Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Retreat 2001-01-17V*.- Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Retreat January 17, 2001 Commissioners; Steve Jackson, Tamara Jaro Attending: Absent: Also Attending; imek, Richard S. Putney, Pauia Steige, Geraid W. Swank, Al Wasson, Rich Widmer All I None Executive Director Smith, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom The Board of Commissioners of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority met after its regular January meeting in its annual goal setting retreat on January 17, 2001. The focus of both the regular meeting and the retreat was to set project priorities for FY 2001, consistent with available resources. The projects selected, not necessarily in order of magnitude, are: Extension of streetscape amenities along the western periphery of Stanley Village Shopping Center within the right-of-way of Highway 34, to link Stanley Village to the central business district functionally and aesthetically. Improvement of the existing Tallant Park parking area on the south side of the river to accommodate approximately three times as many parking spaces in close proximity to the Riverwalk. Provide signage relative to the Riverwalk and the underpass connection to the Riverwalk. Assistance in the implementation and financing of a community performing arts center. Proceeding with next steps relative to key real estate acquisition within Walkway Westward project area.I Continuation of sunrise symposia (but not necessarily at sunrise). Active involvement in Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study. (Major resource commitment is EPURA staff time.) Exploration of extension of EPURA financial life beyond 25 years and possible expansion of Urban Renewal Area, to achieve key community project goals. Detailed planning and implementation of initial element(s) of Walkway Westward. This is yet to be specifically identified, pending the completion of the concept plan, detailed design and cost estimation. The concept plan will be completed within the month, at which time the actual FY 2001 feasible project(s) will be further examined and identified. AGENDA EPURA RETREAt January 17, 2001 9:00 a.m. | Ij Purpose and Structure- Chairman Putney | 9:10 a.m. | I The Future of EPURA. Extending EPURA life. What’s involved?- Jim Windholz i Discussion, Questions | 10:00 a.m. | I Consideration of Projects for FY 2001- Wil Smith Additions? Resources available. 1 Discuss projects, options and alternatives. i j Ranking. 1 Conclusion, consensus. j i Noon: i! 1Lunch ! In conjunction with lunch, or shortly thereafter: j Planning Discussion. Definition of “Downtown”. Delineation.- Wil Smith and Bob Joseph. I What’s appropriate downtown? | I What’s appropriate in “periphery”? j i Other business? i i Adjourn. 1 01/12/2001 11:37 3<J437835 TOWN OF ESTES PAR WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 01/08 VVIKDKOLZ & ASSOCIATES! ATTORNEYS AT U\V j I£50 38TH STREET SUITE 103 WEST ! BOULDER. COLORADO 80301 JAMES A. WINDHOLZ, P C Davids. wiLUAMsoNWILLIAM F. HAYASHI Telephone; (303) ‘)43-310O Fax; (303) 4^5-/835 TO; COMPANY FAX NO.: FROM: DATE: RE; FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ____________ __________________\ /'• 70 — Jim Windholz □ ' Bsv.e Williamson □ Bill Hcyeshi -/■- /A 'O ( -OtA We are beginning to transmit X page(s), including this cover page. If there are any problems with th^ransmittal, please call (303) 443-3100. MESSAGE; I Hard copy to follow in mail: □ yes □ no |i Tills inessagt and the accompanying do cumenes are incended only for the use of the indivadual or enricy co which they are addressed and may contain ini'ormatior. chat is privileged, confidential and e.Ncmpc from disclosure under applicable law. ([ the .reader of this inessa.ge and :he accompanying documents is not the intended recipicnc or the employee or agen: responsible for delivering che message co the incended recipicnc, you arc hereby nocified that any dissemir.arioa distribur.on or copying of chis communicacion is snicriy prohibited. If you have received this communicarion in error, please notify us Immediicely by celephonc, and tecum ithe original message and the ■jccompenying documents co us a: the above address ••ia the U.S. Postal Service, Thank you! ceivediFax 01/12/2001 11:37 4 S PARK ADMINISTRATIO 4437835 WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 02/08 JAMES A. WINDHOLZ, P.C. DAVID S. WILLIAMSON WILLIAM P. HAYASHl CONFIDENTIAL WINDHOLZ & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW i 1650 3BTH STREET SUITE 103 WEST BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 Ttlephone: (303) 443'.3)00 Fax: (303) •44J-7835 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM EPURA Jim Windholz January 12, 2001 OUTLINE Ol^ROCEDURES REGARDING EXPANSION/EXTENSION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL (REDEVELOPMENT) AREA Enclosed is an updated version of a memo I prepared for Wil in August 1999 related to expansion of the redevelopment area. In addition to this information, I submit anotlier memo with regards to the extension of EPURA’s “life". I look forward to elaborating on these matters at the Board retreat bn January 17th. JAW/dr xc; Wil Smith 01/12/2001 11:37 i4437835 I WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 03/08 WINDHOLZ & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LA.W 1650 3STH STREET I SUITE 103 WEST BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 JAMES A WINDHOLZ. P C, DAVID S. WILLIAMSON WILUAM P. HAYASHI Telephone; (303) 443-3100 Fax: (303)443-7835 MEMORANDUM TO: Wil Smith, Executiy<i/^irector, EPURA \ FROM: Jim Windholz DATE: January 12,20(! RE: PROPOSED EPURA REDEVELOPMENT AREA EXPANSION 1. I suggest that a detailed memo with maps of the area arid supporting data be prepared by you outlining the proposed expansion area and potential plan and uses. The EPURA Board should act on the proposal, presumably in support, by resolution requesting /recommending that the Town Board consider and approve the amendment to the urban renewal area/urban renewal plan,. I will be happy to review your memo and prepare the resolution for the Board, if you wish. Commensurate with the memo you prepare for the Board, you can begin the blight analysis process. I have more information about the changes in the Urban Renewal Law regarding blight considerations in this memo. | 2. I recommend that the expanded area be an extension of the existing urban renewal area and not a separate urban renewal area. | 3 Essentially, an expansion of the urban renewal area is a modification (amendment) to the urban renewal plan. Therefore, according to § 31-25-107(7) C.R.S. of the Urban