORADO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. JANET BROWN
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, LLC.
D/B/A ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN
101-201 ST. VRAIN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 26310900000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Board of Trustees, Town of
Estes Park, (“the Town”), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and ROCKY
MOUNTAIN PARK INN, LLC DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, 101-201 ST.
VRAIN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517, LICENSE NO: 26310900000,
(“Licensee”) is offered for the purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference. The above-named parties submit and agree as
follows:
1. Licensee and the Town wish to avoid the time and expense of a full
hearing and possible subsequent litigation on this matter.
2. The Licensee represents and states as follows:
A. Licensee is willing to stipulate that the allegations set forth in
Exhibit A are true and correct.
B. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees
for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violation.
C. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the
Town to establish the said violation and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring
the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for
the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees.
D. Licensee’s entry into this Agreement is made voluntarily and is not
the result of any undo influence or coercion on the part of anyone.
E. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the
consequences of the Agreement and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its
own legal counsel.
F. Licensee understands that, by entering into this Agreement, the
Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Licensee
hereby waives the necessity of the establishment of a factual basis to support a finding
of said violations.
3. The Licensee agrees to:
(a) a written warning of its Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License as a
penalty for its violation of the Colorado Liquor Code as set forth in Exhibit A to
this Agreement. The licensee has demonstrated compliance with the Town’s
best practices and has policies and procedures in place for the serving and
selling of alcoholic beverages.
(b) The Licensee and Licensee’s permanent employees (as
determined by the Licensee) are required to attend certified T.I.P.S. Training
(Training for the Intervention Procedures by Servers of Alcohol) within 90 days
from the date of the Agreement. Permanent employees receiving certified
T.I.P.S. training shall train their remaining employees within 12 months from the
date of the Agreement.
(c) So long as a second violation does not occur within one-year from
the approval of this agreement, November 11, 2014, any additional violations will
not be considered a second offense as it relates to the Town’s guidelines.
4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Agreement shall prevent or
hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee’s Hotel and Restaurant
Liquor License for any violation of the Colorado Liquor Code, subsequent to the date of
this Agreement. However, the Town shall comply with all of the requirements of the
Colorado Liquor Code in any subsequent proceeding.
5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the terms
set forth in Section 3 above of this Agreement, the Licensee shall be permitted to
withdraw its entry into this Agreement and proceed to hearing on all issues set forth in
the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its entry into this Agreement, nothing in this
Agreement or any statement(s) made by the Licensee shall be used as evidence or
taken into account by the Board of Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any
subsequent proceeding concerning this matter. In the event the Licensee does
withdraw its entry into this Agreement, the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in for this
date and time shall be continued until November 25, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
6. The persons executing this Agreement for the Licensee have full
corporate authority to execute this Agreement and bind the corporation which is the
Licensee.
7. Licensee and the Town agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible
in any proceeding outside of the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 11,
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
DATED this ___________ day of ____________, 2014.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, LLC
D/B/A ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Police Chief
_______________________________
Town Clerk
BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. JANET BROWN
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, LLC.
D/B/A ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN
101-201 ST. VRAIN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 26310900000
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State
of Colorado, that Rocky Mountain Park Inn LLC, dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn, 101-201 St. Vrain
Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated the statutes or the rules and
regulations of the Department of Revenue governing its tavern liquor license in the following
particulars:
I) Pursuant to Section 12-47-901 (1)(a.5)(I), C.R.S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122,
C.R.S., it is unlawful for any person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or
deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any alcohol beverage to or for any
person under the age of twenty-one years.
A) It is alleged that on September 25, 2014, the Licensee, through its employee/agent,
Darryl Crim, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol beverage
to a juvenile under age of 21 years.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority
to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided.
A Show Cause Hearing is set for November 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an
attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a
postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the
scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations,
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
Rocky Mountain Park Inn
Page 2 of 2
upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
may be suspended or revoked.
Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of
any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing
Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or
aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any
sanctions previously imposed against you.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or
delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this ____
day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Town Clerk
Stipulation Agreement – Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. dba Hangar Restaurant at the
Estes Park Golf Course, 1480 Golf Course Road, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License with Optional
Premise
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Stipulation Agreement Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. dba
Hangar Restaurant at the Estes Park Golf Course, 1480 Golf Course
Road, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License with Optional Premise
Objective:
To approve a Stipulation Agreement with Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal.
dba Hangar Restaurant at the Estes Park Golf Course, 1480 Golf Course Road, for the
sale of alcohol to a minor during a compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution 23-14 at their meeting on Tuesday, October 14,
2014 setting a Show Cause hearing Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. dba
Hangar Restaurant at the Estes Park Golf Course, on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 for
violation of the Colorado Liquor Code Sections 12-47-901 (1) (a.5)(I) C.R.S., alleging
the Licensee, through its employee, sold & served alcohol to a person under the age of
twenty-one.
Staff has been in discussions with the management of the business. The management
has stated no objections to the fact a violation occurred at the business and has been
cooperative in discussing a Stipulation Agreement. The licensee was granted a liquor
license in 2005 and has not had a previous violation of their liquor license on file with
the Town.
Proposal:
Police Chief Kufeld and Town Clerk Williamson met with the management to hold a pre-
hearing and discuss entering into a Stipulation Agreement. Through the stipulation
process Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. has waived their rights to a
Show Cause hearing before the Board of Trustees in order to determine if a violation
occurred. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. agrees the violation occurred
and has agreed to a written warning as a penalty for the violation with no days served
and no days held in abeyance. The one-year stipulation period shall commence on
November 11, 2014.
Stipulation Agreement –Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal. dba Hangar Restaurant at the
Estes Park Golf Course, 1480 Golf Course Road, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License with Optional
Premise 2
Staff reviewed the recommended practices with the licensee and determined a written
policy has been established since the violation occurred and will be signed by all
employees; all training previous was conducted verbally; management makes the ID
checking guide available; require training before serving; provide legal age stickers at all
wait stations, coolers, beer tap, and beverage cart; manager/supervisor on shift to
monitor employees; and record keeping of employee performance, document training,
etc has not been completed in the past as outlined in the best practices. Upon review it
was staff’s opinion a written warning was appropriate for this violation.
The Stipulation Agreement is attached for the Board’s review. If the Board does not
accept the Stipulation Agreement, the licensee has the option to withdraw the
Stipulation Agreement and hold the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 25,
2014 as stated in the Stipulation Agreement.
Advantages:
The approval of the agreement reduces the cost to the Town of a Show Cause
hearing and the time in finding a violation occurred, as the licensee has agreed a
violation has occurred.
Individuals subpoenaed would not be required to attend the Show Cause hearing.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Stipulation Agreement with Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal.
dba Hangar Restaurant at the Estes Park Golf Course for the underage sale and
serving of alcohol during a compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High. The other liquor establishments are aware of the compliance checks and the new
violation guidelines approved by the Town Board in April.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Stipulation Agreement with Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District Etal. dba Hangar Restaurant at the Estes Park Golf Course.
Attachments:
Stipulation Agreement
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK, COLORADO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ETAL.
D/B/A HANGAR RESTAURANT AT THE ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE
1480 GOLF COURSE ROAD
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 06309720000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Board of Trustees, Town of
Estes Park, (“the Town”), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ETAL. DBA HANGAR RESTAURANT AT THE
ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE, 1480 GOLF COURSE ROAD, ESTES PARK,
COLORADO 80517, LICENSE NO: 06309720000, (“Licensee”) is offered for the
purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the Order to Show Cause and Notice
of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
above-named parties submit and agree as follows:
1. Licensee and the Town wish to avoid the time and expense of a full
hearing and possible subsequent litigation on this matter.
2. The Licensee represents and states as follows:
A. Licensee is willing to stipulate that the allegations set forth in
Exhibit A are true and correct.
B. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees
for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violation.
C. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the
Town to establish the said violation and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring
the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for
the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees.
D. Licensee’s entry into this Agreement is made voluntarily and is not
the result of any undo influence or coercion on the part of anyone.
E. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the
consequences of the Agreement and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its
own legal counsel.
F. Licensee understands that, by entering into this Agreement, the
Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Licensee
hereby waives the necessity of the establishment of a factual basis to support a finding
of said violations.
3. The Licensee agrees to:
(a) a written warning of its Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with
Optional Premise as a penalty for its violation of the Colorado Liquor Code as set
forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement. The licensee has demonstrated compliance
with the Town’s best practices and has policies and procedures in place for the
serving and selling of alcoholic beverages.
(b) The Licensee and Licensee’s permanent employees (as
determined by the Licensee) are required to attend certified T.I.P.S. Training
(Training for the Intervention Procedures by Servers of Alcohol) within 90 days
from the date of the Agreement. Permanent employees receiving certified
T.I.P.S. training shall train their remaining employees within 12 months from the
date of the Agreement.
(c) So long as a second violation does not occur within one-year from
the approval of this agreement, November 11, 2014, any additional violations will
not be considered a second offense as it relates to the Town’s guidelines.
4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Agreement shall prevent or
hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee’s Hotel and Restaurant
Liquor License with Optional Premise for any violation of the Colorado Liquor Code,
subsequent to the date of this Agreement. However, the Town shall comply with all of
the requirements of the Colorado Liquor Code in any subsequent proceeding.
5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the terms
set forth in Section 3 above of this Agreement, the Licensee shall be permitted to
withdraw its entry into this Agreement and proceed to hearing on all issues set forth in
the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its entry into this Agreement, nothing in this
Agreement or any statement(s) made by the Licensee shall be used as evidence or
taken into account by the Board of Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any
subsequent proceeding concerning this matter. In the event the Licensee does
withdraw its entry into this Agreement, the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in for this
date and time shall be continued until November 25, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
6. The persons executing this Agreement for the Licensee have full
corporate authority to execute this Agreement and bind the corporation which is the
Licensee.
7. Licensee and the Town agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible
in any proceeding outside of the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 11,
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
DATED this ___________ day of ____________, 2014.
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT ETAL.
D/B/A HANGAR RESTAURANT AT
THE ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Police Chief
_______________________________
Town Clerk
BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. JANET CARABELL
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ETAL.
D/B/A HANGAR RESTAURANT AT THE ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE
1480 GOLF COURSE ROAD
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 06309720000
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State
of Colorado, that Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Etal., dba Hangar Restaurant at the Estes
Park Golf Course, 1480 Golf Course Road, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated
the statutes or the rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue governing its tavern liquor
license in the following particulars:
I) Pursuant to Section 12-47-901 (1)(a.5)(I), C.R.S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122,
C.R.S., it is unlawful for any person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or
deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any alcohol beverage to or for any
person under the age of twenty-one years.
A) It is alleged that on September 25, 2014, the Licensee, through its employee/agent,
Joshua Longhenry, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol
beverage to a juvenile under age of 21 years.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority
to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided.
A Show Cause Hearing is set for November 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an
attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a
postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the
scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations,
upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
Hangar Restaurant At The Estes Park Golf Course
Page 2 of 2
may be suspended or revoked.
Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of
any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing
Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or
aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any
sanctions previously imposed against you.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or
delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this ____
day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Town Clerk
Stipulation Agreement – Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The Grubsteak Restaurant, 134 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Stipulation Agreement Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The Grubsteak Restaurant,
134 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License
Objective:
To approve a Stipulation Agreement with Agreement Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The
Grubsteak Restaurant, 134 W. Elkhorn Avenue, for the sale of alcohol to a minor during
a compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution 24-14 at their meeting on Tuesday, October 14,
2014 setting a Show Cause hearing Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The Grubsteak Restaurant,
on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 for violation of the Colorado Liquor Code Sections 12-
47-901 (1) (a.5)(I) C.R.S., alleging the Licensee, through its employee, sold & served
alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one.
