HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2013-02-26The 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, February 26, 2013
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated February 12, 2013, Town Board Minutes
dated February 7, 2013 and February 12, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, February 14, 2013.
1. Harmony Park Musical Instrument, Freenotes – $5,000 – budgeted.
2. Compact Excavator, Bobcat of the Rockies – $43,398.84 – budgeted.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2013
(acknowledgement only.)
5. Renewal – Investment Advisory Agreement with Cutwater Investor Service Corp.
6. Agreement with property owner for repair of Park Theater Mall.
7. Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County to address Wildland and Forest
Fire Mitigation.
8. Resolution #03-13 – Schedule public hearing date of March 12, 2013, for a New
Beer and Wine Liquor License Application filed by Elk Meadow RV Essential
Group, LLC dba Elk Meadow Lodge and RV Resort, 1665 Colorado Highway 66.
Prepared 02/20/13
* Revised: 02/21/13
** Revised: 02/22/13
**
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 4TH QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland.
2. UPDATE ON RFP AND SCHEDULE FOR CVB PARKING STRUCTURE. Director
Zurn.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #5, Solitude I Condominiums, Unit
10; 1890 Sketch Box Lane; Paul Kochevar/Owner.
B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #5, Stanley Avenue
Condominiums, 444 & 446 Stanley Avenue, Units V & W; Stanley Avenue
Condominiums, LLC/Owner.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
Mayor – Open Public Hearing
Staff Report
Town Attorney White read Rezoning Ordinance # 05-13
Public Testimony
Mayor – Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve/Deny.
A. ORDINANCE #05 - 13, Rezoning request from A-1 – Accommodations to A –
Accommodations, Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision, 900 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Robert Fixter/Applicant.
B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, Lots 1 & 2, Witt Subdivision, 900 W.
Elkhorn Avenue, Robert Fixter/Applicant
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #04-13 REVISED OPTION FOR EPIC TO PURCHASE TOWN-
OWNED REAL ESTATE FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. Attorney White.
2. IGA WITH PRO CYCLING ORGANIZATION. Director Winslow.
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER
AUTHORITY FOR THE FUNDING AND COORDINATION OF A JOINT
COMPENSATION STUDY. Director Bergsten.
5. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 12, 2013
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION
of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th
day of February, 2013.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk
Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TOWN REAL PROPERTY ASSETS POLICY DISCUSSION.
Town Administrator Lancaster opened discussion related to the real properties owned
by the Town of Estes Park to address and identify what properties are owned; why the
Town owns the properties; and to determine whether the properties should continue to
be held by the Town for its use, or sold and returned to the tax rolls. He noted that
some of the properties represent unused or unneeded assets and said the Town is
liable for the properties and responsible for maintenance and care. He suggested
categorizing the parcels as active use; utility use; rental properties; parking; open
space; recreational; property used by other entities; and vacant land; and encouraged
discussion about why the Town would hold a piece of land, what the land is needed for
either now or in the future, why the Town would obtain a property or accept a donation
of property, and criteria for selling or disposing of land. He said options for properties
currently owned by the Town include selling, leasing for revenue, keeping for future
Town facilities or open space, and selling to a developer for economic development
opportunities.
Attorney White said Colorado state statute identifies two classifications of property, one
being property used for public use such as utilities, public buildings, parks or any other
real property used or held for any governmental purpose which would require a vote of
the electorate prior to its sale or disposition; and other real estate which can be sold or
disposed of by ordinance. He noted that due to the success of an initiated ordinance in
2008, the sale of any property owned by the Town within the Stanley Historic District
must be submitted to a vote. Stanley Historic District lots 5, 6, and 8 and the
Knolls/Willows properties have conservation easements on them in perpetuity and
cannot be developed. In addition, deeds for the properties donated to the Town by F.O.
Stanley at Stanley Park contain a reverter clause disallowing sale or disposal of the
property and restrictions on allowable uses.
Discussion is summarized: do a title search to ensure the list of Town-owned properties
is accurate and complete; sell unneeded properties and use cash to address needs in
the community; the Town should not be managing rental properties; allow the Estes
Park Housing Authority (EPHA) to take over rental management responsibilities; identify
properties that could be rezoned and utilized for economic development; identify
properties that could be used for work force housing and let EPHA develop/manage;
use caution when putting properties under conservation easements; and get an idea of
the value of the Town-owned properties.
Staff will proceed in verifying the list of Town-owned properties, determining property
Town Board Study Session – February 12, 2013 – Page 2
values, and developing criteria for owning and divesting of property, and work on a real
property policy.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a dinner break at 5:25 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 5:40 p.m.
POLICY GOVERNANCE III – STAFF LIMITATIONS (Part 1).
The Board reviewed the first draft of the second section of the Town’s Policy
Governance manual. The section defines the roles and limitations of the Town
Administrator as it relates to the management of Town activities and implementation of
Board policies. He said the policy is written to provide boundaries for staff and at the
same time allow for the use of creativity and flexibility to meet the goals of the Board.
Town Administrator Lancaster presented Policy 3.0 – General Town Administrator
Constraint noting comments by the Board as follows:
Policy 3.1 – Customer Service –
• #3.3 and #3.5 basically state the same information
• #3.1.2.5 change “untimely manner” to “fail to address in a timely manner.”
Policy 3.3 – Financial Planning –
• 3.3.9 remove “additions to staffing levels”
Policy 3.6 – Emergency Town Administrator Replacement and Backup
• 3.6.1. Rotate designated replacement between department heads
Policy 3.7 – Emergency Preparedness
• 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 break out the Emergency Operations Plan and the Business
Continuity Plan
Town Administrator Lancaster asked that the Trustees forward to him any additional
comments related to the policy. Changes to the document will be made and a final
version brought to the Board at the March 12, 2013, Study Session.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Topics to be removed –
• Board Training – Quasi-judicial
Topics to add –
• Process for adding an agenda item to the Town Board agenda
• Mayor’s Contingency Fund
Future Agenda Items will be moved to the beginning of the Study Session agendas.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 7, 2013
Minutes of a Special 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 7th day of February, 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: Greg White, Town Attorney
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Assistant Town Administrator
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS .
Trustee Ericson stated that over the past years the Board has maintained a
conservative fund balance, operating on a ‘pay as you go’ type philosophy; and noted
that the Town has no outstanding debt at this point in time.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Mayor Pinkham stated that a proposal related to the EPiC performing arts center (PAC)
development is scheduled to be heard at the February 26, 2013, Town Board meeting;
and said public comment taken during today’s meeting would be limited to 15 minutes.
TeresaMaria Widawski, county resident, spoke in favor of the EPiC proposal to develop
a performing arts center on the Park Theater Mall property. She stated that a group
called Friends of the Rocky (FOR) has been formed and is soliciting support for the
project in the form of newspaper ads, signatures, and letters of support. She said the
theater is wanted and needed, encouraged support for the theater project, and asked
that the Town embrace the responsibility of solving the parking problems without further
delay.
Peggy Campbell, President and CEO of Visit Estes Park, spoke in support of the EPiC
performing arts center project. She said although there are issues related to parking
that need further discussion, the performing arts center could play a role in achieving
the goal of a year around economy in Estes Park. She said Estes Park must develop
all-season attractions and destination demand generators as Colorado mountain ski
destinations actively compete for Estes Park’s summer tourist traffic.
Johanna Darden, Town resident, said a recall of trustees would divide the community.
She said there are many residents who, for various reasons, are opposed to the Rocky
being located downtown; and said she would prefer the performing arts center be
located at Stanley Fairgrounds.
David Habecker, Town resident, said the Town could have a performing arts center at
Stanley Park if the Board had borrowed money, and said being conservative and never
borrowing money are not the same things.
Board of Trustees – February 7, 2013 – Page 2
Stan Black, county resident, and EPiC trustee, said he believes in EPiC’s mission to
build a performing arts center in Estes Park and he believes in the Estes Park
community. He said he is overwhelmed by the public expression of support for the
performing arts center and said the PAC represents economic development and
renewed vitality for the community. He said at some point congestion and parking must
become a top priority and that perhaps the Rocky represents that tipping point. He
stated a new purchase option agreement that explicitly addresses parking solutions will
come forward to the Board for consideration at the Town Board meeting on February
26th.
1. ACTION ITEMS.
1. BUILDING STALL BARN AND/OR MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER
(MPEC).
Johnson Consulting (MPEC Pro Forma) – Charlie Johnson of Johnson
Consulting provided a summary of the pro forma for the multi-purpose event
center. In developing the report, interviews were held with industry participants,
lodging owners, show producers, management teams, and fairground staff; and
the market was compared to a variety of other regional and national markets.
He said not many high quality assets exist at the fairgrounds at this time.
Concerns identified included old and aging buildings, and a lack of multi-
purpose exhibition space and obsolete technology, which leads to the inability
of the existing facilities to accommodate events such as state conferences,
exhibitions, and trade shows. Mr. Johnson stated that an opportunity exists for
the MPEC to become a year-round regional facility, attracting users who want
state-of-the-art technology and flexible space. The location at the Stanley
Fairgrounds provides easy access from Front Range communities, and is a
strategic location for taking advantage of abundant recreational opportunities.
The facility would support equestrian-related events at the Fairgrounds during
the summer season and expand into the non-peak season with a variety of
activities. He estimated attendance numbers would increase by 100,000 plus
people annually and estimated a close to break-even financial projection. He
said the Town subsidizes current downtown events and operations at the
Fairgrounds to the tune of $500,000 and expects operation of the new building
can be added for approximately the same cost and said the operating deficit is
comparable to other markets. He noted the financial projection includes
$500,000 for pre-opening advance marketing and recommended active
marketing and management operation strategies. He said building the MPEC
makes sense and said improvements in marketing and management at the
conference center and establishing an alliance with The Ranch would be
beneficial.
MPEC – Director Winslow stated the MPEC is designed as a multi-use facility
with equestrian use included, but not as the primary use. Equestrian use will
be necessary for approximately four weeks in the summer after which time the
horses will be moved out of the facility and the building can be used for events
such as sporting events, wrestling tournaments, and boat and RV shows. Bob
Herrfeldt, Director at The Ranch, supported mixed equestrian and non-
equestrian use of the building on a temporary basis. He said converting the
building from equestrian use and preparing it for multi-purpose use is tough and
not something you would want to do often, but it is doable. He recommended
the building design include features that make the conversion and cleanup
easier to accomplish. Director Winslow said the engineering of the building will
work noting flipping the building will only happen once per year. Mr. Herrfeldt
said a relationship already exists between staff at The Ranch and Stanley
Fairgrounds staff. He said Loveland and Estes Park serve two distinct markets
and don’t compete for events. With the addition of the MPEC at the
Fairgrounds, groups that cannot be accommodated at The Ranch could be
referred to Estes Park.
Board of Trustees – February 7, 2013 – Page 3
Stall Barn – Director Winslow said the stall barn is designed with equestrian
use as the primary use and secondary multi-purpose uses, such as car, boat,
and RV shows, and could also house educational and training events such as
equestrian symposiums and clinics during the winter season.
Dir. Zurn said the stall barn is an insulated facility designed for human
occupancy, but bare bones. The stall barn design contains restrooms and a
small lobby, and the MPEC design contains restrooms, a lobby, and offices that
are heated with natural gas. In both buildings the main room contains a
separate heating system to allow it to go unheated if not being used for an
event. The recommended budget for the stall barn is $1.684 million for the stall
barn and associated site work. For the MPEC, site work, and offsite turn lanes
required by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) the estimated
budget is $4.418 million. The budget for both buildings combined is
$6,187,550. Dir. Zurn said to remove the event center related aspects of the of
the MPEC such as second story lobby, offices, and ticket space and essentially
build another stall barn would deduct 1800 square feet from the building at a
savings of $180,000. However, these savings would likely be lost to the costs
associated with redesigning and rebidding the structure, in addition, the
flexibility of use would also be lost. Town Administrator Lancaster stated that
the stall barn is needed to maintain our current inventory of programs but does
not expand our capacity. The MPEC will allow expansion into new markets and
new programs for new revenues, in addition to meeting the needs of existing
programs. Mayor Pinkham pointed out that if the old stall barns are not
replaced, some of the existing fairground events may be lost. Mayor Pro Tem
Blackhurst said the Town has spent $1 million on the arena and $2 million on a
new grandstand and this is the next step in the continuing process for the
master plan of the Fairgrounds. Director Winslow estimated the cost of
furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) to open the MPEC facility at $76,000
to be paid out in 2014 which would include bare bones FF&E and rental of
stalls. IT estimates around $200,000 for technology for both buildings which
would provide backbone IT services and wireless internet access.
Financial Options – Dir. Zurn reviewed the bids received in response to an
RFP for construction of the stall barn and MPEC individually as well as in
combination. Five bidders responded with Dohn Construction coming in as low
bidder as noted below:
Bidder
Schedule A
MPEC
Schedule B Stall
Barn
Schedule C
Schedule A & B
including Alternates
Dohn Construction, Inc. $3,629,000 $1,464,000 $5,171,500
Heath Construction $3,870,000 $1,517,000 $5,481,000
Taylor Kohrs LLC $3,955,513 $1,634,205 $5,714,518
Krische Construction, Inc. $4,071,000 $1,598,000 $5,741,000
Sampson Construction Co., Inc. $4,187,000 $1,715,000 $5,988,400
McCauley Constructors, Inc. $4,239,600 $1,622,500 $5,797,400
Buildings by Design LLC $4,982,985 $1,840,224 $6,823,289
Growling Bear Co., Inc. $5,300,000 $2,136,000 $7,621,700
The bids are for the buildings only and do not include site work, off site
requirements, or landscaping. Dir. Zurn noted that the MPEC was designed
under the 2003 building codes and the design is grandfathered until the end of
March 2013. After that time some redesign would be required to meet 2009
codes. Town Administrator Lancaster pointed out that, as owner of the
property, the Town could apply for a building permit which would grandfather
the design for the life of the permit. Dir. Zurn said the bids received from the
contractor are good for another 70 days.
Finance Officer McFarland said at a previous study session he estimated $2.3
million available for capital projects. He said based on additional grant monies
received by the Town for the parking structure, funds moved from the General
Fund for projects in Streets, and December sales tax the actual figure could be
Board of Trustees – February 7, 2013 – Page 4
$2.2 million to $2.5 million. He noted that funding options are fairly broad
depending upon the Board’s decision and could include a combination of cash
and financing. One option would be ten- or 20-year term Certificates of
Participation (COP), with ten-year term being preferred as it would involve
much less interest being paid over the term of the COP. He stated the current
interest rate on a ten-year COP is 2.25% and 3.5% on a 20-year COP.
Attorney White said there is no vote required to enter into a Certificate of
Participation. In response to a question by Trustee Ericson, Finance Officer
McFarland said it is a reasonable assumption that the construction of the stall
barns could be funded from monies in the Community Reinvestment Fund.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst calculated the ten-year debt service on a financed
amount of $4,687,550 at $528,698 annually. He calculated the annual principal
and interest for the MPEC at a cost of $4.418 million with 20% down to be
$398,637 based on a ten-year COP at 2.25%. Looking at the same scenario
for the stall barn financing $1,347,520, the annual principal and interest would
be $153,966. He said there is money in the budget to make that work even
without any increase in revenues. He noted that does not include FF&E or a
$500,000 non-capital operating expense for pre-operating expenses.
Town Administrator Lancaster said building the MPEC, the stall barns, and/or
protecting the conference center represents an investment in a sound financial
economic base for the community and is a way to increase the amount of
money available to address infrastructure needs and fund basic services.
Trustee Elrod commented that the pro forma indicated the importance of the
MPEC being marketed, targeted, and launched appropriately to increase its
potential, and spoke to the development of a business plan and collaboration
with The Ranch. The pro forma also indicated the MPEC would operate at a
deficit which is not unusual for facilities of this type, and projected an increase
in spending resulting in $782,000 in new sales tax to the Town annually.
Trustee Norris said the pro forma shows that the MPEC has potential significant
economic value and said his concerns about the compatibility of horse events
have been alleviated. He said the capital estimate needs to include money for
state of the art audio/visual facilities based on a particular scope. Trustee
Koenig asked if the capacity of the conference center would complement the
MPEC. Mr. Johnson said the conference center is great for educational content
and food and beverage functions and could be complemented by having
exhibition space. He also noted that a performing arts center would not
compete with the MPEC but rather be very complementary. Trustee Ericson
suggested the level of activity projected in the pro forma for 2015 may be too
aggressive.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a ten minute break at 5:00 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 5:10 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Joy Barnett, David Habecker, Lindsay Lamson, Rick Benton, Tony Bielat, Chris Woods,
and TeresaMaria Widawski, all spoke in favor of the project. The Board was
encouraged to approve construction of both the stall barn and the multi-purpose event
center and take advantage of current financing opportunities.