Renewal Law, the proposed revisions or description of same are presented to the Towri Board for a determination, by resolution of the Town Board, as to whether tlie modifications will substantially change the redevelopment plan in (1) land area. (2) land use, (3) design, (4) building requirements, (5) timing, or (6) procedure (in my opinion, the revisions proposed probably do substantially change the redevelopment plan in all of these respects). The Town Board resolution should describe how the proposed modifications change the plan, 4. Although this is an amendment to an existing plan, and although HB1326, effective May 3, 1999, proclaims that the newly-enactcd amendments to the Urban Renewal Law app y to plans (not amendments to existing plans) submitted to the Town Board after May J, 199 , recommend the legally conservative/safe practice of complying with the new law. it lS my that a legal argument could be made that implicit m the bill is its application to substanu modifications to existing plans, such as is the case here. , l£lceived ;Fax ■1 4437835 WINDHOLZ PC01/12/2001 11:37 PAGE 04/08 5. Assuming the Town Board determines (by resolution) that the expansion area Constitutes substantial changes, the modifications must be submitted to tlie planning commission for review and recommendation (which is not binding on the Town Board) as to its conformity with the Town s comprehensive plan. That is the extent of the commission’s legal authority to review the proposed plan. No public hearing is required before the commission, i 6. Upon receipt of the commission’s written recommendation (I suggest the commission do so by resolution), or after 30 days if no recommendations are submitted by the commission, the Town Board may proceed with consideration of the plan modifications. This is the process to which the amended urban renewal law applies. Notice of a public hearing is to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the Town.1 The notice must include the time, date (not less than 30 days from the notice), place and purpose of the hearing before the Town Board, and generally to identify the area covered by the plan and outline the general scope of the proposed urban renewal project. Pursuant to such notice, the Town Board must hold a public hearing on the plan modifications. At the hearing, evidence must be presented of blight and the details of the plan. Although not necessarily legally required, I reconunend that comity and school district representatives be invited to participate. | 7. Following the public hearing and subject to notice to the county as described below, the Town Board may approve the revised plan by resolution if it finds that; i a. blight exists in the expanded area (see below); and i b. a relocation plan exists (if the plan anticipates tire necessity of relocating business or residents in the expanded area); and j c. the redevelopment plan conforms with tlie Town’s comprehensive plan; and d. private enterprise has been afforded an1 opportunity to redevelop the redevelopment area; and e. if the area consists of open land, a finding rhust be made that nonresidential redevelopment is necessary to accommodate proper growth and development in accordance with sound planning standards and objectives; and | f property and/or sales tax increment provisions for payment of debts incurred in relation to the redevelopment project(s) may be included (see below regarding TABOR); and g. please note that prior to approval of the plan (early within the 30 day .notice period described above), the Town Board must provide an irnpact statement to the county commissioners, including, at a minimum, the following: 1 Thirty days written notice of the public hearing is also to be provided to all property owners, residents and business owners, at their last known address, in the expanded area. j 01/12/2001 11:37 134437835 I ■ I M l 11 WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 05/08 i. The estimated time to complete the redevelopment project; and i ii. the estimated annual property tax increment (if property tax increment will be utilized) to be generated by the project and the portion of such property tax income to be allocated during this lime period to fund the redevelopment project; and i i iii. any other estimated impacts of the project on county services or revenues. | 8. According to HB 1326, other findings must be make upon adoption of the plan by tlie Tovra Board, including that not more than 120 days have peissed firom the initial public hearing to the approval of the plan, and, if this is a second attempt to amend the plan for this area, at least a two- year “waiting period,, has taken place, unless “circumstances” have changed. 9. HB 1326 has also “clarified” blight factors which required to be put into evidence at the public hearing before the Town Board. At least four of the statutory blight conditions must exist to amend the plan. There are some legal opinions (which subscribe to) that one may find four factors of blight within one of the blight categories alone, such as four unsanitary conditions, or four unsafe conditions, or four deterioration factors of the site, or | four factors of deterioration of improvements, or four unusual conditions of title rending it nonmarketable, etc. These are issues I will work with you when you start the investigation of the blight factors for the site. 10. If businesses or residents are to be relocated in the expanded area, we must adhere to the new provisions of HB 1326. Businesses only are entitled to goodwill and lost profits “reasonably related” to relocation. I believe this law can be narrowly interpreted and applied to remain in compliance with the requirement. | U. Please be advised that we must address the issue of the potential application of TABOR to the utilization of tax increment in the expanded plan. A district court judge in Boulder has ruled that the adoption of an urban renewal plan by the Broomfield city council, which contained provisions for utilization of tax increments, was a change in tax policy under TABOR and subject to voter approval in tire counties affected, However, the coiut exercised a twisted sense of logic by also ruling that the authority was an enterprise and, therefore, not subject to TABOR. Legally, a ruling by a district court in Boulder has no application to a city in Larimer County. Practically, any negative decision, although by only a trial court, regarding urban renewal autliorities cannot be ignored. The court also held that the finding of blight, establishnient of an authority and impact upon the counties were matters subject to court review as to whether city council acted arbitrarily, capriciously