Staff has been in discussions with the licensee of the business. The licensee has
stated no objections to the fact a violation occurred at the business and has been
cooperative in discussing a Stipulation Agreement. The licensee was granted a liquor
license in 1994 and has not had a previous violation of their liquor license on file with
the Town.
Proposal:
Police Chief Kufeld and Town Clerk Williamson met with the licensee to hold a pre-
hearing and discuss entering into a Stipulation Agreement. Through the stipulation
process Two Dolphins Inc. has waived their rights to a Show Cause hearing before the
Board of Trustees in order to determine if a violation occurred. Two Dolphins Inc.
agrees the violation occurred and has agreed to a written warning as a penalty for the
violation with no days served and no days held in abeyance. The one-year stipulation
period shall commence on November 11, 2014.
Staff reviewed the recommended practices with the licensee and determined written
policies are in place; extensive training takes place prior to selling and serving alcohol;
utilization of testing; TIPS training required for all bartenders and managers; hire
experienced people; daily server round up conducted; require current TIPS card on file;
ID checking guide available; date cards posted for employees; and provided verbal and
Stipulation Agreement – Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The Grubsteak Restaurant, 134 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License 2
written warnings. Upon review it was staff’s opinion a written warning was appropriate
for this violation. It should also be noted that staff was impressed with the training
documents utilized by the licensee and the policies. The licensee should be
commended for their efforts and time taken to properly train staff.
The Stipulation Agreement is attached for the Board’s review. If the Board does not
accept the Stipulation Agreement, the licensee has the option to withdraw the
Stipulation Agreement and hold the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 25,
2014 as stated in the Stipulation Agreement.
Advantages:
The approval of the agreement reduces the cost to the Town of a Show Cause
hearing and the time in finding a violation occurred, as the licensee has agreed a
violation has occurred.
Individuals subpoenaed would not be required to attend the Show Cause hearing.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Stipulation Agreement with Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The Grubsteak
Restaurant for the underage sale and serving of alcohol during a compliance check on
September 25, 2014.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High. The other liquor establishments are aware of the compliance checks and the new
violation guidelines approved by the Town Board in April.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Stipulation Agreement with Two Dolphins, Inc. dba The
Grubsteak Restaurant.
Attachments:
Stipulation Agreement
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK, COLORADO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. ALLIE JONES
TWO DOLPHINS, INC.
D/B/A THE GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT
134 W. ELKHORN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 42562400000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Board of Trustees, Town of
Estes Park, (“the Town”), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and TWO
DOLPHINS, INC. DBA THE GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT, 134 W. ELKHORN
AVENUE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517, LICENSE NO: 42-56240-0000,
(“Licensee”) is offered for the purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference. The above-named parties submit and agree as
follows:
1. Licensee and the Town wish to avoid the time and expense of a full
hearing and possible subsequent litigation on this matter.
2. The Licensee represents and states as follows:
A. Licensee is willing to stipulate that the allegations set forth in
Exhibit A are true and correct.
B. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees
for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violation.
C. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the
Town to establish the said violation and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring
the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for
the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees.
D. Licensee’s entry into this Agreement is made voluntarily and is not
the result of any undo influence or coercion on the part of anyone.
E. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the
consequences of the Agreement and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its
own legal counsel.
F. Licensee understands that, by entering into this Agreement, the
Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Licensee
hereby waives the necessity of the establishment of a factual basis to support a finding
of said violations.
3. The Licensee agrees to:
(a) a written warning of its Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License as a
penalty for its violation of the Colorado Liquor Code as set forth in Exhibit A to
this Agreement. The licensee has demonstrated compliance with the Town’s
best practices and has policies and procedures in place for the serving and
selling of alcoholic beverages.
(b) The Licensee and Licensee’s permanent employees (as
determined by the Licensee) are required to attend certified T.I.P.S. Training
(Training for the Intervention Procedures by Servers of Alcohol) within 90 days
from the date of the Agreement. Permanent employees receiving certified
T.I.P.S. training shall train their remaining employees within 12 months from the
date of the Agreement.
(c) So long as a second violation does not occur within one-year from
the approval of this agreement, November 11, 2014, any additional violations will
not be considered a second offense as it relates to the Town’s guidelines.
4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Agreement shall prevent or
hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee’s Hotel and Restaurant
Liquor License for any violation of the Colorado Liquor Code, subsequent to the date of
this Agreement. However, the Town shall comply with all of the requirements of the
Colorado Liquor Code in any subsequent proceeding.
5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the terms
set forth in Section 3 above of this Agreement, the Licensee shall be permitted to
withdraw its entry into this Agreement and proceed to hearing on all issues set forth in
the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its entry into this Agreement, nothing in this
Agreement or any statement(s) made by the Licensee shall be used as evidence or
taken into account by the Board of Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any
subsequent proceeding concerning this matter. In the event the Licensee does
withdraw its entry into this Agreement, the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in for this
date and time shall be continued until November 25, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
6. The persons executing this Agreement for the Licensee have full
corporate authority to execute this Agreement and bind the corporation which is the
Licensee.
7. Licensee and the Town agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible
in any proceeding outside of the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 11,
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
DATED this ___________ day of ____________, 2014.
TWO DOLPHINS INC.
D/B/A THE GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Police Chief
_______________________________
Town Clerk
BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. ALLIE JONES
TWO DOLPHINS, INC.
D/B/A THE GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT
134 W. ELKHORN AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 42562400000
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State
of Colorado, that Two Dolphins Inc., dba The Grubsteak Restaurant, 134 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes
Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated the statutes or the rules and regulations of the
Department of Revenue governing its tavern liquor license in the following particulars:
I) Pursuant to Section 12-47-901 (1)(a.5)(I), C.R.S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122,
C.R.S., it is unlawful for any person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or
deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any alcohol beverage to or for any
person under the age of twenty-one years.
A) It is alleged that on September 25, 2014, the Licensee, through its employee/agent,
Donald Chasen, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol
beverage to a juvenile under age of 21 years.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority
to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided.
A Show Cause Hearing is set for November 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an
attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a
postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the
scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations,
upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
may be suspended or revoked.
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
The Grubsteak Restaurant
Page 2 of 2
Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of
any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing
Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or
aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any
sanctions previously imposed against you.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or
delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this ____
day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Town Clerk
Stipulation Agreement – M & S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La Hacienda Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia
Units 18-1 & 18-2, Tavern Liquor License
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Stipulation Agreement M & S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La Hacienda
Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia Units 18-1 & 18-2, Tavern Liquor License
Objective:
To approve a Stipulation Agreement with M&S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La
Hacienda Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia Units 18-1 & 18-2, for the sale of alcohol to a minor
during a compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution 25-14 at their meeting on Tuesday, October 14,
2014 setting a Show Cause hearing for M & S. Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La Hacienda
Bar and Grill, on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 for a violation of the Colorado Liquor
Code Sections 12-47-901 (1) (a.5)(I) C.R.S alleging the Licensee, through its employee,
sold & served alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one.
As this license is in the process of transferring, staff has been in discussions with the
current license holder, M&S, Inc. and the new business owner La Sierra LLC. The
Town Board approved the transfer of the Tavern liquor license at their September 23,
2014 meeting to La Sierra LLC. The application was forwarded to the State for their
review and approval, and as of this date is still pending. Members of La Sierra LLC
attended the TIPS training on September 24, 2014; however, the employee involved in
the compliance check did not attend. M&S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC have stated no
objections to the fact a violation occurred at the business and have been cooperative in
discussing a Stipulation Agreement. The licensee, M&S, Inc. was granted a liquor
license in 2013 and has not had a previous violation of their liquor license on file with
the Town.
Proposal:
Police Chief Kufeld and Town Clerk Williamson met with the M&S, Inc. and La Sierra
LLC to hold a pre-hearing and discuss entering into a Stipulation Agreement. Through
the stipulation process M&S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC have waived their rights to a Show
Cause hearing before the Board of Trustees in order to determine if a violation
occurred. M&S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC agree the violation occurred and have agreed to
a written warning as a penalty for the violation with no days served and 7 days held in
abeyance. The one-year stipulation period shall commence on November 11, 2014.
Stipulation Agreement – M & S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La Hacienda Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia
Units 18-1 & 18-2, Tavern Liquor License 2
Staff reviewed the recommended practices with the La Sierra, LLC and determined no
written policy exists currently, TIPS training would be completed by all staff; training is
currently completed verbally; legal age calendar is utilized; monthly meetings are held to
discuss liquor and other issues; require ID in order to serve; no formal records are kept
demonstrating company practices, documentation of training, etc. Upon review it was
staff’s opinion a written warning with 7 days held in abeyance to assure recommended
practices are established was appropriate for this violation.
The Stipulation Agreement is attached for the Board’s review. If the Board does not
accept the Stipulation Agreement, the licensee has the option to withdraw the
Stipulation Agreement and hold the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 25,
2014 as stated in the Stipulation Agreement.
Advantages:
The approval of the agreement reduces the cost to the Town of a Show Cause
hearing and the time in finding a violation occurred, as the licensee has agreed a
violation has occurred.
Individuals subpoenaed would not be required to attend the Show Cause hearing.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Stipulation Agreement with M & S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La
Hacienda Bar and Grill for the underage sale and serving of alcohol during a
compliance check on September 25, 2014.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High. The other liquor establishments are aware of the compliance checks and the new
violation guidelines approved by the Town Board in April.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Stipulation Agreement with M & S, Inc. and La Sierra LLC,
dba La Hacienda Bar and Grill
Attachments:
Stipulation Agreement
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK, COLORADO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. MICHELLE CARLYLE
MR. JOSE ALFREDO IBARRA
M & S. INC. AND LA SIERRA LLC
D/B/A LA HACIENDA BAR AND GRILL
165 VIRGINIA UNITS 18-1 & 18-2
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 4701355
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Board of Trustees,
Town of Estes Park, (“the Town”), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and M & S.
INC. AND LA SIERRA LLC DBA LA HACIENDA BAR AND GRILL, 165 VIRGINIA
UNITS 18-1 & 18-2, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517, LICENSE NO: 4701355,
(“Licensee”) is offered for the purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference. The above-named parties submit and agree as
follows:
1. Licensee and the Town wish to avoid the time and expense of a full
hearing and possible subsequent litigation on this matter.
2. The Licensee represents and states as follows:
A. Licensee is willing to stipulate that the allegations set forth in
Exhibit A are true and correct.
B. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees
for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violation.
C. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the
Town to establish the said violation and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring
the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for
the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees.
D. Licensee’s entry into this Agreement is made voluntarily and is not
the result of any undo influence or coercion on the part of anyone.
E. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the
consequences of the Agreement and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its
own legal counsel.
F. Licensee understands that, by entering into this Agreement, the
Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Licensee
hereby waives the necessity of the establishment of a factual basis to support a finding
of said violations.
3. The Licensee agrees to:
(a) a seven (7) day suspension, with seven (7) days held in abeyance
and a written warning issued of its Tavern Liquor License as a penalty for its
violation of the Colorado Liquor Code as set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement.
(b) The Licensee and Licensee’s permanent employees (as
determined by the Licensee) are required to attend certified T.I.P.S. Training
(Training for the Intervention Procedures by Servers of Alcohol) within 90 days
from the date of the Finding and Order of Suspension. Permanent employees
receiving certified T.I.P.S. training shall train their remaining employees within 12
months from the date of the Agreement.