Kay Norton Haughey, Town resident, spoke in favor of the projects but requested the
Board consider relocating the buildings to the southeast corner of the fairgrounds
property so there would be less impact on the Reclamation neighborhood.
Trustee Ericson said he is concerned about competition coming from other mountain
resorts and ski resorts and the ongoing liability of the existing stall barns. He stated he
is in favor of the MPEC and how it ties in with economic development. It was moved
and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to have staff come back to the Board on February
Board of Trustees – February 7, 2013 – Page 5
12th with two specific resolutions for the cost and funding of the stall barn and
multi-purpose event center to be built at the Stanley fairgrounds.
Discussion ensued. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated his desire to give staff direction
to move forward and fund both projects with cash and COPs. He recommended using
$1.25 million in cash and financing the balance to build out the project including add
alternates and turn lanes. He said this has been a topic of conversation since the
1970s, has been studied for the past six years, and said it is time to move ahead.
Trustee Norris noted that with construction bids that came in lower than expected and
low interest rates he is prepared to consider both projects but would like to consider
them separately. He said construction of the stall barns is an immediate need, but said
he wanted more market assurance on the MPEC, voicing a concern about a void in the
marketing plan for the MPEC. He said he would like staff to come back to the Board
with firm capital estimates for each project, a cash flow analysis that would include
upfront pre-operating expenses, and debt service to provide a clear understanding of
the initial outlay, the borrowing options and recommendations, and have discussion
about potential synergies with the theater project.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst reiterated that the Board has been studying this project for
years. He said to say that more information and time is needed does not serve the
community well and said it is time to move ahead.
Johanna Darden, Town resident, voiced agreement with Trustees Ericson and Norris
and said the Board needed to have all the facts together before making a decision.
Dr. James Durward, County resident said the topic has been over-studied and the time
to move forward is now.
Kay Norton Haughey, Town resident, asked the Board to act in the best interest of the
community. She said based on a recent survey only 20% of the respondents favored
construction of the MPEC.
A substitute motion was made. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) to
approve the construction of both the multi-purpose event center and the stall
barn at the price that would include the on-site improvements outside the
buildings with the exception that the Town still needs to decide on add-alternates
for the stall barn, and that we allow staff to determine what is the best way to put
together a financing package using cash and Certificates of Participation on a
ten-year note, and the motion passed. Those voting "No" Trustees Ericson, Norris, and
Phipps. Those voting "Yes" Trustees Elrod and Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst,
with Mayor Pinkham voting "Yes" to break the tie.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:08 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 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 February, 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
Cynthia Deats, Deputy 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.
RECOGNITION OF WORLD WAR II VETERANS.
Mayor Pinkham expressed appreciation to World War II veterans for their service to our
country. Approximately 25 veterans attended the meeting, were recognized by the
Board and the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), and received a rose from
David Beldus, a veteran of the Korean War.
PROCLAMATION.
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed February 15, 2013 as Malvin “Mal” Walker Day and read a
proclamation honoring his service during World War II and his dedication to the Estes
Park community.
Mayor Pinkham called for a break for a brief reception at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Meisner, County resident, said in 1944 the Trail-Gazette published the names of
280 men and women from Estes Park who served in World War II. Estes Park’s
population at the time was approximately 1000.
Michael Haughey, Crossroads Ministry Program Director, noted that food contributions
from individuals in the community in 2011 equaled 20,692 pounds of food valued at
$102,000; with individual contributions totaling 40,954 points in 2012 for a value of
$157,000. Donations from businesses also increased in 2012, up 23%. The value of
the food distributed to the community last year increased by 53%.
Pieter Hondius, Town resident, complimented the Board on not getting stampeded by
the theater proposal. He said he understands there is a great deal of desire for the
theater but suggested an alternative site might be better suited for the facility.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Norris reported that the Visit Estes Park Board worked on finance policies and
an approach for Board self-evaluation during a study session held on February 5, 2013.
Board of Trustees – February 12, 2013 – Page 2
Trustee Koenig encouraged community members to make nominations for the 2013
Estes Park Pride Awards. Nomination forms will be available March 1st in the Clerk’s
Office and on the Town’s website, www.estes.org.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst encouraged interested parties to attend the Estes Park
Housing Authority meeting on February 13, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203; and the
PUP Committee Meeting on Thursday, February 14, 2013, in the Town Board Room.
Trustee Phipps said at the January meeting of the Open Lands Advisory Board
testimony was heard related to a gift of a 16,000 acre ranch north of Fort Collins. He
reported that negotiations are continuing related to the gift and that the Open Lands
Board voted 7-4 to recommend acceptance.
Trustee Ericson invited the community to attend the model railroad exhibition at the
conference center over President’s Day weekend.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Creative Arts District – Town Administrator Lancaster defined a Creative Arts District as
an economic tool to market and promote the creative arts including the performing,
visual, literary, and culinary arts. It is not a taxing district, has no taxing authority, is not
subsidized by the Town, and has nothing to do with property or zoning. Statistics show
that cultural tourists spend more money and stay longer at their destination than other
visitors and said there was $1.7 billion of arts business in Colorado in 2011. A group of
citizens is looking into a creative arts district as a way to highlight Estes Park as a
center for the arts, and become eligible for grant monies available to creative arts
districts.
Parking Garage – A total of $3.7 million in grants, which includes a $400,000 FASTER
grant, has been received for construction of a parking garage in the parking lot east of
the Visitors Center. The project focuses on transit related activities with 300 parking
spaces proposed for the two-level structure. The design process will begin soon and
will include community input. Construction of the garage is expected to be completed
by summer 2014.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 22, 2013, Town Board
Minutes dated January 22, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development/Community Services, January 24, 2013.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. STATE OF THE TOWN. Mayor Pinkham provided a summary of the year
2012 which included the election of Trustees Norris and Phipps; hiring of Town
Administrator Frank Lancaster; the Woodland Heights Fire which began on
June 23, 2012; the Fern Lake Fire which started on October 9, 2012 and grew
in size and intensity in the early morning hours of December 1, 2012; and the
community block party held in support of fire victims. 2012 saw a 6% increase
in sales tax over 2011; infrastructure improvements along Virginia Drive, Park
Lane, and MacGregor Avenue; beautification of Black Canyon Creek and
continued improvements to Bond Park; electric distribution line upgrades and
the adoption of a water conservation plan; remodeling of the Police
Department; and the installation of a skating rink in the Dairy Queen parking lot.
150,000 people participated in Town-sponsored events; 361,000 people visited
the CVB; 26,000 people used the Senior Center; 23,000 visited the Museum;
and tens of thousands of hours were logged by volunteers equaling a financial
Board of Trustees – February 12, 2013 – Page 3
benefit to the Town of over $1 million. Mayor Pinkham identified Estes Park’s
tourism dependent economy, the decline in disposable income, inadequate
workforce housing, and the need to maintain and upgrade infrastructure as
future concerns; stating the community must work together to manage its
destiny.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. GOVERNING POLICIES – GOVERNANCE PROCESS.
Town Administrator Lancaster presented Policy Governance Section 1 –
Governance Rules which deals with how the Board operates. He noted that the
document had been revised to address the Board’s concerns and is ready for
Board action. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to adopt Section
1 of the Town of Estes Park Policy governance Manual regarding Board
Governance, and it passed unanimously.
Policy 100 deals with defining citizen committees, and includes but is not
limited to, the role of committees, types of committees, recruitment and
selection for committees, orientation and training, and the ownership of
intellectual property produced by the committee. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Koenig) to approve the adoption of Town of Estes Park Policy 100 –
Town Committees, and it passed unanimously.
Brian Berg, Town resident, proposed committees meet later in the day allowing
working people the opportunity to attend the meetings.
Policy 101 – Board of Trustees Division of Responsibilities outlines
assignments to ongoing committees and liaison assignments. These
assignments are typically made every two years as membership on the Board
changes, however, the policy does contain a provision related to interim
assignments that, if necessary, can be made at a regular Town Board meeting.
Town Administrator noted that a revision to the municipal code will be
necessary to identify the standing committees to include Community Services
to coincide with current practice. Instead of referencing the ordinances within
the policy, Trustee Elrod proposed referencing the section in the code. It was
moved and seconded (Elrod/Norris) to approve the policy as presented by
amending references to ordinances to code sections and to make the
same changes to the previous two motions in terms of referencing the
code sections, and it passed unanimously.
Charley Dickey, Town resident, asked whether the newly formed economic
development task force is obligated to abide the adopted policies. Town
Administrator Lancaster said it would not, that the policies do not apply to
committees or boards outside of the purview of the Town.
2. ORDINANCE #03-13 – TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON MARIJUANA
ESTABLISHMENTS PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 64.
In November 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 legalizing the
possession and use of marijuana by adults. The State of Colorado has until
July 1, 2013, to adopt regulations governing the operation of marijuana
establishments and local authorities must adopt regulations by October 1,
2013. A temporary moratorium is being proposed to give the Town Board the
opportunity to review the amendment and establish regulations within the Town
related to this legalization. The ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana
centers, cultivation operations, and the manufacturing of medical marijuana
infused products in the Town of Estes Park remains in place. Attorney White
noted that possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the
question of the legality of Amendment 64 has not been resolved. Trustee Elrod
pointed out that with the passage of Amendment 64, changes to the municipal
code related to drug paraphernalia and possession or use of marijuana will be
Board of Trustees – February 12, 2013 – Page 4
necessary. Attorney White stated the changes to the municipal code will be
brought forward in a timely manner.
Attorney White read Ordinance #03-13 into the record. It was moved and
seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to adopt Ordinance #03-13, a temporary
moratorium on marijuana establishments, and it passed unanimously.
Charley Dickey, Town resident, spoke in favor of the temporary moratorium.
3. RESOLUTION #02-13 RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2012 ENCUMBERED
FUNDS TO 2013 BUDGET.
Finance Officer McFarland requested approval of Resolution #02-13 to roll over
funds related to 2012 contracts and purchase orders for goods and services
that were not fulfilled by December 31, 2012. The budgeted amounts in the
2012 budget will be moved into 2013; the roll over does not affect fund balance.
The roll over totals $926,048.19 and is primarily comprised of budgeted funds
related to capital projects. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to
approve Resolution #02-13 which re-appropriates the 2012 encumbered
funds into the 2013 budget, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 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 February, 2013.
Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir.
Bergsten, Dir. Zurn, Supt. Fraundorf, and Deputy Town Clerk
Deats
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
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. Estes Valley Victim Advocates (EVVA) Annual Report – EVVA Director Mary
Mesropian reported that EVVA served 694 people in the community during 2012.
This number includes advocate calls, counseling and support, as well as serving
over 250 people during the Woodland Heights and Fern Lake fires. She noted that a
new, bilingual advocate has been added to the Latino Outreach Program.
2. Verbal Updates – Chief Kufeld reported that Julie Sullivan was selected for the
position of Communications Manager; and noted that members of the Police
Department and PIO Rusch attended an in depth national incident management
system training at the YMCA during the first week of February. In addition, Kimberly
Culp will be presenting information about the New Generation 911 system following
the PUP Committee meeting.
UTILITIES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Water Leak Adjustment Policy – Dir. Bergsten presented a draft policy related to
adjustments made to utility bills for water charges incurred during a water leak.
Current practice provides a 100% credit for excess water consumed as a result of a
large water leak. The policy being proposed would equally split the cost of the leak
between the customer and the Town with the intent of encouraging due diligence on
the part of water customers. Assistant Town Administrator Richardson noted that
the Town is researching an elective utility line insurance policy that would cover
leaks in the service line after the water meter. Chair Blackhurst said the policy
contains significant changes from current practice and requires further discussion.
The Committee requested the topic be discussed by the full Board during a future
Town Board Study Session and asked for data related to the number of incidents of
this type occurring per year.
2. Revisions to Sections 13.20-13.38 of the Municipal Code – In reviewing business
operations, Utility Department staff, with Attorney White’s involvement, is in the
process of revising language in the water section of the Municipal Code. Most of the
revisions do not change the intent of the section; however, staff is requesting
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 14, 2013 – Page 2
direction from the Board on Section 13.32.040 Discontinuance, termination and
abandonment of service. Discussion of the proposed revisions to the Municipal
Code including forfeiture of taps, and expectations that, when purchased, waters
taps are attached to specific properties, will be scheduled for a future Town Board
Study Session.
3. Verbal Updates –
o Line Replacement Program – Dir. Bergsten said a capital improvement
plan exists for 100% pipe replacement and noted that an effort to identify
and prioritize the replacement, as well as to determine the financial impact
of replacement will be looked at as part of financial planning and master
planning. In addition, the Town’s raw water supply, how to access it, and
counter measures that would need to be put in place will also be
addressed. A request for proposal (RFP) for general engineering services
related to the study will be going out soon. Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson noted a comprehensive master plan on water treatment and
infrastructure was done in the mid 1980s and said it is time to update the
master plan. Chair Blackhurst questioned the accuracy of the information
that has been provided to the Board based on more recent studies.
Trustee Koenig said a situation exists where reality is changing and the
focus that drove more recent studies may have changed. She said even
though the Town has an adequate water supply, with changing staff,
weather patterns, and risk scenarios it is good to be proactive.
o Water Dispenser – The Committee requested information related to the
use of the dispenser including: number of vehicles per day, the noise
level, and the times of day the dispenser is accessed.
o Utility Loans – Finance Officer McFarland said he is researching the
possibility of refinancing existing utility loans. He said he will report back
to the Committee on the costs and possible penalties associated with
refinancing at a future PUP Committee meeting.
PUBLIC WORKS.
GEORGE HIX MEMORIAL.
On behalf of the George Hix family, Gary Klaphake and Harry Hutcherson informed the
Board of the family’s desire to rename Confluence Park and locate a memorial to
George Hix in Riverside Plaza. The memorial would honor Mr. Hix’s service to the
community and his involvement in the successful completion of numerous
improvements and projects in the Town of Estes Park. Over the years, Mr. Hix served
on the town board, the planning commission, the recreation district board and was an
EPURA commissioner. The family is proposing the name George Hix Park at the
Confluence. A modest pedestal would be erected in the plaza to provide information
about Mr. Hix and, in addition, the family would donate $25,000 to the Town for
renovation of the benches in the park. The Committee expressed interest in the idea
and said the full Board needs to discuss its philosophy on memorials and donations and
create a process to address this type of request. Mr. Klaphake asked that the
Committee consider the idea and provide input and counterpoints to the proposal.
HARMONY PARK MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.
The Parks Division is requesting approval to purchase an interactive, handcrafted
musical instrument to be installed along the Riverwalk near Kind Coffee. Staff has
selected an instrument called the Manta Ray as the first piece of interactive art. The
instrument emits pure and soothing tones and can be played by anyone; musical
knowledge is not necessary. The instrument is built to last, withstand rigorous play in
high-use areas, and weather the elements of nature. The Committee recommends
approval of the purchase of the Freenotes Manta Ray musical instrument at a
cost of $5000 from account #101-5200-452-26-23 budgeted, to be included on the
consent agenda at the February 26, 2013, Town Board meeting.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 14, 2013 – Page 3
COMPACT EXCAVATOR FOR STREETS DIVISION.
The 2013 budget includes $45,000 for the purchase of a new compact excavator for the
Streets Division to be used primarily for maintenance of the water ditch drainage
system. Bids were solicited with the following results:
Bobcat of the Rockies Windsor, CO $43,398.84
Colorado Machinery – John Deere Fort Collins, CO $53,800.00
Wagner Equipment – CAT Windsor, CO $45,710.00
Staff recommends purchasing from low bidder, Bobcat of the Rockies which offers the
compact excavator through a rollover program that allows trade-in for an updated piece
of equipment every two years at a minimal cost to the Town. The Committee
recommends approval of the purchase of an E35 ZTS Bobcat Compact Excavator
from Bobcat of the Rockies at a cost of $43,398.84 from account #101-3100-431-
34-98 budgeted, to be included on the consent agenda for the February 26, 2013,
Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Update on RFP and Schedule for Parking Garage – Due to a lack of time, this report
was not heard and will be moved to the agenda for the February 26, 2013, Town
Board meeting
There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:22
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
Page 1
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: February 19, 2013
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement With Larimer County Pursuant to C.R.S.