or abused its discretion in establishing tlie urban renewul authority. Adams and Boulder counties were the plaintiffs against Broomfield. Tlie suit was motivated primarily by the politics of Boulder County against the growth and development policies of Broomfield. The rulings of the trial court are so illogical and confusing that Broomfield is comfortable with its legal positions on appeal. The case is before the Colorado Court of Appeals.2 } 2. Since this memo was written, the Court of Appeals has ruled in the Broomfield case that Boulder i 3 eceived Fax 01/12/2001 11:37 34037835 WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 06/08 12, In relation to this case, and until the appellate courts render some decisions on the potential application of TABOR, I submit that the following risks apply to EPURA’s modifications of the plan: a. Findings of blight and extension of the redevelopment area may be subject to court review. With proper evidence of blight and adherence to the procedures related to plan modifications outlined above, Estes Park should withstand any such challenge. b. However, if the county is so motivated, it may also attack the Town’s impact analysis. Perhaps a consultant should be utilized in preparing the impact analysis. I recommend a personal meeting with county and/or school people to explain the proposed expansion plan to try to prevent potential political attacks (and litigation) by the county and/or school district. c. I am of the opinion that there is a better argument than not that an luban renewal authority does not come under TABOR. This is based on several reasons; EPURA is separate and not an alter-ego of the Town Board; it may qualify as an enterprise; it does not have taxing powers rmd is therefore not a “district” as defined in TABOR; and capturing property and/or sales tax increments is not a tax policy change. 13. Finally, the county assessor must also be notified (in writing) of the utilization of property tax increment right after approval of the plan by the Town Board. JAW/dr xc: EPURA Board CouDty does not have standing (the right) to sue Broomfield because its tax base is not affected by the use of property tax increment; notice to the county regarding impacts of the redevelopment plan does not give it a right to sue; and the county could not bring a TABOR action in its own behalf or on blehalf of taxpayers. The Appeals Court did not address the issue of whether urban renewal autliorities are subject to TABOR. The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case and may rule on the issue of the application of TABOR to urban renewal authorities as well as the standing issue raised by the county. | 01/12/2001 11:37 II34437835 WINDH0L2 PC ARK ADMINIS PAGE 07/08 WINDHOLZ & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW | 1650 J8TH STREET SUITE 103 WEST ! BOULDER, COLORADO 60301 i JAMES A. WINTIHOLZ, P.C. DAVIDS. WILLIAMSON WILLIAM P. HAYASHI Telephone: (303)443-3100 .pax: (303) 443-7835 CONFIDENTIAL lORANDUM TO:EPURA / / FROM:Jim Windholz ^ DATE:January 12, 2Ql(y RE:EXTENSION OF EPURA’S “LIFE 1. The only thing that expires after 25 years in an urban renewal area is the utilization of property tax increment. It is my opinion that the Town and EPURA may enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to continue the utilization of sales tax increment. However, this opinion must take into consideration the TABOR factor and whether it is a tax policy change resulting in net revenue increase to a “district”. As you know, it is my opinion, shared by many other attorneys, that an URA is not a “district” under TABOR, or in the alternative, it is an “enterprise” within TABOR; and therefore, not subject to TABOR. However, be advised that only one District Court in Jefferson County (which does not apply to EPURA) has so ruled. The Colorado Supreme Court may address this issue this year in the Boulder County v. Broomfield case. Further, I recommend that you consider a review/amendment to the existing urban renewal area for an update of blight factors and an amendment to tlie redevelopment plan. If you do so, the process is the formal, lengtliy procedures required in the original establisliment of the urban renewal area, or a substantial modification tliereof. Be mindful of the recent amendments 3 \ t to the urban renewal law regarding additional blight factors, notice/heaiing requirements, relocation requirements, and notice to county and impact analysis: Without proposed residential uses and without property tax increment notice to the school district is not required. i Finally, it is my opinion, shared by several bond attorneys, that in the process of expanding the redevelopment area and in compliance with the re-finding of blight in the existing area, and consistent with the analysis that certain projects under the existing redevelopment plan iseceived'Fax 01/12/2001 11:37 34437835 WINDHOLZ PC PAGE 00/08 have not been completed and that more time and effort is required to effect them, and with the adoption of an amended redevelopment plan, justification exists for the extension of the urban renewal process in the existing and expanded areas. 1 think it is imperative that additional area be added, that additional blight factors be evident, that the “unfinished” plan be emphasized to justify the extension of EPURA and that the existing plan be reyised/updated. There is nothing in tlie urban renewal law to prohibit this extension idea. However, the TABOR warnings, in this and the accompanying memo, apply. [ iAgain, I am comfortable that, at the least, EPURA’s “life” can be extended with the utilization of sales tax increment either in the elaborate manner described above, or by an IGA with the Town as part of the extension process. j JAW/dr I i xc: Wil Smith 1 The Golden Age of Urban Renewal in Estes Park How Long Should the Renaissance Last? Prepared for Consideration by the Mayor arid Board of Trustees January 10,2001 | Overview: The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) was created by the Town of Estes Park in 1982 under the Colorado Revised Statutes. Title 31, Article 25, 31-25-104, shortly after the devastation caused by the Lawn Lake flood. An urban renewal authority is a special purpose governmental entity authorized to perform certain activities aimed at achieving specific goals. The overall goal of EPURA is to eliminate physical and jeconomic blight and to implement physical improvements aimed at enhancing the Estes Park economy and the community in general. | I While a separate unit of local government, an urban renewal authority is really a vehicle of its creator, the Town, to perform specific tasks in a highly efficient