(c) The seven (7) days held in abeyance are suspended on the
condition that no further violations of the Colorado Liquor Code and/or the
Regulations of the Department of Revenue Liquor Enforcement Division occur
within the one-year stipulation period commencing on November 11, 2014.
4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Agreement shall prevent or
hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee’s Tavern Liquor
License for any violation of the Colorado Liquor Code, subsequent to the date of this
Agreement. However, the Town shall comply with all of the requirements of the
Colorado Liquor Code in any subsequent proceeding.
5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the terms of
suspension set forth in Section 3 above of this Agreement, the Licensee shall be
permitted to withdraw its entry into this Agreement and proceed to hearing on all issues
set forth in the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its entry into this Agreement, nothing in
this Agreement or any statement(s) made by the licensee shall be used as evidence or
taken into account by the Board of Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any
subsequent proceeding concerning this matter. In the event the Licensee does
withdraw its entry into this Agreement, the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in for this
date and time shall be continued until November 25, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
6. The persons executing this Agreement for the Licensee have full
corporate authority to execute this Agreement and bind the corporation which is the
Licensee.
7. Licensee and the Town agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible
in any proceeding outside of the Show Cause hearing scheduled for November 11,
2014 at 7:00 p.m.
DATED this ___________ day of ____________, 2014.
M & S. INC.
D/B/A OVERLOOK BAR & GRILL TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Police Chief
LA SIERRA LLC
D/B/A LA HACIENDA BAR AND GRILL TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________ _______________________________
Title Town Clerk
BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. MICHELLE CARLYLE
MR. JOSE ALFREDO IBARRA
M & S. INC. AND LA SIERRA LLC
D/B/A LA HACIENDA BAR AND GRILL
165 VIRGINIA UNITS 18-1 & 18-2
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
LICENSE NO: 4701355
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State
of Colorado, M & S. Inc. and La Sierra LLC, dba La Hacienda Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia Units 18-
1 & 18-2 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated the statutes or the rules and
regulations of the Department of Revenue governing its tavern liquor license in the following
particulars:
I) Pursuant to Section 12-47-901 (1)(a.5)(I), C.R.S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122,
C.R.S., it is unlawful for any person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or
deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any alcohol beverage to or for any
person under the age of twenty-one years.
A) It is alleged that on September 25, 2014, the Licensee, through its employee/agent,
Nester Arboleda, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol
beverage to a juvenile under age of 21 years.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority
to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided.
A Show Cause Hearing is set for November 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the
Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an
attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a
postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the
scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations,
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing
La Hacienda Bar & Grill
Page 2 of 2
upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
may be suspended or revoked.
Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of
any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing
Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or
aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any
sanctions previously imposed against you.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or
delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this ____
day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Town Clerk
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Board of Trustees
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: November 11, 2014
RE: Presentation of 2015 Budget
Initial future year (2015) Budget readings are typically held at the first Board meeting in
November, followed by the adoption of that Budget in the second November Board meeting.
Adoptions to the current year (2014) Budget are typically approved in the first (only) Board
meeting in December. This year, the initial 2015 Budget reading will be held at the November
11th Board meeting, the 2015 Budget adoption will take place at the November 25th Board
meeting, and the Revised 2014 Budget meeting take place at the December (9th) Board
meeting. This report addresses only the 2015 Budget. There is still time for 2014/2015
modifications as this represents only the initial reading of the 2015 Budget.
The attached 2015 budget document is the result of Staff preparations from the early summer
to the present date, Public and Board input from the Budget sessions of October 3rd, 10th and
17th, 2014, and developing events over the past month.
The 2014 Revision / 2015 Budget process has been dominated by two drivers: 1) Flood costs
and reimbursements, and 2) attempts to bring the General Fund into balance (reduce the net
loss as much as possible). As a result, Staff is recommending several budgetary strategies that
safeguard most of the General Fund fund balance, but are not recommended for the long term
financial health of the Town. This includes the following:
1. The compensation study for 2014 was completed, and necessary market adjustments
have been included in the 2015 Budget. There are no merit increases budgeted for
2015.
2. Contributions to the IT and Vehicle Replacement Funds were reduced for the General
Fund for 2015.
These and other short‐term solutions will allow the Town to operate as efficiently as possible
until Spring 2015, at which point we will re‐evaluate our financial position.
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
Miscellaneous revisions
Discoveries and corrections/updates were made during the review process that involved:
1. Clarification of categories.
2. Updates of 2014 data.
3. Minor miscellaneous changes in content/syntax.
These items are considered routine and not listed here.
Changes/important items ‐ in accordance with Draft Minutes from October 3rd, 10th and 17th
Budget Sessions, and as other items (mostly flood‐related) have become evident:
Changes to the previously presented 2015 Budget documents (which also include 2014 actual
data):
1. A newly updated budget with all corrections is provided with this packet.
2. With each update/revision to the 2014 Budget, fund balance is also affected for 2015.
3. Staff made efforts to additionally reduce the 2015 General Fund Budget where possible,
up to 5% in applicable departments. The largest single reduction in this regard was the
removal of $50,000 for police car cameras.
4. Staff had reduced the Housing Authority (EPHA) subsidy beyond the targeted 5%;
therefore the EPHA subsidy has been restored to $100,000 from $96,000.
5. The health insurance plan was restructured to eliminate spouses. To aid employees
with the increased cost of finding health insurance for their spouses, the Town
increased the contribution to employees to 90‐10% from the existing 75‐25%.
6. Windy Gap Water Rights (L&P – Capital 503‐7000‐580‐35‐54) were increased to $41,400
due to possible interaction with Prospect Mountain Water Company Subdistrict
inclusions.
7. Three grant‐funded positions have been placed in the 2015 Budget: Environmental
Planner (101‐1600 – Planning), Projects Manager (L&P), and Grant Accountant. The
former two positions have been officially approved for reimbursement by DOLA
(Department of Local Affairs). The latter is in process and is not yet approved. If
funding is not approved, the position will not be filled.
Page 3
FINANCE Memo
8. Operational costs have been estimated for the Emergency Fund (236).
9. Costs have been estimated for the Streets Fund. These include $1,000,000 for Street
resurfacing, $1,600,000 from Dry Gulch reconstruction, $30,000 for crack seal material,
aggregate and emulsion, $75,000 for pavement condition evaluation software, and
vehicle replacement costs for the proposed Pothole Patch Vehicle. The Pothole Patch
Vehicle was estimated in the October Budget sessions at $150,000; subsequent research
has revealed that the vehicle will cost closer to $210,000. Staff believes this is still a
prudent decision (to own the vehicle). The vehicle is slated for purchase from the
Vehicle Replacement Fund.
10. Perhaps the most significant physical change to the 2015 Budget is the merging of the
General (GF ‐ 101) and Community Services (CSF ‐ 222) Funds. This will not affect the
General Fund fund balance, but it will affect the General Fund fund balance percentage.
The percentage will decrease because the CSF will add approximately equal numbers to
both the numerator and denominator, thus lowering the percentage (but not lowering
the $ value). Staff will provide an historical comparison for reference at the Tuesday
November 11, 2014, Budget session.
11. It is unlikely that the construction portion of the parking structure will begin in 2014. In
that regard, staff could have moved a portion of the project to 2015. However, this
would have made it impossible to enter into a contract in 2014, should bids be taken
and one selected. Monies must be available in a Budget to enter into a contract. In this
regard, it is better to leave 2014 budget monies alone, let unused monies return to fund
balance in 2014, and re‐appropriate it in 2015, than to remove it from 2014, place it in
2015, and then be unable to enter into a contract in 2014 should an opportunity arise.
12. Lastly, the 2013 Flood continues to cast a long shadow over the Town’s financial
statements and budgeting process. Staff is aware that it is unlikely that everything
budgeted into 2014 (as presented in Budget sessions) will occur this calendar year. In all
probability, many of the expenditures and forecasted reimbursements will occur in
2015. Forecasts have placed all of the known Flood related expenses and
reimbursements into 2014 to make for easier reference and comparisons. The 2015
Budget will no doubt need to be amended as Flood expenses and reimbursements settle
by the end of 2014.
Staff remains keenly aware of the ever‐increasing challenges presented in an economy with
revenues and resources that are outstripped by expenditures and demands. Staff is pleased to
present a budget attempting to address, where appropriate, stated Town goals, while
continuing to safeguard fund balance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: November 11th, 2014
RE: Request for a special election regarding provision of broadband services
per CRS 29-27-201
Objective:
To request the board consider scheduling a special election in February of 2015 to
restore the option for the Town to provide some level of broadband internet service to
the citizens of the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
Colorado Senate Bill 05-152 (also known as SB-152 – 2005 CRS 29-27) takes away
the ability of local government to engage in the provision of telecommunication services
like broadband, directly or indirectly (indirectly would be helping someone else provide
the service), including partnerships with private entities. SB-152 includes a provision
allowing Colorado local government to exempt themselves from the law’s provisions via
a public vote.
Because the Town of Estes Park and the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) have a
fiber-optic cable from Loveland to the Estes Park Power Station (currently the sole
broadband connection for this area after the flood of 2013), and from the Estes Park
Power Station through the Estes Park fiber-optic ring, the Town is currently involved in
providing broadband services to this area. The Town currently leases some un-used
fiber as “excess capacity,” an exemption under SB-152. A SB-152 prohibition of any
level of Town involvement would interfere with the Town achieving the goal identified in
the Town’s 2014 Strategic Plan: “we will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town fiber
infrastructure.” The election to take back the right for the Town to have some
involvement in providing broadband services would facilitate optimal use of the
PRPA/Estes Park Town fiber-optic infrastructure.
Cost for a special election has been included in the proposed 2015 budget
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Fiber Committee is going request
the Board hold an election on February 3 pursuant to CRS 29-27-201 to allow the Town
the option to provide some level of broadband service.
Advantages:
see attached faq's from the EDC
Disadvantages:
see attached faq's from the EDC
Requested Action and Sample Motion:
I move that the Board direct staff to prepare a resolution setting a special election for
February 3, pursuant to CRS 29-27-201 and to present this resolution to the board for
consideration at our next board meeting
Level of Public Interest
high
1
Proposed Election to Take Back the Right, Taken Away by Senate Bill 152, For the Town of Estes Park
To Be Directly or Indirectly Involved in Providing Competitive Telecommunication Services
Including Competitive Broadband Internet Services
8‐Oct‐2014
The following information in Question and Answer Format is intended to answer key questions about the
reasons for the proposed election to take back the right, taken away by Senate Bill 152, for the Town of
Estes Park to be directly or indirectly Involved in providing competitive telecommunication services
Including competitive broadband internet services.. The reader can scan the questions in the Table of
Contents and then proceed directly to the answers of interest.
Page Table of Contents
4 I. Summary Questions:
4 1. What is broadband?
4 2. What is competitive broadband?
4 3. What is the problem this election is intended to solve and why is it important?
5 4. Why does the Town need to be involved in Broadband?
5 5. Who supports this election?
5 6. How could the Town of Estes Park benefit from the election?
5 7. For Estes Park, are there any costs or disadvantages of holding the election?
5 8. Should the election be Trustee‐initiated or citizen‐initiated?
5 9. What are the costs of a special election and how does it compare with coordinated
election costs?
5 10. What is the recommended date for the special election and why?
5 11. After the election, will the Town start a new utility to provide internet service to residents?
6 12. Will the election put the Town in competition with existing private businesses?
6 13. Where would competitive broadband services be delivered?
6 14. What have other communities in Colorado done about SB‐152?
6 II. Questions about Colorado Senate Bill 152 (SB‐152)
6 15. What does Colorado Senate Bill‐152 do?
6 16. Who thought SB‐152 was necessary and why?
7 III. Questions about the “Right” Affected by Colorado Senate Bill 152
7 17. What is the “Right” the election is asking to take back?
7 18. What would be accomplished by having this right taken back?
7 IV. Questions about the Current Status of Broadband Service in Estes Park
7 19. How is "competitive broadband" defined in terms of speed, cost, quality, and redundancy?
7 20. Does Estes Park have at least two broadband connections to the outside world in case of a
disaster?
7 21. If competitive broadband is delivered to Town, how would it be different than what we
have now?
8 22. What is the problem with the broadband service we have now?
8 23. How does Estes Park’s current broadband service compare to a reference standard in
terms of speed and price?
2
8 24. What level of competitive broadband is needed and how much would it cost?
8 25. To what geographic area would broadband service be provided?
8 26. What will it take to get competitive broadband service in Estes Park?
8 V. Questions about the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EDC)
8 27. Why did the EDC get involved with the broadband issue?
9 28. Why did the Estes Park EDC recommend that that the Town submit this ballot question to
the voters?
9 29. Who is on the EDC Competitive Broadband Committee?
9 VI. Questions about the SB‐152 Election
9 30. What is the goal of the election?
9 31. How much will the election cost (Special election vs coordinated election)?
9 32. How will the public become educated on the issue?
10 33. What is the proposed date for the special election?
10 34. Who will vote on the initiative? (Town, Estes Valley, County)?
10 35. Why not determine voter interest in the election before the Town commits to an election?
10 36. Why not wait for the result from the broadband consultant before having the election?
10 VII. Questions about Possible Effects of the SB‐152 Election
10 37. If the Town has the election and takes back the right to be directly or indirectly involved in
providing telecommunication services, would the Town be committed to, or would it
appear the Town was committed to going into the business of providing broadband?
10 38. If the referendum passes, would the Town confer with interested parties before taking
actions such as creating a public utility? Who would have to approve that action?
10 39. Other than the cost of the election, are there any other costs or risks to the Town of having
an election on Colorado Senate Bill 152?
11 40. Why should the Town have an election to take back a right when it is not certain whether
or how the right would be used?
11 41. I have heard stories about municipalities getting into financial trouble when they try to
offer broadband services. How did this happen and how can this be avoided?
11 VIII. Questions about the Estes Park Fiber Optic Ring
11 42. The fiber optic ring was installed 10‐15 years ago. Why are we just now considering how to
use it?
12 IX. Questions about Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Fiber along Routes 36 and 34
12 43. What effect will CDOT running fiber optic cable up routes 36 and 34 have on this issue?
12 X. Questions about the Economic Development Corporation $300,000 Grant
12 44. Where did the $300k come from?
12 45. What will the $300k grant be used for?
12 46. What part of the $300k will be for broadband?
12 47. How will the consultant be selected?
12 48. Who will manage the consultant?
12 49. When does the grant start and when will there be results?
12 XI. Questions about the Experience of Other Colorado Communities
12 50. What have other communities in Colorado done about SB‐152?
13 51. Looking back, what, if anything, would the other communities do differently in their
approach to this issue?
13 52. Do the Larimer County Commissioners have a position on SB‐152?
3
13 53. Does the Colorado Municipal League (CML) have a position on SB‐152?
13 54. What has Longmont's experience with SB‐152 been?
13 XII. Questions about Estes Park’s Local Internet Service Providers (ISP’s)
13 55. What level of service is currently provided or is planned to be provided by local
businesses?
13 56. Would taking back the right taken away by SB‐152 adversely affect any local businesses?
14 57. What do the local providers think about an election to take back the right taken away by
SB‐152?
14 XIII. Questions about the Platte Valley Power Authority (PRPA)
14 58. Does PRPA have a position on SB‐152?
14 59. Could PRPA be involved in providing broadband services?
14 60. If PRPA could be involved in providing broadband services, would the Estes Park election
still be needed?
4
Summary Questions:
1. What is broadband?
Broadband is a term for high‐speed Internet service. Broadband allows users to access the Internet and Internet‐
related services at significantly higher speeds than what was historically available through telephone line and
modem “dial‐up” Internet access services. For purposes of defining adequate rural service, in 2010 the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defined "Basic Broadband" as data transmission speeds of at least 4
Megabits per second (Mbps) download (from the Internet to the user’s computer) and 1 Megabit per second
upload (from the user’s computer to the internet). This level of broadband is referred to as “4 by 1.” As will be
apparent in the answer to question #2, 4 by 1 is not considered to be competitive broadband.
2. What is competitive broadband?
Competitive broadband would be internet service with speed, quality, cost, and backup redundancy equivalent
to what is available in large cities in the US. For example, in Longmont, Colorado, homeowners will be offered 25
Mbps dedicated (not shared with others) symmetric (same speed download and upload) service for $40 per
month and 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) (1 gigabit is equal to 1,000 megabits) dedicated symmetric service for $50
per month. One example of current Estes Park area broadband service is “up to” 12 Mbps download, and “up to”
6 Mbps upload, shared (not dedicated, so if your neighbors are streaming movies, your access speeds can slow
considerably) for $50 per month. “Up to” means that the “up to” number is the fastest you can ever experience,
but if your experience is slower (as most people experience most of the time) the “up to” service description is
still true. The 12 by 6 plan in Estes Park is 80 to 160 times slower than Longmont’s for the same monthly charge.
3. What is the problem this election is intended to solve and why is it important?
What is the problem? Currently, Estes Park cannot be involved in providing broadband services because
Colorado Senate Bill 05‐152 (also known as SB‐152) takes away the ability of local government to engage in the
provision of telecommunication services like broadband, directly or indirectly (indirectly would be helping
someone else provide the service), including partnerships with private entities. SB‐152 includes a provision
allowing Colorado local government to exempt themselves from the law’s provisions via a public vote.
Because the Town of Estes Park and the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) have a fiber‐optic cable from
Loveland to the Estes Park Power Station (currently the sole broadband connection for this area after the flood of
2013), and from the Estes Park Power Station through the Estes Park fiber‐optic ring, the Town is currently
involved in providing broadband services to this area. The Town currently leases some un‐used fiber as “excess
capacity,” an exemption under SB‐152. A SB‐152 prohibition of any level of Town involvement would interfere
with the Town achieving the goal identified in the Town’s 2014 Strategic Plan: “we will encourage optimal use of
the PRPA/Town fiber infrastructure.” The election to take back the right for the Town to have some involvement
in providing broadband services would facilitate optimal use of the PRPA/Estes Park Town fiber‐optic
infrastructure.
Why is this important? “Broadband (internet access) is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st
century. Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global
competitiveness and a better way of life. It is enabling entire new industries and unlocking vast new possibilities
for existing ones. It is changing how we educate children, deliver health care, manage energy, ensure public
safety, engage government, and access, organize and disseminate knowledge.” (from Federal Communications
Commission, Connecting America: National Broadband Plan Executive Summary, 2010, page xi.)
5
4. Why does the Town need to be involved in Broadband?
The Town is currently involved at some level in providing broadband services because the Town has the current
sole fiber‐optic connection between Loveland and Estes Park, and the Town has access to the Town fiber‐optic
ring.
5. Who supports this election?
The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation identified the need to hold an election to take back the
Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications services, advanced services, and cable
television services. Many local businesses and individuals have indicated support in private conversations, but no
one has been asked for a formal statement of support at this time.
6. How could the Town of Estes Park benefit from the election?
Ultimately, the election would remove significant barriers preventing Estes Park from having competitive
broadband in speed, price, quality, and redundancy. With competitive broadband, the Town would be more
attractive to businesses, visitors, and residents. The Town would be stronger economically, now and into the
future. By taking back the Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications services, advanced
services, and cable television services, the Town would be able to consider all approaches to accomplishing its
long‐term goal, set forth in its 2014 Strategic Plan, stating that “we will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town
fiber infrastructure.” The election would allow the town to begin to work with partners to address the need for
competitive broadband that will influence Estes Valley’s economic vitality over the coming decades.
7. For Estes Park, are there any costs or disadvantages of holding the election?
Other than the cost of the special election, the election does not commit the Town to any other costs,
agreements, or activities. The goal of the election is solely to take back a Town right. The election is a high gain,
low risk initiative.
8. Should the election be Trustee‐initiated or citizen‐initiated?
Because the Town’s long‐term goal, set forth in its 2014 Strategic Plan, stating that “we will encourage optimal
use of the PRPA/Town fiber infrastructure” was established by the Trustees and the election is essential to
accomplishing this goal, it is appropriate that the election be Trustee initiated.
9. What are the costs of a special election and how does it compare with coordinated election costs?
The Estes Park Town Clerk has estimated that a Special Election would cost 12 to 15 thousand dollars. A
coordinated election, for example adding this ballot issue to a November election, would cost about twice as
much as a Special Election or about $30,000 for a coordinated election.
10. What is the recommended date for the special election and why?
The recommended earliest practical date would be Tuesday Feb 3, 2015. The earliest practical date is preferable
because a delay in the timing of the special election would delay the eventual delivery of competitive broadband
services and accompanying benefits to the Town of Estes Park.
11. After the election, will the Town start a new utility to provide internet service to residents?
Not necessarily. The US Economic Development Administrative Consulting Grant will identify a range of
broadband delivery options with their PRO’s and CON’s for discussion and evaluation by our community and our
6
elected officials. A new broadband utility would only be a useful option if local providers were unable or
unwilling to provide the level of broadband service the Town identifies as necessary to be competitive.
12. Will the election put the Town in competition with existing private businesses?
That is not the intent of the election. A key goal of the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation is to
support and strengthen local businesses. To this end, it would be preferable for local broadband providers to be
a part of the competitive broadband solution.
13. Where would competitive broadband service be delivered?
Competitive broadband service would be delivered to locations throughout the Estes Valley as soon as it is
physically and economically practical. Initially this would probably be to areas within the Town of Estes Park
based on available infrastructure. Use of the existing fiber‐optic ring would also allow third party broadband
providers to extend competitive broadband services throughout various parts of the Estes Valley. The eventual
service boundaries would probably be determined by practical considerations over time.
14. What have other communities in Colorado done about SB‐152?
In summary, most of the state is involved in discussions and actions regarding SB‐152, the law that prohibits the
direct or indirect involvement of local governments in the provision of broadband services. Centennial,
Longmont, Montrose, among others, have passed ballot initiatives, and other municipalities like Boulder and Fort
Collins are considering election initiatives to take back the right for local governments to play some role in
assisting their communities to meet their broadband needs. In addition, most locations in the state are
examining broadband adequacy and its potential economic impact. Weld and Larimer Counties are examining
their needs for better broadband. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (representing Eagle, Grand,
Garfield, Jackson, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit counties) is investigating how local government
should assist those communities in their quest for competitive broadband service. A group of Northeast
Colorado counties (Morgan, Logan, Washington, Sedgwick, Yuma, and Phillips) have joined together to consider
the need for better broadband service to remain competitive. A group of towns in southwest Colorado (Cortez,
Durango, Bayfield, Pagosa Springs, Ignacio, Mancos, Dolores, and Dove Creek) have come together to ensure
delivery of the appropriate level of broadband for their continued growth.