§29-20-105.5 To Address Wildland and Forest Fire Mitigation
Background:
In 2011, the Colorado Legislature amended Section 29-20-105.5 C.R.S. to require that
each local government owning any land located either entirely or partially outside its
own territorial boundaries and inside the boundaries of the County that contains at least
50% forest land or land that constitutes a wildland area shall enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with the County for the purpose of mitigating forest land
or wildland fires affecting the contiguous land areas of the local government and the
County. The Town owns several parcels of property located outside Town boundaries
which meet the definitions of forest land or land that constitutes a wildland area. This
Intergovernmental Agreement among the City of Greeley, the City of Fort Collins, the
City of Loveland, Town of Estes Park, Town of Berthoud, City of Thornton, and Larimer
County is for the purpose of complying with the terms of this statute.
The IGA defines the roles and responsibility for fire protection within Larimer County
and states that the Town receives fire protection, suppression, and mitigation services
from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. The IGA provides that the Parties shall
provide the following:
a. Prevention. The Parties will take reasonable action, within their current
capabilities, to reduce human caused wildfire ignitions through information,
education, and enforcement.
b. Preparedness. The Parties agree to plan the most effective level of resources to
protect human and natural resources and actively participate in preparedness
and all hazard planning related to properties covered by the Agreement.
c. Mitigation. The Parties agree to take reasonable action, within their current
capabilities, to reduce potential negative impacts on human and natural
resources for forest and wildland fire.
d. Suppression. The IGA addresses suppression responsibilities and procedures.
Due to the fact that the Estes Valley Fire Protection District is the responsible
agency for the Town, the Town has no obligation with regard to suppression
activities.
The limited activities required by the Town pursuant to this IGA are activities the Town
would engage in with Larimer County to address wildland fire mitigation on its
properties.
Budget:
The Town may incur some administrative expenses in meeting its obligations for
prevention, preparedness and mitigation addressed above.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County
Pursuant to §29-20-105.5 To Address Wildland and Forest Fire Mitigation.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH LARIMER COUNTY
PURSUANT TO C.R.S. § 29‐20‐105.5
TO ADDRESS WILDLAND AND FOREST FIRE MITIGATION.
RECITALS
This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Greeley, City of
Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Estes Park, Town of Berthoud and City of Thornton,
(collectively, the “Cities” or “Municipalities:”), and the County of Larimer, a political subdivision
of the State of Colorado (“County”), (the collective signatories to be known as the “Parties”) is
made to be effective on July 1, 2012.
A. Section 29‐20‐101 et seq., C.R.S. as amended, authorizes the Parties to
cooperate and contract with one another with respect to functions lawfully authorized to each
of the Parties, and the people of the state of Colorado have encouraged such cooperation and
contracting through the adoption of Article XIV, Section 18(2) of the Colorado Constitution.
B. The Larimer County Sheriff acts as fire warden for all prairie or forest fires within
the County, pursuant to Section 30‐10‐512, C.R.S. Pursuant to Colorado Statutes and Colorado
Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 01‐2, the Sheriff has primary fire response duties in the
first instance for public lands within the county.
C. Colorado Revised Statute 29‐20‐105.5 C.R.S. requires local governments that
own lands other than for utility purposes, that are at least 50% forest land or land that
constitutes wildland area, and that is located either entirely or partially outside their territorial
boundaries and inside the territorial boundaries of a county, to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with the underlying county for the purpose of mitigating forest land or
wildland fires. The statute contains a similar requirement for lands owned for utility purposes.
This legislation specifies that the IGA must address the roles and responsibilities of the parties;
procedures for cooperation and coordination; management objectives for wildland fire
prevention, preparedness, mitigation, suppression, reclamation, and rehabilitation; designation
of fiscal and operational authorities; description of available resources; reimbursement and
billing procedures; and actions to be taken if one party fails to meet its obligations.
D. The County, the United States Forest Service, the Colorado State Forest Service,
the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, along with the Larimer County
Sheriff, have participated in an agreement called the Annual Operating Plan (“AOP”) to set forth
standard operating procedures, agreed procedures and responsibilities to implement
cooperative wildland fire management on all lands within Larimer County. This agreement
includes specifics regarding the standard operating procedures, agreed procedures, and
responsibilities, including cost sharing, to implement cooperative wildland fire management on
all lands within Larimer County.
E. The Parties are aware of the Larimer County 2010 Wildland Fire Preparedness
Plan. This Plan includes specifics regarding the standard operating procedures, agreed
procedures, and responsibilities, including cost sharing, to implement cooperative wildland fire
management on all lands within Larimer County.
F. The municipal parties own land in unincorporated Larimer County, some of
which contains at least 50% forest land as defined in C.R.S. § 39‐1‐102(4.3), or is land that
constitutes a wildland area.
G. The Parties also acknowledge that there exists various mutual aid agreements
between the Fire Departments, Protection Districts and Authorities that provide fire service for
the Cities which include resource allocation systems.
H. Any terms contained herein that are also defined in Section 29‐20‐105.5, C.R.S.
as amended shall have the same meaning as those defined in the statute.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Roles and Responsibilities : Fire protection within Larimer County is provided by various
fire departments, protection districts and authorities, the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office,
United States Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service and Rocky Mountain National Park.
Federal agencies along with the Colorado State Forest Service and the Larimer County Sheriff’s
Office utilize the AOP to establish standard operating procedures, agreed procedures and
responsibilities to implement cooperative fire management.
a. Larimer County Sheriff Office (LCSO): LCSO is the fire warden of the county and has
the responsibility for coordinating fire mitigation and suppression efforts in the case of any
wildfire occurring in the unincorporated area of the county outside the boundaries of a fire
protection district or that exceed the capabilities of the fire protection district to mitigate,
control or extinguish.
b. The Municipalities:
i. The City of Fort Collins is a home‐rule municipality that has delegated its
fire service functions within its corporate limits to the Poudre Fire
Authority (“PFA”), an independent governmental entity formed by
intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Poudre Valley
Fire Protection District. The City does not have significant fire service
capability and relies upon the PFA for the provision of fire prevention,
suppression and mitigation services.
ii. The City of Loveland is a home‐rule municipality that has delegated its
fire service functions within its corporate limits to the Loveland Fire
Rescue Authority (“LFRA”), an independent governmental entity formed
by intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Loveland Fire
Protection District. The City does not have significant fire service
capability and relies upon the LFRA for the provision of fire prevention,
suppression and mitigation services.
iii. The City of Greeley is a home rule municipality that maintains a Fire
Department to provide, as pertinent to this agreement, fire prevention,
suppression and mitigation services within its corporate limits.
iv. The City of Thornton is a home‐rule municipality that maintains a Fire
Department to provide, as pertinent to this agreement, fire prevention,
suppression and mitigation services within its corporate limits.
v. The Town of Estes Park is a statutory town that receives fire protection,
suppression and mitigation services from the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District. The Town does not have significant fire service capability and
relies upon the Estes Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of
fire prevention, suppression and mitigation services.
2. Prevention: The Parties agree to take reasonable action within their current capabilities
to reduce human caused wildfire ignitions through information, education and enforcement.
3. Preparedness: The Parties agree to plan the most effective level of resources to protect
human and natural resources and actively participate in preparedness and all hazard planning
related to their properties covered by this Agreement. Municipalities may provide resource
protection priorities for land covered by this agreement. Such protection priorities should be
provided as soon as possible, however resource protection decisions will ultimately be at the
incident commander’s discretion.
4. Mitigation: The Parties agree to take reasonable action within their current capabilities
to reduce potential negative impacts on human and natural resources from forest and wildland
fire. Larimer County may provide its Fuels Module to municipalities to assist in the
implementation of fuels reduction projects at a cost of time and materials, when funding and
scheduling allows. Municipalities may engage in independent mitigation plans, including
coordinated efforts with the United States Forest Service and Larimer County. The Parties
agree to negotiate and implement additional reasonable mitigation strategies within their
capabilities on a case‐by‐case basis.
5. Suppression:
a. The Parties agree to use reasonable and appropriate strategies and tactics within
their current capabilities for safe and cost effective protection of human and natural
resource values from forest and wildland fire. Due to the nature of fire suppression, the
Parties agree that incident commanders shall determine the most appropriate
suppression responses on a case‐by‐case basis.
b. The Parties agree that mutual aid is the assistance provided by a supporting agency at
no cost to the jurisdictional agency. The County may request mutual aid from a
municipality’s Fire Department or an overlapping Fire Authority. Each municipality
agrees to provide, if the municipality has such resources available, National Wildfire
Coordinating Group (NWCG) qualified resources at no cost, for the duration of an
incident. If a municipality has an agreement with an overlapping Fire Authority, the
municipality agrees to request under any contractual authority, that the Fire Authority
provide NWCG qualified resources at no cost, for the duration of an incident. Under this
agreement, “duration of an incident” shall be from when, in the incident commander’s
discretion, municipality property covered by this agreement is first considered at risk
from fire, until the property is no longer at risk.
c. A municipality or Fire Authority is not under any obligation to respond to a call for
mutual aid under this agreement when, in its sole discretion, it determines that
responding would unreasonably deplete its ability to respond within its own jurisdiction.
This provision does not limit obligations of a municipality under any other mutual aid or
other agreement.
d. Cost Sharing of suppression costs shall be negotiated between the County and
Municipality. Upon a request for mutual aid to a Municipality’s Fire Department or
overlapping Fire Authority, the Fire Department or Fire Authority will contact the
appropriate agent for the Municipality to engage in cost share negotiations. If a Fire
Authority is unable to reach a municipal agent or the municipal agent is unable to
respond, the municipalities have authorized the Fire Authority to negotiate on the
municipalities behalf and be bound by such negotiations, until a municipal agent can
respond.
6. Reclamation and rehabilitation: The Parties agree to work together to assess
impacts of forest and wildland fire on human and natural resources related to their
lands at issue in this Agreement, and to identify the roles and responsibilities of
appropriate agencies and funding sources. The Parties may refer to the AOP and the
Larimer County 2010 Wildland Fire Preparedness Plan as guidance in such efforts.
7. Actions taken if one party fails to meet its obligations: The Parties agree that if a
municipality fails to meet its obligations under Section 5, then the Parties will meet
within a reasonable time to discuss alternatives to better address wildland and forest
fire mitigation issues.
8. Notices: Any notice required hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when hand delivered, or after the lapse of five business days following
mailing by certified mail – return receipt requested to the contacts outlined in Exhibit
“A”.
9. Governmental Immunity Act: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed in
any way to be a waiver of any party to the Agreement of the Governmental Immunity
Act, Section 24‐10‐101, et seq. C.R.S., as amended.
10. Governing Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Colorado and venue shall lie in the County of Larimer.
11. Enforcement limited to the Parties: The enforcement of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and all rights of action relating to such enforcement shall
be strictly reserved to the Parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or
allow any claims or right of action whatsoever by any another person or third party
entity. It is the express intent of the Parties to this Agreement that any person or entity
receiving service or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental
beneficiary only.
12. Amendments under this Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the Parties. Any proposed amendment of this Agreement must be
referred to the Parties and executed in writing.
13. Severability: If any portion of this Agreement is held by a court to be invalid or
unenforceable as to any party, the entire Agreement shall be terminated, it being the
understanding and intent of the Parties that every portion of the Agreement is essential
to and not severable from the remainder.
14. No Third Party Beneficiaries: The Parties, in their corporate and representative
governmental capacities, are the only entities intended to be the beneficiaries of the
agreement, and no other person or entity is so intended or may bring any action,
including a derivative action, to enforce the Agreement.
15. Legal Constraints: The Parties hereto recognize that there are legal constraints
imposed upon them by the constitution, statutes, and rules and regulations of the State
of Colorado and of the United States, and imposed upon them by their respective
governing statutes, charters, ordinances, rules and regulations, and that, subject to such
constraints, the Parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, in no event
shall any of the Parties be obligated hereunder to exercise any power or take any action
that is prohibited by applicable law. Whenever possible, each provision of this
Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner so as to be effective and valid under
applicable law. Larimer County and the Municipalities are Colorado public entities and
all financial obligations extending beyond the current fiscal year are subject to funds
being budgeted and appropriated therefore. Nothing in this agreement shall be
deemed a waiver of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
16. Effective Date and Termination: This Agreement shall become effective on July
1, 2012. Except as provided herein, this Agreement shall remain in effect if not
terminated by any Party in its sole discretion, by providing 45 days written notice.
17. Counterpart Signatures: The parties agree that counterpart signatures (each
party will have a separate signature page) of this Agreement shall be acceptable and
that execution of the Agreement in the same form by each and every party shall be
deemed to constitute full and final execution of the Agreement.
REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK
CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, acting by and through its
Water and Sewer Board
By:_______________________________
Board Chairman
By:________________________________
Mayor
ATTESTED AND APPROVED AS TO
SUBSTANCE:
ATTEST:
By:_______________________________
Secretary to the Board and City
Manager
By:________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
By:_______________________________
City Attorney
By:________________________________
Director of Finance
For Larimer County
By: Date:
Linda Hoffmann, County Manager
By: Date:
Justin Smith, Sheriff
Approved as to From:
Senior County Attorney
The City of Loveland, Colorado
A Municipal Corporation
Approved as to Form:
By:
William Cahill, City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Date:
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado
A Municipal Corporation
Approved as to Form:
By:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
City Attorney’s Office
Date:
The Town of Estes Park
Approved as to Form:
By:
Date:
The City of Thornton, Colorado
A Municipal Corporation
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Manager
City Attorney’s Office
Date:
The Town of Berthoud
Approved as to Form:
By:
Date:
Exhibit “A”
Notices required under Section 8, shall be sent as follows:
City of Greeley:
Director, Water and Sewer Department
City of Greeley
1100 10th Street, Suite 300
Greeley, Colorado 80631
With a copy to:
City Attorney
City of Greeley
1100 10th Street, Suite 401
Greeley, Colorado 80631
For Cost Sharing Negotiations:
Fire Department Division Chief
1100 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
City of Loveland:
City Manager
500 E. Third St.
Loveland, Colorado 80537
LFRA Public Safety Administrative Director
410 E. 5th St.
Loveland, Colorado 80537
With a copy to:
City Attorney’s Office
500 E. Third St.
Loveland, Colorado 80537
City of Fort Collins:
Ken Mannon
Operational Services Director
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(cell) 970‐222‐1933
(work) 970‐221‐6894
Chief Tom Demint
Poudre Fire Authority
102 Remington Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(Work) 970‐221‐6570
With a copy to:
Fort Collins City Attorney’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue, PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Larimer County:
Larimer County Sheriff
2501 Midpoint Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Larimer County UnderSheriff
2501 Midpoint Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
With a copy to:
Larimer County Attorney’s Office
224 Canyon Ave., Suite 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Town of Estes Park:
Town Administrator
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Town of Berthoud:
Town Administrator
P.O. Box 1229
Berthoud, Colorado 80513
City of Thornton:
City Manager
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, Colorado 80229
Fire Department Chief
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, Colorado 80229
With a copy to:
City Attorney’s office
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, Colorado 80229
RESOLUTION # 03-13
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New BEER AND WINE Liquor License,
filed by Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC, dba, ELK MEADOW LODGE & RV RESORT,
1665 Colorado Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado, is February 8, 2013
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at
7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and
hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 4.7 miles, as measured from the
center of the applicant's property.
DATED this 26th day of February, 2013.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: February 26th, 2013
RE: 4th Quarter 2012 Sales Tax and Financial report
Background:
Attached is the 4th Quarter Sales Tax and Financial report for 2012. Comments are
made in synchronicity with the provided Powerpoint slides. Primary themes include:
• Sales tax collections reached a record level in 2012 ($7,889,229), surpassing
2011 ($7,422,537) by 6.3%.
• Estes Park’s year over year (2011 v 2012) increase compared favorably with the
other CAST communities, finishing 5th out of 24. This may be somewhat
misleading in that Estes Park’s 2011 was a decent year itself, whereas some of
the other communities may have had less than banner years in 2011. Estes
Park also finished 5th in a 3-yr comparison, so Estes Park’s strong performance
has been sustained over recent history.