manner that might be cumbersome or impossible otherwise. These tasks include planning and implementing public improvements, financing improvements through issuing bonds, the use of eminent domain (if necessary) and entering into public/private partnerships as appropriate to achieve Town goals. j EPURA is governed by a seven member Board of Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor with approval by the Town Board of Trustees. The staff is minimal, consisting of one person, the Executive Director, who is responsible for all administrative functions and who serves as project manager for all ongoing projects and activities. In addition' the Deputy Town Clerk assists in administrative matters as needed. The Commission and staff are augmented by a team of specialized consultants who are employed as necessary to carry out the mission of EPURA and the Town. This has been a highly successful approach because EPURA has assembled the best talent available to provide services on an as-needed basis. jThis talent includes planning and design professionals, real estate development professionals, specialized legal advisors and engineers. The EPURA Commissioners work in concert with the Mayor and Board of Trustees in setting goals and establishing project priorities. The Executive Director in some respects functions as a Town department head, working closely with the Town Administrator and all departments as need be. In addition, the Executive Director provides assistance to the Town on special projects, most notably in the area of transportation. All in all, this has been an efficient and cost-effective arrangement. |I I As required by Statute, EPURA has a finite existence, which is 25 years. Established in 1982, EPURA’s financial life will expire in 2007, unless it is extended. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether or not it should be extended. This exploration logically includes an examination of what has been accomplished, what still needs to be accomplished and whether or not EPURA is the best vehicle for accomplishment. i Achievements to Date: \ i The Town of Estes Park, through EPURA, has made dramkic improvements to the community. Since 1982, the Town has been transformed from an ordinary touristy strip commercial place into an attractive award-winning example of good town design. While a joint effort of public and private effort, most of this transformation has been the result of EPURA planning, construction and financing. These improvements include: i Dramatic streetscape improvements to Elkhorn Avenue including landscaping, decorative lighting, street furniture, decorative paving and ! improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Development of the Riverwalk, which parallels East Elkhorn Avenue, and provides an attractive additional orientation for retail businesses toward a much used pedestrian circulation system. 1 i Development of Riverside Plaza, a gathering place and focus of the Riverwalk, which also accommodates an additional pedestrian orientation of retail shops. Street realignment and general improvement to both vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the downtown area, including parking. | i Development of the Conference Center, which attracts a variety of groups to Estes Park, enhancing the economy in general and extending visitation and business activity into the shoulder seasons. ! I Purchase of the Knoll Property, an highly visible approximately 9 acre tract near the center of Town, to ensure its appropriate use and preclude it from being used for activities deemed undesirable by the community at large. This purchase is complemented by the Town purchasing adjacent property, to further ensure that that appropriate public uses are realized in this central area. ' A variety of less dramatic, but highly worthwhile' endeavors to achieve community improvement including establishment of the bronze sculpture theme, creation of the Stanley Historic District, development of Stanley Village, major parking lot improvements and improved signage in downtown. In addition, EPURA’s contribution to the Town’s Community Reinvestment Fund is substantial, amounting to nearly $1 million in FY 2000. These monies have been used for worthwhile community improvements, including the new fire house and the completion of the Lake Estes Trail. j Current Projects and Priorities: | The current major focus of EPURA is the planning of the extension of the Riverwalk westward. Since it may, or may not, follow the river exactly; it is being called “Estes Park Riverfront - West Corridor”. The project area for this endeavor extends from the east side of Moraine Avenue to the vicinity of West Park Center to the west, a distance of approximately one-half mile. The goal is to continue to enhance the central business area by incorporating the amenities of the river with a pleasant and functional pedestrian circulation systern, providing an opportunity for complementary commercial expansion and orientation. EPURA has completed its initial inventory and analysis and the initial phase of public involvement on the nature of the design elements to be incorporated into the design. Based upon physical determinants and suggestions from business owners, property owners and interested citizens, a concept plan is being developed. Other current projects being worked on this year include: i i Analysis of the best use of Tallant Park, an approximately 10 acre triangular area at the intersection of Highways 34 and 36 to the east of downtown. This area is in public ownership and is truly the “gateway” to the Town. Participation in the Estes Valley Transportation j Alternatives Study and feasibility analysis of development of a multi-modal transportation system to address traffic congestion and improvement of circulation within the Town. A related activity is working with Rocky Mountain National Park on Phase II of the Park Transportation Study. Development of a master plan for the Knoll Property and adjacent public areas, consistent with community goals for the preservation of open [space and public enjoyment of this area. 1 ■ I Following the untimely death of Mountain Discovery at the polls last year, this year has been mostly a “planning year”. The one exception was the construction of improvement of access to the Stanley Hotel complex and the addition of 105 parking spaces to the rear of the buildings. iNext Year and Beyond: The EPURA Board of Commissioners meets in a work session each January to establish its current development policies and set priorities for projects, consistent with its resources. While this event is yet to occur for FY 2001, the following endeavors cry out for