Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2013-03-26The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:00 p.m. ™ Public reception for Citizens Information Academy graduates will be held at 6:30 p.m., prior to the Town Board meeting. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION: “FINANCIAL LITERACY MONTH” GRADUATION CEREMONY: 2013 CITIZENS INFORMATION ACADEMY (CIA) PARTICIPANTS. Mayor Pinkham, Public Information Officer Rusch and Town Administrator Lancaster - Present Participation Certificates to the following class members: Mike Cunningham Jan Dougherty Sheri Fedorchak Linda Hardin Bob Holcomb Jean E. McGuire Anne Morris Judith Schaffer Dr. Russ Schneider Robert Sherrod Richard D. Tekulve Kellie Thompson PRESENTATION: High School Science Fair Project. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated March 12, 2013 and March 21, 2013, Town Board Minutes dated March 12, 2013. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, March 14, 2013. Prepared 03/16/13 * Revised: 03/21/13 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2013 (acknowledgement only.) 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY & FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS – TIME EXTENSION, River View Pines Condominiums, Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision; 1150 W Elkhorn Avenue; Frederick Kropp/Owner. B. SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-02, ELKHORN TUBING HILL, All Elkhorn Addition (Less Elkhorn Plaza Lodges, less a portion of a metes & bounds parcel); 600 W. Elkhorn Avenue; CMS Planning/Applicant. Continued to April 23, 2013, Town Board meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: ƒ Mayor – Open Public Hearing ƒ Staff Report ƒ Public Testimony ƒ Mayor – Close Public Hearing ƒ Motion to Approve/Deny. A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-01, OPEN AIR ADVENTURE PARK, Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision; 470 Prospect Village Drive; Tim Kreutzer/Applicant. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION. Director Zurn. 2. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Director Zurn. 3. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR MPEC & STALL BARN. Director Zurn. 4. GOVERNING POLICIES – STAFF LIMITATIONS. Administrator Lancaster. 4. ADJOURN *       Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 12, 2013 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of March, 2013. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson, Attorney White, Finance Officer McFarland and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst joining the meeting at 5:00 p.m. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The revisions to the Stanley Historic District agreement scheduled for the March 26th meeting has been removed and would remain unscheduled until the Technical Review of the new Pavilion has been completed by the Stanley. The next meeting would include a discussion on Board procedures such as motions, communication with citizens, involvement with outside groups representing the Board, meeting management, and the process for limiting speaker time and limiting them to the topic at hand. Trustee Ericson requested a capital planning and management plan be in place prior to the budgeting process for 2014. Trustee Norris concurred on the importance of having the plan in place for planning and budgeting. The capital asset management plan would be moved to the May 14th meeting. Trustee Ericson stated a review of the Town’s support for the Highland festival should include a comprehensive review of all special events to determine their benefit to the Town. He suggested there may be events that should be eliminated because they are not bringing in sales tax. The Highland Festival review would be expanded to include a review of all events at the May 14th meeting. TOWN’S ROLE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The main questions to be discussed centers around what is the Town Board’s role in economic development and where would it fit within the development of the Board’s strategic plan and the components of the plan, such as Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives as it relates to economic development. Trustee Norris stated the Town has a policy basis to guide the Board with a Town Vision, Mission, Guiding Principles and 2013 Objectives. The goal is to translate the general guidance/objectives adopted by the Board into specific roles the Town should or should not play in economic development. He stated to enhance our position as a premier mountain community the economic health of the community must improve. The 2013 Objectives included the development of an economic strategy through the development and adoption of policy defining the Town’s role in economic development; review the impact of Town regulations on business attraction and expansion; improve transportation; improve and maintain infrastructure; continue redevelopment of Stanley Park and Bond Park and adopt a comprehensive capital improvement plan. In addition,       the Town needs to collaborate with other government agencies and support the community economic development efforts. Board discussion followed and has been summarized: the Town should be involved in a local Economic Council with a seat at the table but should not manage it; the Town should not take the lead on economic development; the Economic Council needs to take the lead for the community; Trustee Elrod suggested the Local Marketing District could expand its scope and take the lead in Economic Development rather than developing a separate entity; the major players involved in the council need to be identified; and a recommended format for the council should be brought forward for the Board’s consideration. Administrator Lancaster stated there is an advantage to having a separate non- governmental entity because businesses are more comfortable discussing options with a neutral entity; however, an all private entity does not work well either. All parties need to be represented. The Economic Development Task Force would come before the Town Board in April with a final report and form the Economic Development Council in May. FINAL COSTS AND FINANCING FOR MPEC AND STALL BARN Finance Officer McFarland stated the project has a estimated cost of $7.5 million, including construction costs, IT, FF&E, project management, start up, landscaping, parking lot, UTSD taps, Town taps, Town electric and contingency. Staff has reviewed financing options as well as cash available for the projects and recommends the Town use Certificates of Participation (COPs) for $6 million with a 14-year repayment at an all-inclusive rate of 2.97%. This would equate to annual repayments of $530,000. A 10-year COP would have annual payments of $680,000. The proposed COPs would allow the Town to use a bank rather than a public offering which is simpler, faster and cheaper. The collateral for COPs would likely be the Town Hall. The Town would use approximately $1.5 million in cash to complete the project and decrease the Town’s General Fund reserves to 25%. The Community Reinvestment fund would have a fund balance of $800,000 to complete other projects. Discussion followed on the advantages of seeking callable COPs at a slightly higher interest rate. Callable COPs would allow the Town in the future to pay off the loan early in order to pursue other options with Town Hall. The consensus was to move forward with callable options at five, eight and ten years. The timetable would include the posting of RFPs for potential bank purchasers on March 15th, identify preferred purchaser by April 10th, approval of leasing ordinance at the April 23rd Board meeting, and closing and delivery of proceeds on May 23rd. A supplemental budget appropriation would need to be approved prior to the contract approval by the Board. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado,March 21, 2013 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 21st day of March, 2013. Board:Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps Attending:All Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson,Attorney White,Director Zurn and Town Clerk Williamson Absent:None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP)GRANT DISCUSSION. Director Zurn stated the Town has the opportunity to apply for a FLAP grant to improve transportation downtown by rerouting Highway 34 and thereby improving access to federal lands, i.e. Rocky Mountain National Park. The five to seven year program has $56 million available for projects with a 17.21% match by the local government. CDOT has verbally committed to provide matching funds of $8 to $10 million to reroute the highway out of downtown; however, there would be no matching funds for a parking garage.CDOT would include the project in their upcoming budget to be approved by May 15th, prior to the grant application deadline.Staff hired FHU to design options including a one-way couplet, two–way reroute of downtown, parking garage with approximately 150,000 sq. ft.in new commercial development,increasing the commercial downtown by 40%,and a trail west toward the Park. The property owners and business owners located in the potential affected areas were invited to a meeting and a public meeting prior to the study session. Those attending were asked to rank the options with the parking structure ranked number one, followed by the one-way couplet, trail, two-way and do nothing as the last option. Peggy Campbell/Visit Estes Park President stated a recent study of the visitors experience in Estes Park has ben completed. Estes Park enjoyed high ratings in most categories; however, parking and traffic received ratin g well below average. This rating affects the customer/visitor experience in a negative manner. Preference would be given to projects which provide access to federal high -use recreational sites or federal economic generators. The grant application would be evaluated on the support of economic vitality, increase the safety and security of the transportation system, increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight, protect and enhance the environment, enhance the integration and connectivity o f system, promote efficient system management and operation, and emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Staff stated the proposed designs would compete well for the grant funds based on the criteria, especially with the partnership with CDOT and support of Rocky Mountain National Park. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the main issue is not whether or not vehicles can get through downtown Estes Park but if the vehicles can get to Estes Park in the first place on Highway 34 and 36.Director Zurn affirmed the two highways are on CDOTs list of roadways to address with accelerate and decelerate lanes and passing lanes to help increase capacity. The traffic counts are increasing and downtown traffic is increasing. Parking Structure The mix-use parking structure would be four-stories high off of Moraine Avenue, two- stories closer to the river, and a terrace promenade walkway above the river edge with 350 to 510 new parking spaces as well as acting as a transportation hub. The structure would displace approximately 13 businesses,including the post office and 93 current parking stalls at a cost of $14.6 million with matching funds required by the Town. The parking structure would have an entrance off of Moraine Avenue and a sec ond entrance off of West Riverside Drive. Staff is investigating whether or not the donation of land could be used as the match. Board comments have been summarized: Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Town Hall parking lot is more valuable, and therefore, would be a better option for a parking lot downtown. Trustee Norris requested a review of the pros and cons of the possible locations for a parking structure. Trustee Elrod stated a parking structure downtown would be incongruous to the recent construction of the transportation hub at the Stanley Fairgrounds and the upcoming parking garage at the Visitor Center, which have been approved to limit traffic congestion downtown and improve air quality.Trustee Koenig stated the parking structure design presented continues the aesthetics of the riverwalk. Director Zurn stated there are two parking issues that need to be addressed. The parking garage at the Visitor Center would capture the morning congestion by removing visitors and park visitors from their cars before entering downtown. The afternoon congestion coming back through downtown from the Park would be captured at the new parking garage downtown. The new parking structure would help to address environmental issues by addressing the reverse traffic out of the Park. One-way Couplet The one-way couplet would have traffic going west down Elkhorn Avenue with three lanes, increasing traffic through the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue by 40%.Traffic going east bound would be directed down West Ri verside Drive past the post office to Ivy Street and on to East Riverside Drive. The option would displace 1 to 3 businesses, up to one residence and 5 to 39 parking stalls at a cost of $11.75 to $13.1 million. Board comments included: Mayor Pinkham stated the increased traffic flow off Elkhorn Avenue onto Moraine Avenue would cause a bottle neck later down the road as it pinches down to one lane on Moraine Avenue. Trustee Norris co mmented the Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC)has presented a number of recommendations such as electronic signage that should be included in the grant application. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the options go against the efforts to date to keep traffic out of downtown by creating parking outside the downtown corridor, approving additional shuttle improvements, and a parking garage at the Visitor Center. The options would change the character of Estes Park and the Town needs to maintain its quaint mountain character. Staff and FHU addressed the issues stating the intersection at Elkhorn/Moraine currently limits the number of movements through the intersection to approximately 900 vehicles per hour. The new configuration would almost doubl e the number of vehicles moving through the intersection. The one lane at Crags and Moraine would not be a capacity constraint as it is only at 30% capacity and would likely increase to approximately 80% with the one-way couplet. Staff would not recommend including small projects such as signage in the grant application.Staff would recommend the Town consider applying for a phased project in partnership with CDOT for the one-way couplet followed by the parking structure sometime in the future beyond the five to seven years. This would allow staff time to work through the issues associated with developing the structure.It may be appropriate to develop a Master Plan for the area in order to identify to current and future landowners the potential development. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Board in 2008 was presented with the one -way couplet by staff. He recalls the Board being adamantly against the rerouting of the roadway at the expense of homes and businesses. Trustee Koenig commented the Town needs to continue to look at options and move forward. Two-way Road The two-way road option would completely remove Highway 34 from downtown, thereby eliminating over a mile of highway from the state system. Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue through the downtown business corridor would become Town owned roadway and would be maintained by the Town moving forward.The option would be preferred by CDOT and with their match becomes the most affordable option. The highway would be reroute beginning at the Moraine/Crags intersection eastbound onto West Riverside Drive past the Post Office, onto Ivy Street, connect to East Riverside Drive, and finally reconnect to Elkhorn Avenue. The option would displace 5 to 7 businesses, 17 residences, and 28 to 62 parking spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $19.5 million. Big Thompson Trail The trail would connect Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road requiring 13 easements in addition to the current easements in place at a cost of $7.4 million. The option is the least likely to be funded by the grant. Board Discussion Trustee Elrod would favor taking advantage of the opportunity with the one-way couplet and no phasing for the parking structure. Trustee Norris stated support for a phased project with the parking structure and one - way couplet and would like to understand the control points through the design and NEPA process.He would request addressing the TVC recommendations. Trustee Koenig stated support for the one-way couplet with the phased parking structure. She commented the TVC recommendations for signage should be a separate issue addressed during the budget process. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst suggested the Board discuss the effects on the community prior to discussion options. He recommended a broader discussion on how it changes the community.He requested the Board discuss the philosophy of whether the Town should be pursuing a grant in the first place. Trustee Phipps would support the one-way couplet without the phasing of the garage and would also like to understand the control points for the project. Trustee Ericson agreed that further discussions should be heard on the affects to the community for all options;stated concern with the Town moving forward with a phase project at a cost of approximately half of the $56 million available;the TVC recommendations should be a separate discussion;and would favor the two-way couplet to provide more flexibility downtown. Mayor Pinkham stated support for the one-way couplet. There being no further business,Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 12, 2013 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 12th day of March, 2013. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Ron Norris John Phipps Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Assistant 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. CITIZEN COMMENDATION FOR MATHEW REIHING. Chief Kufeld presented longtime resident Mr. Reihing with an award for assisting the Town Police department in a lifesaving effort. PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD. Finance Officer McFarland presented the Board with the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 2011. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Kent Smith/Town citizen and owner of Smith Signs presented the Town Board with bumper stickers created to encourage citizens and visitors to ride the shuttle. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. Trustee Ericson commented the Community Development/Community Services Committee meeting has been rescheduled to March 21, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. The sewer infrastructure work and civil site work has begun at the fairgrounds to support the two new facilities, MPEC and staff barn. He requested he be removed from the Museum and Senior Center Master Plan review team and replaced by Trustee Koenig. Mayor Pinkham stated the item would be addressed at an upcoming Town Board meeting. Trustee Phipps stated the Larimer County Open Lands Board voted in favor to accept a generous gift by a land owner at the last meeting; however, the land owner has now revoked their offer. The Larimer County Small Grant program may raise the limit from $2,000 to $3,000 per year. A number of entities are eligible including schools and subdivisions and encourage citizens to apply as only one grant was awarded to Estes last year. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority would hold its monthly meeting Wednesday, March 13, 2013 in Room 203 at 8:30 a.m. and the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee would meet on Thursday, March 14, 2013 in the Board Room at 8:00 a.m. Board of Trustees – March 12, 2013 – Page 2 Trustee Koenig announced the Town continues to accept applications for the Pride Awards. The deadline to submit an application is April 1, 2013. Trustee Elrod stated a consultant has been hired to complete the Museum/Senior Master Plan. During the 6 month process the consultant would complete phone interviews, online surveys and public meetings to address how the facilities are being used and how they should be used moving forward. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Lancaster requested two members of the Board to assist staff with interviews for the Board of Appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst and Trustee Phipps volunteered. Administrator Lancaster requested two member of the Board to assist staff with the selection of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). Trustees Ericson and Phipps volunteered. Trustee Ericson was also appointed at the liaison to the Committee. The Board discussed the process that should be used to select the Committee individuals with Trustees Ericson, Norris and Koenig agreeing the selection committee should chose the individuals and recommend individuals for the full Boards approval. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst and Mayor Pinkham stated the selection process should be followed. After further discussion, it was concluded the selection committee would forward recommendations to the Town Board at the next Town Board meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated February 26, 2013, and Town Board Minutes dated February 26, 2013. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development/Community Services, February 28, 2013. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORT ITEMS: 1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Rescheduled to the April 9, 2013 Town Board meeting. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE – ELK MEADOW RV ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC DBA ELK MEADOW LODGE AND RV RESORT, 1665 COLORADO HIGHWAY 66, BEER AND WINE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all paperwork and fees were submitted to the Clerk’s Office on February 8, 2013 and filed with the state as a concurrent review. The applicant had a liquor license previously with the Town and chose not to renew the license in 2011. T.I.P.S. training was completed with the previous license; however, the Town would require training to be completed again with the new application. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the new Beer and Wine liquor license application for Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC dba Elk Meadow Lodge and RV Resort, and it passed unanimously. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY (PRPA) FOR THE FUNDING AND COORDINATION OF A Board of Trustees – March 12, 2013 – Page 3 JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY. Director Bergsten stated PRPA has coordinated a joint compensation study for the benefit of the four member municipalities. The study would provide reliable compensation information to attract and retain employees with unique skills to operate and manage an electric distribution systems in each community. The IGA would authorize PRPA to contract for and coordinate the services of a consultant to complete the study and reimburse PRPA for the services. The Town’s portion of the services would be $7,244 based on a $50,000 contract. The item was budgeted for and approved for 2013. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power Authority for a joint compensation study, and it passed unanimously. 2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN BAZAAR IN BOND PARK. Colorado Events, a non-profit Boulder based company, approached the Town to conduct a new event in Bond Park on June 8 and 9 to showcase local exhibitors selling art, handcrafted goods and other unique items. All artists would be from Colorado. The event would close the 100 block of MacGregor Avenue and the closure of the South side parking of Park Lane. Town policy requires any new events in Bond Park to be approved by the Town Board. Steve Wallace/Colorado Events Director stated the company has been organizing arts and craft shows in Boulder and Denver, and would like to expand to the Estes Park area. The event would offer local Estes Park artists and businesses a discount to participate in the event. Small informal entertainment such as a guitar player may be included in the event, as well as children’s activities. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst commented during the development of the Bond Park Master Plan the community sentiment was the park should only accommodate the current events and no new events should be planned. Any new events should be moved to the fairgrounds. The community has stated the park should not be overused and commercialized. Trustee Elrod stated the Town has invested in considerable infrastructure for the park to accommodate events and would support the new event. Trustee Norris stated the Community Development/Community Services Committee agreed the event should be permitted for 2013 and reviewed afterwards to determine if it should be continued in the future. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Elrod) to approve the Rocky Mountain Bazaar in Bond Park on June 8-9, 2013 with a report provided at the end of the summer, and it passed with Trustee Ericson voting “No”. 3. PURCHASE OF A TROLLEY FOR DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE SYSTEM. Director Winslow stated the Shuttle Committee recommended a downtown only route be established to improve service times and decrease the number of shuttles downtown serving Elkhorn Avenue, thereby reducing congestion. A trolley was suggested to serve this new route to add a “fun factor”. The Committee is seeking a gasoline powered trolley with an ADA approved chair lift with seating for approximately 25 to 30 passengers and air-conditioning. The 2013 budget contains $12,000 for the purchase/lease of a trolley. Staff has researched over 200 trolleys, which are difficult to compare, and would request the purchase of a trolley at a not to exceed amount of $60,000. A lease option would limit the use of a trolley to the shuttle season only at half the identified capacity. The purchase of a trolley would allow the vehicle to be fitted with necessary equipment permanently; use throughout the winter season for special events; provide a uniform/consistent image for the Town; and be available for charter events. Once a trolley has been identified, Rocky Board of Trustees – March 12, 2013 – Page 4 Mountain Transit has agreed to send a mechanic to inspect the vehicle; staff would negotiate storage at their facility; and Rocky Mountain Transit would conduct all maintenance and repairs as they possess the specialized skills to completed the tasks. Staff recommends funding the additional cost of the vehicle from the Vehicle Replacement Fund. The fund would be repaid annually $12,000 from the Shuttle budget for the next four years. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Elrod) to approve the purchase of a trolley for the Town shuttle system at a not to exceed cost of $60,000 as outlined above, and it passed unanimously. 4. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER (MPEC) AND STALL BARN COMMITMENT LETTER AND BID AWARD. Director Zurn stated staff has negotiated an extension of the bid by Dohn Construction from April 15, 2013 to May 31, 2013 with the approval of the Notice of Award. This would allow the Town sufficient time to secure financing for the projects. This approval would secure the low bid obtained by Dohn Construction. The Notice of Award is contingent upon the Town negotiating and closing on Certificates of Participation and executing a Contract Agreement for the projects on or before May 31, 2013. In order for the projects to remain on schedule and avoid costly delays in construction, Dohn has requested the Town allow the project to move forward with metal building shop drawings at a cost of $64,900. Staff stated a building permit would be issued for the buildings at the end of March to ensure the buildings are built under the 2003 International Building Codes as designed. Dohn has listed a number of local subcontractors that would be working on the projects; however, the bid requirements did not specify a need for local contractor participation in the projects. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Blackhurst) to approve the Notice of Award for the Multi-Purpose Event Center and the Stall Barn with contingencies outlined to Dohn Construction, and it passed unanimously. 5. 2013 ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN. Town Administrator Lancaster presented the Town Board with the 2013 organizational chart as required by the Municipal Code. The chart contains no significant changes from 2012. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve the 2013 organizational chart with the Municipal Judge and Town Attorney lines placed above the Town Administrator as they report to the Board and not the Town Administrator, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 14, 2013 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of March, 2013. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir. Bergsten, Dir. Zurn, Supt. Fraundorf, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Municipal Court Annual Report – Judge Brown provided a summary of the Municipal Court’s activity during the year 2012. He noted that the number of cases heard in municipal court dropped significantly in 2012, and attributed the decrease to a rise in the number of more serious crimes that are subsequently heard at the county and district court levels. He also noted that the number of trials heard by the municipal court is trending upward. He reported that the court’s fine rates are reviewed each year to ensure that they are comparable to the fines being charged in surrounding jurisdictions and noted that the fine structure was not adjusted in 2012. He said he speaks to both the Citizens Information Academy and the Citizens Police Academy, as well as to Park School District Civics classes during the year, and welcomed the Committee members to visit court at any time. 2. Verbal Updates – o Regional Auto Theft Team – As part of this program, the Police Department has acquired equipment to screen license plates and identify stolen plates. o School Zone – CDOT has installed double beacons on the school zone signs along Highway 7 to increase visibility. UTILITIES. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. 2013 L&P Capital Projects – Interim Line Supt. Lockhart discussed the capital projects charter for 2013. Projects in two separate areas were chosen due to high outage and maintenance concerns. The Fall River/Big Thompson project will involve trenching and undergrounding of two circuits. Approximately 3,000 feet of overhead lines will be buried as well as the service to six homes. The Allenspark Project will address wind damage to lines, poles, and crossarms in the area of Big Owl Road. 50 poles will be replaced and approximately 12,000 feet of #2 tree cable will be installed. Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 14, 2013 – Page 2 PUBLIC WORKS. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Bond Park Construction Update – Engineer Ash reported that the contractor for Bond Park has been on a three-month winter break per the submitted schedule. Work is scheduled to resume with increased activity on site including concrete flatwork and pavers installed along Elkhorn Avenue; electrical conduit and irrigation system installation; continued construction of the pavilion; re-sodding of disturbed turf; and installation of landscaping beds, benches, and signage. The contractor is confident that the work will be completed on schedule. The Committee requested that Engineer Ash work with PIO Rusch on a press release to update the public on the Bond Park improvements and the phases remaining to be completed. In addition, Engineer Ash noted that the stakeholders group will be reconvened to discuss the final phases of the improvements. 2. Verbal Updates – o Ribbon Cutting / Ground Breaking – Dir. Fortini has been working with the Woman’s Club on the wording of plaques to be included in the Pavilion in Bond Park. The Committee suggested staff consider scheduling a ribbon cutting upon completion of the pavilion, as well as a ground-breaking for the stall barn facility and the multi-purpose event center (MPEC). Dir. Zurn stated construction of the buildings at the fairgrounds will likely begin during the first week of June. There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:31 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2013 - 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners John Tucker, Betty Hull, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Tucker, Hull, Wise, Bowers, Hills, and Murphree Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson, Town Board Liaison Elrod Absent: None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 25 people in attendance. Chair Klink introduced newly appointed Commissioner Steve Murphree, a Town representative who will be serving a four-year term. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Klink stated the new Chair must be a representative living within the Town limits. The vice-chair must be a representative living outside the Town limits, and within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area. Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Tucker (seconded by Commissioner Bowers) to serve as Chair. As no other nominations were received, it was declared by acclamation that Commissioner Tucker would serve as the Chair of the Estes Valley Planning Commission for 2013-2014 (two-year term). Commissioner Tucker nominated Commission Hull (seconded by Commissioner Bowers) for the position of Vice-Chair. As no other nominations were received, it was declared by acclamation that Commissioner Hull would serve as Vice-Chair of the Estes Valley Planning Commission for 2013-2014 (two-year term). 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, December 18, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOTS 1 & 2, WITT SUBDIVISION, REZONE FROM A-1 ACCOMMODATIONS TO A- ACCOMMODATIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOTS 1 & 2, 900 W. Elkhorn Ave (Fall River Lodge) Bob Fixter, applicant, presented a slide show. He explained the current A-1 zone regulations do not allow day use of the property by those not staying overnight. It was his desire to allow daytime meetings for community organizations and other small celebrations to be held on the property, attended by guests who may or may not be overnight guests, with a limit of up to 80 people per event. Mr. Fixter reviewed the types of events and numbers of guests expected for the upcoming year, and stated there are house rules guests are expected to follow. He stated his willingness to construct a landscape buffer for the neighbors, if needed. Mr. Fixter addressed the written public comment in opposition of the rezoning: He explained there would not be multiple events scheduled on the same date, limiting the amount of traffic coming in and out of the property. He stated the proposed development agreement would address parking and allow the use of Lot 2 without creating an amended RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 15, 2013 plat of Lots 1 and 2, and is working with Attorney White on the document. Mr. Fixter reviewed the zoning history of the property, stating he requested and received a zone change in 2011 from CO–Commercial Outlying to A-1–Accommodations. With that rezoning, he did not realize the exclusion of guests not staying on the property. The building change of use (from a B & B to a small hotel) resulted in the requirement of compliance with the fire code, and sprinklers were added. Mr. Fixter stated it was important to maintain the property so it would continue to attract wildlife. He stated the proximity of the property to downtown made it attractive for small gatherings, and believed there was a definite need in the area for accommodations of that size. Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated there were two components to the application: 1) rezoning of Lots 1 & 2, Witt Subdivision from A-1–Accommodations (low intensity) to A–Accommodations (highway corridor); and 2) to enter into a development agreement to allow Lots 1 and 2 to function as one lot (instead of combining the lots through an amended plat); establish allowed uses, location, and intensity of uses on both lots; and allow the pathways that were constructed on Lot 2 to remain outside the platted limits of disturbance. Director Chilcott stated the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the pathways as a whole on October 2, 2012, and approved the request to allow them to remain. Director Chilcott stated staff supported the request to rezoning from A-1 to A, provided the development agreement addressed the uses, location, and intensity of uses to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties. She stated in 2003, the lot was a 3.5 acre parent parcel, Lot 2 of Seybold Subdivision, zoned CO since 1973. The property was developed in 1994-95 as a single-family dwelling and used as a Bed & Breakfast. In 2003, there was a subdivision that divided the 3.5 acre parcel into four lots, named Witt Subdivision. Lots 3 and 4 were developed with single-family homes. In 2011, Bob & Carol Fixter purchased Lots 1 and 2 and requested a zoning change from CO to A-1. This was a downzoning which removed the CO allowed uses (restaurants, bars, retail, etc). and allowed the property to be used as a small hotel. She confirmed Mr. Fixter’s statement that A-1 zone districts do not allow guests on site that are not staying on site. Director Chilcott stated staff support for the rezoning was based on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan’s guidelines to support this type of development in the Fall River Sub-Area, more specifically residential and accommodations uses as a buffer between commercial and residential zone districts. The development agreement would limit the land use to minimize impacts with the adjacent neighborhood. Director Chilcott stated there was extensive public comment that expressed concern about the neighborhood compatibility and adverse impacts. Some of these concerns could be addressed in the development agreement. Director Chilcott stated staff originally recommended a continuance of the request to allow the development agreement to be finalized. After additional thought, staff recommended approval of the rezoning request, with the modification of the development agreement being listed as a condition of approval. If the Planning Commission voted to continue the request, staff recommended a continuance of one month. Director Chilcott stated the development agreement modifications would demonstrate exactly how the limitations would be applied to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties. The agreement would need to include, but would not be limited to: establish the allowed uses and locations, maximum number of people allowed, intensity of uses (including pathways), hours of operation, describe the use of the patio and hot tub (currently not approved for commercial use). Although the location is on a highway corridor and suitable for A– Accommodations zoning, staff recommended scaling back the use due to the potential for neighborhood impact. Director Chilcott elaborated on the use of Lot 2, stating this lot was considered undeveloped. According to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) you cannot have an accessory use until you have a principal use (house, small hotel, etc). A parking area would be considered an accessory use. One option to remedy the situation would be to create an amended plat, combining Lots 1 and 2. The applicant chose another option, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 15, 2013 which would create a development agreement itemizing the uses for Lot 2. With a development agreement, the property owners could dissolve the development agreement in order to sell or develop the lot. Director Chilcott stated the current development agreement submitted by the applicant needs revisions. Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering spoke to the Planning Commission about the design of the parking area. Director Chilcott stated the parking area on Lot 2 would need to be paved. Comments from Commissioners to Mr. Fixter included concerns about parking, noise, number of guests, full use of property, risk of fires by guests who smoke, control of guests, etc. Public Comment Ken Wynstra/adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated he would have opposed the original rezoning if he had known the applicant wanted to have large groups/weddings there. His concerns were: no other businesses along that stretch of the highway, crowd noise, fire danger, enforcement of regulations, neighborhood impact. Jacqueline Love/adjacent property owner opposed the rezoning and development agreement. She stated A–Accommodations zoning was primarily for highways, and most of the properties on West Elkhorn are residential. Her concerns were: temporary tents for large groups, noise, exterior lighting, ingress and egress of vehicles, potential use every day of the week, enforcement of regulations. She stated the development code was designed to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Johanna Darden/Town resident was opposed to allowing access to the river area for 80 people. Ray Betka/Town resident spoke in favor of the rezoning. He stated the applicant has improved the property. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to make decisions based on fact, not emotion. He stated the economic impact of allowing small groups would be good for Estes Park. John Edy/adjacent property owner was opposed to the rezoning. He purchased his property believing it would remain a residential neighborhood. He would be more supportive of the rezoning if all guests stayed inside the building. His concerns were: proximity of the proposed parking area to his home, use of the river by guests, and noise. Mr. Edy encouraged the Commissioners to take note of the petition against using the property as a wedding site. Larry Wuellner/adjacent property owner opposed the rezoning. He appreciated Mr. Edy’s comments, stating this was a human rights issue for the neighboring residents. His main concerns were: noise, preservation of peace in the neighborhood, and allowance of large groups. He stated most Estes Park residents choose to live here because of the surroundings, and was opposed to the change the rezoning would create. Kathleen Baker/Town resident was opposed to the rezoning. She was unaware of the possibility of the rezoning when she sold property to the adjacent property owners. She stated it was unfair to enhance the value of one person’s property at the expense of many others. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Director Chilcott stated more work was needed on the parking plan, as staff would not support an unimproved parking area. There was discussion among staff and the commission, with comments including, but not limited to: property is located in a residential neighborhood, impact on adjacent properties and their value could be severe, does not meet threshold for Planning Commission to consider a zoning change, noise traveling along the river could be detrimental to neighbors, A-1 zone district used as a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 15, 2013 buffering mechanism between high density and residential use. Commissioners Wise and Tucker would not support the rezoning request. It was moved and seconded (Wise/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board DISAPPROVAL of the proposed rezoning and development agreement for Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Murphree voted against the disapproval. Chair Tucker declared a 10-minute recess at 3:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:42 p.m. Commissioner Klink recused himself from reviewing the next item on the agenda. He is the owner/applicant of the project. Commissioner Klink left the dais. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW 2012-07, KENWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 2A OF LARIMER TERMINALS AMENDED PLAT, 1000 AND 1050 Kenwood Lane and 444 Elm Road. Senior Planner Shirk introduced Traci Shambo and Clint Jones from the Larimer County Engineering, who toured the property last week and would be providing comments on drainage and paving. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He explained the request fell under the Special Review guidelines because of outdoor storage. Planning Commission would be the recommending body, with the final decision made by the Board of County Commissioners. Planner Shirk stated the request was to twofold: 1) to allow storage of the bus fleet used in the National Park, and 2) to provide general warehouse/storage space for public use. He stated nearby properties are zoned I-1–Restricted Industrial. Large lots to the east are single-family residential, while vacant land to the north is in conservation easement. Planner Shirk stated the stormwater drainage would be located on the southeast portion of the lot. A dedicated drainage easement would be required to account for the stormwater runoff. Planner Shirk stated Lot 1A was currently developed and contained a propane storage facility; Lot 3A was currently undeveloped and would contain the stormwater quality pond. Lot 2A would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include construction of the western building, a 50’ X 170’ metal building containing four units. Proposed uses for this building would include a bus maintenance facility and additional rental space for local contractors and other local “back-door” operations for equipment storage, etc. The bus fleet would be stored near the east property line, north of proposed building two. Phase 2 would include construction of the eastern building, a 40’ x 150’ metal building with similar uses to Phase I. Planner Shirk outlined the review criteria for Special Review applications. This review requires the applicant mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application was routed to all affected agencies. Rocky Mountain National Park personnel recommended using a natural color exterior paint to blend in with the surroundings and minimize neighborhood impact. Planner Shirk stated the proposed use of bus storage would require screening from adjacent properties. In this case, the applicant owns the adjacent property, and screening would not be required. Future building two would be the screening mechanism to the south. Because of the project phasing, Planner Shirk suggested the Planning Commission make specific findings to accounting for interim screening. The proposed use of vehicle storage is very common in this neighborhood, most of which were developed prior to the adoption of the EVDC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 15, 2013 Planner Shirk stated the I-1 zone district has a maximum lot coverage requirement of 80%. Based on that standard, the EVDC would require extensive landscaping involving trees, shrubs, and underground irrigation. The applicant requested an alternative landscaping plan due to the difficulty in planting and maintaining live plants in the area. To date, the Community Development Department had not received the detailed landscaping plan. The applicant would have the opportunity to show the Board of County Commissioners the detailed landscaping plan, if the Planning Commission recommended moving forward with the project. Planner Shirk stated the applicant requested waivers to road paving standards. The road to the property is privately maintained with public access dedication. There is no road maintenance association. The applicant also requested waivers to paving the parking area within the site. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC paving standards include curb and gutter, engineered drainage swales, etc. Current construction plans do not address paving. Planner Shirk stated staff found six findings, and suggested the Planning Commission show additional findings to address screening, landscaping, and outdoor storage to be resolved prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff also recommended six conditions of approval, listed below. Public Comment Traci Shambo/Larimer County Engineering explained the paving standards for industrial areas. She stated industrial areas with road use by heavy equipment commonly have paved roads, and the paving of such roads required drainage retention, paved parking areas, etc. These impervious coverage requirements are a standard development practice. Discussion between Ms. Shambo and the Commissioners occurred concerning paving standards in the EVDC and the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards. Ms. Shambo explained if paved, the road would continue to be a privately maintained road with a publicly dedicated right-of-way, and a maintenance agreement would need to be in place. Larimer County Engineering supported paving Kenwood Lane and the onsite parking area, as these were an EVDC requirement. Larimer County was not supportive of the appeal, citing long-term maintenance, dust suppression, and trips per day. Specific to this site, the applicant owns the three lots closest to the nearest paved road. The County was concerned that allowing this waiver would set a precedent for any other new development that comes to this area. There was discussion about the possibility of waiving the paving requirements, with Town Attorney White stating the Planning Commission could recommend the waiver to the County Commission. The final decision would be made by the County Commissioners. Ms. Shambo stated oiling the road would not be a long-term resolution with this type of use. Ms. Shambo clarified the County Engineering Department would not support a waiver from paving requirements. She recommended the road paving and parking lot paving be two separate findings. Ms. Shambo stated the County Engineering Department recommendation was based on the property not being annexed into the Town, and there were not many options to get the road paved except with development-related requirements. While the applicant proposed creating a public improvement district for the maintenance of the roads, the County Engineering Department would not be supportive of such a request because the Engineering Department was not inclined to administer an improvement district for a commercial industrial park that has roads not meeting the minimum criteria for roads as stated in the EVDC. She explained there are other options for road maintenance. If the Planning Commission supported the waiver, the County Engineering Department would request a condition of approval requiring the applicant to meet the other minimum road specification requirements as stated in Appendix D of the EVDC (road surface, width, drainage) from Elm Road up to and through Lot 2. Planner Shirk stated those requirements should be listed as findings. Ms. Shambo further explained the County Engineering Department was not supportive of the waiver of the parking area, stating the typical expectation of the County was to have paved parking areas for this type of commercial industrial use. Paved lots minimize maintenance, drainage, and safety issues. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 15, 2013 Comments made by the Commissioners included, but are not limited to: rock requires little maintenance, and the road would require more maintenance if it was paved; the County Commissioners need to be aware of the existing surface; staff and Commission recommendations would be made clear to the Board of County Commissioners; support for landscaping requirement waiver, support for screening waiver. Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative was in favor of waiving the paving requirement, stating other businesses in the area are unpaved. The applicant proposed signage for individual parking spaces in the parking area, and stated the handicap accessible spaces would be paved and labeled. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant was willing to commit to lay down road base across Lots 1 and 2. Positive drainage would be created alongside the road. Additionally, the same type of surface would cover the parking area. A detention pond sufficient to county standards would be built. The neighbors are supportive of the waivers. Doug Klink/applicant stated the drainage pond would be a huge improvement for downhill property owners. Not having to pave the road and parking areas would make the project economically feasible. He stated a portion of the building permit fees are added to a county improvement fund that would specifically allocate those funds to the district containing the Estes Valley. He shared information about the road leading to the County shops and how it was constructed and maintained, stating it does not meet County standards. He was appreciative of the County Engineering Department’s attendance at the meeting. Johanna Darden/Town resident was in support of the project as long as dust was controlled. Ed Kitchen/adjacent property owner stated the project would be a definite improvement to the area. He stated paving the road would be impractical. He agreed the area could use dust control applications. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion regarding the wording of the findings and conditions. Findings After review, staff and the Planning Commission found: 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the EVDC, except for the requirement to pave the road. 2. The applicant requests a waiver to road paving standards. This waiver is justified in the Larimer Terminals industrial neighborhood due to minimal public use of the road, use of the property, lack of road association to maintain a paved road, and the fact the existing road is granite bedrock. 3. The road should meet design standards, except for the paving requirements (e.g. width, drainage). 4. The applicant requests waiver to parking lot paving, which the Planning Commission supports. The parking lot should have all-weather surface. Waiver to parking lot paving does not affect ADA parking space requirements, which must comply with Federal standards. 5. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Engineering Department does not support the request to waive road paving standards. 6. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. 7. Neighborhood conditions provide screening of stored vehicles. 8. The proposed rock garden satisfies the intent of landscaping requirements based on watering, soil conditions, and neighborhood conditions. The Board of County RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 15, 2013 Commissioners may approve this xeriscape plan in lieu of the standards landscaping typically required (60 trees and 180 shrubs). 9. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Conditions 1. Compliance with memos from: a. Larimer County Engineering dated December 29, 2012. b. Larimer County Building dated December 14, 2012 c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated December 26, 2012. d. Town of Estes Park Utilities and Public Works dated December 28, 2012. 2. Prior to site work, a drainage easement to account for the proposed stormwater detention facility on Lot 3A must be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk. This easement shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Park Community Development Department. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Development Construction Permit is required from the Larimer County Engineering Department. Construction plans must be approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the Development Construction Permit. (The Development Construction Permit is issued at a pre-construction meeting, which shall be coordinated through the Estes Park Community Development Department.) 4. A culvert will be required below Kenwood Lane to account for drainage. Culvert shall be included in the construction plans and the drainage report. Construction plans must account for project phasing. 5. Buildings shall be a matte finish neutral color that will blend into the reclaimed quarry north of the structure. 6. Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan two weeks prior to the County Commission hearing. 7. Maintenance agreement shall be submitted for Kenwood Lane, from the eastern limits of Lot 2A west to Elm Road, and shall include a specific maintenance schedule (e.g. frequency of blading, dust control, etc.) 8. Formatting changes: a. Add signature blocks to the development plan page (Owner, Board of County Commission). b. Rock and sculpture garden for building one to be installed with phase one (currently references phase two). c. Ensure page number is correct. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Kenwood Industrial Park Special Review 2012-07 to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and Planning Commission, and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Klink absent from the dais. Commissioner Klink returned to the dais. REPORTS Planner Shirk and Director Chilcott reported on the following pre-application conferences: 1. Outdoor Adventure Park with a proposed location just south of the Estes Park Brewery. 2. Proposed 30-unit townhome development on Moraine Avenue. The applicant is a local developer. 3. Proposed Elkhorn Tubing Hill on the Elkhorn Lodge property. Tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission review in March. Planner Shirk reported O’Reilly Auto Parts would be submitting a development plan, with construction likely to begin the winter of 2013. Planner Shirk reported no applications have been received for review by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 15, 2013 Planner Shirk reported the Stanley Meadows Amended Plat would be heard by the Town Board on January 22, 2013. The access easement agreement has been resolved and completed. Planner Shirk reported the Community Development Department received a referral for proposed land use. The Larimer County Planning Department received an application for trailhead provisions at the Longs Peak Trailhead. Proposed provisions would be adjacent to the parking lot, on private property, located just outside Rocky Mountain National Park boundaries. There being no further business, Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. ___________________________________ John Tucker, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Planner Date: March 26, 2013 RE: PRELIMINARY & FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS – TIME EXTENSION, River View Pines Condominiums, Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2 Deer Crest Subdivision, 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue – Frederick Kropp/Owner Background: This is a request for a time-extension for a condominium map approved by the Town Board on September 25, 2012. Approval automatically expired when the maps were not submitted for recording within the timeframe specified in the development code. From September 25, 2012 staff report: This is a request for a condominium subdivision of an existing eight-unit accommodations development located at 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue; no additional development is proposed. This proposal complies with the Estes Valley Development Code, and no additional improvements are required or proposed. The request before the Town Board is for both the preliminary and final condominium maps (the final plat by-passes the planning commission). Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On Tuesday August 21, 2012, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the Preliminary Plat of the River View Pines preliminary condominium map. At that time, the Planning Commission found: 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review” and 10.3 “Review Procedures.” 2. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 3. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 4. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park; The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed River View Pines Preliminary Condominium Map. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps for the River View Pines Condominium map. Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Planner Date: March 26, 2013 RE: SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-01, OPEN AIR ADVENTURE PARK, Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision; 470 Prospect Village Drive; Tim Kreutzer/Applicant Background: This is a request to develop an outdoor challenge course. The course would consist of a series of raised platforms connected by various ropes challenges. The development would be served by a small office building, the ropes course, an eighteen space parking lot, sidewalks, and landscaping. Business hours would vary weekdays and weekends, and would open between 9:00-10:00 AM and close between 6:00-6:30 PM. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On Tuesday March 19, 2013, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss Special Review 2013-01 “Open Air Adventure Park”. At that time, the Planning Commission found: 1. With the exception of the minor modifications (building entrance location, driveway spacing), the development plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC (§3.8.D). 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (§3.8.D). 3. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment (§3.5.B). For example, business hours would end in the early evening, which means there would be no exterior lighting. 4. The requested modifications advance the goals and purposes of the EVDC and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site (§3.7.A.2.b). For example, the lot is not big enough to allow for compliance with the 150-foot driveway spacing requirement and the property could not be developed without a modification to this waiver. 5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 6. In accordance with Section 3.2.D.2, ‘a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board’s agenda.’ The required revisions are due within thirty days of Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (one absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Special Review 2013-01 “Open Air Adventure Park” CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with affected agency memos: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District Feb 12 2013 memo b. Water Department (Jeff Boles) memo dated 2/21/13 c. Public Works (Kevin Ash) email dated February 22, 2013 (Note: the recommendation of denial has been retracted based on revised plans submitted March 13). d. Planning Division (Dave Shirk) Development Code Analysis dated March 14, 2013 2. Submittal of a revised development plan addressing the following: a. Correct the Planning Commission Chair signature block (John Tucker is chair, not Doug Klink). b. Remove concrete sidewalk cross section, trail cross-section, detention cross- section, cross pan cross-section, sign details, and curb/gutter details. These items were necessary during initial review, but now should be removed from the development plan and shown on the construction plans. c. Sidewalk widths must be 8-feet wide, and all sidewalks are to be hard-surfaced. d. Parking lot design shall be modified to ensure vehicles do not have to back into public right-of-way Sample Motion: I move for the approval (or denial) of the proposed Special Review 2013-01 “Open Air Adventure Park” subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Public Works Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott A. Zurn P.E. Director of Public Works Date: March 21, 2013 RE: Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application Background: Over the last week two public meetings and a work session with the Town Board were held to describe potential projects that would fit the criteria of Map-21 Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant. The FLAP grant gives a new and unique source of funding that can potentially address numerous transportation and transit needs in Estes Park. The first public meeting was by invitation only to owners and tenants of properties that may directly or indirectly be affected by the four potential projects and the second meeting was open to the overall public. During both of these meetings the public was shown four projects and asked to prioritize each of the projects in order of importance including an option to do nothing. The summary of these prioritizations is attached for reference. The results of these meetings and discussions with the public and Town Board showed interest in pursuing FLAP grant monies. These meetings further indicated a desire to apply for funding for the highway geometry modifications noted as a one-way couplet, and secondly, a phase two consisting of a transit parking structure located at the current Post Office parking lot (see attached drawings, renderings and presentation materials). Information regarding preliminary project costs, property impacts and comparisons for all four alternatives is also attached for reference. The matching funds required for the FLAP grant would bet met by the Colorado Department of Transportation under the One-Way Couplet Project. The future phased project described as the Transit Parking Structure would require matching funds to be matched by the Town of Estes Park. As is with any federally funded project, the Town, if successful in receiving grant monies, will be required to meet many milestones of planning, public input and environmental clearances before construction can begin (see attached process and environmental criteria for reference). Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with the grant application for FLAP funding for the One- Way Couplet Project and including a future phase for consideration of the Transit Parking Structure Project. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial that staff proceed with the application for FLAP funding on behalf of the Town of Estes Park for the One-Way Couplet Project and include a future phase for consideration the Transit Parking Structure Project.  Voter Form Results        Parking Structure  115  #1    One‐Way Couplet  170  #2    Two‐Way Roadway  237  #4    Big Thompson Trail  222  #3    Or  297  as option to do nothing at all #5      Summary of Alternative Comparison   +Federal Lands Access ProgramFederal Lands Access ProgramEstes Park Grant OpportunitiesMarch 21, 2013 +Tonight’s Topicso g s op cs„Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)„Trafficandparkingproblemsandgoals„Traffic and parking problems and goals„Potential Estes Park FLAP projects„Your input and prioritization +Federal Lands Access Program ede a a ds ccess og a (FLAP)„FLAP was created through signing of MAP‐21„Goal of the FLAP is to improve transportation facilities thatprovideaccesstofederallandsthat provide access to federal lands„5 –7 year program of transportation projects with  approximately $56 million for Colorado„FLAP supplements state and local resources – CDOT has verbally committed to partner with Estes Park and provide matching fundspg„Preference is given to projects which provide access to Federal high‐use recreational sites or Federal economic generatorsgenerators +FLAP Evaluation Criteria aua o C e aProjects should: „Support the economic vitality„Increase the safety of the transportation system„Increase the security of the transportation system„Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight„Protect and enhance the environment „Enhance the integration and connectivity of systemgyy„Promote efficient system management and operation„Emphasizethepreservationoftheexistingtransportation„Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system +Potential FLAP Project o e a ojec Opportunities„Downtown Parking Structure„One‐wayCouplet„One‐way Couplet„Two‐way US 36 on Riverside Alignment„Big Thompson Trail +ParkingagStructure Option +Parking Structure Optionag Sucue Opo +One-way Couplet OptionOneway Couplet Option +One-way Couplet OptionOeay Coup e Op o +Two-way Roadway Optionoay oad ay Op o +Potential Traffic Growthoe a a c Go„Up to 40% increase in peak period traffic capacitypy„This increase accommodates RMNPs lti til blitultimate available resource capacity +Big Thompson Trail Option –West gp pSection„Figure of west 1/3 of alignment +Big Thompson Trail Option –Middle gp pSection„Figure of middle 1/3 of alignment +Big Thompson Trail Option –East gp pSection„Figure of east 1/3 of alignment +Summary of Alternative Su a y o e a e Comparison +Recommendationeco e da o„Parking Structure and Transit Facility„Increases downtown parking supply to facilitate visitor growth„ConsolidatesdowntownparkingtoreducerecirculationConsolidates downtown parking to reduce recirculation„Encourages visitors returning from RMNP to patronize downtown businesses„Provide opportunity for redevelopmentProvideopportunityforredevelopment„One‐way Couplet„Increases downtown peak vehicular capacity by up to 40%„Promotes efficient system operation „Improves transit travel time and reliability„Improves air qualitypqy„Provide opportunity for redevelopment„Preserves existing transportation system +Community input and Co u y pu a d prioritization▪Each proposal was ranked from 1 –5, with 1 being the mostdesirablemost desirable▪Comments were taken on the back of the forms Public Involvement Chart NEPA RESOURCES LIKELY TO REQUIRE EVALUATION Land Use – changes and conversions in land use will be evaluated. Right-of-Way Acquisition – evaluate the number of property impacts for business, residential, including temporary and permanent easements. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) – impacts to resources including publicly owned parks, trails, recreational facilities and wildlife refuges will be addressed as well as impacts to properties purchased or improved with Land and Water Conservation funds. Noise – perform appropriate noise impact analyses and mitigation evaluations in accordance with CDOT guidelines. Air – perform air quality analysis to confirm that project will be in conformance with applicable air quality standards. Historic Resources – historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are greater than 50 years of age will be evaluated to determine historic significance, including paleontological and archaeological resources. Water Resources – associated with the Big Thompson River including floodplains, water quality will be evaluated for changes and impacts. Biological Resources – address impacts to wildlife, trees, vegetation and aquatic species from implementation of the project. Wetlands – impacts to wetlands and riparian areas associated with the Big Thompson River. Hazardous materials – assess adjacent and impacted properties for the presence of hazardous materials (leaking underground storage tanks, landfills, etc.). Visual Resources and Aesthetics – evaluate the change in visual landscape from key observation points within the project area and complete photo renderings to show changes. Economic – analyze the economic, employment and tax base affected by project (retail sales, opportunity for development, tax revenues, relocation employment etc.). Community Resources/Environmental Justice – identify changes in community cohesion and community transportation resources. Identify impacts to minority and low-income populations. Geologic Resources – identify geologic/soil resources and potential negative impacts that they could have on the project. Ensure that their natural values and visual aesthetics are protected. Public Works Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, P.E., Director of Public Works Date: March 26, 2013 RE: Transportation Advisory Committee Appointments Background: In January, the Town Board authorized staff to create a new Town advisory committee to the board. The new committee is titled the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). As part of that action a mission statement was approved and is stated as follows: The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Committee is to: support comprehensive transportation planning that enhances the quality of life for the citizens, businesses and visitors of the Town of Estes Park; support the continued safety and maintenance of the Town of Estes Park Transportation System; review and recommend transportation related capital projects that implement the Board of Trustees’ transportation goals. The Committee will act as a sounding board to the Department of Public Works and the Board of Trustees on transportation planning, construction and maintenance issues including: roads, transit, trails, pedestrian access, parking and air quality. The Committee will support the Town Board and staff in local and regional transportation planning and promote cooperative efforts to resolve transportation issues in the Estes Valley. Staff has advertised for TAC applicants and in response the Town received twenty applications. A selection committee, consisting of staff and two trustees, reviewed the applications. Based on the quality of the applicants and the desire to have broad representation of the community on the committee, the selection committee recommends expanding the committee from 7 to 9 members and recommends appointment of the following applicants to be appointed on the nine member TAC. Amy Schwarzbach Belle Morris Byron Holmes Gregg Rounds Cory LaBianca Kimberly Campbell Tom Widawski Ann Finley Stan Black The selection committee chose these individuals with confidence that this is a group of citizens who represent the diversity and varied interests of the community. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: The Estes Park TAC selection committee recommends the appointment of the above listed members with staggered terms. Ann Finley, Stan Black and Belle Morris appointment for two years; Cory LaBianca, Gregg Rounds and Kimberly Campbell appointment for three years: Amy Schwarzbach,Tom Widawski and Byron Holmes appointed for four years. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the expansion of the Committee from 7 to 9 members and that Ann Finley, Stan Black and Belle Morris be appointed to two year terms; Cory LaBianca, Gregg Rounds and Kimberly Campbell appointed to three year terms: Amy Schwarzbach, Tom Wadawski and Byron Holmes appointed four year terms on the Estes Park Transportation Advisory Committee. PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director Date: March 26, 2013 RE: Construction Oversight Services for MPEC & Stall Barn Background: As a result of the scale and schedule of the Stanley Fairgrounds projects, staff is seeking assistance with the construction oversight of these projects. Staff has solicited hourly rates for construction administrative services (see attached scope of services) from local licensed Architects and Architectural firms. These services will focus on assisting in the administration, coordination and inspection of the projects. These services will assist Public Works in expediting the project and further assuring contractor compliance and overall project quality. Four contacts were made to local Architecture firms and three responses were received. Each firm was asked to stipulate an estimate of hours anticipated to accomplish the job however this was not used to determine the lowest fee but rather a variable used by Public Works to determine if an understanding of the scope and scale of the project was understood. The lowest hourly fee was used to determine the most competitive bid for construction oversight services. The following is a summary of proposals received 1. Thorp Associates: Principle I $120/hr Principle II $110/hr Project Architect $100/hr Job Captain $ 75/hr Cad Drafter $ 65/hr Office admin $ 50/hr 2. T.W. Beck Architects Project Architect $135/hr Project Manager $ 95/hr Cad/administrative $ 75/hr 3. Space into Place Principle Architect $ 79.5/hr (Note: all services to be provided by Principle Architect) Based on these proposed hourly rates Public Works recommends award of an hourly based contract to Space into Place Architecture for a Not to Exceed Contract of $50,000.00 Budget: This project is to be funded by the Community Reinvestment Fund (various capital accounts). (204-5400-544-3221) Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval to enter into a contract with Space into Place Architecture for the construction oversight services for the MPEC and Stall Barn for a Not to Exceed amount of $50,000.00. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to enter into a contract with Space into Place Architecture for the construction oversight services for the MPEC and Stall Barn for a Not to Exceed amount of $50,000.00. Consultant Contract 1 of 8 Town of Estes Park Public Works Department AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 23 day of March, 2012, by and between the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado (the “Town”) and Space into Place Architecture an independent contractor (“Consultant”). WHEREAS, the Town requires professional engineering services related to the; MPEC & STALL Barn Construction Administrative Services; and WHEREAS, Consultant has held itself out to the Town as having the requisite expertise and experience to perform the required engineering services; NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Consultant shall furnish all labor and materials required for the complete and prompt execution and performance of its duties, obligations, and responsibilities (the “Work”) which are described or reasonably implied in the Consultant’s proposal dated March 15, 2013, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. No material change to the Scope of Services, including any additional compensation, shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of action. II. REPORTS, DATA, AND WORK PRODUCT A. The Town shall provide Consultant with reports and such other data as may be available to the Town and reasonably required by Consultant to perform the Scope of Services. All documents provided by the Town to Consultant shall be returned to the Town. Consultant is authorized by the Town to retain copies of such data and materials at Consultant's expense. B. Other than sharing information with designated third parties as previously directed by the Town, no project information shall be disclosed by Consultant to third parties without prior written consent of the Town or pursuant to a lawful court order directing such disclosure. C. The Town acknowledges that the documents created by Consultant for the Project, including but not limited to drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials (the “Work Product”), are instruments of professional service. Nevertheless, Consultant Contract 2 of 8 copies of the Work Product shall be provided to the Town and other contractors and subcontractors shall be authorized to use and reproduce applicable portions of the Work Product that are appropriate to use in the execution of their work related to the Project. The Work Product shall become the property of the Town upon completion of the Work. Consultant, however, shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any other proprietary property and all rights to any intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the Work. D. Consultant shall provide to the Town electronic versions of the Work Product in the format directed by the Town’s RFP. III. COMPENSATION AND FINAL SETTLEMENT A. In consideration for the completion of the Work by Consultant, the Town shall pay Consultant an amount equal to hourly rate and a not to exceed firm-fixed price extended in the proposal dated March 15,2013, which is Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000). The amount specified herein shall include the fees and expenses anticipated to be incurred by Consultant in performing all services hereunder, as described in the proposal. The amount specified herein shall exclude the fees and expenses anticipated to be incurred by others in performing the work described in the proposal. B. If, on the basis of the Town’s observation of the Work and the Town's review of the final invoice and accompanying documentation as required by this Agreement, the Town is satisfied that the Work has been completed and Consultant’s other obligations under this Agreement have been fulfilled, the Town will, within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the final invoice pay the amount due. Otherwise, the Town will return the invoice to Consultant, indicating in writing the reasons for refusing to schedule final settlement, in which case Consultant shall make the necessary corrections and resubmit the invoice. IV. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK Within seven days of receipt of a Notice to Proceed, Consultant shall commence work as set forth in the Scope of Services or that portion of such work as is specified in said Notice. Except as may be changed in writing by the Town, the Scope of Services shall be complete and Consultant shall furnish the Town the specified deliverables as provided in the proposal. V. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Work, holds all professional licenses required by law to perform the Work, and has all requisite corporate authority to enter into this Agreement. B. The Work shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Work shall be done in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. C. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall, without Consultant Contract 3 of 8 additional compensation, correct or resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional practice, and reimburse the Town for construction costs caused by errors and omissions which fall below the standard of professional practice. D. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of the work. Neither the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the Work shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement. E. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or work for the project designed by Consultant pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Consultant understands and agrees that the purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the project. Consultant also understands and agrees that part of the services to be provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are construction management services which require independent judgment of Consultant in the representation of the Town with regard to construction of the project. Consultant understands and agrees that the Town is relying upon the independent judgment of Consultant with regard to the services provided herein. F. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise, Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services. Upon execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section XI, L. VI. INSURANCE A. Consultant agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by law. B. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of Consultant to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the Town. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. 1. Worker's compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable law for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Agreement, and Employer's Liability insurance with minimum limits of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) each accident, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) disease – policy limit, and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) disease – each Consultant Contract 4 of 8 employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the worker's compensation requirements of this paragraph. 2. Commercial general liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision, and shall be endorsed to include the Town and the Town's officers, and employees as additionally insured. No additional insured endorsement shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. 3. Professional liability insurance with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each claim and one million dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate. C. Any insurance carried by the Town, its officers, its employees, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Consultant. Consultant shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy. D. Consultant shall provide to the Town a certificate of insurance, completed by Consultant's insurance agent, as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect. The certificate shall identify this Agreement and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled, terminated, or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the Town. The Town reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. E. Failure on the part of Consultant to procure or maintain the insurance required herein shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the Town may immediately terminate this Agreement, or at its discretion, the Town may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the Town shall be repaid by Consultant to the Town upon demand, or the Town may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Consultant from the Town. VII. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, agents, employees and assigns from and against all claims, liability, damages, losses, expenses and demands, including attorney's fees, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which arise out of the negligent act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other negligent fault of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of Consultant or of any subcontractor of Consultant, or which arise out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of Consultant or of any employee of any subcontractor of Consultant. In any and all claims against Town or any of its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, agents, employees or assigns, by any employee of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose act any of them may be liable, Consultant Contract 5 of 8 the indemnification obligation under this Section VII shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Consultant or any subcontractor under worker’s compensation actions, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. In the event it becomes necessary for the Town to bring any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to recover any damages the Town may incur as a result of the breach of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, defective work, and the Town prevails in such litigation, Consultant shall pay the Town its reasonable attorneys’ fees as determined by the court. VIII. TERMINATION This Agreement shall terminate at such time as the Work is completed and the requirements of this Agreement are satisfied, or upon the Town's providing Consultant with seven (7) days advance written notice, whichever occurs first. If the Agreement is terminated by the Town's issuance of written notice of intent to terminate, the Town shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of all work previously authorized and completed prior to the date of termination. If, however, Consultant has substantially or materially breached this Agreement, the Town shall have any remedy or right of set-off available at law and equity. If the Agreement is terminated for any reason other than cause prior to completion of the Work, any use of documents by the Town thereafter shall be at the Town's sole risk, unless otherwise consented to by Consultant. Nothing herein shall constitute a multiple fiscal year obligation pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Town’s obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation by the Town Board of the Town. Any failure of the Town Board annually to appropriate adequate monies to finance the Town’s obligations under this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement at such time as such then-existing appropriations are to be depleted. Notice shall be given promptly to Consultant of any failure to appropriate such adequate monies. IX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Consultant shall disclose any personal or private interest related to property or business within the Town. Upon disclosure of any such interest, the Town shall determine if the interest constitutes a conflict of interest, including Section V-E. If the Town determines that a conflict of interest exists, the Town may treat such conflict of interest as a default and terminate this Agreement. X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all personnel assigned by Consultant to perform work under the terms of this Agreement shall be, and remain at all times, employees or agents of Consultant for all purposes. Consultant shall make no representation that it is a Town employee for any purposes. XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall be brought in Larimer County, Colorado. Consultant Contract 6 of 8 B. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement. C. Integration. This Agreement and any attached exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between Consultant and the Town, superseding all prior oral or written communications. D. Third Parties. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. E. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class United States Mail, addressed as follows: The Town: Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department Scott Zurn, P.E., Director of Public Works PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3582 Consultant: Consultant Contact name Address Address Phone number F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. G. Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the parties. H. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the parties hereto, shall be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other. I. Governmental Immunity. The Town, its officers, and its employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (presently one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the Town and its officers or employees. J. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted, for work negligently or defectively performed. K. Binding Effect. The Town and Consultant each bind itself, its successors and assigns to the other party to this Agreement with respect to all rights and obligations under this Consultant Contract 7 of 8 Agreement. Neither the Town nor Consultant shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. L. Work By Illegal Aliens Prohibited. a. Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that Consultant has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101(1) (“Program”) in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. b. Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform works under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. c. Consultant hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that Consultant does not employ any illegal aliens and, if Consultant is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that Consultant shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until Consultant is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. d. Consultant is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. e. If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subcontractor and District within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. f. Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (“Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. Article 17.5. g. If Consultant violates this paragraph, District may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the District. Consultant Contract 8 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above. OWNER: CONSULTANT: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO _____________________________ By: ______________________________ By: __________________________ Mayor Title: Principal Address: _____________________ _____________________________ ATTEST: ATTEST: By: ______________________________ By: __________________________ Town Clerk (SEAL) (SEAL) Other Partners: _________________________________ _____________________________ Proposal for Construction Administration Services : Owner Representation and Quality Review - Stanley Park Fairgrounds Stall Barn and MPEC SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture EngineerIng Construction Administration Space Planning Interior Design T 303.731.3750 D 303.731.3751 www.SpaceIntoPlace.com POB 1645 Estes Park, CO 80201 solutions@SpaceIntoPlace.com March 15, 2013 Mr. Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO, CO 80517 Mr. Zurn, Thank you for requesting a proposal from us for providing assistance to you in the construction administration of the Stanley Park Fairgrounds Stall Barn and MPEC projects. We understand that we will work at your direction to provide Owner Representation and Quality Review. Twenty five years of construction administration experience will be brought to the table in facilitating and motivating timeliness in construction and reporting, accuracy and thoroughness in construction documentation and effective communication between all parties to ensure seamless project delivery. Highly qualified to perform services requested with all requisite credentials and licensures, the following experience highlights our Construction Administration expertise: • Multiple recently completed CA projects, administered according to current and project tailored AIA and CSI standards: Fresenius Medical Center , Loveland, CO (completed March, 2013); Operating Rooms 7&8 VA Medical Center, San Antonio, TX (end, 2012); Renovation of Grand Junction Third Floor, VAMC, Grand Junction, CO (beg. 2011) • Recent project experience includes a $1Million dollar complete security upgrade of doors/hardware/cabling and IT monitoring systems for the Bedford VA Medical Center in Bedford, Massachusetts • Value Engineering for over 100 projects, negotiating cost and time saving, environmentally responsible and sustainable, aesthetically amenable design adjustments • Successful negotiation and mediation of project change orders between numerous large and small contractors and governmental owners at the local, county and federal level (reconciling complex Federal Agency requirements, Joint Commission requirements, Veterans administration Requirements) • Understanding of solution oriented, construction stage, time sensitive troubleshooting based on years of experience responding to RFIs, ASIs and Change Orders • 25 years in the architectural design and construction industry in various roles, representing the Architect, the Owner and the Contractor in diverse roles As a full service Architecture and Engineering firm, SpaceIntoPlaceAD is able to provide all of the additional services that may be required in connection with the Construction Administration of these two projects. We are equipped to understand and respond to any and all conditions which may arise in the course of construction and can provide solution oriented team strategy when needed. We are proud of the work we do and enjoy being part of an accomplishing team. Proposal for Construction Administration Services : Owner Representation and Quality Review - Stanley Park Fairgrounds Stall Barn and MPEC SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture EngineerIng Construction Administration Space Planning Interior Design T 303.731.3750 D 303.731.3751 www.SpaceIntoPlace.com POB 1645 Estes Park, CO 80201 solutions@SpaceIntoPlace.com Hourly Estimate for Requested Services We are pleased to offer this schedule for the following areas of service: Project Overview and Review: Review of Project Construction Documents and meeting/tele-conference as required with Director Zurn, respective architects to familiarize and confer on preferred construction administration project approach (tracking, reporting, means of reporting, scheduling allowances, etc.). We will submit formats and standards for reporting (for approval by Director Zurn). 4.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $477.00 Value Engineering: Review /Assist Owner in Value Engineering with contractors/architects 6.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $477.00 Review/Expedite IT & Security Integration required by Town of Estes Park representatives 4.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $318.00 Conduct Weekly Owner/Architect/Contractor Meetings Preparation of Agenda; Meeting Minute production and issuance; Log Reports; Schedule Reporting [4 hours per project to include minutes and follow-up x 2 projects x 40 wks = 320 hours] 320.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $25,440.00 Construction Administration Documentation: Establish with the approval of Director Zurn, the format and method Construction Administration Logs for Submittals, RFIs, ASIs, Change Orders and any other tracking required to mobilize team communication; Maintain and facilitate with proactive notification/reminders to architects, contractors daily or as required per contract and established project standards [1.5 hour per week] 60.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $4,770.00 Review Contractor Scheduling and Progress Full project and progress schedules, report/inform team of any adjustments or delays as established and accepted by Director Zurn. [1/2 hour per week] 20.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $1,590.00 Dispute Mediation Mediation to include interpretation of construction documents, interpretation of required execution of details based on documentation and industry standards, disagreements regarding substitutions, and change order negotiations [1 hour per week] 40.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $3,180.00 Proposal for Construction Administration Services : Owner Representation and Quality Review - Stanley Park Fairgrounds Stall Barn and MPEC SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture EngineerIng Construction Administration Space Planning Interior Design T 303.731.3750 D 303.731.3751 www.SpaceIntoPlace.com POB 1645 Estes Park, CO 80201 solutions@SpaceIntoPlace.com Daily Site Visits and Construction Progress Log Monitor Daily progress of work to assess conformance with construction documentation; document special issues for communication with team members and stakeholders. Logging method and content to follow presented and recommended AIA standards, at the approval of Director Zurn. [.5 hour per day x 5 days/week x 40 weeks = 100 hours + 20 flex hours] 120.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $9,540.00 Special Inspector Performance verification/coordination Review and confirm coordination and incorporation of findings of Special Inspectors for geotechnical, concrete, field welding, structural bolts, fire sprinklers. 24.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $1,908.00 Punch List and Project Close Out 16.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $1,272.00 Town Board Meetings Up to three town board meetings to report on general progress of construction or special issues of interest to the Board 6.0 hours@ 79.50/hour $477.00 This proposal excludes design work, drafting, land surveying, specification writing, material selection, Owner supplied and other not-in-contract equipment and material installation or coordination, stake holder meetings, resolution of permitting and code compliance issues. These services will be provided at the Town’s request as additional services at the hourly rate of 79.50/hr, and shall not count toward the top-set maximum fee. Top Set Maximum Professional Fee. If your expectations on time allotment are not in alignment with those outlined above, please contact us to make adjustments as needed. Based on the 620 hour schedule of services proposed above, we propose a Top -Set Maximum fee for services listed above to be $49,290.00, to include all of the hours listed above up to a maximum of 40 weeks delivery schedule. Should the project not be completed within the 40 week schedule, a negotiated extension to the original agreement based on the hourly rates and timeframes established shall be necessary. We are very interested to be on the team for these two exciting and local projects. We look forward to working with you! Thank you, Ginny Gerhart McFarland, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP Principal SpaceIntoPlaceAD C 303-731-3751 V I R G I N I A (G I N N Y) G E R H A R T M C F A R L A N D, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP Ginny has an M.A. in Architecture and 25 years of full service architecture and construction-related experience including a Fulbright Award for architectural research in Germany. She contributes to the success of projects with a balanced knowlege of broad project goals and attention to detail. Her commitment to excellence, extraordinary customer satisfaction and quality work product have won repeat clients throughout the country. As a LEED AP she integrates sustainability and efficiency in her work. She works with and complies with governmental entities at the federal, state and local levels. Professionally Registered Architect in Colorado, Washington State + Texas; National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) certified (qualified for registration in all 50 states), LEED AP; Member, American Institute of Architects, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, Construction Specifications Institute; HIGHLIGHTED PROJECTS Solarium Dining Facility, VA Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, $.5 Million, 3,000 s.f. Dining Hall. Sr. Architect, 2010-2011 Renovation Third Floor, VA Medical Center, Grand Junction, CO. $.5Million, 5,000 s.f. hospital wing. Sr. Architect, 2010-2011 Stairwell Code Compliance Review and Design, National Institute of Science and Technology, Boulder, CO, 40 Stairwell Review. Sr. Architect, 2011. Diamond Oil Corporate Headquarters Building Caspar, WY. $8 Million, 12,000 s.f. office building. Lead Design and Project Architect, 2008-2009 Dairy Barn Documentation: Section 106 Review Ft. Lyons Medical Facility, Ft. Lyons, CO: Dairy Barn and Associated Buildings; Research, design and coordination with Federal regulations, 2009 Mid Columbia Medical Center The Dalles, OR. Consultant with KDF Architecture in Yakima WA, Developed concept for integration of Alternative Healthcare and Trational Practice Medicine model, 2001 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Renovation Third Floor , VA Medical Center, Grand Junction, CO. $.5Million, 5,000 s.f. hospital wing. Sr. Architect, 2010-2011 Fresenius Medical Center, Norther Colorado Home Therapies, Loveland, CO. $.5Million, 3,000 s.f. hospital wing. Sr. Architect, 2010-2011 Bedford VAMC Stuctural Upgrades to Boiler Building, Bedford, MA, $1 Million, 2,000 s.f. Infrastructure to Medical Campus – Central Boiler Plant Building Fuel Tank Replacement and Site Upgrades, National Institute of Science and Technology, Boulder, CO, $1M. Sr. Architect, 2012. Diamond Oil Corporate Headquarters Building Caspar, WY. $8 Million, 12,000 s.f. office building. Lead Design and Project Architect, 2008-2009 PROJECT COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT Project Manager and Lead Architect for new construction, additions and renovations for medical and health care facilities, corporate, commercial, retail, mixed use, single and multifamily residential, civic, institutional, academic, K-12 schools, higher education and religious facilities, office interiors/tenant improvement, space planning, master planning, outdoor spaces, property development studies. Mid Columbia Medical Center Healthcare Program and Concept Development, Schematic Design Conducted code research and coordinated compliance with government officials for over 150 projects Documented, Analysed (measured, drawn, researched) over 100 built structures and natural sites for reuse of buildings and environmental analysis including archival documentation for the Library of Congress Engineering Systems Coordination, Product Research and Shop Drawing review of submittals Compiled Cost Estimates for projects with budgets Administered bidding and contract negotiation process on Projects ranging from $1000 to over $8 Million Construction Administration: observation, punchlists, pay requests and reports, complete project coordination of construction phase Virginia (Ginny)Gerhart McFarland [2013] ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESIGN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY INTEGRATION Diamond Oil Corporate Headquarters Building. Caspar, WY. Integration of geothermal heat pump system in 12,000 s. f. office building. 2008-2009 Burger King LEED certification consultation for new restaurant design, Firestone, CO. 2009 Hotel and Restaurant Conversion Consultation. CO and WY. 504 Loan energy efficiency qualification requirement consultation. 2008-09 Cherry Creek Passage Townhomes. Denver, CO. 14 Unit Condo and Mixed-Use development with solar energy integration. 2008-Present on Hold. Consultation for private and public ventures in whole house energy efficient solutions, the integration of LEED and other “Green” rating systems, assessing the energy efficiency and financial aspects of projects. Multiple projects with Solar Renewable Energy integration, commercial, institutional, residential and retail. EXPERIENCE SpaceIntoPlaceAD Architecture+Design, Principal + Owner 1999-present Saunders Architects + Engineers, Inc., Director of Operations 2010-2012 Jim Pool Architects Granby, Colorado Aug 2004-April 2005 KDF Architecture Yakima, WA 1994, 2000-2001 Davis Opfer Raab Architecture 1997-1999 Schmidt Copeland Parker Stevens, Inc. 1987- 1989 Historic American Engineering Survey, National Park Service Summer 1992 Architecturbüro Böhm Cologne, Germany 1990 Blatchford Architects Cleveland, Ohio Aug 1990 to Apr 1991; John Brown & Assoc. 