• Annualized sales tax has been improving since May 2010, when the downward
trend reversed itself. Annualized sales tax is now increasing at a 6.29% rate.
• Of the large categories, lodging increased 12%, food 5%, and retail 2% (2011 vs.
2012). Since 2010, lodging has increased 22%, food 11%, and retail 6% (overall
sales tax has increased 13% from 2010-12).
• Slides 9-10 display the concept real revenues vs. CPI. The important question
here is to figure out how much of the ~84% increase in revenues (1995-2012) is
a real increase, and how much is the result of inflation? Applying the base 1995
revenue to the CPI and Real revenue annual % increases results in slide 10.
Slide 10 clearly shows that a significant portion of the 84% increase is in fact
driven by CPI. The net gain is roughly 25%. While a 25% gain is good – one
wants to see some separation between Real and inflationary revenues, the
important message of this slide is that the majority of the gain over the last 15
years is CPI-driven, and is therefore swallowed up by a corresponding increase
in costs for product and labor. This will be important to remember as discussions
resume on the Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP) in the near future.
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
• The Financial Indicators slide reports DRAFT information for the 2012 fiscal year.
At a macro level, the General and Utility Funds performed well in 2012.
Revenues met or exceeded revised budgets, while expenses came in between
90-94% of forecasts. Expenditure numbers were helped slightly by rollovers from
2012 to 2013, but said Fund expenditures were under budget regardless.
• 2012 was not a stellar year municipal investments, as interest rates continued to
bounce along at historic lows. But, as our investing protocols prioritize goals in
the following order – safety, liquidity, yield – objectives were met. The Town is
keeping its investment maturities short, in case interest rates rise. The Town is
also maintaining a high level of liquidity, both to take advantage of investment
opportunities, and to be able to readily provide needed cash flow for capital
projects.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
Update:Update: Sales Tax: 2012SldiOffiSteve McFarland –Finance Officer
SALES TAX FACTS•2012 is complete.•YTD: 6.3% ahead of 2011.•All‐timehighof$7889229•All‐timehighof$7,889,229.•Compares very favorably with CASTcommunitiescommunities:
CAST COMMUNITIES6.5%7.9%7.7%56%6.3%5.9%58%7.7%6.2%6.1%8.0%10.0%2012 v 2011 4.6%3.5%3.7%5.6%2.9%2.8%5.9%5.8%4.0%3.0%2.2%4.0%6.0%0.7%0.5%1.1%‐0.6%0.0%2.0%‐4.7%‐3.5%‐4.0%‐2.0%‐6.0%
CAST COMMUNITIES18.6%15 1%18.3%17.5%18.3%20.0%3‐yr 2012 vs 200910.2%10.9%14.4%9.6%15.1%69%13.7%10.7%7.6%10.3%10.0%15.0%4.2%6.5%6.9%3.4%3.5%1.7%6%5.5%00%5.0%‐3.3%‐4.2%‐5.3%‐0.3%‐5.0%0.0%‐10.0%
SALES TAX RATE OF CHANGE10%15%20%$600,000 $700,000 $657,436$7,889,2292012 = $7.89M'2013B = $7.80MDecember-1212 Mo Rev.0%5%10%$400,000 $500,000 of Ave Rev.me15%-10%-5%$100,000$200,000 $300,000 12 Mo % Chg Incom6.29%12 Mo. ROC =December-12-20%-15%$0 $100,000 12 Mo Ave12 mo %
SALES TAX COMPARISONS: 2010‐12TOWN OF ESTES PARK2012 SALES TAX CLASSIFICATION BREAKDOWN Prior Prd Prior Prd2012 2011 2012 2010 2012BRIEF TOTAL % of Jan‐Dec vs. Jan‐Dec vs.DESCRIPTION YEAR Total YEAR 2011 YEAR 2010AMUSEMENTS/RECREATION 55,460.48 1% 54,965.69 1% 45,002.87 23%AUTOMOTIVE 147,339.03 2% 140,997.30 4% 150,698.25‐2%FOOD 2,945,020.72 37% 2,812,412.07 5% 2,643,977.57 11%RETAIL 1,490,140.99 19% 1,454,555.09 2% 1,403,594.27 6%LODGING 2,162,856.48 27% 1,931,214.90 12% 1,768,187.36 22%CONSTRUCTION 409,640.88 5% 356,825.81 15% 339,944.21 21%PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL 135,494.35 2% 111,204.98 22% 105,718.52 28%UTILITIES543 276 087%560 360 93‐3%549 970 49‐1%UTILITIES543,276.087%560,360.933%549,970.491%GRAND TOTAL 7,889,229.01 100% 7,422,536.77 6% 7,007,093.54 13%
SALES TAX BY CATEGORY36826409,641 135 789140,997 147,339 8,000,000 9,000,000 1,635,091 1 568 0051,554,316 1,620,726 1,681,096 594,890 555,958 549,970 560,361 543,276 443,856 338,364 339,944 356,826 135,789 141,995 150,698 5 000 0006,000,000 7,000,000 AUTOMOTIVE1,771,509 1,675,092 1,768,187 1,931,215 2,162,856 1,568,005 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 AUTOMOTIVECONSTRUCTIONUTILITYRETAILLODGINGFOOD2,602,655 2,573,160 2,643,978 2,812,412 2,945,021 1,000,000 2,000,000 ,,0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SALES TAX – CATEGORIES AS A % OF TOTAL35%40%25%30%Food15%20%LodgingRetail/OtherUtilitiesConstructionAuto5%10%0%2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SALES TAX BY YEAR$9 000 000$7,000,000$8,000,000$9,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$1,000,000$2,000,000$0
SALES TAX AND CPI$9 000 000$7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $, ,$3,000,000 $4,000,000 BaselineCPI #4% TAX$1,000,000 $2,000,000 $0
SALES TAX SUMMARY•6.3% ahead of2011. Record high of$7,889,229.•Compares favorably State‐wide (5th‐1yr and3yr).•Categories fairly stable year over year.•Revenueshavealmostdoubledinpast17•Revenueshavealmostdoubledinpast17years, but roughly 75% of increase isattributabletoCPI(costoflivingindex)attributabletoCPI(costoflivingindex).
FINANCIAL INDICATORS2012 2012 % of 2012 2012 % ofYear‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Budget Variance Budget % of year elapsed> 100% % of year elapsed> 100%REVENUESREVENUESTaxes(salesptaxffees)$8 884 979$8 807 152$77 827100 9%UtilitySales$15 505 899$15 432 409$73 490100 5%ENTERPRISE FUNDS (L&P/WATER)GENERAL FUND Taxes (sales, ptax, f fees)$8,884,979$8,807,152$77,827100.9% Utility Sales$15,505,899$15,432,409$73,490100.5% Other 1,617,755 1,697,889(80,134)95.3% Fees/services 390,795 319,000 71,795 122.5% Transfers from Enterprise 550,195 550,195 0 100.0% Other 346,173 264,309 81,864 131.0%TOTAL REVENUES 11,052,929 11,055,236(2,307)100.0% 16,242,867 16,015,718 227,149 101.4%EXPENSESEXPENSES General Government 3,036,043 3,363,392 327,349 90.3% Source of Supply 6,126,200 6,226,461100,261 98.4% Public Safety 3,062,335 3,152,322 89,987 97.1% Purification 482,513 662,255 179,742 72.9%PublicWorks2 168 0722 469 896301 82487 8%Distribution2 833 0803 132 971299 89190 4% Public Works2,168,0722,469,896301,82487.8% Distribution2,833,0803,132,971299,89190.4% Culture‐Recreation 903,672 1,044,630 140,958 86.5% Customer Accounts 778,430 871,550 93,120 89.3% Interfund Transfers Out 2,517,237 2,517,237 0 100.0% Admin/General 2,084,645 2,372,528 287,883 87.9% Interfund Transfers Out 728,800 733,604 4,804 99.3% Debt Service 854,999 854,999 0 100.0% Capital 1,256,798 1,838,880 582,082 68.3%TOTAL EXPENSES 11,687,359 12,547,477 860,118 93.1% TOTAL EXPENSES 15,145,465 16,693,248 1,547,783 90.7%NETINCREASE/DECREASE($634 430)($1 492 241)$857 811NETINCREASE/DECREASE$1 097 402($677 530)$1 774 932NET INCREASE/DECREASE($634,430)($1,492,241)$857,811NET INCREASE/DECREASE$1,097,402($677,530)$1,774,932SALES TAX1st‐2nd Qs 3rd Q4th QTotalINVESTMENTS (Fair value)Oct‐12 Nov‐12 Dec‐12 Town Funds2012 Revised Budget 2,959,046 3,459,742 1,381,212 7,800,000 Money markets/CDs 14,754,845 14,882,687 15,094,8442012 2,959,046 3,459,742 1,470,441 7,889,229 U.S. Treasuries 2,851,984 2,854,375 2,851,3912011 2,607,594 3,450,883 1,364,059 7,422,536 U.S. Instrumentalities 5,525,430 5,526,121 5,523,2692010 2,479,795 3,178,427 1,348,871 7,007,093 Total 23,132,258 23,263,183 23,469,503 FOSH/Theater Fund 457,913 457,977 458,0452012 vs 2011 13.5% 0.3% 7.8% 6.3% 2012 data thru 12/31/12: DJIA +7.3%, S&P500 +13.4%, NASDAQ +15.9%2012 vs 2010 19.3% 8.9% 9.0% 12.6% annual pooled govt mm rate: 12/31/12 = 0.24%; 0.15% locally.
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: February 26, 2013
RE: Update on RFP and Schedule for CVB Parking Structure
Background
The Town of Estes Park has received the last grant needed to fully fund the CVB transit
and parking structure, located just east of the CVB in the current surface parking lot.
The budget for this project is $4,600,000, and is comprised of the federal Paul Sarbanes
Transit in Public Lands grant, two Colorado State grants – the CMAQ grant and the
Faster grant, as well as the Town of Estes Park’s required matching funds.
The next phase of this project is the procurement of services to design the project for
bidding. The RFP process is underway and advertising will begin by mid-March, with
selection of the design firm occurring in April 2013. Once design is underway, numerous
meetings with the Town Board will be organized to develop preliminary schematic
designs in a work session environment. After these public guidance sessions, staff and
the design team will proceed with final bidding documents.
Final design for bidding will be complete in August, with construction anticipated to
begin in October 2013 and project completion in May of 2014.
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Dave Shirk, Planner
Date: February 26, 2013
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #5, Solitude I Condominiums,
Unit 10; 1890 Sketch Box Lane; Paul Kochevar/Owner
Background:
1. The Solitude vacation condo project, located on the east side of Fish Creek Road,
across from Brodie Ave, was initially approved in Spring 2002.
2. The initial condominium map for Solitude I was approved by the Town Board in
October 2002, with several subsequent supplemental maps approved as the project
was built-out.
3. This is the tenth and final unit to be condominiumized for Solitude I.
Budget: N/A
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
Sample Motion: I move for the approval of Supplemental Condominium Map #5,
Solitude I Condominiums (Unit 10)
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Dave Shirk, Planner
Date: February 26, 2013
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #5, Stanley Avenue
Condominiums, 444 and 446 Stanley Avenue; Units V & W; Stanley
Avenue, LLC/Owner
Background: This is a request for a
supplemental condominium map for a
newly constructed duplex in the Stanley
Avenue Condominium development,
located near the corner of Highway 7
and Stanley Avenue (Units V & W).
The project was originally approved in
2003, and has been under development
since then; one building remains to be
built.
This supplemental map is consistent
with the approved development plan and previous condominium maps.
Budget: N/A
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
Sample Motion: I move for the approval of the Stanley Avenue Condominiums
Supplemental Condominium Map #5 (Units V & W)).
St. Vrain Ln.CO Hi
ghway 7Stanley Avenue
Stanley Avenue
Condos“RM”
St. Vrain Ln.CO Hi
ghway 7Stanley Avenue
Stanley Avenue
Condos“RM”
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Date: February 26, 2013
RE: ORDINANCE #05 - 13, Rezoning request from A-1 – Accommodations to
A –Accommodations, Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision, 900 W. Elkhorn
Avenue, Robert Fixter/Applicant.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, Lots 1 & 2, Witt Subdivision,
900 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Robert Fixter/Applicant
Background:
This is a request to:
1. Rezone Lot 1 and 2 Witt Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A
Accommodations/Highway Corridor.
2. Enter into a development agreement to:
a. Allow Lots 1 and 2 to function as one lot. This is an alternative to combining the
two lots into one with an amended plat.
b. Establish allowed uses, location, and intensity of uses on both lots
c. Allow pathways constructed on Lot 2 to remain outside the platted limits of
disturbance.
If Town Board approves the applications, the property owner will be able to host events for
guests not staying on site overnight, e.g. guests attending weddings, business retreats,
meetings of local organizations . . . ) If Town Board denies the application use will be limited
to only registered overnight guests.
The application, review agency comment, public comment, and detailed Planning
Commission staff report are posted at www.estes.org/currentapplications for Town Board
review. Planning Commission minutes discussing this application are included in the Town
Board packet. Review of these documents is needed. These documents provide important
information to take into account prior to making a decision.
Standards for Review
Per Section 3.3.D of the EVDC, “all applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments
shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and
criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code.”
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide
adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.
Budget:
$3,000 rezoning application fee waived by staff.
Staff Recommendation:
Since May of last year, staff has consistently informed the applicant and public know that we
support a limited rezoning to A-Accommodations to allow Fall River Lodge day use. Staff
presented this recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, staff requested
additional revisions to better describe the limited rezoning and use prior to making a formal
staff recommendation of approval.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial with a vote of 6-1. Findings
included:
▪ The 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; and
▪ A-1 zone district used as a buffering mechanism between high density and residential use.
The application has been revised since the Planning Commission review and
recommendation. A functional parking plan is proposed and scale and intensity of use is
described (see Exhibit B of the Development Agreement). Because this was submitted after
the meeting it was not considered in the recommendation.
Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #05-03 and the Development
Agreement.
1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement made this ____ day of _______________, 2013,
by and between ROBERT H. FIXTER AND CAROLE A. FIXTER (the “Owners”) and the
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, Colorado, a municipal corporation, (the “Town”).
RECITALS
The Owners own the following described real property located within the Town:
Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision, a minor subdivision of Lot 2,
Seybold Subdivision of the Town of Estes Park, State of
Colorado (the “Property”).
The Property is currently zoned A-1 Accommodations pursuant to the Estes
Valley Development Code. The Owners have filed a Rezoning Petition with the Town to
rezone the property to A Accommodations pursuant to the Estes Valley Development
Code; and
The Board of Trustees of the Town has approved the rezoning of the Property
from A-1 Accommodations to A Accommodations subject to the execution of this
Development Agreement.
The Owners have constructed gravel paths, including small bridges across
wetlands, and patios within the wetlands and river setback of the Property. On October
12, 2012, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment granted a variance to the Owners for
these improvements on the Property subject to two conditions. The Owners have met
the two conditions by obtaining the necessary flood plain permit and filing the required
management plan with the Community Development Department.
The Owner’s acknowledge that the gravel paths, small bridges, and patio areas
on the Property do not conform to handicap accessibility requirements of the applicable
Town building codes and therefore primary functions/events open to the public cannot
be conducted on the patios.
The parties understand and agree that the granting of the rezoning of the
Property from A-1 Accommodations to A Accommodations is contingent upon and
subject to the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.
2
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals which are
incorporated herein and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as
follows:
1. THE PROPERTY. The Property is composed of two separate lots as shown
on the Witt Subdivision Plat and hereinafter referred to as “Lot 1” and “Lot 2”. The
Owners have developed an accommodation on Lot 1 known as “Fall River Lodge”. The
operation of Fall River Lodge as an accommodations use includes parking areas and
pedestrian walkways which are or will be located on Lot 2.
2. SITE PLAN. The Owners have filed with the Rezoning Petition a Site Plan, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the
“Site Plan”), which depicts accessory parking and gravel paths on Lot 1 and Lot 2 which
are used by the Owners, guests and invitees of Fall River Lodge.
3. LOT 1. Operation of Fall River Lodge on Lot 1 shall be subject to all terms
and conditions of the final approval of the Rezoning Petition by the Board of Trustees of
the Town which terms and conditions are set forth on Exhibit B and incorporated herein
by reference.