accomplishment: Construction of the “Estes Park Riverwalk, Westj Corridor”. Design is yet to be completed and therefore no costs have been assigned; however, if this is accomplished consistent with the existing East Riverwalk and Riverside Plaza, the cost will be in the millions of dollars. Obviously, this will have to be [accomplished in affordable phases over multiple years. If EPURA’s financial life were Extended, financing through bonds could occur to accelerate the construction of these irhprovements and the realization of the benefits that accrue. ! i Development of plans and construction of improvements in Tallant Park. Again plans are to be developed and costs assigned; however, any significant improvements in this area will cost at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Center for the Performing Arts. Analysis of alternatives and preliminary planning has begun for a performing arts center for the Estes ParkICommunity, following the lack of availability of Stanley Hall for this purpose. This facility, as envisioned, will probably cost between $2 million and $3 million. One way to effectively accomplish this is as an EPURA project. Financing through bonds could be an attractive way to early realization of this facility. i I Implementation of transportation elements. Pending the outcome and recommendations of the Estes Valley Transportation Alternative Study, it is highly likely that a public transit component will emerge. Accommodations for public transit will be needed in the central area. EPURA will likely be the best vehicle for making these improvements. A myriad of other needs and requests including appropriate treatment for public enjoyment of the Knoll Property, possible extension of the downtown theme to Stanley Village and beyond, improvements to the Moraine Avenue area and areas south, etc. By whatever yardstick we measure or upon whatever benchmark we reference, a case can be made that EPURA’s Job is at best half done. Do we want to continue our community improvements in this vein? Is EPURA the best vehicle to do so? If so, steps need to be taken to extend the life of EPURA and to allocate appropriate dollars for these needs. The Numbers and Dollars: EPURA is funded by tax increment financing, which is the increase in both sales tax and property tax, within the Urban Renewal Area, above the base year of 1982. The total revenue from these sources is estimated to be $2,847,979 in FY 2000, of which about 20 percent is property tax and about 80 percent is sales tax. In addition, there are interest earnings and a payment from the Conference Center, basically offset by bond payments for same. Major expenditures (rounded) for FY 2000 are as follows: ; $737,000 to Town for maintenance of EPURA improvements. $988,000 to Town for Community Reinvestment Fund. $977,000 for debt service for bonds, which financed prior improvements. $ 119,000 for payment on Knoll Property. I $400,000 for planning and construction of current EPURA projects. I Under the current arrangement, simple arithmetic shows that the remaining seven-year life of EPURA will result in about $2.8 million for projects. Will this complete desired improvements in our community? ! Projects for Consideration of EPURA Board of Commissioners FY 2001 EPURA Retreat, January 17,2001 As always, the worthwhile projects that have emerged for consideration in FY 2001 exceed the financial capability of EPURA. For this reason, we need [to carefully consider each potential project and request, weigh it against our overall goals and establish priorities, which will best achieve EPURA’s short-range objectives within the framework of long-range planning. i FY 2000 was a “planning year” and we did not expend all of our available funds. We have carried over approximately $185,000 (unencumbered. This takes into account our current obligations including the balance of our Walkway Westward design contract with DSW and several other outstanding commitments.), which increases our FY 2001 amount for planning and construction from the normal $380,000 to about $565,000. In addition, we should keep in mind that in FY 2000, EPURA contributed nearly $1 million to the Town Community Reinvestment Fund. Some of these monies could be applied to EPURA capital projects (most probably Walkway Westward), contingent on the approval of the Town Board. The potential projects, arranged in no particular order at this stage, are: i (These will be compiled on separate sheets for the purpose of ranking at the retreat.) Tttllant Park Imyrovements: We added Tallant Park to our “high priority” list last year, upon request by the Town Board of Board of Trustees. Other Ithan a brainstorming session with Szymanski/Ray and the Chamber, we have done little relative to the development of the highest and best (public) use of Tallant Park. The reason is primary attention being paid to Walkway Westward and perhaps that (consciously or subconsciously) Mountain Discovery is such a hard act to follow. There are two activities we might consider relative to Tallant Park in FY 2001: I Expansion of Urban Renewal Boundary. Only about one-third of this public acreage (former Mountain Discovery site) is within the Urban Renewal Area. A “blight study” had been undertaken and then discontinued upon defeat of Mountain Discovery. If we are to do anything in Tallant Park, the Urban Renewal Boundary needs to be expanded to include the entire area. Updating and completion of the blight study to include the Estes Park Sanitation Plant property is a desirable and viable project. Estimated cost:Logically combined with “Extension of EPURA Life” Parkins Lot Improvement. South of River. Even though the recommendations of the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study are over a year away, a case can be made that “it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer” that improvement of the existing parking area is desirable relative to our goal of providing parking on the periphery of the central business area and getting people out of their cars and onto other modes of transportation, be it pedestrian ways or public transit. This area has been called the world’s least efficient parking lot, with its 21 spaces. Paving and striping of this area in general accord with the layout for the area consistent with the Mountain Discovery proposal would increase the number of parking spaces approximately threefold. This would be a highly visible project and would be an immediate functional improvement to the “gateway” area. j Estimated cost (rough, based on comparison with Stanley project): Includes $15,000 for preparation of construction documents. $165,000 Improved Sign age Relative to