HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 1999-02-23Town of Estes Park.,LarimerCounty,Colorado,Februaty23,1999
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meetin9 held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of February 1999.
Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L.Dekker.
Present:Robert L.Dekker,Mayor
Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem
Trustees Jeff Barker
John Baudek
George J.Hix
Lori Jeffrey
Also Present:Rich Widmer,Town Administrator
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk
Gregory A.White,Town Attorney
Absent:William J.Marshall,Trustee
Mayor Dekker opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS:
None.
1.CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Town Board Minutes dated February 9,1999.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Light &Power,February 11,1999 -Approval of:
1.Prospect Mountain Lease Agreement (Radio Equipment).
B.Public Works,February 18,1999 -Approval of Budget
Expenditures:
1.Confluence Park/Riverside Dr.Retaining Wall Design &
Construction Management Scope of Services.
2.Western Bypass Feasibility Study Scope of Services.
3.1999 Water Main Replacement Project Design &
Construction Management Scope of Services.
4.Gate Replacement (2)/Town Shop Facilities.
5.Municipal Building Telephone System Y2K Upgrade.
Board of Trustees —February 23,1999—Page 2
ft was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)the consent calendar be
approved,and it passed unanimously.
2.ACTION ITEMS:
1.Presentation of Upper Front Range Transportation Plan —Larimer
County Commissioner Jim Disney and Debbie
Zermuehlen!Felsburg,Holt &Ullevig.Public Works Director Linnane
reported that in order to meet CDOT requirements for future
transportation projects funding,all regions within Colorado (15)must
submit a regional transportation plan for years 2000 through 2020.
Felsburg,Holt and Ullevig are under contract with Larimer,Weld,and
Morgan Counties (Upper Front Range Region)to prepare this plan.All
municipalities in the Upper Front Range Region were requested to
submit projects for CDOT funding,and the Town is submitting the
following projects:(1)Highway 36 improvements west of downtown
from Crags Dr.to Marys Lake Road,(2)Western Downtown Bypass
between Highways 34/36,and (3)Valley-wide/RMNP Mass Transit
System Feasibility Study.The Upper Front Range Region
Transportation group held a public forum in Estes Park today at 5:30-
6:30 p.m.prior to this Town Board meeting.Director Linnane introduced
Debbie Zermuehlen/Felsburg,Holt &Ullevig.Ms.Zermuehlen
presented various maps and information on this project,adding that
public meetings are an integral phase that will enable project
prioritization.Informational material was distributed to all in attendance.
There are a total 0170 proposed projects in the Upper Front Range Plan
for a total estimated cost of $485,000;CDOT funding for the statewide
transportation plan is $185 Million;which means only 40%of the Upper
Front Range projects would be funded.The evaluation criteria was
reviewed.Commissioner Disney addressed the Trustees and
complimented Director Linnane for his efforts on behalf of the Town,
adding that the Town’s #3 Project (Valley-wide/RMNP Mass Transit
System Feasibility Study)will most likely receive funding and hopefully
the West Bypass (#2).Mayor Dekker extended the Board’s appreciation
to Commissioner Disney,Ms.Zermuehlen and Director Linnane for their
presentation/comments.
2.Presentation of Proposed RMNP Wilderness Designation —Tim
DivineIRMNP.RMNP Supt.Jones commented on transportation needs
in the Park,adding that the Park needs to integrate with the Town to
accommodate increasing visitors,project funding,and expressed his
concern with the future of Trail Ridge and Bear Lake Roads.Supt.
Jones then Introduced Tim Divine,RMNP Wilderness Manager,who
briefed the Trustees on future legislation that would designate
substantially all of RMNP as wilderness.The area proposed for
wilderness excludes roads,water and utility corridors,developed areas,
and other inappropriate areas.Wilderness designation would not alter
any current visitor activities or access within RMNP,and would allow
visitors to utilize the Park in the same ways and places that they
presently enjoy.Federal reserved water rights for Park purposes are not
an issue as reserved tights have been decreed for both east and west of
Board of Trustees —February 23,1999—Page 3
the Continental Divide within the Park,and no Federal water rights
claims for wilderness purposes will be made as part of this legislation.