4. LOT 2. Except as further provided in Section 6 below, Lot 2 shall contain no
development or improvements other than the unpaved accessory parking and installed
gravel paths as shown on the Site Plan. These improvements are reserved for the use
of guests and invitees of Fall River Lodge on Lot 1. No further improvements shall be
made on Lot 2 without the prior written approval of the Community Development
Department of the Town of Estes Park.
5. ACCESSORY PARKING ON LOT 2. Due to the limitations of use of the
Property as set forth on Exhibit B, only 5 accessory parking spaces are required on Lot
2. The 5 parking spaces shall be constructed on Lot 2 by May 31, 2013 and shall be
paved. Construction and paving plans for the accessory parking spaces on Lot 2 shall
be approved by the Community Development Department prior to start of construction.
6. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOT 2. A single family residence may
be constructed on Lot 2. The construction of said residence shall be wholly contained
within the limits of disturbance on the Witt Subdivision Plat.
7. REMOVAL OF LOT 2. In the event the Owners desire to transfer Lot 2 to a
third party, the terms of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
unless amended as provided herein. However, the parties understand and agree that
Lot 2 may be removed from the terms and conditions of this Agreement subject to the
following conditions:
3
a. Required accessory parking be developed on Lot 1 or any other
neighboring properties which meet the terms and conditions of the
requirement for parking pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code
at the time of removal of Lot 2 from the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
b. Evidence satisfactory to the Community Development Department that
any other improvements on Lot 2 including, but not limited to, the gravel
paths, are not essential to the operation of any accommodations use
including group functions on Lot 1.
8. NO WAIVER: No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be
deemed or constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor will it be deemed or constitute
a continuing waiver unless expressly provided for by a written amendment to this
Agreement signed by both the Town and Owner; nor will the waiver of any default under
this Agreement be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default or defaults of the same
type. The Town’s failure to exercise any right under this Agreement will not constitute
the approval of any wrongful act by the Owner or the acceptance of any improvement.
9. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION: The parties to the Agreement may
amend or modify this Agreement only by written instrument executed by the Town and
the Owner.
10. SCOPE: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and no statement(s), promise(s), or inducement(s) that is/are not contained in
this Agreement will be binding on the parties.
11. SEVERABILITY: If any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held
by the courts to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability
will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision and the rights of the
parties will be construed as if the part, term, or provision was never part of the
Agreement.
12. NOTICE: Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement will be
deemed effective when personally deliver in writing or three (3) days after notice is
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt
requested, and addressed as follows:
Developer: Robert H. Fixter
Carole A. Fixter
P O Box 1633
Estes Park, CO 80517
4
Town: Town of Estes Park
Attn: Community Development Director
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
13. RECORDATION: The Town shall record a copy of this Agreement in the
Clerk and Recorder’s Office of Larimer County, Colorado.
14. PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE: Personal jurisdiction and
venue for any civil action commenced by either party to this Agreement arising out of or
relating to the Agreement, will be deemed to be proper only if such action is
commenced in the District Court for Larimer County.
15. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The terms of this Agreement shall be
binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns.
16. VIOLATIONS: The Town shall have right to prevent and correct violations
of this Development Agreement. If the Town finds a violation of this Agreement, the
Town shall immediately notify the Owner in writing of the nature of the alleged violation.
Upon receipt of this written notice, the Owner shall immediately restore the Property to
its proper use prior to the violation. In the event that the Owner does not terminate the
alleged violation and restore the Property to its proper use, the Town may bring an
action in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado to enforce all of its legal and
equitable remedies. In said action, the Town shall be entitled to all reasonable
attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and court costs incurred if the Owner is found to
have violated the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.
17. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Provisions of this Agreement affect the following
described real property:
Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision, a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Seybold
Subdivision of the Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado (the “Property”)
18. AGREEMENT TO RUN WITH THE PROPERTY: The parties understand
and agree that the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement will run with
the Property and will extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives,
transfers, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
OWNERS:
______________________________ ___________________________
Robert H. Fixter Carole A. Fixter
5
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________, 2013, by Robert H. Fixter.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SEAL
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: __________
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________, 2013, by Carole A. Fixter.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SEAL
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: __________
6
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: _________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________, 2013, by William C. Pinkham, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SEAL
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: __________
7
EXHIBIT B
The following are restrictions on the use of the Property and Fall River Lodge:
1. The maximum number of accommodation guests, invitees, and staff including
service providers such as caterers, on the Property at any time shall be 68
persons.
2. The wetland and river setback areas of the Property, including, but not limited to,
the gravel paths and patios, shall not be used for organized events such as
weddings, seminars and conferences. Organized events shall be any event
having more than ten (10) participants.
3. Non-organized recreational use of the entire Property, including the gravel paths
and patio areas, shall be allowed for guests and invitees of Fall River Lodge.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOTS 1 AND 2 WITT SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 900 WEST ELKHORN AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the request for rezoning Lots 1 and 2,
Witt Subdivision, located at 900 West Elkhorn Avenue, from A-1 Accommodations to A-
Accomodations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the requested zoning change be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning for Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision, located at 900 West
Elkhorn Avenue, shall be changed from A-1 Accommodations to A-Accommodations.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS ______ DAY OF ___________, 2013.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2013
and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado, on the day of , 2013, all as required by
the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
Fall River Lodge Rezoning Request – 900 W. Elkhorn AveBob and Carole Fixter own Lots Pictures by Fixter’s1 & 2 Witt Subdivision Lots total 2.55 acres. yLot 1: 10,000 sq ft small hotelLot 2: UndevelopedThe property owners have submitted a request to rezone from A-1 to A to allow use by guests not staying overnightguests not staying overnight.900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Development Agreement RequestThe Fixters have also submitted a request to enter into a development agreement with the Town to:agreement with the Town to:Establish allowed uses, location, and intensity of uses on both lots. Note: This is an additional restriction on A zoning and limits allowed uses and intensity to minimize neighborhood impact)uses and intensity to minimize neighborhood impact)Allow Lots 1 and 2 to function as one lot. This is an alternative to combining the two lots into one with an amended plat.All th t t d L t 2 t i t id th l tt d li it fAllow pathways constructed on Lot 2 to remain outside the platted limits of disturbance. Lot 2Lot 2Lot 1Lot 1900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Property Location and Adjacent ZoningLocation:900 West Elkhorn Ave across from Valley Roady900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Estes Valley Development Review ProcessStaffPlanning Applicant/Property OwnerSubmits Rezoning RequestStaff(Review-Body)Reviews and Presents Recommendation to Planning CommissionPlanning Commission (Review-Body)Reviews and forwards Recommendation to Town BoardTown Board(Decision-Making Body)Reviews and makes a final decisionPlanning CommissionTown Board900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Estes Valley Development Code Standards for ReviewIstheamendment(rezoning)necessarytoaddresschangesinconditionsinIstheamendment(rezoning)necessarytoaddresschangesinconditionsinthe areas affected?Staff Recommendation to Planning CommissionYesPlanning Commission Recommendation to Town BoardNoDoes not meet threshold forPlanning Commission to considera zoning change900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Changes in Conditions1973 – 20033.5 acre ‘parent’ parcelCO Commercial Outlying1994/19951994/1995Single-family home built on CO zoned lot & used as B&B 20032003Lot divided into 4 lotsLot 2 (w/ B&B): Retained COLots 1, 3, & 4: Downzoned to A-1,,2011Fixters downzoned B&B Lot 2 from CO to A-1. A1 allowed the small hotel useA-1 allowed the small hotel useDownzone removed CO allowed uses such as bars, restaurants, and retail.2012 -2013900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013Fixters requested change from A-1 to A to allow hotel with use by guests not staying overnight.
Estes Valley Development Code Standards for ReviewIsthedevelopmentplanwhichtheproposedamendmenttothisCodewouldIsthedevelopmentplan,whichtheproposedamendmenttothisCodewouldallow, compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of theComprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns inthe Estes Valley?Staff: Yes with revisions to further limit impact on neighborhood.Lots 1 and 2 front an arterial US 34 Bypass (West Elkhorn Avenue).Accommodations use is an appropriate use for the property. However, scaleand intensity however need to be further addressed.Planning Commission: NoThe property is located in a residential neighborhoodImpact on adjacent properties and their value could be severe;Noise traveling along the river could be detrimental to neighbors; andA-1 zone district used as a buffering mechanism between high density and residential use.900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Estes Valley Development Code Standards for ReviewTheTownCountyorotherrelevantserviceprovidersshallhavetheabilityTheTown,Countyorotherrelevantserviceprovidersshallhavetheabilityto provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if theapplication were approved.Staff: YesPlanning Commission: No finding.900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Development Plan (Site Plan)•.900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Development Agreement Exhibit BThe following are restrictions on the use of the Property and Fall River Lodge:1 The maximum number of accommodation guests invitees and staff including1. The maximum number of accommodation guests, invitees, and staff includingservice providers such as caterers, on the Property at any time shall be 68persons.2. The wetland and river setback areas of the Property, including, but not limited to, the gravel paths and patios, shall not be used for organized events such asweddings, seminars and conferences. Organized events shall be any eventhaving more than ten (10) participants.3Non-organized recreational use of the entire Property including the gravel paths3. Non-organized recreational use of the entire Property, including the gravel pathsand patio areas, shall be allowed for guests and invitees of Fall River Lodge.1 of 2 patios Gravel Path900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
ApprovalIf Town Board approves the applications, the property owner will be able to host events for guests not staying on site overnight, e.g. guests attending weddings business retreats meetings of localguests attending weddings, business retreats, meetings of local organizations . . . )DenialfIf Town Board denies the application use will be limited to only overnight guests.Options:Options:1. Approve as requested by applicant2. Approve with conditions3. Deny as recommended by Planning Commission4Et df i f60d i dfi lT B d4.Extend for a maximum of 60 days review and final Town Board decision 900 W. Elkhorn Rezoning; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees February 26 2013
Memo
Town Attorney
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: February 19, 2013
RE: Ordinance No. 4-13 - Approving Exclusive Option to Purchase Real Estate
for Estes Performance InCorporated – Performing Arts Center Project
Background:
Estes Performance InCorporated (“EPIC”) proposes to design, permit, construct, and
operate a Performing Arts Center Project and related facilities (the “Project”) on the
Park Theater Mall property. In order to design and construct the Project, EPIC has
requested that the Town sell to EPIC a portion of the Town’s Riverside Parking Lot
contiguous to the Park Theater Mall property. The Exclusive Option to Purchase Real
Estate (“Option”) grants to EPIC the Option to purchase a portion of the Town’s property
as described in the Option (see attached map). The Option must be exercised on or
before January 31, 2017. If the Option is exercised by EPIC, the Town and EPIC will
then execute the Real Estate Sales Contract which is included as Exhibit B to the
Option Agreement. Significant provisions of the Real Estate Sales Contract are as
follows:
1. Purchase price of $536,000. the Purchase Price shall be paid by Seller by
delivering the following documents to the Town at Closing:
a. The Easement Agreement set forth on Exhibit B of the Contract and the
Development Agreement which includes Purchaser’s obligation to design
and construct the Riverwalk through the Project. Estimated Value
$500,000.
b. The Pedestrian Easement more fully set forth in Section 10.10(c) of the
Contract. Estimated Value $60,300.
2. Closing within thirty (30) days after the exercise of the Option and execution of
the Real Estate Sales Contract.
Page 2
3. Costs – EPIC is responsible for all costs of closing of the Real Estate Sales
Contract.
4. Riverwalk – At closing, EPIC shall deliver to the Town a public access easement
across the Park Theater Mall property. EPIC is also obligated to design and
construct the Riverwalk across the Park Theater Mall property. EPIC shall also
deliver a public access easement from the western side of the Park Theater Mall
property to Moraine Avenue.
5. Contingencies – The closing of the Real Estate Sales Contract is specifically
contingent upon the following:
a. EPIC receiving all necessary approvals including, but not limited to, special
review approval and variances for its Performing Arts Center Project.
b. Delivery of the public access easement for the Riverwalk across the Park
Theater Mall property.
c. Delivery of a public access easement from the western side of the Park
Theater mall property to Moraine Avenue for further extension of the
Riverwalk.
d. Negotiation of a Development Agreement between EPIC and the Town
addressing construction of EPIC’s Performing Arts Project, including the
Riverwalk, as more fully outlined on Exhibit C of the Real Estate Sales
Contract.
e. EPIC shall apply for and receive approval of an Amended Plat of a portion of
Lot 33 of the Riverside Subdivision of the Town of Estes Park, which will
enable the Town to transfer the property to Purchaser.
f. Prior to closing, EPIC acquiring title to the Park Theater Mall property in order
to allow construction of the Project.
g. The Town and EPIC negotiating an agreement which provides for reversion of
the Town’s property to the Town in the event that construction of the Project
is not commenced within three (3) years of the date of closing.
h. Prior to Closing, the Town will have relocated the 30 parking spaces from the
Property between June 15 and October 1 of each calendar year within the
Town’s CD - Commercial Downtown zoning district. The following are the
options for relocation:
• Parking lot reconfiguration and/or additional street parking;
• Adoption of a plan that encourages and facilitates employees of
downtown businesses, the Town and/or the Estes Valley Library to use
remote lots at the Visitor’s Center and/or Stanley Fairgrounds; or
• Receipt of a grant award that would wholly or partially fund the
construction of a parking structure within the CD zoning district.
Page 3
Ordinance No. 4-13 approves the Exclusive Option to Purchase Real Estate which, if
exercised by EPIC, approves the Real Estate Sales Contract attached as Exhibit B to
the Option Agreement.
Budget:
The Town will incur administrative and legal expenses in negotiating the necessary
agreements which are contingencies to the Real Estate Sales Contract. EPIC agrees in
the Real Estate Sales Contract to pay all other costs associated with the exercise of its
option to acquire the Town’s property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has no recommendation concerning Ordinance No.4-13.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance No. 4-13.
Page 4
Map of Property
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 1
EXHIBIT B
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT
This REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”)
is entered into the _____ day of _______, 20___ (hereinafter referred to as the “Effective
Date”) by the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“Seller”), and Estes Performance InCorporated (hereinafter referred to as “Purchaser”).
P R E M I S E S:
WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of certain real property, as more particularly
described herein, and which is situated in the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell to Purchaser and Purchaser desires to purchase
from Seller all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to the real property described herein.
A G R E E M E N T:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the Premises, the payment of the
sums described herein, the respective covenants, agreements and obligations hereinafter
set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
SALE AND PURCHASE
1.1 PROPERTY. Upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth, Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser and Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, the
real property, as more fully described on EXHIBIT A attached hereto, and incorporated
herein for all purposes, together with all rights, ways, privileges and appurtenances
pertaining thereto (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”), for the consideration of and
subject to the terms, provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 2
ARTICLE II
PURCHASE PRICE
2.1 PURCHASE PRICE . The Purchase Price for the Property (hereinafter referred
to as the ("Purchase Price") shall be Five Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Dollars ($536,000).
The Purchase Price shall be paid by the delivery by the Purchaser of the following
documents to Seller at Closing:
a. The Easement Agreement set forth on Exhibit B and the Development
Agreement which includes Purchaser’s obligation to construct and
maintain the Riverwalk through the Project. Estimated Value $500,000.
b. The Pedestrian Easement more fully set forth in Section 10.10(c) of this
Contract. Estimated Value $60,300.
ARTICLE III
EARNEST MONEY
3.1 EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT. Purchaser shall deliver earnest money in the
amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) (the “Earnest Money Deposit”) to Seller upon
the execution of this Contract. If this Contract closes according to the terms hereof, the
Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser at Closing.
ARTICLE IV
TITLE STATUS
4.1 TITLE COMMITMENT. Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date,
Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a Commitment for Title Insurance (hereinafter referred to
as the “Commitment”), together with legible copies of all instruments and documents
referred to therein as exceptions (“Exception Documents”) to title covering the Property, in
favor of Purchaser, pursuant to which the Title Company agrees, subject to the provisions
thereof, to issue at Closing an Owner Policy of Title Insurance (hereinafter referred to as
the “Owner Policy”) to Purchaser.