Riverwalk Underpass. Related to expanded parking and also to Stanley Village Improvements, improved signage relative to the Riverwalk underpass is needed. It is currently not obvious to the visitor, or even the resident, that the underpass exists. If we are to get more people to use the pedestrian circulation system, we need to emphasize the conveniences and amenities associated with it. Estimated cost: (Might be less.) $14,000 Knoll Area Master Plan: A recurring priority, which never quite seems to happen, is the development of a master plan for the Knoll property and adjacent public lands. Actually, we (DSW) did look at the possibility of a portion of this property accommodating an ice skating facility, at the request of the Parks and Recreation District. Development of a pedestrian circulation system was examined in a preliminary way. The Parks and Recreation District chose not to pursue this option. i Estimated cost (same as last year):$60,000 Option on Bob’s Amoco: As a part of the Walkway Westward Study, discussions have begun with Bob Howell relative to the purchase of Bob’s Amoco and the redevelopment into a higher and better use. These discussions are preliminary; however, should we reach agreement and proceed to the next stage, it is the recommendation of Szymanski/Ray to acquire an option to purchase while an arrangement with a new user can be consummated. Estimated cost ($50,000 for 2 year period):$25,000/yr. Piccadilly Square Improvements: The owner of a major j portion of Piccadilly Square has approached EPURA to participate in the extension of the Riverwalk as a part of the improvement of this underutilized property. In performing the initial development review, concerns were raised by both Town staff and EPURA staff relative to the workability of the proposal. EPURA engaged the services of Szymanski/Ray to perform a cursory study and advise the owner relative to viable options. This study is nearing completion and could result in an exciting and viable new development, which might be worthy of some investment on the part of EPURA. Estimated cost:Too soon to tell. Extension of EPURA Life: As we proceed with our plans for Walkway Westward, examine Tallant Park opportunities and explore with the Town the feasibility of constructing a performing arts center, it becomes apparent that these things are not going to be accomplished with the resources of EPURA within the seven-year time frame we have remaining. If one steps back and observes objectively, it would seem that, while we have 'made incredible improvements, they include maybe slightly less than half of what needs to be done. The option is to extend the life of EPURA. We have had preliminary conversations with Jim Windholz, who is involved with similar extensions with several of his other clients. The first step is discussion with the Mayor and Town Board of Trustees. Assuming a favorable discussion, a blight study is needed and a series of steps prescribed by the Statutes, including a public hearing and approval by the Town Board. I Estimated cost (blight study and legal services):$35,000 Performins Arts Center: The Town is pursuing the opportunity of developing a performing arts center adjacent to the Conference Center at the Holiday Inn. This facility will serve as a larger and improved alternative to the earlier endeavor that would have used an improved Stanley Hall. A concept plan has been developed and several steps need to be taken to determine the feasibility of this endeavor. Should it prove feasible, the development and financing (bonds) might logically be a project of EPURA. This is directly related to the “Extension of EPURA Life” work element above. Estimated cost:Staff time. Other costs could be part of the bond financing. Visitor Survey: The Chamber Resort Association has approached EPURA relative to sharing the modest cost of a visitor survey, aimed at ascertaining the physical elements of Estes Park that attract them and influence their behavior while being here. This would be conducted during the peak season by professionals and would result in an evaluation tool for consideration of EPURA actions which would best affect our economy in a positive way. It would be valuable to the Chamber and to individual business owners. David Thomas suggests that an annual update of this survey might be a valuable tool for both the Chamber and EPURA. Issues to be included would be: ' i The type of visitor we are attracting and their demographics. Their motivation for coming. [ What they liked or disliked. | Length of stay. How they learned about Estes Park (advertising, internet, etc.). Party size (number and makeup of group). ; Estimated expenditure while in town. | Level of customer service received. I Estimated cost (one half of total):$10,000 Sunrise Symposia: An ongoing activity of EPURA over the past year has been our monthly Sunrise Symposia, at which we have sponsored discussions of community sustainability, transportation and creative community planning (AIA design charette results). This activity has been well received and costs very little. It does require a modest amount of staff time. Estimated cost (doughnuts, bagels and things):$480 Transportation Involvement, Analysis and Coordination: With the advent of the Estes Valley Transportation Study and Phase II of the Park Study, considerable EPURA staff time will be spent relative to these endeavors. In addition to an EPURA role, EPURA staff has been designated to represent the Town in the development of the Valley Study. This costs nothing additional, but it does require staff time and attention. Estimated cost:Nothing additional. Walkway Westward: The planning of Walkway Westward was our #1 priority in FY 2000. It would be nice to construct an initial phase in FY 2001. This initial phase is currently undefined. DSW is in the process of defining several options. Most of us would probably agree that we would ideally work from east to west and logically extend the existing Riverwalk. Based on the public input and our analysis to date, a pedestrian grade separation at Moraine Avenue is highly desirable. This could well be the most expensive element of the entire endeavor and could cost well in excess of our annual budget. At the same time, there is little point in creating a pedestrian overpass/underpass unless there is something worthy of connecting to. This gets us into the most difficult part of the project, which is dealing with Wiest Drive and the adjacent challenges to the rear of the commercial buildings fronting on West Elkhorn: A case can be made that the logical starting point might be in the far west end, with focus on the proposed “band shell”. This could be the most “bang for the buck”. Deferring the Moraine grade separation until after the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study is completed will enhance the probability of obtaining grant monies to help with such an endeavor. Also, it is possible that the Transportation Study could provide a viable alternative to Moraine Avenue (at this location) being the primary route to the Park. Estimated cost: Variable. We have defined 11 component “project” areas and, working with DSW, have put a “ballpark” estimate on the cost of developing each. The total amount to develop the entire Walkway Westward is estimated to be about $8 million. A worksheet showing the breakdown will be available at the Retreat. Depending on the priorities assigned to the above potential projects, we might be able to spend up to approximately $250,000 on Walkway Westward in FY 2001. Tallant Park Improvements - Parldng I Ranldng: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: TaUant Park Imyrovements: We added Tallant Park to our “high priority” list last year, upon request by the Town Board of Board of Trustees. Other than a brainstorming session with Szymanski/Ray and the Chamber, we have done little relative to the development of the highest and best (public) use of Tallant Park. The reason is primary attention being paid to Walkway Westward and perhaps that (consciously or subconsciously) Mountain Discovery is such a hard act to follow. There are two activities we might consider relative to Tallant Park in FY 2001: Expansion of Urban Renewal Boundary. Only about one-third of this public acreage (former Mountain Discovery site) is within the Urban Renewal Area. A “blight study” had been undertaken and then discontinued upon defeat of Mountain Discovery. If we are to do anything in Tallant Park, the Urban Renewal Boundary needs to be expanded to include the entire area. Updating and completion of the blight study to include the Estes Park Sanitation Plant property is a desirable and viable project. Estimated cost:Logically combined with “Extension of EPURA Life” Parkins Lot Improvement, South of River. Even though the recommendations of the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study are oyer a year away, a case can be made that “it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer” that improvement of the existing parking area is desirable relative to our goal of providing parking on the periphery of the central business area and getting people out of their cars and onto other modes of transportation, be it pedestrian ways or public transit. This area has been called the world’s least efficient parking lot, with its 21 spaces. Paving and striping of this area in general accord with the layout for the area consistent with the Mountain Discovery proposal would increase the number of parking spaces approximately threefold. This would be a highly visible project and would be an immediate functional improvement to the “gateway” area. | , I Estimated cost (rough, based on comparison with Stanley project): $165,000 Includes $15,000 for preparation of construction documents. Tallant Park Area - Improved Signage Ranking: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: Improved Sisnase Relative to Riverwalk Underpass. Related to expanded parking and also to Stanley Village Improvements, improved, signage relative to the Riverwalk underpass is needed. It is currently not obvious to the visitor, or even the resident, that the underpass exists. If we are to get more people to use the pedestrian circulation system, we need to emphasize the conveniences and amenities associated with it. Estimated cost: (Might be less.) $14,000 Knoll Area Master Plan Ranking: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: Knoll Area Master Plan: A recurring priority, which never quite seems to happen, is the development of a master plan for the Knoll property and adjacent public lands. Actually, we (DSW) did look at the possibility of a portion of this property accommodating an ice skating facility, at the request of the Parks and Recreation District. Development of a pedestrian circulation system was examined in a preliminary way. The parks and Recreation District chose not to pursue this option. | Estimated cost (same as last year):$60,000 Option on Bob’s Amoco Ranking: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: Option on Bob’s Amoco: As a part of the Walkway Westward Study, discussions have begun with Bob Howell relative to the purchase of Bob’s Amoco‘ and the redevelopment into a higher and better use. These discussions are preliminary; however, should we reach agreement and proceed to the next stage, it is the recommendation of Szymanski/Ray to acquire an option to purchase while an arrangement with a new user can be consummated. Estimated cost ($50,000 for 2 year period):$25,000/yr. Piccadilly Square Improvements Ranking: Proposed Funding (No Estimate Provided): Piccadilly Sgiiare Improvements: The owner of a major portion of Piccadilly Square has approached EPURA to participate in the extension of the Riverwalk as a part of the improvement of this underutilized property. In performing the initial development review, concerns were raised by both Town staff and EPURA staff relative to the workability of the proposal. EPURA engaged the services of Szymanski/Ray to perform a cursory study and advise the owner relative to viable options. This study is nearing completion and could result in an exciting and viable new development, which might be worthy of some investment on the part of EPURA. Estimated cost:Too soon to tell. Extension of EPURA Life Ranking: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate Extension of EPURA Life: As we proceed with our plaris for Walkway Westward, examine Tallant Park opportunities and explore with the Town the feasibility of constructing a performing arts center, it becomes apparent that these things are not going to be accomplished with the resources of EPURA within the seven-year time frame we have remaining. If one steps back and observes objectively, it would seem that, while we have made incredible improvements, they include maybe slightly less than half of what needs to be done. The option is to extend the life of EPURA. We have had preliminary conversations with Jim Windholz, who is involved with similar extensions with several of his other clients. The first step is discussion with the Mayor and Town Board of Trustees. Assuming a favorable discussion, a blight study is needed and a series of steps prescribed by the Statutes, including a public hearing and approval by the Town Board. 