Questions about Colorado Senate Bill 152 (SB‐152)
15. What does Colorado Senate Bill‐152 do?
Colorado Senate Bill 05‐152 (also known as SB‐152) was adopted in 2005 to limit the ability of local government
to engage in the provision of telecommunication services, directly or indirectly, including partnerships with
private entities. This bill is codified in the Colorado Revised Statutes in §§ 29‐27‐101 to 304, C.R.S. Current
legislative reform efforts aimed at amending SB‐152 have been preempted by other telecommunications‐related
priorities in the Legislature. SB‐152 includes a provision allowing Colorado local government to exempt
themselves from the law’s provisions via a public vote.
16. Who thought SB‐152 was necessary and why?
SB‐152 was reportedly nicknamed the “Qwest Bill” due to Qwest’s (now Century Link’s) role in promoting the
legislation. Reportedly, the Telecommunications Lobby promoted the legislation to prevent local government
involvement in providing telecommunication services.
7
Questions about the “Right” Affected by Colorado Senate Bill 152
17. What is the “Right” the election is asking to take back?
The election would take back the Town of Estes Park’s right to directly or indirectly use its fiber‐optic
infrastructure to provide telecommunications services, advanced services, and cable television services.
18. What would be accomplished by having this right taken back?
Estes Park would have the right to locally determine how best to provide competitive broadband services to
businesses, visitors, and residents. It would also facilitate optimal use of the PRPA/Town of Estes Park fiber‐optic
infrastructure. Other towns that have taken back this right have been able to arrange for better, faster, less
expensive Internet service.
Questions about the Current Status of Broadband Service in Estes Park
19. How is "competitive broadband" defined in terms of speed, cost, quality, and redundancy?
Competitive broadband is speed, quality, cost, and redundancy equivalent to that available in large cities in the
US. For example, in Longmont, Colorado, homeowners will be offered 25 Mbps dedicated (not shared with
others), symmetric (same speed download and upload) service for $40 per month and 1 Gigabit per second
(Gbps) (one gigabit is equal to 1,000 megabits) dedicated, symmetric service for $50 per month. One example of
current Estes Park area broadband service is “up to” 12 Mbps download, and “up to” 6 Mbps upload, shared (not
dedicated so if your neighbors are streaming movies, your access speeds can slow considerably) for $50 per
month. This example Estes Park broadband plan is 80 to 160 times slower than the Longmont plan for the same
monthly charge.
20. Does Estes Park have at least two broadband connections to the outside world in case of a disaster?
Currently, Estes Park has only one physical broadband connection to the outside world. This sole connection is
the fiber‐optic cable from the Estes Park Power Plant to Loveland routed above ground along with the Western
Area Power Administration (WAPA) Power Lines. This single line could be lost in the event of a fire, flood, or
earthquake. In fact, several years ago, this fiber‐optic connection to Loveland was severed due to a lightning
strike along the power line route. While there was a second fiber‐optic connection to the outside world in the
past, that fiber‐optic line was destroyed by the flood of September 2013. Until a second fiber‐optic connection is
established, Estes Park is vulnerable to total loss of its broadband connection to the outside world.
21. If competitive broadband is delivered to Town, how would it be different than what we have now?
Compared to communities that have undertaken broadband improvement programs, the services in Estes Park
are relatively high priced, slower, and do not exhibit the desired level of consistent performance and reliability
(redundancy). A wide variety of broadband service levels are currently available in the Estes Valley, from 1 Mbps
or less with telephone line DSL to more than 100 Mbps. Competitively affordable service levels are not available
for many small businesses in Estes Park and for significant parts of the Estes Valley. For comparison, Longmont
homeowners will be offered 25 Mbps dedicated (not shared with others), symmetric (same speed download and
upload) service for $40 per month and 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) (one gigabit is equal to 1,000 megabits)
dedicated, symmetric service for $50 per month. One example plan in Estes Park offers “up to” 12 Mbps
download and “up to” 6 Mbps upload for $50 per month. So, for the same price as Longmont, the example Estes
Park plan has broadband speeds 80 to 160 times slower than Longmont’s.
8
22. What is the problem with the broadband service we have now?
It has become increasingly clear that, compared to Estes Park’s competitors, the Town’s current level of
broadband service is inadequate and not competitive. If Estes Park’s broadband service is not competitive,
businesses that depend upon competitive broadband service may be lured away by our Town’s competitors. The
Broadband Committee has heard complaints about the current level of broadband service from the Town’s
lodging and core tourism businesses. With non‐competitive broadband service, our guests and even our
telecommuting residents may also be lured away to competitor Towns. Compared with our competitors, the
broadband service in Estes Park is generally slower, more expensive, less consistent, and currently lacks essential
physical redundancy in the event of a natural disaster.
23. How does Estes Park’s current broadband service compare to a reference standard in terms of speed and
price?
Generally, compared to other locations in our geographic area, Estes Park’s broadband service is slower, more
expensive, less consistent, and currently lacks essential physical redundancy in the event of a natural disaster.
24. What level of competitive broadband is needed and how much would it cost?
The answer to this question will be the focus of consultant’s report supported by the Federal EDA Grant. The
infrastructure and service delivery solution(s) identified will need to anticipate projections of the future evolution
of Estes Park’s broadband needs.
25. To what geographic area would broadband service be provided?
Competitive broadband service would be delivered to locations throughout the Estes Valley as soon as it is
physically and economically practical. Initially this would probably be to areas within the Town of Estes Park
based on available infrastructure. Use of the existing fiber‐optic ring would also allow third party broadband
providers to extend competitive broadband services throughout various parts of the Estes Valley. The eventual
service boundaries would probably be determined by practical considerations over time.
26. What will it take to get competitive broadband service in Estes Park?
The answer to this question will be the focus of consultant’s report supported by the Federal EDA Grant.
Reportedly, 1 Gigabit per second symmetric service may be available currently for some locations in Estes Park,
but it is reportedly prohibitively expensive compared to the cost for comparable service in some other locations
in our region like Longmont.
Questions about the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EDC)
27. Why did the EDC get involved with the broadband issue?
One part of the EDC’s mission is to broaden and strengthen Estes Park’s current economy in ways that
complement and sustain the current vision statement of the Town of Estes Park. The Town’s economic vitality
has been and will continue to be dependent upon a modern and efficient infrastructure, and broadband is the
great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century. The local importance of broadband has been recognized
in the Town’s 2014 Strategic Plan states that “we will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town fiber
infrastructure.” Because the Town’s fiber‐optic infrastructure will play a key role in providing competitive
broadband, the EDC’s involvement with the broadband issue is a logical extension of the EDC’s mission.
9
28. Why did the Estes Park EDC resolve to urge the Town to submit this ballot question to the voters?
On August 21, 2014, the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation resolved to urge the Town of Estes Park
to refer to the qualified electors of Estes Park a ballot question regarding whether, without increasing taxes, the
qualified electors of the Town of Estes Park may take back their Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide
telecommunications services, advanced services, and cable television services.
This resolution was based on the following five conclusions:
1) Telecommunications infrastructure that is competitive in speed, cost, and reliability is essential for local
businesses and citizens to successfully compete in today's globally competitive environment;
2) The Town of Estes Park, through its participation in Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), has access to an
existing fiber‐optic ring in Estes Park that could help enable competitive services within our Town and immediate
region;
3) In 2005, Senate Bill 05‐152 took away the Town of Estes Park’s right to directly or indirectly provide
telecommunications services, advanced services, and cable television services without a vote of the people;
4) The Board of the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (Estes Park EDC) believes that taking back this
right will allow the Town to leverage all community‐owned infrastructure for the benefit of its citizens and
businesses;
5) Failing to refer such a question to the voters will substantially impair our region’s ability to obtain and provide
high‐quality telecommunications services.
29. Who is on the EDC Competitive Broadband Committee?
Larry Lawson is the Chair. The other members are: David Batey, Eric Calkins, Mark Elrod, Alan Fraundorf, Ken
Gay, Frank Lancaster, Gerald Mayo, Michael Moon, Jon Nicholas, Jim Pickering, Tom Plake, Greg Rosener, Dan
Spray, and Jim Webb
Questions about the SB‐152 Election
30. What is the goal of the election?
To take back the Town of Estes Park’s right to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications services,
advanced services, and cable television services.
31. How much will the election cost (Special election vs coordinated election)?
The Estes Park Town Clerk has estimated that a Special Election would cost 12 to 15 thousand dollars. A
coordinated election, for example adding this ballot issue to a November election would cost about twice as
much as a Special Election, or about $30,000 for a coordinated election.
32. How will the public become educated on the issue?
If the Town agrees to refer this issue to the qualified electors, there are plans in place to establish an Election
Issue Committee that would advocate for taking back the Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide
telecommunications services, advanced services, and cable television services. The Election Issue Committee
would initiate activities to fully inform the public on this issue.
10
33. What is the proposed date for the special election?
The recommended earliest practical date would be Tuesday Feb 3, 2015. The earliest practical date is preferable
because a delay in the timing of the special election would delay the eventual delivery of competitive broadband
services and their accompanying benefits to the Town of Estes Park.
34. Who will vote on the initiative? (Town, Estes Valley, County)?
The qualified electors of the Town of Estes Park would vote on the initiative.
35. Why not determine voter interest in the election before the Town commits to an election?
The alternatives to an election to determine voter preference, for example surveys, are not very reliable. The
very strong (unanimous with 2 abstentions) EDC member support for the EDC resolution on the issue of the
SB‐152 election reflects the strong support of the local business community for this initiative. The election
purpose is also aligned with the Town of Estes Park’s long‐term goal, set forth in its 2014 Strategic Plan, stating
that “we will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town fiber infrastructure.” Based on the strong public support
demonstrated in election results in other Colorado Towns, it is expected that the public will also be supportive as
they come to understand the issue.
36. Why not wait for the result from the broadband consultant before having the election?
Although the Town currently takes the position that the Town is complying with SB‐152 in any of its current
use/lease of fiber optic capabilities, the Town’s ability to implement any of the possible EDA Grant consultant
options may require a definitive statement that the Town’s activities are not restricted by the limitations from
SB‐152. Because having competitive broadband service in Estes Park is essential to the Town’s current and
future economic viability and vitality, any delays to the delivery of competitive broadband services to the Town
should be minimized.
Questions about Possible Effects of the SB‐152 Election
37. If the Town has the election and takes back the right to be directly or indirectly involved in providing
telecommunication services, would the Town be committed to or would it appear the Town was committed to
going into the business of providing broadband?
No. The SB‐152 election is solely about taking back the right for local self‐determination of the role of the Town
in providing competitive broadband services. The election question does not specify how services will be
delivered. The alternatives for delivering competitive broadband services will be developed and evaluated by the
Federal EDA Grant consultant. In Colorado Towns with a direct or indirect role in delivering broadband services,
a variety of methods for delivering services have been utilized.
38. If the referendum passes, would the Town confer with interested parties before taking actions such as creating
a public utility? Who would have to approve that action?
Yes. The Town would confer with interested parties before taking actions such as creating a public utility. The
approval procedure appropriate for any action would depend upon the specific action chosen.
39. Other than the cost of the election, are there any other costs or risks to the Town of having an election on
Colorado Senate Bill‐152?
11
No. There are no additional costs or risks to the Town based on the experience of other local Colorado
governments that have had an SB‐152 election.
40. Why should the Town have an election to take back a right when it is not certain whether or how the right
would be used?
Because of the Town of Estes Park’s current and, most likely, future direct or indirect involvement in broadband
services given its “right to use” of the Town’s fiber‐optic ring, the election to take back the right to determine the
Town’s involvement would be needed regardless of the consultant’s recommendations on possible service
delivery options.
41. I have heard stories about municipalities getting into financial trouble when they have tried to offer
broadband services. How did this happen and how can this be avoided?
Municipalities have encountered two types of problems when they have attempted to implement a public utility
model for delivering broadband services. These two problems have not been the result of inherent problems
with the public utility model, but were problems with how the public utility model was implemented. An
example of one type of problem arose when a local government tried to build out infrastructure far in advance of
demand. They overlooked the need for sales to replenish capital being spent and eventually ran out of cash to
operate the system. An example of the second type of problem occurred when a local government over‐
estimated the percent of people in an area that would sign up for the broadband service, estimating 75 to 80%
acceptance when 30 to 35% is more typical initially. Again, capital expenditures outpaced sales income and cash
left to run the system was inadequate. The way to avoid these problems is to 1) have realistic estimates of
service acceptance and 2) planning to extend infrastructure initially into locations with higher expected sales so
that sales and expenditures are more closely matched and capital depletion is avoided. If the Town does not
choose the public utility model for delivering broadband services, neither of these concerns will be relevant.
Questions about the Estes Park Fiber‐Optic Ring
42. The fiber‐optic ring was installed 10‐15 years ago. Why are we just now considering how to use it?
The initial purpose of installing the ring was for Platte River Power Authority’s operation of its Transmission and
Substation Electric System. The system was overbuilt to consider use by others. With increasing understanding
of the importance of competitive broadband services to our Town’s economic viability and vitality, the utilization
of the Town’s fiber‐optic ring has received renewed attention.
Questions about Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Fiber along Routes 36 and 34
43. What effect will CDOT running fiber‐optic cable up routes 36 and 34 have on this issue?
As a potential source of needed redundant physical connection(s) to the outside world, access to CDOT fiber
along route 36 and/or route 34 would represent a great advantage to Estes Park if an Inter‐Governmental
Agreement between Estes Park and/or PRPA could be developed with CDOT. Such an agreement would not
eliminate the need for the SB‐152 election as the Town would still have some role in providing broadband
services, and utilization of the CDOT assets for the benefit of the Estes Valley might well require exemption from
the restrictions of SB‐152.
12
Questions about the Economic Development Corporation $300,000 Grant
44. Where did the $300k come from?
The grant was provided by the Economic Development Administration within the US Department of Commerce
45. What will the $300k grant be used for?
The purpose of the award was to help “the Town of Estes Park conduct a regional economic diversification and
industry job cluster retention and recovery strategy in the wake of the Federally declared flood disaster and
other natural disasters that continue to impact the economy of the area.” The grant has three economic
resiliency components: 1) Developing and implementing a strategy for economic diversification, 2) Capacity
building by developing and supporting the expertise of existing individuals and organizations, and 3) Developing a
state‐of‐the art Valley‐wide broadband internet service that will allow our businesses, citizens, and guests to
participate in and compete in the global marketplace.
46. What part of the $300k will be for broadband?
Approximately $80,000 will be used for a study of broadband delivery alternatives, and approximately $50,000
will be used to develop a technology business incubator/accelerator/co‐working space.
47. How will the consultant be selected?
There is a standard Federal Government competitive selection process that must be followed by the Town and
the Estes Park EDC.
48. Who will manage the consultant?
The Estes Park EDC will be primarily responsible for working with the consultant and the Town of Estes Park will
help manage fiscal compliance with the Federal grand requirements.
49. When does the grant start and when will there be results?
The grant timing is unknown at this point since the details of the award have not yet been received.
Questions about the Experience of Other Colorado Communities
50. What have other communities in Colorado done about SB‐152?
In summary, most of the state is involved in discussions and actions regarding SB‐152, the law that prohibits the
direct or indirect involvement of local governments in the provision of broadband services. Centennial,
Longmont, Montrose, among others, have passed ballot initiatives, and other municipalities like Boulder and Fort
Collins are considering election initiatives to take back the right for local governments to play some role in
assisting their communities to meet their broadband needs. In addition, most locations in the state are
examining broadband adequacy and its potential economic impact. Weld and Larimer Counties are examining
their needs for better broadband. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (representing Eagle, Grand,
Garfield, Jackson, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit counties) is investigating how local government
should assist those communities in their quest for competitive broadband service. A group of Northeast
Colorado counties (Morgan, Logan, Washington, Sedgwick, Yuma, and Phillips) have joined together to consider
the need for better broadband services to remain competitive. A group of towns in southwest Colorado (Cortez,
13
Durango, Bayfield, Pagosa Springs, Ignacio, Mancos, Dolores, and Dove Creek) have come together to ensure
delivery of the appropriate level of broadband for their continued growth.
51. Looking back, what, if anything, would the other communities do differently in their approach to this issue?
Generally, they would do nothing different. Usually, the approach taken has had two steps: 1) Take back the
right for local government to have some role in the provision of broadband services, then 2) Determine the most
appropriate role for local government given local realities. It is noteworthy that several different models of local
government broadband involvement have been or are being adopted. Overall, the Colorado communities that
have undertaken the effort to take back the right of local government to be involved in the direct or indirect
provision of broadband services seem quite pleased with the outcomes of their elections.
52. Do the County Commissioners have a position on SB‐152?
Larimer County is currently conducting an Asset Assessment of its infrastructure assets and of the services
provided by the County. Broadband service involvement is among the new activities under consideration.
53. Does the Colorado Municipal League (CML) have a position on SB‐152?
While the CML has reportedly been asked to consider taking a position favoring overturning SB‐152, the CML
reportedly believes that influencing the SB‐152 legislation will be very difficult. There is no evidence of any
official CML action taken at this time. Searches of the CML website produced no results for SB‐152.
54. What has Longmont's experience with SB‐152 been?
In 2011, Longmont conducted a successful referendum that exempted it from the restrictions of SB‐152. The
Town of Longmont subsequently voted to allow more than $40 million in revenue bonding by the Town’s electric
utility so that “fiber to the home” could be widely provided over the next few years. This will allow the Town to
deliver telecommunications services, “advanced services”, and cable television services either directly or
indirectly through partners. The Town is currently envisioning providing internet and telephone services as a
public utility and partnering with private suppliers to obtain television services. Construction of the fiber‐optic
infrastructure is currently underway.
Questions about Estes Park’s Local Internet Service Providers (ISP’s)
55. What level of service is currently provided or is planned to be provided by local businesses?
A wide variety of broadband service levels are available in the Estes Valley, from 1 Mbps or less with telephone
line DSL to more than 100 Mbps. Compared to communities that have undertaken broadband improvement
programs, the services in Estes Park are relatively high priced, slower, and do not exhibit the desired level of
consistent performance and reliability (redundancy). Service levels with competitive quality and affordable
prices are not available for many small businesses in Estes Park and for significant parts of the Estes Valley.
56. Would taking back the right taken away by SB‐152 adversely affect any local businesses?
No. All local businesses would be directly or indirectly helped by having access to competitive broadband
services. It would be consistent with the EDC’s mission of supporting and strengthening local businesses for the
local internet service providers to be a part of delivering competitive broadband services.
14
57. What do the local providers think about an election to take back the right taken away by SB‐152?
All of the local internet service providers (ISPs) are anxious to benefit from better, less expensive, more reliable
broadband services into and out of Estes Park. The local ISP’s are currently reserving judgment on the issues
surrounding methods for the delivery of local services until specific proposals are under consideration. Some
local providers have been members of the Broadband Committee from its beginning, and the other local
providers have been engaged in discussion of SB‐152 issues by the Committee.
Questions about the Platte Valley Power Authority (PRPA)
58. Does PRPA have a position on SB‐152 issue?
PRPA is aware of the interest and concerns of its four partner towns (Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont,
Loveland) regarding broadband service. PRPA currently has limited involvement in broadband delivery primarily
through its “right to use” and maintenance of the fiber‐optic cable that brings broadband services to Estes Park
from Loveland, and its involvement with the Estes Park fiber‐optic ring. Currently, PRPA does not provide
broadband services, and they only lease un‐used fiber. The current PRPA business model and resources do not
include providing broadband services. PRPA is engaged in discussions with the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) regarding the construction of additional fiber‐optic cable along highways 34 and 36. No
commitment for PRPA to expand its services is known at the present.
59. Could PRPA be involved in providing broadband services?
PRPA involvement could have a significantly positive effect on the quality, price, and reliability of broadband
services to its member towns and to Larimer County. PRPA has not researched the measures it would take for
Platte River to become exempt from SB‐152 and provide broadband services. At this time PRPA only leases dark
fiber at rates which do not offer any one provider a competitive advantage over another.
60. If PRPA could be involved in providing broadband services, would the Estes Park election still be needed?
Even if PRPA were involved, the Town of Estes Park would still have some direct or indirect role in providing
service to the Town’s household and business users because of Estes Park’s involvement in the Town’s fiber‐optic
ring. As a result, the Estes Park election on SB‐152 would still be needed.
1
Remarks on SB 152 Election for Trustees Board Meeting, Tuesday 11-Nov-2014 7 PM
I’d like to thank the Town Trustees, Mayor Pinkham, and Town Administrator Frank Lancaster
for the opportunity to speak with you about the request for a special election for broadband
services.
The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation has provided , on pages 170 to 183 in
tonight’s meeting packet, 60 Questions and Answers as background material on this issue .
The request for a special election originated with a resolut ion adopted by the Estes Park
Economic Development Corporation last August. The resolution urged the Town of Estes Park
to hold an election asking voters whether, without raising taxes, the Town’s right should be
re-established, to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications services like broadband
internet. The resolution resulted from extensive investigation into how to achieve a key goal in
the Town’s 2014 Strategic Plan: “to encourage optimal use of the Platte River Power Authority
and Town’s fiber infrastructure.”
I have five points I would like to make and then have time for any additional questions and
answers.
Throughout my comments, “Competitive broadband” will mean the level of internet service
that is currently available in large US cities in terms of speed, cost, and reliability. Competitive
broadband in the Estes area would make us broadband competitive in our region and
nationally.
First: To have a strong economy, Estes Park must have access to competitive broadband
service. This is true because of how important the internet has become in our economic and
social lives. The availability of competitive broadband already determines where businesses
locate, where travelers visit, and where people choose to live . The economic and social
importance of access to competitive broadband will only increase over time.
Second: Colorado Senate Bill 152 took away our local government’s right to decide the best
way for the Town to help provide competitive broadband service. Senate Bill 152 blocks local
government’s involvement in directly or indirectly providing broadband service. Senate Bill -
152 applies to Estes Park because, with the Platte River Power Authority, the Town already
indirectly provides broadband service through its involvement in the fiber optic infrastructure
used for local broadband service.
2
Third: In Senate Bill 152, an election is the only way to restore local authority and free local
governments from the Bills’ restrictions. So, to achieve the Town’s goal of “optimal use of the
Platte River Power Authority and Town’s fiber infrastructure,” we must have an election to take
back our Town’s right to decide the best way to help provide competitive broadband.
Fourth: There have been many different successful approaches to local government
involvement in providing competitive broadband services , and many are indirect like Estes
Park’s involvement currently. One purpose of the recent $300,000 award to the Estes Park
Economic Development Corporation is to develop options for a state of the art, Valley-wide,
broadband service that will allow our businesses, citizens, and guests to participate in and
compete in the global marketplace.
Fifth: Question 14 in the background Questions and Answers details widespread Colorado
involvement with broadband, the economic development impact of broadband, and Senate Bill-
152. Estes Park is not alone in dealing with these issues. Earlier, Longmont, Centennial, and
Montrose voters resoundingly approved taking back the right of local government to decide on
broadband issues, and in last Tuesday’s election, 5 municipalities, Boulder, Cherry Hills Village,
Red Cliff, Yuma and Wray, and 3 counties: Rio Blanco, San Miguel, and Yuma voted
overwhelmingly, with 70 to 80 percent voter approval, to take back the right taken away by
Senate Bill 152.
In summary, Estes Park must have access to competitive broadband to remain economically
competitive, Senate Bill 152 took away the Town’s right to directly or indirectly provide
broadband service, and an election is the only way to take back the right that Senate Bill 152
took away so that the Town can pursue optimal use of its fiber optic infrastructure, and so that
we have access to state of the art, Valley-wide, competitive broadband service.
Thank you for your attention. Do you have any questions?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: November 11, 2014
RE: Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County and Amendment to the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Bylaws
Objectives:
(1) Amend the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to align with the proposed by-laws.
(2) Reformat the Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws to be consistent with other
Board/Committee bylaws, provide flexibility in meeting times/locations, and remove
requirement to alternate chair/vice-chair between Town and County appointees.
Present Situation:
IGA. The IGA was adopted in the year 2000, and has been amended twice.
The IGA was initially amended in 2003 to provide for an alternate member of the Board
of Adjustment; the alternate member has not been needed.
The IGA was amended again in 2010 to specify that a County appointee shall serve as
Chair in 2011-2012, and then alternate between Town and County appointees
thereafter. The requirement for Town/County appointees to Chair the Commission in
specific years has at times been problematic due to unscheduled turnovers of members.
This proposed amendment will allow for the most qualified member to Chair the
Commission. Over the years, the Planning Commission has consistently demonstrated
willingness and ability to serve the overall Estes Valley without consideration of place of
individual residence.
By-Laws. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) was created in the year 2000
with the adoption of the IGA. The existing bylaws were created at that time and did not
follow any specific format.
Proposal:
IGA. Amend the IGA to (1) remove the unnecessary alternate member of the Estes
Valley Board of Adjustment, and (2) remove the requirement to alternate Chair/Vice-
Chair between Town and County appointees to allow the EVPC to elect the most
qualified member.
By-laws. Reformat the bylaws so they are a consistent format with other bylaws.
Changes include:
Organization. A primary function of these revisions is to format bylaws so they
are consistent with other organizational bylaws (eg “Role”, “Meetings”, “Members
and Quorum”, etc).
Functional. Some changes increase operating efficiencies. Examples include
greater detail regarding Chair duties, and designating the Community
Development Administrative Assistant as de facto Recording Secretary instead of
needing to vote on this position.
Flexible. Some changes are intended to provide greater flexibility. Examples
include removing a specific location for the study session, and removing
reference to specific years that a Town/County appointee serves as Chair and
the requirement to alternate remains.
The bylaws presented for review have been reviewed by Director Chilcott, Town
Attorney White, and Town Administrator Lancaster. On October 21, the Planning
Commission unanimously voted (7-0) to approve.
The Town Attorney has since drafted revisions to the IGA to reflect changes in the by-
laws.
This item is scheduled for review by the Board of County Commissioners on November
17.
Advantages:
Aligns with Town Board governing policy to not appoint alternate members to
Board and Commissions.
Will provide consistent format of bylaws.
Will provide greater flexibility in Commission operations, such as meeting times
and locations.
Will allow the most qualified Commissioners to serve as Chair.
Will eliminate unnecessary BOA member.
Disadvantages:
Staff is not aware of any disadvantages.
Action Recommended:
Approve bylaws and IGA amendment as presented.
Budget: Not applicable
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
Staff recommends the Board take separate votes.
IGA: I move for the approval (or denial) of the amendments to the Inter-governmental
agreement as delineated in Exhibit A.
By-Laws: I move for the approval (or denial) of the amendments to the Inter-
governmental agreement as delineated in Exhibit C.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A: Amendments to IGA
2. Exhibit B: Current IGA
3. Exhibit C: Revised EVPC By-Laws
4. Exhibit D: Current EVPC By-Laws
Dept. of Community Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Bo Winslow, Director of Community Services
Date: 5 November, 2014
RE: Use of Contingency Fund to Complete Second Story of the Event Silo and
Construction update.
Objective:
1. Status on Stanley Park Pavilion (Stall Barn) and Event Center construction
completion
2. Request $42,000 of $250,000 “turn lane” funds (originally allocated in $7,500,000
project budget) to general contingency for required building elements (including
work done on silo raise).
3. Request $60,000 of $250,000 “turn lane” funds (originally allocated in $7,500,000
project budget) to finishing of Second Floor Silo Conference Room.
Present Situation:
Work at the Fairgrounds is reaching a successful closeout with the two buildings
nearing completion under total project budget and very close to scheduled building
contingency budget. This project has been “under budget” for the majority of its
duration as funds have been expended as needed from the contingency fund. As the
project nears completion, with the silo raise work complete, approximately $30,000 is
needed beyond the allocated contingency amount.
Significant challenges met in this project are:
1. $60,000 specifically expended due to flood complications
2. A low-bid winning contractor working in a now booming front-range
economy (subcontractors with opportunity for more pay elsewhere). This
has delayed performance and increased the amount of effort required on
the part of Town to see performance. Several aspects of the project are
being subcontracted by the Town directly at this point to achieve
acceptable building delivery dates and pricing.
3. Significant Owner-Contractor disagreement on contractual obligation
(contract inclusions). There are approximately $43,000 in contractor
suggested Change Orders that the Town does not agree are contractually
supported. Staff continues to work through these to reduce them. (There
have been over $200,000 in rejected Change Orders through the course
of the project.) Currently, approximately $25,000 in credits have been
requested by the Town and are also not yet approved by the contractor.
4. Silo raise change order $42,000 to reduce future maintenance costs. As
discussed in previous study sessions, this work was unknown in cost, but
necessary to proceed with on “Time and Materials” basis to effect
acceptable delivery of the facility.
Despite tightly monitored and managed change orders, funds are required through re-
allocation of original approved budget for the following:
$60,000 Silo second floor completion (electrical, mechanical, architectural scopes)
$42,000 Silo Raise funding
Proposal:
“Offsite turn lane” funds ($250,000) in original project budget ($7,500,000) have not
been expended. The turn lane is not required by CDOT. We propose using a portion of
these funds to complete the project. This project’s total budget top-set limit of
$7,500,000 million will not be exceeded by approving the use of these funds for the
completion of the project.
Advantages:
Funding the Silo Raise cost of $42,000 will allow for completion of other needed
work and leave approximately $8-10,000 to finish any additional remaining work.
Finishing the Second Floor of the Silo now will result in project closeout and
usable space for Community Services as well as likely cost savings by
completing work sooner; construction costs are not expected to decline.
Disadvantages:
Less of the excess funds from this completed under budget project will not be
available to assist to other town projects
Action Recommended:
Board approval is requested to designate funds originally for “offsite turn lane” in the
$7,500,000 MPEC / Stall Barn Project Budget to be used for Silo Raise ($42,000) and
Silo second floor completion ($60,000).
Budget:
Funds for this project do not require transfer as they are under Budget account number
204-5400-544.32-21, Community Reinvestment Fund. Funds allocated to turn lane
were $250,000, none of the $250,000 were used for a turn lane.
Level of Public Interest
Low interest
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval funds designated originally for “offsite turn lane” in the
$7,500,000 MPEC / Stall Barn Project Budget to be used for Silo Raise ($42,000) and
Silo second floor completion ($60,000).
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: November 11th, 2014
RE: Board Governing Policy 1.5 Board Members’ Code of Conduct
Objective:
One of the policies adopted by the Trustees under Policy Governance is Policy 1.5, a
code of conduct for the Board of Trustees. This policy outlines how the trustees will
work with each other, staff and the public, As leaders of our community, it is important
that the members of the Town Board hold themselves to the highest standard of
conduct, setting an example for other Town officials and Town employees, and
ensuring that the public has confidence in the integrity of its government and Town
Officials. Adherence to these standards will protect and maintain the Town of Estes
Park’s reputation and integrity.
Present Situation:
Over the last few months the Board of Trustees have been revising their code of conduct.
The basis of the code of conduct was a draft that was prepared several years ago but never
adopted. This final draft includes the comments and revisions discussed by the board in
previous study sessions.
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
That the Board of Trustees adopt Governing Policy 1.5, Board Members’ Code of Conduct.
Advantages:
Articulates how the board will work together
Sets high standards of ethical and businesslike conduct for the board
Sets an example for the community on how public business should be conducted
Disadvantages:
none
Requested Action and Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of revised governing policy 1.5, Board Members’ Code of
Conduct
Level of Public Interest
Moderate to high
1
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.5
Rev 11/11/14 POLICY TITLE: BOARD MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT
The Board of Trustees shall operate in an ethical and businesslike manner. As leaders of our
community, it is important that the members of the Town Board hold themselves to the
highest standard of conduct, setting an example for other Town officials and Town
employees, and ensuring that the public has confidence in the integrity of its government and
Town Officials. Adherence to these standards will protect and maintain the Town of Estes
Park’s reputation and integrity.
.
1.5.1 CONDUCT WITH ONE ANOTHER
A. The Board of Trustees is composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds,
personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Embracing this diversity, all have chosen to
serve in public office in order to preserve and protect the present and the future of the
community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as Trustees may
"agree to disagree" on contentious issues. We will conduct business in a manner consistent
with this code of conduct and as outlined in the operating principles of the board (Policy
1.2.)
1.5.2 IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. Practice civility, professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult
questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and
information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. This does not, however,
allow Trustees to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive,
or disparaging comments. Trustees should conduct themselves in a professional manner at
all times.
B. Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. Effective governance allows
individuals with disparate points of view to find common ground and seek a compromise
that benefits the community as a whole, whenever possible. A member of the Board of
Trustees who votes in the minority is free to express his/her dissent but will respect the
process and legitimacy of the majority decision.
C. Be punctual and keep comments relative to topics discussed. Trustees have made a
commitment to attend meetings and partake in discussions. Therefore, it is important that
Trustees be punctual and that meetings start on time. Be respectful of other people’s time.
Prepare for meetings in advance, and be familiar with issues on the agenda. Stay focused
and act efficiently during public meetings. It is equally important that discussions on issues
be relative to the topic at hand to allow adequate time to fully discuss scheduled issues.
D. Avoid expressing opinions during Public Hearings. Trustees should not express
opinions during the public hearing portion of the meeting except to ask pertinent questions
2
of the speaker or staff. "I think" and "I feel" comments by Trustees are not appropriate until
after the close of the public hearing. Trustees should refrain from arguing or debating with
the public during a public hearing and shall always show respect for different points of view.
E. Respect the role of the Mayor or Committee Chairpersons in maintaining order. It is
the responsibility of the Mayor to keep the comments of Trustees on track during public
meetings. Trustees should honor efforts by the Mayor to focus discussion on current
agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Mayor’s actions, those
objections should be voiced politely and with reason.
1.5.3 IN PRIVATE COMUNNICATIONS
A. Continue respectful behavior in private. The same level of respect and consideration of
differing points of view that is deemed appropriate for public discussions should be
maintained in private conversations.
B. Be aware of the public nature of written notes, voicemail messages, and e-mail.
Technology allows words written or said without much forethought to be distributed wide
and far. Would you feel comfortable to have this note faxed to others? How would you feel
if this voicemail message was played on a speakerphone in a full office? What would
happen if this e-mail message was forwarded to others? Written notes, voicemail
messages and e-mail should be treated as "public" communication and are subject to
disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
C. Even private conversations can have a public presence. Elected officials are always on
display. People around them that they may not know monitor their actions, mannerisms,
and language. Lunch table conversations will be overheard, parking lot debates will be
watched, and casual comments between individuals before and after public meetings
noted.
1.5.4 TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH TOWN STAFF
A. Board prioritization of Staff projects. It is the responsibility of the Town Board as a whole
and not individual Trustees to identify and prioritize projects for the Town Staff. Individual
Trustees shall refrain from instructing Staff as to the prioritization of projects identified by
the Board. It is the responsibility of the Town Administrator to communicate and direct the
prioritization of Town activities with the staff.
B. Treat all staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities,
experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not
acceptable.
C. Limit contact with specific Town staff. Questions of Town staff and/or requests for
additional background information may be addressed directly with the appropriate town
staff member, however individual trustees should not direct staff to take any specific action
or direct them to produce any work product. The Town Administrator should be copied on
or informed of any request. Requests for follow-up or directions to staff should be made
3
only through the Town Administrator or the Mayor when appropriate. When in doubt about
what staff contact is appropriate, Trustees should ask the Town Administrator or Mayor for
direction. Materials supplied to Trustees in response to a request may be made available
to all Trustees, so that all have equal access to information.
D. Do not disrupt Town staff from their jobs. Trustees should not disrupt Town staff while
they are in meetings, on the phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions, in order
to have their individual needs met.
E. Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Trustees should never express
concerns about the performance of a Town employee in public, to the employee directly,
or to the employee’s supervisor. Comments about staff performance should only be made
to the Town Administrator through private correspondence or conversation.
F. Do not get involved in administrative functions. Trustees must not attempt to influence
Town staff on making appointments, selecting consultants, processing of development
applications, or granting of Town licenses and permits unless the Trustee has been invited
to participate in the process.
G. Check with Town staff on correspondence before taking action. Before sending
correspondence, Trustees should check with Town staff to see if an official Town response
has already been sent or is in progress. When responding to correspondence always
clarify if the opinion expressed is your personal opinion or position, or if it is the official
position as adopted by the Board of Trustees.
H. Requests for staff support, should be made to the Town Administrator, who is
responsible for allocating Town resources in order to maintain a professional, well-run
Town government. The office of the Town Clerk, in the Administrative Services
Department provides routine clerical and support services for the Board. Routine requests
for items such as meeting registrations, benefits, reimbursements, scheduling questions
can be addressed directly to the Town Clerk.
I. Do not solicit political support from staff. Trustees should not solicit any type of political
support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.)
from Town staff. Town staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support
political candidates but all such activities must be done away from the workplace.
J. Evaluation of Staff - Individual Board members will not formally evaluate the performance
of the Town Administrator, his/her staff or the Town Attorney except as that performance is
assessed in accordance with explicit Board of Trustees’ policies.
1.5.5 TRUSTEES CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC
A. IN PUBLIC MEETINGS - Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the
democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the
part of individual Trustees toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort
should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony.
a. Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness. Speaking
4
in front of the Board can be a difficult experience for some people. Some issues the
Board undertakes may affect people’s daily lives and homes. Some decisions are
emotional. The way that the Trustees treat people during public hearings can do a
lot to make them relax or to push their emotions to a higher level of intensity.
b. Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual speakers.
The Mayor may determine and announce limits on speakers at the start of the public
hearing process. If many speakers are anticipated, the Mayor may shorten the time
limit and/or ask speakers to limit themselves to new information and points of view
not already covered by previous speakers. No speaker will be turned away unless
he or she exhibits inappropriate behavior. Each speaker may only speak once during
the public hearing unless the Board requests additional clarification later in the
process. After the close of the public hearing, no more public testimony will be
accepted unless the Mayor reopens the public hearing for a limited and specific
purpose.
c. Active listening. It is disconcerting to speakers to have Trustees not look at them
when they are speaking. It is fine to look down at documents or to make notes, but
reading for a long period of time or gazing around the room gives the appearance of
disinterest. Be aware of facial expressions, especially those that could be interpreted
as "smirking," disbelief, anger or boredom.
d. Ask for clarification, but avoid debate and argument with the public. Only the
Mayor – not individual Trustees -- can interrupt a speaker during a presentation.
However, a Trustee can ask the Mayor for a point of order if the speaker is off the
topic or exhibiting behavior or language the Trustee finds disturbing. If speakers
become flustered or defensive by Trustees questions, it is the responsibility of the
Mayor or Committee Chairperson to calm and focus the speaker and to maintain the
order and decorum of the meeting. Questions by Trustees to members of the public
testifying should seek to clarify or expand information. It is never appropriate to
challenge or belittle the speaker. Trustees’ personal opinions or inclinations about
upcoming votes should not be revealed until after the public hearing is closed.
e. No personal attacks of any kind, under any circumstance. Trustees should be
aware that their body language and tone of voice, as well as the words they use,
could appear to be intimidating or aggressive.
B. IN UNOFFICAL SETTINGS
a. Make no promises on behalf of the Board. Individual Board members can
represent the Board on Town matters only when delegated those responsibilities by
the Board Trustees will frequently be asked to explain a Board action or to give their
opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is
appropriate to give a brief overview of Town policy and to refer to Town staff for
further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Board action, or
to promise that Town staff will do something specific (fix a pothole, waive a fee, plant
new flowers in the median, etc.).
b. Make no personal comments about other Trustees. It is acceptable to publicly
5
disagree about an issue, but it is unacceptable to make derogatory comments about
other Trustees, their opinions and actions.
c. Remember that Estes Park is a small community at heart. The community is
constantly observing Trustees every day that they serve in office. Their behaviors
and comments serve as models for proper deportment in the Town of Estes Park.
Honesty and respect for the dignity of each individual should be reflected in every
word and action taken by Trustees, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a
serious and continuous responsibility.
1.5.6 BOARD CONDUCT WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
A. Be clear about representing the Town or personal interests. If a Trustee appears
before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the
Trustee must clearly state: 1) if his or her statement reflects personal opinion or is the
official stance of the Town; 2) whether this is the majority or minority opinion of the Board.
Even if the Trustee is representing his or her own personal opinions, remember that this
still may reflect upon the Town as an organization.
If a Trustee serves in a decision making capacity for another organization and a matter
which the Town has taken an official position is discussed by the organization, the Trustee
should not maintain a position that significantly impacts or is detrimental to the Town’s
official position. In the event the Town has not taken an official position with regard to a
matter, and in the Trustee’s judgment, the Trustee believes that the Town would take a
position substantially different than that proposed to be taken by the organization, the
Trustee should consult with the Mayor regarding the Town’s possible position.
B. Correspondence expressing official Town positions. All official Town correspondence
shall be signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem unless a specific Trustee is authorized by
the Town Board to individually respond to a matter and express the Town’s official position.
A copy of official correspondence should be given to the Town Clerk to be filed as part of
the permanent public record.
C. Trustee correspondence concerning town matters: Trustees may correspond with
individuals or organizations on any matter involving the Town. In the event that the
Trustee’s personal correspondence expresses a personal opinion that differs from the
Town’s official position, the Trustee should make clear that the Trustee’s personal opinion
differs from the Town’s official position.
1.5.7 TOWN TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
The Town has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of increasing community
involvement in government and to serve as advisors to the Town Board. They are a valuable
resource to the Town’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
A. If attending a Board or Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal
opinions unless you are authorized to represent the Town Board. Trustees may attend
any Board or Commission meeting open to the public, but should be sensitive to the way
their participation – especially if it is on behalf of an individual, business or developer --
6
could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Trustee at a
Board or Commission meeting should be clearly indicate if it is an individual opinion or a
representation of the official opinion of the Town Board.
B. Be respectful of diverse opinions. A primary role of the Board or Commission is to
provide advice and make decisions based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives.
Trustees must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions.
C. Inappropriate behavior. Inappropriate behavior by a Trustee should be noted to the
Mayor, and the Mayor should counsel the offending member. If inappropriate behavior
continues, the Mayor should bring the situation to the attention of the Town Board.
1.5.8 CONDUCT WITH THE MEDIA
Trustees may be contacted by the media for background information and quotes. All media
contacts should be referred to the PIO.
A. The Mayor is the official spokesperson for the Town Board of Trustees. The Mayor is
the designated representative of the Board of Trustees to present and speak on the official
Town position. If the media contacts an individual Trustee, the Trustee should be clear
about whether her/his comments represent the official Town position or a personal
viewpoint.
B. The best advice for dealing with the media is to never go "off the record." Most
members of the media represent the highest levels of journalistic integrity and ethics, and
can be trusted to keep their word. But one bad experience can be catastrophic. Words that
are not said cannot be quoted.
C. Choose words carefully and cautiously. Comments taken out of context can cause
problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sarcasm, or word play. It is never
appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media.
1.5.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Section 31-4-404 (2) C.R.S. “Any member of the governing body of any city or town who
has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the governing
body shall disclose such interest to the governing body, shall not vote thereon, and shall
refrain from the attempt to influence the decisions of the other members of the governing
body in voting on the matter.”
B. Disclosure: A Trustee having a conflict of interest in any matter before the Town Board
shall disclose the interest to the Town Board. The Trustee shall not vote or otherwise take
any formal action or discussion concerning the matter, shall not participate in any executive
session concerning the matter, and shall refrain from attempting to influence any other
member of the Board of Trustees either in public or private discussion of the matter.
C. Exception: A member of the Board of Trustees may vote notwithstanding a conflict of
interest if the Trustee’s participation is necessary to obtain a quorum or otherwise enable
the Board to act if the Trustee complies with the volunteer disclosure provisions of Section
7
24-18-110 C.R.S.
D. Appearance of Impropriety: A Trustee should consider, but is not required to, excuse
themselves from those matters which due to the specific circumstances concerning the
matter may appear to members of the public to be a potential conflict of interest thus
avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
1.5.10 SANCTIONS
A. Inappropriate Staff Behavior. Trustees should refer to the Town Administrator any Town
staff that does not follow proper conduct in their dealings with Trustees, other Town staff, or
the public. These employees may be disciplined in accordance with standard Town
procedures for such actions.
B. Trustees Behavior and Conduct. Trustees who intentionally and repeatedly do not follow
proper conduct may be reprimanded or formally censured by the Town Board. Serious
infractions of the Code of Conduct may lead to other sanctions as deemed appropriate by
the Town Board.
It all comes down to respect
Respect for one another as individuals. . . Respect for the validity of different opinions. . .
Respect for the democratic process. . . Respect for the community that we serve.
Estes Valley Planning Commission Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 7, 2014
RE: Interview Committee for Estes Valley Planning Commission
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the one position open on
the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission is currently made up of seven volunteer community
members with three appointed by the Town, three appointed by the County and one jointly
appointed by the Town and County. The Commission currently has one vacancy.
Administrative Services has posted the positions and accepted applications through
November 3 and received two applications, therefore, the position has been readvertised
through November 21, 2014.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be
interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the
Town Board. Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments
at the Study Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the
Board meeting for approval.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to be identified at the Study Session and recommended for Board
approval at the Town Board meeting.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Estes Valley Planning Commission interview panel.