4.2 REVIEW OF TITLE COMMITMENT. Purchaser shall have ten (10) days after
receipt of the Commitment and the Exception Documents (as herein defined) to provide to
Seller written objections to the status of title to the Property. If such written objections have
not been received by Seller prior to the end of the above described period, Purchaser shall
be deemed to have conclusively accepted and approved the status of title to the Property
as shown by the Commitment. If Purchaser does timely deliver to Seller such written
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 3
objections, Seller shall have until Closing to cure such objections; however, Seller is not
obligated to cure such objections. Seller shall diligently pursue the curing of any objections
Seller elects to cure. If Seller fails, is unable, or unwilling to cure such objections by
Closing, Purchaser may either (i) waive such objections in writing and purchase the
Property notwithstanding such objections; or (ii) terminate this Contract by written notice to
Seller. If Purchaser elects to terminate this Contract, the Earnest Money Deposit shall be
refunded to Purchaser and neither Seller nor Purchaser shall have any further obligations
hereunder, except those obligations stated herein that survive termination of this Contract.
4.3 CONVEYANCE BY DEED. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser, at Closing, a Special
Warranty Deed (hereinafter referred to as the “Deed”), conveying fee simple title to the
Property to Purchaser, subject to the exceptions to title contained in Schedule B of the
Commitment approved or waived by Purchaser pursuant to Paragraph 4.2 hereof.
ARTICLE V
CLOSING
5.1 CLOSING DATE. The date of closing (the “Closing Date”) shall be thirty (30)
days after the Effective Date or at an earlier or later date upon mutual written agreement of
the parties. If all contingencies described in Section 10.10 have been satisfied and Closing
does not occur, Seller will have the right to terminate the Contract and retain the Earnest
Money Deposit paid to Seller by Purchaser and the parties will have no further liabilities to
the other. In the event that all contingencies described in Section 10.10 have not been
satisfied by the Closing date, this Contract shall automatically terminate and the Earnest
Money Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser and the parties will have no further liabilities
to the other.
5.2 CLOSING COSTS. Purchaser shall pay the cost of the basic premium for an
Owner Policy of Title Insurance, the cost of a tax certificate, the closing fee, and all other
closing costs. Each party shall pay their own professional legal fees incurred in this
transaction, and any other costs and fees set out herein.
5.3 PROPERTY TAXES. The Property is currently not subject to any ad valorem
property taxes as it is owned by Seller, which is a municipal corporation. Purchaser shall
be responsible for all ad valorem property taxes assessed and payable on the Property
following the Closing, if any.
5.4 SELLER’S OBLIGATIONS AT CLOSING. At Closing, Seller shall deliver to
Purchaser the following documents which shall be duly executed and, where appropriate,
acknowledged, together with any and all items or instruments necessary or appropriate
thereto:
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 4
(a) DEED. The Deed;
(b) OWNER POLICY. Evidence of issuance of the Owner Policy, containing
no exceptions to title other than: (i) the standard printed exceptions in Schedule B to
the Commitment; and (ii) those exceptions to title contained in Schedule B to the
Commitment which are approved by Purchaser or waived by Purchaser as
described above;
(c) AUTHORITY. Any and all documents reasonably requested by the Title
Company or required by this Agreement to confirm that this transaction and the
parties executing such documents are fully authorized and empowered to so act.
(d) FUNDS. Funds necessary to return the Earnest Money Deposit to
Purchaser.
5.5 PURCHASER’S OBLIGATIONS AT CLOSING. At Closing, Purchaser shall deliver to
the Title Company:
(a) FUNDS. Funds necessary to pay the Closing costs; and
(b) EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY. Any documents reasonably requested by the
Title Company or required by this Agreement to confirm that this transaction and the
parties executing such documents are fully authorized and empowered to so act;
and
(c) EASEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Purchaser shall deliver to
Seller a fully executed Easement and Development Agreement as more fully
provided in Section 10.10 of this Contract.
5.6 DELIVERY OF POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to
Purchaser at Closing.
ARTICLE VI
REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS
6.1 SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS. Seller
represents, and warrants and covenants to Purchaser the following:
(a) TITLE TO PROPERTY. Seller will deliver at Closing good, indefeasible,
and fee simple title to the Property, free and clear of all mortgages, liens,
Deleted: and to pay any other obligations of
Seller
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 5
encumbrances, leases, tenancies, security interest, covenants, conditions,
restrictions, rights-of-way, easements, judgments or other matters affecting title
other than those shown on Schedule B of the Commitment and otherwise
permitted in this Contract.
(b) AUTHORITY. Seller has full power and authority to execute this
Contract and perform all of its obligations hereunder.
6.2 PURCHASER’S REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS. Purchaser
represents, warrants and covenants to Seller that Purchaser has full power and
authority to execute this Contract and perform all of its obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE VII
CASUALTY LOSS
7.1 RISK OF LOSS. Risk of loss due to casualty up to and including the Closing
Date shall be borne by Seller, except to the extent of any loss or damage caused solely by
the acts of Purchaser or its agents, employees, contractors, or invitees. Seller shall repair
and restore all damage to the Property for which Seller has the risk of loss prior to the
Closing.
ARTICLE VIII
DEFAULT
8.1 PURCHASER’S DEFAULT. If Closing fails to occur due solely to a default or
breach by Purchaser hereunder, Seller shall be entitled to terminate this Contract, and
retain the Earnest Money Deposit as liquidated damages as Seller’s sole and exclusive
remedy for default or breach by Purchaser. The foregoing sum has been agreed upon as
the amount payable by Purchaser to Seller in consideration of Purchaser having the option
to refuse to purchase the Property without any liability on account of its refusal other than
payment of the Earnest Money Deposit. It is also agreed between Purchaser and Seller
that such sum shall be liquidated damages for Purchaser’s default and because of the
difficulty, inconvenience, and uncertainty of ascertaining actual damages for such default,
the amount of damages shall be liquidated as the amount of the consideration. Seller
hereby waives any and all other of its rights or remedies at law or in equity, for breach of
this Contract by Purchaser, including, but not limited to, a suit for damages or a suit to
enforce specific performance.
8.2 SELLER’S DEFAULT. In the event that Seller shall default in the performance of
Seller’s obligations hereunder, for any reason whatsoever other than Purchaser’s default or
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 6
as otherwise permitted hereunder, as Purchaser’s sole and exclusive remedies hereunder,
Purchaser may, at Purchaser’s option, (i) purchase the Property notwithstanding such
default pursuant to the remaining terms and provisions of this Contract, in which event
such default shall be deemed waived; (ii) terminate this Contract and receive a return of the
Earnest Money Deposit and neither Seller nor Purchaser shall have any further obligation
hereunder, except those obligations stated herein that survive termination of this Contract;
or (iii) file a suit to enforce specific performance and/or damages.
8.3 NOTICE OF DEFAULT. In the event of default by either party, the non-defaulting
party shall give the defaulting party a written notice specifying said default. The defaulting
party shall have fifteen (15) days in which to cure the default. In the event the default is not
cured within said fifteen (15) day period, the defaulting party shall be deemed to be in
default and the non-defaulting party may pursue the remedies set forth in Paragraphs 8.1
or 8.2 above.
ARTICLE IX
NOTICE
9.1 NOTICE DESIGNATION. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered
hereunder shall, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, be deemed to have been
given upon the earlier to occur of (i) actual receipt by the addressee thereof; or (ii) deposit
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, addressed to Seller or Purchasers, as the case may be as follows:
Seller: Town of Estes Park
Attention: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Purchaser: Estes Performance InCorporated
Attn: President
P O Box 3077
Estes Park, CO 80517
ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 BINDING AGREEMENT. This Contract and all of the terms, provisions and
covenants contained herein shall apply to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns.
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 7
10.2 CAPTIONS. The captions employed in this Contract are for convenience only
and are not intended in any way to limit or amplify the terms and provisions of this
Contract.
10.3 TIME OF ESSENCE. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of this Contract.
10.4 CHOICE OF LAW. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado, and the obligations hereunder are performable in the county
where the Property is located.
10.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall not be varied, amended, or
superseded except by written agreement between the parties hereto.
10.6 COUNTERPART EXECUTION. This Contract may be executed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original, and all which taken together shall constitute an
original and all which taken together shall constitute a single agreement.
10.7 DATE COMPUTATION. If any date of significance hereunder falls upon a
Saturday, Sunday or recognized Federal holiday, such date will be deemed moved forward
to the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or recognized Federal holiday. The terms
“working day” or “business day” shall mean days elapsed exclusive of Saturday, Sunday or
recognized Federal holidays.
10.8 ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any or all of the Party’s right, title
and interest in, to and under this Contract to any person or entity without the prior
written consent of the other Party.
10.9 CONSTRUCTION. This Contract is the result of negotiations between the
parties, neither of whom has acted under any duress or compulsion, whether legal,
economic or otherwise. Accordingly, the terms and provisions hereof shall be construed in
accordance with their usual and customary meanings. Seller and Purchaser hereby waive
the application of any rule of law which otherwise would be applicable in connection with
the construction of this Contract that ambiguous or conflicting terms or provisions should
be construed against the party who (or whose attorney) prepared the executed Contract or
any earlier draft of the same.
10.10 C ONTINGENCIES. The Closing of the sale of the Property is subject to the
following contingencies:
(a) The Closing of this Contract is specifically contingent upon the
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 8
Purchaser receiving all necessary approvals including, but not limited to, special
review approval and variances for its Performing Arts Center Project. All
approvals must be in full force and effect at the time of Closing.
(b) At Closing, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller a public access
easement as more fully set forth on EXHIBIT B attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
(c) Prior to Closing, Purchaser shall obtain a public pedestrian
easement from the western end of the easement property described in sub-
paragraph (b) above along the south side of Fall River to Moraine Avenue across
Lot 35 and all of Lot 42, Second Riverside Subdistrict of the Town of Estes Park,
in the form satisfactory to Seller.
(d) Prior to Closing, the Parties shall negotiate and execute a
Development Agreement which addresses construction of Purchaser’s
Performing Arts Center Project as outlined on EXHIBIT C attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by reference.
(e) Purchaser shall apply for and receive approval of an Amended Plat
of a portion of Lot 33 of the Riverside Subdivision of the Town of Estes Park
which enables Seller to transfer the Property to Purchaser. All costs and
expenses for said Amended Plat, including any necessary surveying, Plat
preparation, application fees, and engineering shall be the responsibility of
Purchaser.
(f) Purchaser has, or at Closing will have, acquired title to all the real
property upon which the Purchaser will construct its Performing Arts Center
Project.
(g) Prior to Closing, the Parties shall develop an agreement which
provides for the reversion of the Property to the Town in the event that
construction of Purchaser’s Performing Arts Center Project is not commenced
within three (3) years of the date of Closing. Said Agreement shall be a covenant
running with the Property and executed by the Parties at Closing.
(h) Prior to Closing, the Seller shall have relocated the thirty parking
spaces from the Property between June 15 and October 1 of each calendar year.
The thirty spaces shall be relocated within the Town’s Commercial Downtown
zoning district. The following are the options for relocation:
1. Parking lot reconfigurations and/or additional street parking;
Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or
numbering, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5"
Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or
numbering, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.5" + Indent at:
1.75"
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 9
2. Implementation of a plan that encourages and facilitates
downtown employees of privately owned businesses within the
CD – Zoning District, the Town of Estes Park, and/or the Estes
Valley Library to use remote lots at the Visitor’s Center and/or
Stanley Fairgrounds; or
3. Receipt of the award of grant(s) that would wholly or partially
fund the construction of a parking structure with a minimum of
thirty (30) spaces to be located in the CD Downtown Zoning
District (not including grants for the parking structure to be
located adjacent to the Visitor’s Center).
10.11 LITIGATION. In the event that any litigation is filed by any third party, which
litigation contests the ability of the Purchase and/or Seller to close the sale of the Property
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract, and/or seeks to enjoin the
performance of either party of the terms and conditions of this Contract, either party may
terminate the Contract upon written notice to the other party. In case of such termination,
the Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to the Purchaser and this Contract shall be
terminated and of no further force and effect. However, both parties may mutually elect to
continue to close the sale of the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Contract effective
as stated herein.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 10
SELLER:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
__________________________
By: Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
TOWN CLERK
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF ___________)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _____________, 20__ by
_______________________, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: __________________________
____________________________________
Notary Public
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 11
PURCHASER:
ESTES PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED
______________________________________
By:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _____________, 20__
by_____________________, ___________________ of Estes Performance
InCorporated.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: __________________________
____________________________________
Notary Public
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 12
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Parcel 1:
The following legal descriptions are portions of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73
West of the 6th P.M.
Commencing at the (approximate) Northeast Corner of Lot 34, Second
Riverside Subdivision (the Northeast corner of the slab at the southerly
edge of Fall River); thence S 16'39' E 15.9' to the true point of
beginning;
thence along the east line of said Lot 34, S 16'39'
E 128.4' thence S 78'28' E 24.2';
thence N 11'32' E 140.0';
thence N 78'28' W 35.4';
thence S 73'02' W 56.2' to the True Point of
Beginning. Area: 7775 square feet, more or less
Legal Description of Parcel 2:
Larimer County Parcel Number 3525122943 (as small sliver of property between the
southern boundary of Lot 34 and Rockwell currently containing an extension to the
sidewalk and 3 trees).
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 13
EXHIBIT B
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This Easement Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made as of the ______ day of ____________,
2012 by and between Estes Performance InCorporated (“Owner”), and the Town of Estes Park
(the “Town”), whose address is PO Box 1200, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, a body corporate and
politic, duly organized and acting under the laws of the State of Colorado.
1. Consideration. For and in consideration of One dollar ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration paid by the Town to the Owner, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Owner hereby sells, conveys and grants unto the Town an exclusive and
permanent public easement and right‐of‐way over, upon, across, through, and under
the property described in Exhibit A, attached and made part hereof (the “Property”),
situate in Larimer County, Colorado, for the uses and purposes and upon the terms
hereinafter set forth.
2. Purpose. This easement and right‐of‐way is for the purpose of granting the Town the
right to construct, inspect, maintain, make available to the public, operate and use a
pedestrian way, known as the Riverwalk, including utilities such as water, gas, electric,
telephone, cable tv, and the like (the “Improvements”), upon, across, over, under,
through, and within the Property. No motor‐operated vehicles, except Town of Estes
Park maintenance and Light & Power Department vehicles, will be allowed on the
Property.
3. Representation of Owner.
A. The Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, does hereby covenant and agree
not to construct improvements of any kind or nature whatsoever on, over,
across or under the Property described on Exhibit A or to take or fail to take any
action of any kind or nature whatsoever which would interfere with the Town’s
use of the Property for the purposes herein granted.
B. Owner hereby represents and covenants with the Town that there are no other
parties with interest in the Property and that Owner has sole and exclusive
authority to enter into this Agreement.
4. Binding Effect. This grant of easement shall run with the Property and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 14
The parties hereto have executed this Easement Agreement as of the date first above written.
ESTES PARK INCORPORATED:
______________________________
By: President
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: _________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Town Clerk
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 15
EXHIBIT A
To Easement Agreement
The following legal descriptions are portions of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73
West of the 6th P.M.
Legal Description of Area of Riverwalk Easement to be granted by EPIC to the Town of
Estes Park:
Beginning at the (approximate) Northeast Corner of Lot 34,
Second Riverside Subdivision (the Northeast corner of the slab at
the southerly edge of Fall River);
thence along an Arc with a Length of 75.86', a Radius of 1
07.0',
and a Chord with a distance of 74.3' bearing S 71'11' W;
thence S 16'57' E 11.8';
thence along an Arc with a Length of 37.5', a Radius of 60.0'
and a Chord with a distance of 36.9' bearing N 87'20' E; thence
N 72'32' E 7.4';
thence S 16'30' E 8.9';
thence N 73'12' E 31.0' to the east line of said Lot 34;
thence along said east line N 16'39' W 32.2' to the True Point
of
Beginning.
Area: 2015 square feet
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 16
EXHIBIT C
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following matters:
1. The construction of the Riverwalk along the southern bank of Fall River through
the Project including the following:
• Design and construction of the Riverwalk at EPIC’s sole expense.
• Reimbursement of application fees paid to the Town for (1) the filing of an
amended plat, (ii) the filing of an application for design review, (iii) the
filing of a development agreement, (iv) the filing for height or setback
variances, and (v) any amendments or requests for extension of any of
the foregoing.
2. Terms and conditions of construction of the Project including hours of
construction, use of Town property for staging of construction, and impacts to
neighboring businesses.