1 Estimated cost (blight study and legal services):$35,000 Performing Arts Center Ranking: Proposed Funding (No Lingering Cost Anticipated): Performins Arts Center: The Town is pursuing the opportunity of developing a performing arts center adjacent to the Conference Center at the Holiday Inn. This facility will serve as a larger and improved alternative to the earlier endeavor that would have used an improved Stanley Hall. A concept plan has been developed and several steps need to be taken to determine the feasibility of this endeavor. Should it prove feasible, the development and financing (bonds) might logically be a project of EPURA. This is directly related to the “Extension of EPURA Life” work element above. I Estimated cost:Staff time. Other costs could be part of the bond financing. Visitor Survey Ranking:____ Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: Visitor Survey: The Chamber Resort Association has approached EPURA relative to sharing the physical elements of Estes Park that This would be conducted during the modest cost of a visitor survey, aimed at ascertaining the i attract them and influence their behavior while being here. I peak season by professionals and would result in an evaluation tool for consideration of EPURA actions which would best affect our economy in a positive way. It would be valuable to the Chamber and to individual business owners. David Thomas suggests that an annual update of this survey might be a valuable tool for both the Chamber and EPURA. Issues to be included would be: 1I The type of visitor we are attracting and their demographics. Their motivation for coming. I What they liked or disliked. Length of stay. How they learned about Estes Park (advertising, internet, etc.). Party size (number and makeup of group). | Estimated expenditure while in town. | Level of customer service received. Estimated cost (one half of total):$10,000 Sunrise Symposia Ranking: Proposed Funding, if Different from Estimate: Sunrise Symposia: An ongoing activity of EPURA over the past year has been our monthly Sunrise Symposia, at which we have sponsored discussions of community sustainability, transportation and creative community planning (AIA design charette results). This activity has been well received and costs very little. It does require a modest amount of staff time. Estimated cost (doughnuts, bagels and things):$480 Transportation Study Ranking: Proposed Funding (Involves only Staff Time): Transportation Involvement, Analysis and Coordination: With the advent of the Estes Valley Transportation Study and Phase II of the Park Study, considerable EPURA staff time will be spent relative to these endeavors. In addition to an EPURA role, EPURA staff has been designated to represent the Town in the development of the Valley Study. This costs nothing additional, but it does require staff time and attention. j Estimated cost:Nothing additional. Walkway Westward Ranidng: Proposed Funding (There are Alternatives): Walkway Westward: The planning of Walkway Westward was our #1 priority in FY 2000. It would be nice to construct an initial phase in FY 2001. This initial phase is currently undefined. DSW is in the process of defining several options. Most of us would probably agree that we would ideally work from east to west and logically extend the existing Riverwalk. Based on the public input and our analysis to date, a pedestrian grade separation at Moraine Avenue is highly desirable. This could well be the most expensive element of the entire endeavor and could cost well in excess of our annual budget. At the same time, there is little point in creating a pedestrian overpass/underpass unless there is something worthy of connecting to. This gets us into the most difficult part of the project, which is dealing with Wiest Drive and the adjacent challenges to the rear of the commercial buildings fronting on West Elkhorn. A case can be made that the logical starting point might be in the far west end, with focus on the proposed “band shell”. This could be the most “bang for the buck”. Deferring the Moraine grade separation until after the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study is completed will enhance the probability of obtaining grant monies to help with such an endeavor. Also, it is possible that the Transportation Study could provide a viable alternative to Moraine Avenue (at this location) being the primary route to the Park. i1 Estimated cost: Variable. We have defined 11 component “project” areas and, working with DSW, have put a “ballpark” estimate on the cost of developing each. The total amount to develop the entire Walkway Westward is estimated to be about $8 million. A worksheet showing the breakdown will be available at the Retreat. Depending on the priorities assigned to the above potential projects, we might be able to spend up to approximately $250,000 on Walkway Westward in FY 2001. j Estes Park Riverfront - West Corridor Project 01/10/01 Upon tlie completion of our current contract, which will result in a Master Plan for the West Corridor of the Riverwalk, DSW will make recommendations for the implementation of specific future projects. The projects listed below are potential individual projects within the corridor. After review and prioritization by EPURA, DSW can provide specific proposals for "scope of work" and timelines for each individual project. ,-5^tih)iifft(UGdfasiiwctl’9TOB!iia^1fc f''y-:EiiihnicialiHelpfffe 1 Moraine Crossing $400,000.00 Based on pedestrian underpass option CDOT/Grant 2 Wiest Plaza $600,000.00 Plaza, walkway and water features 3a Wiest Parking Lot (South Lot)$100,000.00 Limited sitework and reconfiguration 3b Wiest Parking Garage $3,500,000.00 Work with parking consultant 4 Wiest/Elkliom Pedestrian Mall $150,000.00 Create multi use linear pedestrian space 5 Bob's Amoco Redevelopment $600,000.00 Includes potential developer package Private Developer 6 Peacock Park Expansion $150,000.00 Extending park to south side of river 7 Elkhom Crossing $200,000.00 Includes West gateway and crossing 8 Tregent Park Redevelopment $75,000.00 Includes updating park 9 Interpretive Trail $100,000.00 Provides historic or environmental info. 10 Kayak Course $200,000.00 Work with Kayaking consultant 11 Band Shell Park $550,000.00 Community use with sponsorship Private Donor Sub Total == $6,625,000.00 Design and Construction Contingency ==________$1,325,000.00-----------— Estimated Budget Total == $7,950,000.00 Other potential projects Old Lumber Yard Parking Garage Ice House Parking Garage All numbers presented above are conceptual numbers that should be used for budgeting discussions only. The areas have not been prioritized in this list. They are referenced starting from the East and proceeding West for clarity.