Areas excluded from wilderness designation are:Trail Ridge and other
roads used for motorized travel,buildings and other developed areas;
parcels of privately owned land or land subject to life estate agreements
in the Park;and water storage and conveyance structures.Continued
use would be allowed for the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way,the
east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel of the CBT Project,CBT
gauging stations,Long Draw Reservoir,and lands owned by the St.
Vram and Left Hand Water Conservancy District,including Copeland
Reservoir.With the wilderness designation,it is not intended to impose
new restrictions on already-allowed activities for the operation,
maintenance,repair or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel,which
diverts water under RMNP or other CBT facilities,and that additional
activities for these purposes will be allowed,should they be necessary to
respond to emergencies.Mr.Divine assured the Trustees wilderness
designation would not affect current uses such as Trail Ridge Road.
Visitation statistics were presented that verify visitation increased with
the wilderness designation in both the Olympic and North Cascades
National Parks.The Boulder,Grand and Larimer County
Commissioners support the concept of wilderness designation,as well
as the League of Women Voters,Rocky Mountain Nature Association,
and RMNP Associates,and RMNP is seeking Town support as well.
Major points/comments raised by the Board of Trustees include:
>Continued horse use?Response:horse use is currently allowed,
and this use will continue although impacts need to be mitigated,
whether or not the Park receives the wilderness designation.
>What does designation accomplish?Response:it is important to
determine wilderness boundaries,i.e.:.Trail Ridge Rd.was built
for smaller cars,the pull-outs are now inadequate;the Bear Lake
corridor is steep and there are safety concerns.The Park desires
to move forward with these improvement projects,however,With
such development issues the Park cannot proceed without being
V aware of the wilderness boundaries.V V V.
>The legislation has been pending for 24 years,other parks have
received’the designation,why not here?Response:There are
many different reasons that stem from Jocal issues.There are 17
park areas awaiting designation,and all requests are heard on a
case-by-case basis.V ...V
>Will historic buildings be affected in the designated area?
Résponsë:No.All historic buildings are governed by applicable
historic Preservation Laws and in wilderness,one of the purposes
is to preserve the historic and culturalthemes.
-V.V V
>Future electric utility line installations?Response said lines
would have to be installed in established corridors outside the
Board of Trustees —February 23,1999 —Page 4
wilderness boundary.The Park has been attempting to move
such items to already-disturbed areas.
>Does wilderness designation provide the Park with a tool to cease
visitation rights in a specific area,and if so,by what means?
Response:yes,however,closure would be based on resource
conditions.The designation by itself would not preclude visitation
rights;RMNP continues to review impacts that must be mitigated
without denying visitation.In Olympic Park,they were
experiencing resource degradation with camp sites,and as this
area was already impacted,camping has been directed to more
durable areas—the number of people enjoying this activity were
not reduced.Reducing the number of visitors is the Park’s last
option,their desire is to host visitors and educate them on why
national parks exist.
>Has the Bill actually been voted on?Response:no,the language
has not yet been clarified,particularly due to the Grand Ditch and
Tunnel issues.
>What changes could occur in management if the Bill is passed?
Response:if the Bill is passed,there is no automatic reduction of
visitation—management is charged with the responsibility of
protecting the resource while providing visitor enjoyment.RMNP
is currently being managed as though it were already wilderness,
and any changes would’be minimal with formal designation.
Designation would provide consistenóy.
>Does the Park foresee any future stumbling blocks?Response:
unknown,however,it is important to RMNP to keep this
designation request moving forward.
>Why does recently introduced legislation not include RMNP?
Response:current legislation primarily addresses forest areas;as
there may be particular language that could be damaging to
RMNP,the Park’s desire is to have a Bill for them alone.