3. Any terms and conditions of the special review approval for the Project.
Deleted: <#>Construction, maintenance, and
operation of public restroom facilities within the
easement area (open during normal business
hours).¶
¶
Deleted: (including restroom facilities)
Deleted: <#>Maintenance and repair of the
Riverwalk within the easement at EPIC’s sole
expense.¶
¶
<#>Payment of all utility charges associated
with these improvements at EPIC’s sole
expense.¶
¶
Waiver of water tap fees for the restroom
facilities
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 1
EXHIBIT B
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT
This REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”)
is entered into the _____ day of _______, 20___ (hereinafter referred to as the “Effective
Date”) by the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“Seller”), and Estes Performance InCorporated (hereinafter referred to as “Purchaser”).
P R E M I S E S:
WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of certain real property, as more particularly
described herein, and which is situated in the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell to Purchaser and Purchaser desires to purchase
from Seller all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to the real property described herein.
A G R E E M E N T:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the Premises, the payment of the
sums described herein, the respective covenants, agreements and obligations hereinafter
set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
SALE AND PURCHASE
1.1 PROPERTY. Upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth, Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser and Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, the
real property, as more fully described on EXHIBIT A attached hereto, and incorporated
herein for all purposes, together with all rights, ways, privileges and appurtenances
pertaining thereto (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”), for the consideration of and
subject to the terms, provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 2
ARTICLE II
PURCHASE PRICE
2.1 PURCHASE PRICE . The Purchase Price for the Property (hereinafter referred
to as the ("Purchase Price") shall be Five Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Dollars ($536,000).
The Purchase Price shall be paid by the delivery by the Purchaser of the following
documents to Seller at Closing:
a. The Easement Agreement set forth on Exhibit B and the Development
Agreement which includes Purchaser’s obligation to construct and
maintain the Riverwalk through the Project. Estimated Value $500,000.
b. The Pedestrian Easement more fully set forth in Section 10.10(c) of this
Contract. Estimated Value $60,300.
ARTICLE III
EARNEST MONEY
3.1 EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT. Purchaser shall deliver earnest money in the
amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) (the “Earnest Money Deposit”) to Seller upon
the execution of this Contract. If this Contract closes according to the terms hereof, the
Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser at Closing.
ARTICLE IV
TITLE STATUS
4.1 TITLE COMMITMENT. Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date,
Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a Commitment for Title Insurance (hereinafter referred to
as the “Commitment”), together with legible copies of all instruments and documents
referred to therein as exceptions (“Exception Documents”) to title covering the Property, in
favor of Purchaser, pursuant to which the Title Company agrees, subject to the provisions
thereof, to issue at Closing an Owner Policy of Title Insurance (hereinafter referred to as
the “Owner Policy”) to Purchaser.
4.2 REVIEW OF TITLE COMMITMENT. Purchaser shall have ten (10) days after
receipt of the Commitment and the Exception Documents (as herein defined) to provide to
Seller written objections to the status of title to the Property. If such written objections have
not been received by Seller prior to the end of the above described period, Purchaser shall
be deemed to have conclusively accepted and approved the status of title to the Property
as shown by the Commitment. If Purchaser does timely deliver to Seller such written
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 3
objections, Seller shall have until Closing to cure such objections; however, Seller is not
obligated to cure such objections. Seller shall diligently pursue the curing of any objections
Seller elects to cure. If Seller fails, is unable, or unwilling to cure such objections by
Closing, Purchaser may either (i) waive such objections in writing and purchase the
Property notwithstanding such objections; or (ii) terminate this Contract by written notice to
Seller. If Purchaser elects to terminate this Contract, the Earnest Money Deposit shall be
refunded to Purchaser and neither Seller nor Purchaser shall have any further obligations
hereunder, except those obligations stated herein that survive termination of this Contract.
4.3 CONVEYANCE BY DEED. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser, at Closing, a Special
Warranty Deed (hereinafter referred to as the “Deed”), conveying fee simple title to the
Property to Purchaser, subject to the exceptions to title contained in Schedule B of the
Commitment approved or waived by Purchaser pursuant to Paragraph 4.2 hereof.
ARTICLE V
CLOSING
5.1 CLOSING DATE. The date of closing (the “Closing Date”) shall be thirty (30)
days after the Effective Date or at an earlier or later date upon mutual written agreement of
the parties. If all contingencies described in Section 10.10 have been satisfied and Closing
does not occur, Seller will have the right to terminate the Contract and retain the Earnest
Money Deposit paid to Seller by Purchaser and the parties will have no further liabilities to
the other. In the event that all contingencies described in Section 10.10 have not been
satisfied by the Closing date, this Contract shall automatically terminate and the Earnest
Money Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser and the parties will have no further liabilities
to the other.
5.2 CLOSING COSTS. Purchaser shall pay the cost of the basic premium for an
Owner Policy of Title Insurance, the cost of a tax certificate, the closing fee, and all other
closing costs. Each party shall pay their own professional legal fees incurred in this
transaction, and any other costs and fees set out herein.
5.3 PROPERTY TAXES. The Property is currently not subject to any ad valorem
property taxes as it is owned by Seller, which is a municipal corporation. Purchaser shall
be responsible for all ad valorem property taxes assessed and payable on the Property
following the Closing, if any.
5.4 SELLER’S OBLIGATIONS AT CLOSING. At Closing, Seller shall deliver to
Purchaser the following documents which shall be duly executed and, where appropriate,
acknowledged, together with any and all items or instruments necessary or appropriate
thereto:
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 4
(a) DEED. The Deed;
(b) OWNER POLICY. Evidence of issuance of the Owner Policy, containing
no exceptions to title other than: (i) the standard printed exceptions in Schedule B to
the Commitment; and (ii) those exceptions to title contained in Schedule B to the
Commitment which are approved by Purchaser or waived by Purchaser as
described above;
(c) AUTHORITY. Any and all documents reasonably requested by the Title
Company or required by this Agreement to confirm that this transaction and the
parties executing such documents are fully authorized and empowered to so act.
(d) FUNDS. Funds necessary to return the Earnest Money Deposit to
Purchaser.
5.5 PURCHASER’S OBLIGATIONS AT CLOSING. At Closing, Purchaser shall deliver to
the Title Company:
(a) FUNDS. Funds necessary to pay the Closing costs; and
(b) EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY. Any documents reasonably requested by the
Title Company or required by this Agreement to confirm that this transaction and the
parties executing such documents are fully authorized and empowered to so act;
and
(c) EASEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Purchaser shall deliver to
Seller a fully executed Easement and Development Agreement as more fully
provided in Section 10.10 of this Contract.
5.6 DELIVERY OF POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to
Purchaser at Closing.
ARTICLE VI
REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS
6.1 SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS. Seller
represents, and warrants and covenants to Purchaser the following:
(a) TITLE TO PROPERTY. Seller will deliver at Closing good, indefeasible,
and fee simple title to the Property, free and clear of all mortgages, liens,
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 5
encumbrances, leases, tenancies, security interest, covenants, conditions,
restrictions, rights-of-way, easements, judgments or other matters affecting title
other than those shown on Schedule B of the Commitment and otherwise
permitted in this Contract.
(b) AUTHORITY. Seller has full power and authority to execute this
Contract and perform all of its obligations hereunder.
6.2 PURCHASER’S REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS. Purchaser
represents, warrants and covenants to Seller that Purchaser has full power and
authority to execute this Contract and perform all of its obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE VII
CASUALTY LOSS
7.1 RISK OF LOSS. Risk of loss due to casualty up to and including the Closing
Date shall be borne by Seller, except to the extent of any loss or damage caused solely by
the acts of Purchaser or its agents, employees, contractors, or invitees. Seller shall repair
and restore all damage to the Property for which Seller has the risk of loss prior to the
Closing.
ARTICLE VIII
DEFAULT
8.1 PURCHASER’S DEFAULT. If Closing fails to occur due solely to a default or
breach by Purchaser hereunder, Seller shall be entitled to terminate this Contract, and
retain the Earnest Money Deposit as liquidated damages as Seller’s sole and exclusive
remedy for default or breach by Purchaser. The foregoing sum has been agreed upon as
the amount payable by Purchaser to Seller in consideration of Purchaser having the option
to refuse to purchase the Property without any liability on account of its refusal other than
payment of the Earnest Money Deposit. It is also agreed between Purchaser and Seller
that such sum shall be liquidated damages for Purchaser’s default and because of the
difficulty, inconvenience, and uncertainty of ascertaining actual damages for such default,
the amount of damages shall be liquidated as the amount of the consideration. Seller
hereby waives any and all other of its rights or remedies at law or in equity, for breach of
this Contract by Purchaser, including, but not limited to, a suit for damages or a suit to
enforce specific performance.
8.2 SELLER’S DEFAULT. In the event that Seller shall default in the performance of
Seller’s obligations hereunder, for any reason whatsoever other than Purchaser’s default or
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 6
as otherwise permitted hereunder, as Purchaser’s sole and exclusive remedies hereunder,
Purchaser may, at Purchaser’s option, (i) purchase the Property notwithstanding such
default pursuant to the remaining terms and provisions of this Contract, in which event
such default shall be deemed waived; (ii) terminate this Contract and receive a return of the
Earnest Money Deposit and neither Seller nor Purchaser shall have any further obligation
hereunder, except those obligations stated herein that survive termination of this Contract;
or (iii) file a suit to enforce specific performance and/or damages.
8.3 NOTICE OF DEFAULT. In the event of default by either party, the non-defaulting
party shall give the defaulting party a written notice specifying said default. The defaulting
party shall have fifteen (15) days in which to cure the default. In the event the default is not
cured within said fifteen (15) day period, the defaulting party shall be deemed to be in
default and the non-defaulting party may pursue the remedies set forth in Paragraphs 8.1
or 8.2 above.
ARTICLE IX
NOTICE
9.1 NOTICE DESIGNATION. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered
hereunder shall, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, be deemed to have been
given upon the earlier to occur of (i) actual receipt by the addressee thereof; or (ii) deposit
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, addressed to Seller or Purchasers, as the case may be as follows:
Seller: Town of Estes Park
Attention: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Purchaser: Estes Performance InCorporated
Attn: President
P O Box 3077
Estes Park, CO 80517
ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 7
10.1 BINDING AGREEMENT. This Contract and all of the terms, provisions and
covenants contained herein shall apply to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns.
10.2 CAPTIONS. The captions employed in this Contract are for convenience only
and are not intended in any way to limit or amplify the terms and provisions of this
Contract.
10.3 TIME OF ESSENCE. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of this Contract.
10.4 CHOICE OF LAW. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado, and the obligations hereunder are performable in the county
where the Property is located.
10.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall not be varied, amended, or
superseded except by written agreement between the parties hereto.
10.6 COUNTERPART EXECUTION. This Contract may be executed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original, and all which taken together shall constitute an
original and all which taken together shall constitute a single agreement.
10.7 DATE COMPUTATION. If any date of significance hereunder falls upon a
Saturday, Sunday or recognized Federal holiday, such date will be deemed moved forward
to the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or recognized Federal holiday. The terms
“working day” or “business day” shall mean days elapsed exclusive of Saturday, Sunday or
recognized Federal holidays.
10.8 ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any or all of the Party’s right, title
and interest in, to and under this Contract to any person or entity without the prior
written consent of the other Party.
10.9 CONSTRUCTION. This Contract is the result of negotiations between the
parties, neither of whom has acted under any duress or compulsion, whether legal,
economic or otherwise. Accordingly, the terms and provisions hereof shall be construed in
accordance with their usual and customary meanings. Seller and Purchaser hereby waive
the application of any rule of law which otherwise would be applicable in connection with
the construction of this Contract that ambiguous or conflicting terms or provisions should
be construed against the party who (or whose attorney) prepared the executed Contract or
any earlier draft of the same.
10.10 C ONTINGENCIES. The Closing of the sale of the Property is subject to the
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 8
following contingencies:
(a) The Closing of this Contract is specifically contingent upon the
Purchaser receiving all necessary approvals including, but not limited to, special
review approval and variances for its Performing Arts Center Project. All
approvals must be in full force and effect at the time of Closing.
(b) At Closing, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller a public access
easement as more fully set forth on EXHIBIT B attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
(c) Prior to Closing, Purchaser shall obtain a public pedestrian
easement from the western end of the easement property described in sub-
paragraph (b) above along the south side of Fall River to Moraine Avenue across
Lot 35 and all of Lot 42, Second Riverside Subdistrict of the Town of Estes Park,
in the form satisfactory to Seller.
(d) Prior to Closing, the Parties shall negotiate and execute a
Development Agreement which addresses construction of Purchaser’s
Performing Arts Center Project as outlined on EXHIBIT C attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by reference.
(e) Purchaser shall apply for and receive approval of an Amended Plat
of a portion of Lot 33 of the Riverside Subdivision of the Town of Estes Park
which enables Seller to transfer the Property to Purchaser. All costs and
expenses for said Amended Plat, including any necessary surveying, Plat
preparation, application fees, and engineering shall be the responsibility of
Purchaser.
(f) Purchaser has, or at Closing will have, acquired title to all the real
property upon which the Purchaser will construct its Performing Arts Center
Project.
(g) Prior to Closing, the Parties shall develop an agreement which
provides for the reversion of the Property to the Town in the event that
construction of Purchaser’s Performing Arts Center Project is not commenced
within three (3) years of the date of Closing. Said Agreement shall be a covenant
running with the Property and executed by the Parties at Closing.
(h) Prior to Closing, the Seller shall have relocated the thirty parking
spaces from the Property between June 15 and October 1 of each calendar year.
The thirty spaces shall be relocated within the Town’s Commercial Downtown
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 9
zoning district. The following are the options for relocation:
1. Parking lot reconfigurations and/or additional street parking;
2. Implementation of a plan that encourages and facilitates
downtown employees of privately owned businesses within
the CD – Zoning District, the Town of Estes Park, and/or the
Estes Valley Library to use remote lots at the Visitor’s Center
and/or Stanley Fairgrounds; or
3. Receipt of the award of grant(s) that would wholly or partially
fund the construction of a parking structure with a minimum
of thirty (30) spaces to be located in the CD Downtown
Zoning District (not including grants for the parking structure
to be located adjacent to the Visitor’s Center).
10.11 LITIGATION. In the event that any litigation is filed by any third party, which
litigation contests the ability of the Purchase and/or Seller to close the sale of the Property
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract, and/or seeks to enjoin the
performance of either party of the terms and conditions of this Contract, either party may
terminate the Contract upon written notice to the other party. In case of such termination,
the Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to the Purchaser and this Contract shall be
terminated and of no further force and effect. However, both parties may mutually elect to
continue to close the sale of the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Contract effective
as stated herein.
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 10
SELLER:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
__________________________
By: Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
TOWN CLERK
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF ___________)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _____________, 20__ by
_______________________, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: __________________________
____________________________________
Notary Public
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 11
PURCHASER:
ESTES PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED
______________________________________
By:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _____________, 20__
by_____________________, ___________________ of Estes Performance
InCorporated.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: __________________________
____________________________________
Notary Public
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 12
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Parcel 1:
The following legal descriptions are portions of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73
West of the 6th P.M.
Commencing at the (approximate) Northeast Corner of Lot 34, Second
Riverside Subdivision (the Northeast corner of the slab at the southerly
edge of Fall River); thence S 16'39' E 15.9' to the true point of
beginning;
thence along the east line of said Lot 34, S 16'39'
E 128.4' thence S 78'28' E 24.2';
thence N 11'32' E 140.0';
thence N 78'28' W 35.4';
thence S 73'02' W 56.2' to the True Point of
Beginning. Area: 7775 square feet, more or less
Legal Description of Parcel 2:
Larimer County Parcel Number 3525122943 (as small sliver of property between the
southern boundary of Lot 34 and Rockwell currently containing an extension to the
sidewalk and 3 trees).
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 13
EXHIBIT B
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This Easement Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made as of the ______ day of ____________,
2012 by and between Estes Performance InCorporated (“Owner”), and the Town of Estes Park
(the “Town”), whose address is PO Box 1200, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, a body corporate and
politic, duly organized and acting under the laws of the State of Colorado.
1. Consideration. For and in consideration of One dollar ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration paid by the Town to the Owner, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Owner hereby sells, conveys and grants unto the Town an exclusive and
permanent public easement and right‐of‐way over, upon, across, through, and under
the property described in Exhibit A, attached and made part hereof (the “Property”),
situate in Larimer County, Colorado, for the uses and purposes and upon the terms
hereinafter set forth.
2. Purpose. This easement and right‐of‐way is for the purpose of granting the Town the
right to construct, inspect, maintain, make available to the public, operate and use a
pedestrian way, known as the Riverwalk, including utilities such as water, gas, electric,
telephone, cable tv, and the like (the “Improvements”), upon, across, over, under,
through, and within the Property. No motor‐operated vehicles, except Town of Estes
Park maintenance and Light & Power Department vehicles, will be allowed on the
Property.
3. Representation of Owner.
A. The Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, does hereby covenant and agree
not to construct improvements of any kind or nature whatsoever on, over,
across or under the Property described on Exhibit A or to take or fail to take any
action of any kind or nature whatsoever which would interfere with the Town’s
use of the Property for the purposes herein granted.
B. Owner hereby represents and covenants with the Town that there are no other
parties with interest in the Property and that Owner has sole and exclusive
authority to enter into this Agreement.
4. Binding Effect. This grant of easement shall run with the Property and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 14
The parties hereto have executed this Easement Agreement as of the date first above written.
ESTES PARK INCORPORATED:
______________________________
By: President
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: _________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Town Clerk
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 15
EXHIBIT A
To Easement Agreement
The following legal descriptions are portions of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73
West of the 6th P.M.
Legal Description of Area of Riverwalk Easement to be granted by EPIC to the Town of
Estes Park:
Beginning at the (approximate) Northeast Corner of Lot 34,
Second Riverside Subdivision (the Northeast corner of the slab at
the southerly edge of Fall River);
thence along an Arc with a Length of 75.86', a Radius of 1
07.0',
and a Chord with a distance of 74.3' bearing S 71'11' W;
thence S 16'57' E 11.8';
thence along an Arc with a Length of 37.5', a Radius of 60.0'
and a Chord with a distance of 36.9' bearing N 87'20' E; thence
N 72'32' E 7.4';
thence S 16'30' E 8.9';
thence N 73'12' E 31.0' to the east line of said Lot 34;
thence along said east line N 16'39' W 32.2' to the True Point
of
Beginning.
Area: 2015 square feet
DRAFT #5, 02/19/2013
REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - PAGE 16
EXHIBIT C
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following matters:
1. The construction of the Riverwalk along the southern bank of Fall River through
the Project including the following:
• Design and construction of the Riverwalk at EPIC’s sole expense.
• Reimbursement of application fees paid to the Town for (1) the filing of an
amended plat, (ii) the filing of an application for design review, (iii) the
filing of a development agreement, (iv) the filing for height or setback
variances, and (v) any amendments or requests for extension of any of
the foregoing.
2. Terms and conditions of construction of the Project including hours of
construction, use of Town property for staging of construction, and impacts to
neighboring businesses.
3. Any terms and conditions of the special review approval for the Project.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-13
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE OPTION
TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE FOR ESTES PERFORMANCE
INCORPORATED – PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has the authority pursuant
to Section 31-15-713 (1)(b) C.R.S. to sell Town property; and
WHEREAS, Estes Performance InCorporated (“EPIC”) has requested that the Town sell
a portion of its property located on the western portion of the Town’s Riverside parking lot which
abuts the location of EPIC’s proposed Performing Arts Center Project; and
WHEREAS, as part of the purchase of the Town’s property, EPIC has agreed to grant a
public access easement and construct an extension of the Riverwalk across the Park Theater
Mall property which will be acquired by EPIC; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined it is in the
best interest of the Town to enter into an Exclusive Option to Purchase Real Estate with EPIC
which grants to EPIC the exclusive option to purchase Town property subject to the terms and
conditions as more fully set forth in the Exclusive Option to Purchase Real Estate Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. The Exclusive Option to Purchase Real Estate Agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved. The
officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute the Option to
Purchase Real Estate Agreement and perform all other necessary acts and duties as
provided in the Option Agreement.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days
after its adoption and publication.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _______ day of ______________, 2013.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the _______ day of ___________, 2013, and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______
day of _____________________, 2013.
_____________________________
Town Clerk
DRAFT #4, 02/15/2013
Option Agreement – Town of Estes Park and Seller Initials ___________
Estes Performance InCorporated
Purchaser Initials _______
1
EXCLUSIVE OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE
This Option Agreement entered into on the ___ day of __________, 2013 (the
“Effective Date”) between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter called "Seller", and Estes Performance InCorporated, hereinafter referred
to as “Purchaser,” for the option to purchase two parcels of property owned by the Town
of Estes Park (the “Option Property”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
1. GRANT OF OPTION. In consideration of $1.00 (ONE DOLLAR), cash in
hand paid by Purchaser to Seller, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Seller hereby grants unto Purchaser, for the Option Period described
below, the exclusive right and Option to purchase the Option Property, more fully
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and, upon
the exercise of the Option, to purchase the same as hereinafter provided.
2. Exercise of Option. To exercise this Option, Purchaser shall, prior to the
date on which this Option is due to expire, give Seller written notice of its exercise of the
Option.
3. Term of Option. This Option shall extend from the Effective Date to
January 31, 2017. In the event Purchaser fails to exercise this Option by this date, this
Option shall terminate on said date and be of no further force and effect.
4. Real Estate Sales Contract. At the time of exercise of the Option,
Purchaser shall execute and deliver to Seller and Seller shall execute and deliver to
Purchaser, the Real Estate Sales Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein and by reference.
Deleted: 2014
DRAFT #4, 02/15/2013
Option Agreement – Town of Estes Park and Seller Initials ___________
Estes Performance InCorporated
Purchaser Initials _______
2
5. Purchaser Representations. The Purchaser represents that, as of the
date of this Option, the following are true and correct statements upon which Seller may
rely:
a) Purchaser is a duly-organized corporation in good standing under the Laws of the
State of Colorado;
b) Purchaser will diligently pursue the contingencies which are set forth in Section
10.10 (a) – (g) of the Real Estate Sales Contract;
6. Seller Representation. Seller will diligently pursue the contingencies
which are set forth in Section 10.10 (d), (g) and (h) of the Real Estate Contract.
7. Title Commitment to be Delivered by Seller. Title to the Option Property
shall be merchantable, and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and defects to the
Purchaser’s satisfaction prior to closing of the Real Estate Sales Contract. Within ten
(10) days of the mutual execution of the Real Estate Sales Contract, Seller shall provide,
at Purchaser's expense, a title insurance commitment from a Title Insurance Company
of Seller’s choosing, in favor of the Purchaser on the Option Property, in form
satisfactory to the Purchaser and showing a State of Title as set forth in the Purchaser’s
proposed Real Estate Sales Contract. The premium for such insurance, if the Property is
purchased as provided in the Contract and a policy of title insurance issued, shall be at
Purchaser’s expense at closing.
8. Binding Nature of Option. This Option is for the benefit of and binding
upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
9. Memorandum of Option to Be Recorded. A Memorandum Notice of
this Option shall be executed by the parties and recorded.
Formatted: Underline
Deleted: 6
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 8
Deleted: For purposes of recording, a
Deleted: notice
DRAFT #4, 02/15/2013
Option Agreement – Town of Estes Park and Seller Initials ___________
Estes Performance InCorporated
Purchaser Initials _______
3
10. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall,
except as otherwise expressly provided herein, be deemed to have been given upon the
earlier to occur of (i) actual receipt by the addressee thereof; or (ii) deposit in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed to Seller or Purchaser, as the case may be as follows:
Seller: Town of Estes Park
Attention: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Purchaser: Estes Performance InCorporated
Attn: President
P O Box 3077
Estes Park, CO 80517
11. Seller’s Default. In the event of Seller’s default of its obligations
hereunder, for any reason whatsoever, Purchaser’s sole and exclusive remedy for said
default shall be an action for a specific performance in the District Court, Larimer
County, Colorado. Purchaser shall not be entitled to any damages as a result of
Seller’s default including any actual or consequential damages of whatsoever kind and
nature arising out of and in any way related to the default of Seller.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have executed this Option
Agreement dated as of _____________ in duplicate originals by their respective duly-
authorized representatives as designated below.
Deleted: 9
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic
DRAFT #4, 02/15/2013
Option Agreement – Town of Estes Park and Seller Initials ___________
Estes Performance InCorporated
Purchaser Initials _______
4
SELLER:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK,
a municipal corporation
BY: ____________________________
Mayor
Acknowledged by:
_________________________________
Town Clerk
PURCHASER:
ESTES PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED,
a Colorado nonprofit corporation,
By: _________________________________
Acknowledged by:
By: ____________________________________
DRAFT #4, 02/15/2013
Option Agreement – Town of Estes Park and Seller Initials ___________
Estes Performance InCorporated
Purchaser Initials _______
5
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Parcel 1:
The following legal descriptions are portions of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73
West of the 6th P.M.
Commencing at the (approximate) Northeast Corner of Lot 34, Second
Riverside Subdivision (the Northeast corner of the slab at the southerly
edge of Fall River); thence S 16'39' E 15.9' to the true point of
beginning;
thence along the east line of said Lot 34, S 16'39'
E 128.4' thence S 78'28' E 24.2';
thence N 11'32' E 140.0';
thence N 78'28' W 35.4';
thence S 73'02' W 56.2' to the True Point of
Beginning. Area: 7775 square feet, more or less
Legal Description of Parcel 2:
Larimer County Parcel Number 3525122943 (as small sliver of property between the
southern boundary of Lot 34 and Rockwell currently containing an extension to the
sidewalk and 3 trees).
Page 1
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: February 21, 2013
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement For the Funding and Coordination of a Joint
Compensation Study
Background:
The four member municipalities of Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) have
determined that PRPA is the appropriate entity to contract for and coordinate a joint
compensation study for the benefits of the municipalities. The purpose of the joint
compensation study is to provide reliable compensation information to the individual
municipalities to allow each municipality to attract and retain employees with the unique
skills necessary to manage and operate its retail electric distribution system. The
municipalities and PRPA have determined that there are economies of scale when
conducting one comprehensive compensation study that addresses the needs of the
municipalities for this type of information.
This IGA authorizes PRPA to contract for and coordinate the compensation study for
the benefit of the municipalities. In the IGA, the municipalities agree to reimburse PRPA
for amounts paid to the consultant under the contract as calculated and set forth on
Exhibit A to the Agreement. The municipalities and PRPA have agreed that the cost of
the compensation study shall be based upon a formula where the one-half of the cost is
shared equally between the four municipalities with the other one-half of the cost is
based upon the 2012 energy sales to the individual municipality. The Town’s share of
$7,244 is based upon a maximum contract cost of $50,000.
The Town’s Light and Power Department has determined that this is an appropriate and
cost efficient method to obtain information needed for the operation of the Town’s Light
and Power Enterprise.
Budget:
The amount of $10,000 was budgeted in the 2013 Budget for a Compensation Study.
The maximum amount of reimbursement of $7,244 is below the amount budgeted in the
2013 Budget.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement For the Funding and
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Intergovernmental Agreement For the Funding and
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study.
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and 01/30/2013
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
Page 1 of 5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR THE FUNDING AND COORDINATION OF A
JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY
This Agreement is made and entered on the day of , 2013, by and between Platte
River Power Authority, a Colorado political subdivision (Platte River), the Town of Estes Park,
(Estes Park), the City of Fort Collins, a Colorado municipal corporation (Fort Collins), the City
of Longmont, a Colorado municipal corporation (Longmont), and the City of Loveland, a
Colorado municipal corporation (Loveland). The listed municipalities may be referred to
collectively as “Municipalities”.
RECITALS
a. Platte River was formed by contract among the Municipalities pursuant to C.R.S.
§ 29-1-204 to provide electric generation and transmission services and other
related functions of benefit to the Municipalities.
b. The Municipalities operate electric distribution systems providing retail utility
service to customers within their municipal boundaries and service territories.
c. In order to attract and maintain employees with the unique skills necessary to
manage and operate retail electric distribution systems, the Municipalities have a
common need for reliable data reflecting the compensation levels offered by
utilities with whom the Municipalities compete for employees.
d. Some of the necessary compensation data is of common use to the Municipalities,
but some of the information needed may be useful only to a subset of the
Municipalities.
e. There are economies of scale in conducting one comprehensive compensation
study that addresses the common and unique needs of the Municipalities for
compensation information.
f. The Municipalities believe that a compensation study of this nature and
magnitude would best be performed by a third party with expertise in this type
of research.
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and 01/30/2013
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
Page 2 of 5
g. The results of a compensation study related to electric distribution utility
systems has no relevance to Platte River, but Platte River is willing to coordinate
the compensation study for the benefit of the Municipalities provided it is
reimbursed for the costs incurred in retaining a third party consultant to conduct
the research.
AGREEMENT
1) Platte River agrees to coordinate the performance of a joint compensation
study for the benefit of the Municipalities. Coordination will include
activities undertaken in conjunction with the Municipalities, including
but not limited to, developing a mutually agreeable scope of work, bid
solicitation and contracting with the consultant that will perform the joint
compensation study.
2) The Municipalities agree to reimburse Platte River for amounts paid to
the consultant under contract to perform the joint compensation study,
such amounts to be calculated pursuant to Exhibit A. Platte River will bill
each of the Municipalities separately, with payment due thirty (30) days
after receipt of the billing.
3) Platte River will contract directly with the consultant chosen to complete
the joint compensation study. It is anticipated that Platte River will
contract with Strategic Staffing Placement LLC on a sole source basis.
Under the Platte River Fiscal Resolution, competitive bids are
unnecessary in this instance if the General Manager determines that
Strategic Staffing Placement LLC will provide a specialized service for
which a competitive bid process is not practicable or advantageous.
Compensation of the consultant will be on an hourly basis plus expenses,
capped at an amount not to exceed $50,000.00. If the contract cannot be
completed for $50,000.00, Platte River will not be obligated to complete
the study unless the Municipalities commit to provide sufficient
additional funds through a modification of Exhibit A.
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and 01/30/2013
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
Page 3 of 5
4) Platte River, after consultation with the Municipalities, may terminate the
joint compensation study pursuant to the terms of its agreement with
consultant. In the event that the joint compensation study is terminated
prior to completion the Municipalities will be billed for the work
completed, but in no event more than the amounts set forth in Exhibit A,
and the Municipalities agree to pay the amounts billed. All work product
and any intellectual property shall be provided to, and shall be the joint
property of, the Municipalities. In the event of termination, Platte River
will have no further obligations under this Agreement.
5) This Agreement is the entire agreement between Platte River and the
Municipalities concerning the joint compensation study and shall be
modified only by written instrument approved by the governing bodies
of the Municipalities and Platte River.
6) All of the Municipalities’ financial obligations under this Agreement are
contingent upon appropriation, budgeting, and availability of specific
funds to discharge those obligations. Nothing in this Agreement
constitutes a debt, a direct or indirect multiple fiscal year financial
obligation, or a pledge of the Municipalities’ credit.
7) Platte River agrees to manage, and require the consultant to carry out, the
joint compensation study in accordance with all applicable legal
requirements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement, to be executed the
day and year first above written.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ATTEST:
By: By:
General Manager Secretary
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ATTEST:
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and 01/30/2013
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
Page 4 of 5
By: By:
Mayor Town Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
Director of Longmont Power & Communications
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and 01/30/2013
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
Page 5 of 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
PROOFREAD:
EXHIBIT A
The actual costs of retaining an independent consultant to perform the Joint Compensation
Study will be split between the Municipalities according to the following formula: 1) one half of
the actual costs will be split evenly between the Municipalities; and 2) one half of the actual
costs will be apportioned between the Municipalities in proportion to energy sales from Platte
River to each Municipality during 2012. The total of actual costs will not exceed $50,000.00
absent written modification of this Exhibit A.
Attached is an example of the cost responsibility for all of the Municipalities based on the actual
costs of the Joint Compensation Study being $50,000.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY
2013 Compensation Study Allocation Shared with Municipalities
(Costs Share 1/2 Equally and 1/2 Based on 2012 MWh Sales)
% OF TOTAL 1/2 ALLOCATED
1/2 ALLOCATED 2012 ENERGY MUNICIPAL BASED ON 2012 TOTAL
EQUALLY SALES (MWH)SALES SALES Allocation
ESTES PARK 6,250$ 126,889 3.975%994$ 7,244$
FORT COLLINS 6,250 1,508,735 47.263%11,816 18,066
LONGMONT 6,250 813,675 25.489%6,372 12,622
LOVELAND 6,250 742,919 23.273%5,818 12,068
TOTAL 25,000$ 3,192,218 100.000%25,000$ 50,000$
Costs Based on $50,000 Estimate