1987 Architekturbüro Lämmlin Constance, Germany Feb 1990 to Jun 1990 EDUCATION University of Washington Seattle 1991-1997 M.A. in Architecture 1997; Thesis: Reconciliation of Architecture and Preservation: Continuity in the Culture of Place, Stralsund, Germany; Certificate in Preservation Planning and Design; National AIA Scholarship 1992-1993; American Institute of Architecture Students; Graduate Teaching Assistant in Architectural History, Urban Design Theory and Preservation Theory, Architectural Photography 1993-1996 Fulbright Full Grant for research and study in Germany. Technical University of Aachen 1994-1995. Course work included: Preservation Theory and Practice; Urban Planning in Berlin; Independent comparative research of the Hanseatic towns of Lübeck and Stralsund. Congress-Bundestag Young Professional Stipend 1989-1990 Architectural study and work in Germany. University of Constance, Technical College of Constance 1989-1990. Architectural design, history, theory, and structure; German grammar, literature. Syracuse University 1987 Le Corbusier Pilgrimage to France, Switzerland and Germany. Case Western Reserve University Cleveland 1983-1987 B.A. in History and Pre-Architecture, Minor in Economics; Phi Alpha Theta, Honorary History Society; Varsity Swim Team; Eva Pancoast Fellowship for five month study and documentation of architecture from Greece to Finland. AWARDS AND PUBLICATIONS Master’s Thesis and Fulbright Full Research Grant Report: Reconciliation of architecture and preservation: continuity in the culture of place, Stralsund, Germany (©University of Washington); Fulbright Full Grant for Architectural Preservation Research DAAD Grant-Architectural Research Congress-Bundestag Young Professional Exchange Award Eva Pancoast Traveling Fellowship for Architectural Research TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster Date: March 26th, 2013 RE: GOVERNING POLICIES – STAFF LIMITATIONS. Background: The Town Board has been working on adopting the Policy Governance model of governance for the Town. Previously the Board official adopted the first section of Policy Governance concerning Board Governance. The next section to be reviewed was the section on Staff Limitations, which articulates the limitations and requirements of staff, particularly the Town Administrator, as it relates to the governance of the organization. The Board reviewed this section in a study session on February 12th. Budget: n/a Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopted the Policy Governance manual category 3 concerning Staff Limitations Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Policy Governance category 3 – Staff Limitations Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have the Ordinance included. TOWN OF ESTES PARK GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL Table of Contents Category 3. Staff Limitations Policy 3.0 General Town Administrator Constraint Policy 3.1 Customer Service Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff Policy 3.3 Financial Planning Policy 3.4 Financial Condition and Activities Policy 3.5 Asset Protection Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement Policy 3.7 Emergency Preparedness Policy 3.8 Compensation and Benefits Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming Policy 3.11 General Town Administrator Constraint – Quality of Life Policy 3.12 General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures 1 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.0 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONSTRAINT Within the scope of authority delegated to him/her by the Board of Town Trustees, the Town Administrator shall not cause nor allow any practice, activity, decision or organizational circumstance that is either unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly accepted business and professional ethics. 3.1 The quality of life in the Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high standards regarding the treatment of our citizens. 3.2 With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow conditions that are unsafe, unfair or undignified. 3.3 With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government. 3.4 With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives. 3.5 Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected, inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked. 3.6 In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services, the Town Administrator may have no less than two other member(s) of the Town management team familiar with Board and Town Administrator issues and processes. 3.7 The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for the coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. 3.8 With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall 2 3 not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity. 3.9 The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be uninformed or unsupported in its work. 3.10 With respect to planning for and reporting on Capital Equipment and Improvements Programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either operational or fiscal integrity of the organization. 3.11 With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community the Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility and community interests. 3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will insure that the Town may not fail to have internal procedures for the well being of the Town to promote effective and efficient Town operations. POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.1 POLICY TITLE: CUSTOMER SERVICE 3.1 The quality of life in The Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high standards regarding the treatment of our citizens. 3.1.1 The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic attitudes in employees: 3.1.1.1 The Citizens of The Town of Estes Park deserve the best possible services and facilities given available resources. 3.1.1.2 Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues. 3.1.1.3 Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that demonstrates a high level of professionalism. 3.1.1.4 Each employee represents excellence in public service. 3.1.1.5 Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public. 3.1.2 The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the partnership between citizens, , elected officials and Town employees. Accordingly, regarding the treatment of citizens and customers, the Town Administrator shall not: 3.1.2.1 Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to due process. 3.1.2.2 Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make material decisions affecting the community in the absence of relevant community input. 3.1.2.3 Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an untimely basis) about relevant decision making processes and decisions. 3.1.2.4 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the community. 3.1.2.5 Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to address them in a timely manner. 3.1.2.6 Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment from Town employees. 4 5 3.1.2.7 Unduly breach or disclose confidential information. POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.2 POLICY TITLE: TREATMENT OF STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or undignified. Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority, the administrator shall not: 3.2.1 Operate without written personnel policies that clarify personnel rules for employees. 3.2.2 Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy upon employment. 3.2.3 Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. 3.2.4 Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working environment for employees, volunteers and citizens utilizing Town services 3.2.5 Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the responsibilities of volunteers and of the Town for all volunteers. 6 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.3 POLICY TITLE: FINANCIAL PLANNING With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government. Accordingly, the Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which: 3.3.1. Deviates from statutory requirements. 3.3.2. Deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs. 3.3.3. Contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions. 3.3.4. Plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. 3.3.5. Reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Town Trustees. 3.3.6. Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget. 3.3.7. Fails to provide for an annual audit. 3.3.8. Fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. 3.3.9. Results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. 7 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.4 POLICY TITLE: FINANCIAL CONDITION AND ACTIVITIES With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives. Accordingly, the Town Administrator may not: 3.4.1. Expend more funds than are available. 3.4.2. Allow the general fund and other fund balances to decline below twenty- five percent of annual expenditures as of the end of the fiscal year, unless otherwise authorized by the Board. 3.4.3. Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. 3.4.4. Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately filed. 3.4.5. Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent protection has not been given against conflict of interest and may not engage in purchasing practices in violation of state law or Town purchasing procedures. 3.4.6. Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund was established. POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS 8 POLICY 3.5 POLICY TITLE: ASSET PROTECTION Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected, inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked. Accordingly, he or she may not: 3.5.1. Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which insures against property losses and against liability losses to Board members, staff and the Town of Estes Park to the amount legally obligated to pay, or allow the organization to be uninsured:     3.5.1.1 Against theft and casualty losses, 3.5.1.2 Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the town itself in an amount equal to or greater than the average for comparable organizations,. 3.5.1.3 Against employee theft and dishonesty.   3.5.2. Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear and tear or insufficient maintenance (except normal deterioration and financial conditions beyond Town Administrator control). 3.5.3. Receive, process or disburse funds under controls insufficient to meet the Board-appointed auditor’s standards. 3.5.4. Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff to claims of liability. 3.5.5 Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files from loss or significant damage. 3.5.6 Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property except as expressly permitted in Town policy. 3.5.7 Allow internal control standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy generally accepted accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the cost of internal control should not exceed the benefits expected to be derived. 9 10 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.6 POLICY TITLE: EMERGENCY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPLACEMENT AND BACK UP In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services, the Town Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the Town management team familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town Administrator issues and processes. 3.6.1. The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity of Town Administrator in his/her absence. In the absence of the Town Administrator and Assistant Town Administrator a Town Department Head previously designated by the Town Administrator will act in the capacity of Town Administrator. 3.6.2. The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training needed to enable successful emergency replacement. 11 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.7 POLICY TITLE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. 3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency Operations Plan 3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan for the Town. 3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town Trustees 12 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.8 POLICY TITLE: COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly, pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not: 3.8.1. Change his or her own compensation and benefits. 3.8.2. Promise or imply permanent or guaranteed employment. 3.8.3. Establish current compensation and benefits which deviate materially for the regional or professional market for the skills employed: 3.8.4. Establish deferred or long-term compensation and benefits. 13 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.9 POLICY TITLE: COMMUNICATION AND SUPPORT TO THE BOARD The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be uninformed or unsupported in its work. Accordingly, he or she may not: 3.9.1 Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant trends, anticipated adverse media coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has been previously established. 3.9.2 Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see policy on Monitoring Town Administrator Performance in Board/Staff Linkage) in a timely, accurate and understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions of Board policies being monitored. 3.9.3 Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town Trustees as many staff and external points of view, issues and options as needed for informed Board choices on major policy issues. 3.9.4 Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy form. 3.9.5 Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees activities or communications. 3.9.6 Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole except (a) when fulfilling individual requests for information. 3.9.7 Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated noncompliance with any policy of the Board of Town Trustees. 14 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.10 POLICY TITLE: CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and improvements programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either operational or fiscal integrity of the organization. Accordingly, he or she may not allow the development of a capital program which: 3.10.1 Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’ stated priorities. 3.10.2 Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds than are conservatively projected to be available during that period. 3.10.3 Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of capital and operational start-up items, cash flow requirements and subsequent audit trail. 3.10.4 Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and replacement/perpetuation expenses. 3.10.5 Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the budget and on the progress of each active project, including data such as changes and the financial status of each project, including expenditures to date. 15 POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS POLICY 3.11 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONSTRAINT-QUALITY OF LIFE With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, the Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility, and community interests. 16 POLICY 3.12 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONSTRAINT –INTERNAL PROCEDURES With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote effective and efficient Town operations. 17