>Would a future bill include any water rights language?Response:
water rights for the Park have been addressed with a decree,
language of this nature is now unnecessary.V
>What impact would this designation have on weather modification
projects outside the Park,and (2)would increasing snow fall or
increasing silver iodide content in wilderness designated areas
effectively prevent those types of projects?Response:such items
are based on the Park status,not wilderness.There has not been
any dialog with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
All have agreed that before a Bill is introduced,improved public
understanding must occur.The Park is conducting an outreach
program,and their desire is to resolve any issues.
Board of Trustees —February 23,1999 —Page 5
>With the proposed Valiey-wide/RMNP Mass Transit System
•Feasibility Study,howls the Town assured the Plan is possible if
the .area is declared a wilderness?Response:a discussion
•should be h&d on detailed boundaries,adequate setbacks,
potential exclusion areas for future development,and a flexible
wilderness boundary.The designation would prohibit new roads,
as well as a tramway.There are 17 Park sites being
recommended for wilderness,and 44 Parks already have the
official wilderness designation;however,the degree of how much
land is included in the wilderness boundary varies between Parks.
Wilderness changes Park Service land the least,and not
identifying the boundary creates/causes problems for future
management of the Park.
>Construction of new trails?Response:the wilderness designation
does not affect the creation of new trails.
>Will the designation affect any future construction of
campgrounds?Response:following the current General
Management Pan,and included within the wilderness boundary,
no new major campground facilities will be developed;RMNP
supports such development in the gateway communities.
>What if the Bill is defeated?Response:if the Bill is defeated,
another action would be required to remove the land from the
wilderness study process.
Town Administrator Widmer stated that the Town Board does not intend
to take action immediately,and questioned whether or not the Board
would be given the opportunity to either support or oppose the
designation prior to final submittal?’Supt.Jones stated the Park is
committed to work with the Town on the specific language to determine
what is included in the Bill and take an informed stance.The Board of
Trustees stated dialog is very important and their desire is to ensure
visitation.Supt.Jones also confirmed that the wilderness designation
does not affect any area outside the wilderness boundary.Mayor
Dekker expressed his concern with this proposal based on prior
decisions made by RMNP Management and their affect on Town
projects,and thanked Supt.Jones and Mr.Devin for their presentations.
3.TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT:.
1.Presentation of 1999 Organizational Chart.The Municipal.Code
requires the Town Administrator to propose an administrative
organizatiàn plan that is ‘to be presented for approval tà the Board of
Trustees.The changes.from 1998 include adding the.Senior Center
and Stanley Hall Advisory Boards,revising the title,job
responsibilities,and .direct reports of the Assistant Town
Administrator position,adding Housing Authority responsibilities to
the.Community Development Director position,and adding Platte
River Power Authority responsibilities to the Light and Power Director
Board of Trustees —February 23,1999—Page 6
position.It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)the 1999
Organizational Chart be approved,and it passed unanimously.
2.Sales Tax Report.The 1998 Year-End Sales Tax Report confirms a
12.45%increase from 1997,with $5,383,382 sales tax revenues
collected.Although the increase is significant,not all segments of the
economy increased.Staff is greatly concerned with the retail
segment as a whole,which was up 5%:gift stores were +3.1%,
accommodations +21.6%;restaurants +9.1%,and groceries +22.4%.
Marketing Director Pickering prepares an Occupancy Report and this
report indicates a slight increase of 1.8%in occupancy rates.The
average daily rate increased 6.42%,therefore,occupancy must have
increased above 1.8%to produce a sales tax increase of 21.6%
noted above.
The four segments identified above are 78%of the total.The Town
must be continually aware of the retail/gifts segment.
Discussion followed on the total number of accommodation units in
the area (YMCA),the updated Occupancy Report that will be
presented at the Community Development Committee,sales tax as it
relates to the Conference Center,and EPURA’s focus as it relates to
generating sales tax revenues.
Following completion of all agenda items,Mayor Dekker adjourned the
meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Rbert L.Dekke ,Mayor
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk