HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2023-06-13
June 13, 2023
5:00 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Board Room
4:45 p.m. Dinner
No public comment will be heard
This study session will be streamed live and available on the
Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos
5:00 p.m. Planning Fee Schedule.
(Director Garner)
5:45 p.m. 1% Sales Tax Renewal Components & Stormwater
Considerations. (Town Administrator Machalek)
6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Town Board Study Session for June 27, 2023 Has Been Cancelled.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:45 p.m.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
STUDY SESSION
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: June 13, 2023
RE: Community Development Fee Study
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Provide a high-level overview and update on the process to analyze Community
Development application fees and discuss cost recovery options with the Board of
Trustees.
Background:
Community Development has been working with Ayres Associates to evaluate the
adopted fee schedule in use since 2016 to determine if development fees need to
change due to increasing costs or other factors. Particularly, review deposit fees were
not managed properly and require a different approach for more complex and time-
intensive project analysis, processing, and public hearings. The current fee schedule
does not adjust annually to account for adjustments to the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
which is a topic for discussion with the Board.
Staff will continue to analyze all types of development to complete the time exercise,
and will provide the Board with a full range of options for fees and process in the coming
months.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Currently, the fees recovered for development and project review do not account for the
full amount of staff time, and the difference is made up through the General Fund. Ayres
and Town staff are seeking direction and feedback from the Town Board on the
following Initial Recommendations and Approach to the current fee schedule update
process. Following this step, Ayres will finalize a detailed service cost calculation for
each application type and work closely with staff to develop a final report and fee
schedule proposal for review by the Board.
Proposal:
Fee study and development review process analysis:
Unique Report Definitions:
• Average Review Process: a typical review process assuming one resubmittal
(two rounds of review). These typically require less technical back and forth or
guidance from Town staff.
• Consumer Price Index: a measure of the average change over time in the prices
paid by consumers for consumer goods and services (percentage based on
geographic area based on inflation).
• Service Cost: a calculation of the average staff time needed to complete a
process, multiplied by the average hourly cost (salary and benefits).
Process To-Date
Staff identified twelve (12) organizations to analyze and compare fee schedules,
philosophies related to development application fees, and approaches to updating fees.
These organizations include:
• Larimer County
• Avon
• Berthoud
• Glenwood Springs
• Granby
• Grand Lake
• Idaho Springs
• Lafayette
• Longmont
• Louisville
• Timnath
• Windsor
The selected organizations provide a range of philosophies and approaches based on
overall size, organizational structure, and socio-economic conditions. The team
reviewed and compared 40 individual application types identified in the current fee
schedule; plus, approximately 30 processes other organizations have listed in their fee
schedules that may be beneficial as the Town moves forward with the Development
Code update process soon.
In addition to the comparison analysis, Ayres facilitated a process mapping session in
May 2023 with Town staff from Planning (planners, planning tech, and admin. support),
Engineering, and Utilities. This effort afforded many benefits to Ayres and the Town as
part of the overall fee study, such as:
• Documenting a consistent process and tasks completed as part of the
Development Plan – Planning Commission Level process.
• Identifying areas for process improvement, which directly relates to overall
service costs.
• Establishing the framework to calculate overall service cost by assessing
average staff time and average staff salaries to complete each type of
development application.
Staff Process Mapping Workshop
A follow-up survey is currently being completed by staff to populate the total average
staff time to complete all development application types. The team is analyzing average
staff time to complete two full rounds of review, plus appropriate public meeting
coordination and project close-out (i.e., signatures on documents, recording, archiving).
This information will be used to create a detailed service cost table and to calculate
appropriate fee rates based on direction received by the Town Board, see the
recommendations section below.
Comparison and Analysis
By themselves, fees are not an “apples to apples” comparison, nor are they the only
element to consider when analyzing and updating fees. However, reviewing other
organization’s fee structures and approaches provides insights and a base to evaluate
the Town’s processes and approach to fees. This analysis looks primarily at Planning,
Engineering and Administrative staff resources and overall service costs associated
with the development review process.
An overview summary of each comparison organization is included as Appendix A that
highlights their philosophy on development review fees, observations of their current fee
structure, and their approach to fee administration.
Organizations typically establish a fee schedule that includes one or a combination of
the following approaches.
1. Base Application Fee – a set dollar amount charged at the time an application is
submitted based on application type.
2. Deposit Structure – sets a dollar amount that is charged when an application is
submitted that is drawn on during the lifespan of the development review process
to cover staff hours and costs to complete the process. Deposited funds could be
used completely, refunded if costs end up being less than anticipated (rare), or
additional funds could be requested to cover total expenses.
3. Hourly Cost and Invoice Structure – creates a flat hourly rate for all staff that an
applicant is required to pay as part of monthly invoices and before the close-out
of the development project. Total costs are unknown until the project is complete.
In most local level government organizations, Planning staff allocate a large overall
percentage of time to customer service-oriented help and support compared to
development application review. Conversely, Engineering staff lean towards technical
analysis and development application review as a higher percentage of time. In Estes
Park, it is estimated that these ratios are as follows.
• Planning = approximately 60% customer service and 40% development review.
• Engineering = approximately 30% customer service and 70% technical analysis
and review.
Customer service-oriented tasks typically have no fees assessed and are offset through
local taxes and other funding mechanisms as part of the General Fund. As
organizations work towards becoming fiscally responsible, the consultants see more
recouping a larger percentage of overall development review service costs. For many
years throughout the region, smaller communities utilized lower application fees as an
economic incentive. As a result of increasing growth pressures, fees are being adjusted
to offset overall service costs. Staff review costs are directly impacted by project
complexities, approval processes, and the number of resubmittals required to finalize
the project.
Key Observations:
Our comparison organizations use both a flat base application fee and a combined base
fee with a deposit structure.
• The base application fee is most common for entities with technical in-house staff
and/or use consultants on an as-needed basis to help with overall workload.
Occasionally, a caveat is included in their code or fee schedule that puts an
applicant on notice that they may be responsible for 3rd party consultant fees, if
used.
o The majority of the comparison communities utilize the base rate
approach to recoup a calculated percentage of service costs. This method
provides greater certainty to an applicant in what to expect for their overall
costs and reduces the complexities that come with administering a per
hour or revolving deposit approach.
• A deposit structure is most commonly used to cover consultant review costs that
are directly charged to an applicant. In other instances, an organization uses the
deposit approach to cover internal costs and staff time to complete the
development review process, rather than analyzing overall service costs for a
base fee.
o Approximately one-third of the entities use either a deposit only structure
or a combination deposit and flat rate structure. This approach can provide
a fairly accurate accounting of costs when managed appropriately.
Unfortunately, many groups find this approach to be cumbersome and
challenging to administer in the long-term without time management tools
and software in place. Additional administration and finance support is
also needed for this method to work effectively, which adds to either the
deposit costs or the General Fund budget to manage.
• A less common approach that was not observed in our comparison organizations
but is found in a couple larger front-range communities is the hourly rate
approach. The entities that utilize this approach express similar frustrations as
those with the deposit structure. In addition, the hourly rate structure provides a
high level of uncertainty for an applicant about what their final fee will be when
the project is complete.
The challenge with any approach is that overall service costs are not accurately
evaluated, and fees are not updated at regular intervals.
• Many of the jurisdictions reviewed have not completed a holistic update in recent
years.
• Approximately one-third use the annual CPI rate to make regular adjustments to
their fee structure, while the remaining organizations complete periodic updates
based on surrounding communities.
o The CPI provides a reasonable rate to adjust fees annually to account for
inflation and overall cost increases.
Many organizations have either started to or recently completed evaluating their general
costs and are adjusting fees accordingly to capture a higher percentage of overall costs.
The Town would benefit from adjusting their fee schedule to account for Planning and
Engineering service costs as two of the most involved departments in the review
process.
• Increasing the base application fee, implementing resubmittal fees (at the 3rd
submittal), and establishing a policy for pass-through costs associated with
outside technical assistance on highly technical / specialty project types would
help rebalance overall service cost recovery for the Town.
Initial Recommendations for Consideration
1. Philosophy – Establish a cost recovery goal (i.e., 80% or 90%) for Planning and
Engineering based on calculated service costs.
a. Capture fees to cover both Planning and Engineering reviews and
administration of projects.
2. Maintain the current meeting publication and notification structure where the
applicant is responsible for mailings, paper notice, and payment of property
signage.
3. Maintain the current requirement where the applicant pays applicable recording
fees.
4. Establish a resubmittal fee beginning with the third submittal using a set
percentage of the overall application fee (i.e., 25% or 50% of the initial
application fee).
5. Guide the Community Development Director to propose an equity-based policy
that can be reviewed and adopted by the Board. This policy would reduce the
application fee for certain application types based on specific criteria established
by the Town.
a. Examples may include attainable housing projects that meet specific
average median income thresholds; minor site plan modifications if the
changes are intended to meet a goal of the Comprehensive Plan such as
water efficiency, lighting upgrades to be dark sky compliant, etc.
b. This policy could establish a 50% reduction. The project team is available
to work with the Town to develop the draft policy for review and
consideration following input from the Board.
6. Maintain an annual update process using the Consumer Price Index. Note this
may be in addition to a graduated fee increase approach, as determined by the
Board’s implementation approach.
7. Round all fees to the nearest whole dollar. This approach should be maintained
with all annual updates for greater clarity and administration.
8. Conduct a follow-up review of the fee schedule and service costs following the
completion of the Development Code update and every five years to re-evaluate
the Town’s service cost recovery goal and make necessary adjustments.
Fee Update Approach
Two options include:
1. Implement the new fee schedule once to capture the cost recovery goals
identified under Key Observations.
a. Pros: Provides a one-time update to balance current service costs. This
also allows time for the Town to evaluate the overall impact and balance
of fees and cost recovery. Note, certain fees may be lowered resulting in
more immediate cost savings for some applicants.
b. Cons: Certain fees may increase more substantially than others, which
may come as a surprise to certain community stakeholders.
2. Adjust the fee schedule proportionally over the next two years to capture the cost
recovery goals identified under Key Observations.
a. Pros: This allows time for applicants and the Town to evaluate overall
impacts based on economic challenges at the time. This also provides the
Town with the opportunity to assess the economic situation in a year and
make further adjustments to the fees.
b. Cons: This approach may continue to place the cost recovery burden on
the taxpayers and General Fund rather than with the applicant. This could
also be seen as back-to-back years with potentially large adjustments,
depending on the desired cost recovery goal(s).
Based on the Board’s feedback and input, Staff will bring back a proposed fee schedule
for further discussion and a public hearing later this summer.
Advantages:
• The fee schedule needs to be updated to reflect current costs and time needed
to review all types of development projects.
• A revised fee schedule will be easier for staff and the public to understand and
utilize.
Disadvantages:
• Development costs may increase.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low
Attachments:
1. Appendix A: Overview of Comparison Organizations
Development Review Applica�on Fee Study – Overview Analysis and Next Steps
June 13, 2023
Page 1 of 5
Appendix A – Overview of Comparison Organizations
Larimer County
Philosophy: Capture 90% of calculated service costs with an equity-based reduction
based on the adopted equity policy.
•Capture review fees upfront.
•Use a base fee approach.
•A resubmittal fee (50% of the original base fee) is applied after two rounds of
review.
•Planning and Engineering service costs are part of overall application cost
calculations.
•Use CPI for annual updates.
Avon
Philosophy: Balance service cost recoup and stay consistent with other organizations.
•Capture review fees upfront and request additional funds if deposit is used up.
•Use a deposit approach for larger application types (i.e., PUD, Rezoning,
Annexation, Preliminary and Final Subdivisions) and a flat base fee for smaller /
administrative application types (i.e., Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision,
Sign Program).
•Resubmittal fee is captured as deposit structure.
•Each Division / Department assesses their own fees, as applicable.
•Completes occasional fee reviews and updates, not annually.
Berthoud
Philosophy: Capture most of their service costs.
•Capture review fees upfront and request additional funds if deposit is used up.
•Use a base fee for internal staff and a deposit approach for technical review and
consultant costs to review applications.
ATTACHMENT 1
Development Review Applica�on Fee Study – Overview Analysis and Next Steps
June 13, 2023
Page 2 of 5
• Resubmittal fee is captured as deposit structure.
• Deposit covers all technical consultant reviewers, Planning and Engineering.
• Complete annual review of costs and adjust deposit and fees accordingly.
Glenwood Springs
Philosophy: Capture staff time / costs
• Capture base review fees upfront.
• No set resubmittal rate.
• Does not capture Engineering or other technical reviewers with current fee
schedule for Planning.
• No annual review of fees.
Granby
Philosophy: Capture staff time and consultant costs.
• Capture base review fees upfront; optional deposit if deemed necessary by Town
Clerk due to complexity and time needed to complete the project.
• Resubmittal fee is captured as deposit structure.
• Optional deposit covers additional technical staff to complete reviews.
• Base fees are part of code and have not been updated in 10+ years; optional
deposit structure provides opportunity to capture necessary costs, if
implemented.
Grand Lake
Philosophy: Capture most of staff time and capture consultant costs.
• Capture base review fees upfront; establish deposit and commitment to pay fees
for review as an agreement between the Town and the applicant at the beginning
of the project.
Development Review Applica�on Fee Study – Overview Analysis and Next Steps
June 13, 2023
Page 3 of 5
• Resubmittal fee is captured as deposit structure.
• The agreement allows for additional funds to be received by an applicant to cover
all processing and review fees/costs.
• No annual review or schedule to update fees.
Idaho Springs
Philosophy: No defined philosophy; fees are intended to offset some level of staff time
and consultant costs, as needed.
• Capture base review fees and / or deposit upfront per resolution.
• Where base fees are listed, they are not enough to cover review and processing.
• Where deposits are listed, they provide opportunities to capture a larger
percentage of service costs.
• No resubmittal fees.
• No annual updates or set schedule for regular review or updates noted.
Lafayette
Philosophy: Capture overall service cost on most application types; provide equity
through a reduced Limited Scope Development Fee.
• Capture base review fees upfront.
• Use a base fee approach on all application types.
• Additional ‘Public Hearing’ fee listed.
• No resubmittal fees.
• Engineering costs are part of overall application fees.
• No set update or annual review in place.
Longmont
Philosophy: Intended to capture most of the City’s operational costs and expenditures
and be comparable to other ‘like’ communities.
Development Review Applica�on Fee Study – Overview Analysis and Next Steps
June 13, 2023
Page 4 of 5
• Capture base review fees upfront.
• The resubmittal fee is 25% of the original application starting with the 4th
submittal.
• Engineering review is part of the overall application costs, additional fees apply
for CD reviews and special reports.
• Include policy for affordable housing that can reduce application fees.
• Use CPI and comparison to the surrounding communities as an update, but no
set annual review/update in place.
Louisville
Philosophy: Cost recovery.
• Capture base review fees upfront.
• Pre-application or other inquiry-based fees are not consistently applied or used.
• No resubmittal fees are established.
• Each department collects their respective review fees.
• Fees are reviewed annually.
Timnath
Philosophy: Capture overall service cost and set base application fees consistent with
other organizations.
• Capture most review fees upfront.
• Use a base fee approach with an add-on deposit requirement.
o A deposit agreement is established on every project; staff calculate
estimated costs over two months for all reviewers and require the deposit
as part of the application.
o Once service costs reach 85% of the deposit, additional funds are
required.
• Resubmittal rates are part of the initial deposit setup and require additional funds
as applicable.
• Engineering review is incorporated with the deposit structure.
Development Review Applica�on Fee Study – Overview Analysis and Next Steps
June 13, 2023
Page 5 of 5
• Updates are periodically made, but there is no established annual review or
percent adjustment, other than deposit structure.
Windsor
Philosophy: Capture a portion of staff time / cost.
• Capture base review fees upfront.
• Level of complexity and staff effort impact total fee schedule based on application
type.
• No resubmittal fees are established.
• Engineering review is incorporated with the base review fees.
• Periodic review of fees in comparison to surrounding communities, but no annual
review established.
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/13/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Chad Browning
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: General Public Comment.
Public Comment:
I have questions about the Fee Study for Community Development. How much was spent on consultants
to study the fees? Are fees suppose to cover the cost of staff time? If so, where does our tax money to pay
staff go? I am against raising fees for development projects. That is the job of the planning department. No
recovery fee should be needed.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S
OFFICE
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Machalek
Date: June 13, 2023
RE: 1% Sales Tax Renewal Components and Stormwater Considerations
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Review first draft of proposed components of the 1% sales tax renewal and implications
for the Stormwater Utility discussion.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff seeks direction from the Town Board on the following questions:
• Is the Board comfortable with the proposed breakdown of the 1% sales tax
renewal components as a starting point for public engagement?
• If so, are there particular strategies that the Board would like staff to implement to
solicit feedback from the public about the proposed breakdown (for example,
engaging with the Transportation Advisory Board, meeting with community
partners, public meetings, and workshops)?
• Which stormwater options or options would the Board like staff to pursue further?
Present Situation:
Voters approved the current 1% sales tax (1A) in April 2014. The tax took effect on July
1, 2014 and will expire on June 30, 2024. The 1A sales tax funds four special revenue
funds: the Street Improvement Fund, the Trails Expansion Fund, the Community Center
Fund, and the Emergency Response Fund.
The Board gave staff direction at the February 28, 2023 Study Session to use local
resident feedback from the Town’s National Community Survey (NCS) and
Comprehensive Plan, along with consultation with subject-matter experts, to develop a
draft breakdown of renewal components. Staff has completed this work and is seeking
guidance from the Town Board on next steps.
Staff has also completed additional background work on the Stormwater Utility topic at
the direction of the Town Board after the Board’s Joint Study Session with the Board of
County Commissioners on May 24th. Those materials are presented here because
decisions on the funding of a Stormwater Utility bear on the draft 1% renewal
components.
Proposal – 1% Renewal Components
Based on a review of the Town’s NCS results, the Comprehensive Plan, and
consultation with subject-matter experts, staff proposes the following first-draft
breakdown of the 1% sales tax renewal:
• 46% Street Maintenance
• 28% Stormwater
• 17% Trail Expansion and Maintenance
• 9% Wildfire Mitigation
The draft percentage breakdowns are driven primarily by two considerations: the
amount of funding needed to implement the Stormwater Master Plan on a 30-year time
horizon (28% of the 1% renewal) and the funding need estimated for the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District’s Wildland Fire Mitigation program (9% of the 1% renewal). After
considering the requirements of these two programs, there was 63% of the 1% renewal
leftover for allocation between Streets Maintenance and Trail Expansion and
Maintenance. The specific allocation between Streets Maintenance and Trail Expansion
was made based on the judgement of our Public Works staff with the goal of continuing
to improve the Town’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) while also making more
funding available for the high-priority task of expanding and maintaining the
community’s trail network.
National Community Survey
The 2021 NCS provided the Town with the opinions of a representative sample of
residents of the Town of Estes Park. The survey is a great source of data in assessing
what is important to the Town’s residents and how satisfied they are with the quality of
the things that are important to them. An analysis of the relevant data is presented
below for each of the four proposed components:
• Street Maintenance: In 2021, 47% of respondents rated the “overall quality of
the transportation system” as excellent or good. When asked about the quality of
street repair services in Estes Park, 46% responded with excellent or good. This
is a significant improvement from 2014 where only 22% of respondents rated
street repair services as excellent or good, but it still shows room for
improvement as more than half of respondents rated street repair in Estes Park
as fair or poor. Tellingly, when asked whether services should be increased,
remain at current levels, or be decreased, 46% indicated that “street
maintenance and repairs (excludes US 34, US 36 and CO 7) (currently funded by
1A sales tax until 2024)” service should increase, and 53% indicated that it
should be kept at the current service level. Only 1% of respondents indicated that
this service level should be decreased, tied with “trail repair and maintenance” for
the lowest level of respondents indicating that a current service level should be
decreased.
• Stormwater: Interestingly, 77% of resident respondents rate the quality of storm
water management services in Estes Park as excellent or good. This is up from
2014, where 52% of respondents rated the quality of stormwater management
services as excellent or good. While the Town has increased its investment in
stormwater management by a small degree, staff does not believe these efforts
(which did not begin in earnest until 2022) are the reason the quality rating of this
service has increased so dramatically. While respondents rate the quality of
stormwater management services as high, it is worth noting that 38% indicated
that the current service level of “flood mitigation” should be increased (60%
indicated keep the current service level and 3% indicated decrease service).
• Trail Expansion and Maintenance: Responses from residents indicated support
for trail repair, maintenance, and expansion is high. 77% of respondents
indicated that trail repair and maintenance should be kept at the current service
level, while 22% indicated that this service level should be increased. 52% of
respondents indicated that the current service level should be maintained for
“expansion of trails (currently funded by 1A sales tax until 2024)”, while 42%
indicated that this service level should be increased.
• Wildfire Mitigation: While 92% of respondents reported their “overall feeling of
safety” as excellent or good, only 39% of respondents indicated that they felt very
or somewhat safe “from fire, flood, or other natural disaster.” This is a “much
lower” score when compared to NCS ratings in other communities across the
country and comes as no surprise after the Cameron Peak Fire, East
Troublesome Fire, and the evacuation of the entire community in 2020.
Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan
The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan was developed over two years and based on
extensive community feedback. It was adopted by the Town Board in 2022, and adds to
the data used by staff to develop these recommendations. The intent of this plan is to
articulate a cohesive vision and actionable strategy for the future development of Estes
Park and the Estes Valley. The plan is organized according to six Resiliency Themes in
order to highlight the importance of resiliency for the community. An analysis of the
relevant data is presented below for each of the proposed components:
• Street Maintenance: Transportation infrastructure is a significant focus area in
the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends integrating multimodal
transportation options (Goal T1), building a resilient transportation system (Goal
T5), and identifying strategies and funding sources to invest in transportation
infrastructure (Goal T6).
• Stormwater: The Comprehensive Plan recommends Goal NE5: “[m]itigate flood
risk through multifunctional infrastructure and recreation improvements”.
Relevant policies include a recommendation to incorporate data and
recommendations from the Town’s Stormwater Master Plan (Goal NE 5.3) and a
recommendation to identify infrastructure vulnerabilities, such as undersized
bridge and culverts, and pursue improvements to reduce flood risk (Goal NE 5.4).
• Trail Expansion and Maintenance: Investing in multimodal transportation (Goal
T1), including the maintenance and expansion of a safe and comprehensive
network to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation (Goal
T2) are focus areas for the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also
recommends identifying strategies and funding sources to invest in transportation
infrastructure (Goal T6). More specifically, recommended Policy T 6.5
encourages the Town to develop additional local sources of funding for trails and
bikeways such as special assessment districts, nonprofit corporations, and ballot
initiatives.
• Wildfire Mitigation: The Comprehensive Plan has a strong focus on wildfire
mitigation. Goal NE4 articulates that the Town and County should “[r]ecognize
that wildfire is a growing risk to the community and proactively work to protect the
lives, property, and resiliency of the Valley.” More specifically, the Town’s
recommended actions include NE4.A: “[c]onsider adopting a fire mitigation
program in partnership with the Fire District to encourage individual property
owners to reduce fuels on their property and select landscaping choices and
building materials for fire resistance.” There are also recommended actions
around public education on wildfire mitigation. The proposed 9% contribution
would fully fund these activities.
There are a number of high-priority investment areas identified by the NCS and the
Comprehensive Plan that are not currently included as components in the draft
proposed 1% renewal. Staff believes that it is important to articulate why these items
are not included in the current draft.
• Town-sponsored solutions for workforce housing issues (codes, funding, land)
(NCS High Priority and Comprehensive Plan Goals H1 – H3)
o Dedicated funding for this service has been secured with voter approval
of Ballot Issue 6E.
• Free, year-round shuttle services (potential future service) (NCS High Priority
and Goal T3)
o The Town Board has discussed the possibility of free, year-round shuttle
services at a number of Study Sessions over the past few years and has,
to date, not supported implementation of this idea.
• Land Use Planning (NCS High Priority and Comprehensive Plan Goals BE1 -
BE6)
o Staff is unclear what increased service would look like in this area.
Current staffing resources are keeping up with the existing land-use
planning workload.
• Downtown parking availability (NCS High Priority)
o Revenues from the Town’s paid parking program have been earmarked to
contribute toward increasing the supply of parking downtown.
• Town financial support for childcare initiatives (NCS High Priority and
Comprehensive Plan Goal HS4)
o Dedicated funding for this service has been secured with voter approval
of Ballot Issue 6E.
• Acquisition and management of open space (NCS High Priority and
Comprehensive Plan Goal NE2)
o The Town receives dedicated funding for this work from the Countywide
“Help Preserve Open Spaces” tax revenue which is in place through
2043.
Stormwater Component Considerations
After the February 19, 2019 joint meeting between the Town Board of Trustees and
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, staff sent a direct-mailed summary of
two user fee options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) to over 8,500 local
recipients and invited them to share feedback on the proposed stormwater utility via an
online survey. The public response from over 900 participants provided a broad range
of comments and the following feedback:
• 63% agree stormwater drainage problems exist.
• 70% agree the Town and County should act to address flooding risk.
• 52% indicate a user fee of some amount should be part of the program funding
solution. 48% feel the user fees should be zero or less than 5% of the program
costs.
• 71% suggest a sales tax should be used to fund 40% to 100% of the program
costs.
• 53% of respondents feel grants should pick up more than 20% of the program
cost. 95% feel grants should provide more than 5% of the program revenue.
[Note: additional local match funds (typically 20% -50%) are required in order to
receive grant funding.]
• 71% feel their proposed stormwater management fees (average $3-$10 per
month) are too high.
• 71% favor funding some type of stormwater utility. 30% indicated a preference to
get started now. 29% say take a different approach such as not moving forward.
Three options for funding and implementing a stormwater management effort are
described below. All three options assume three or more potential sales tax
authorizations approved by voters in 2024, 2034, and 2044. The advantages and
disadvantages listed below are representative for discussion purposes, and are not
intended to be all-inclusive.
OPTION 1: This is the previous Option 5 from the Joint Work Session with the Board
of County Commissioners on May 24, 2023. It utilizes three funding sources: future
grants (25% of the program cost = $52 million), future sales tax (47% of the program
cost = $98 million = 28% of a 1% sales tax renewal), and General Fund (28% of the
program cost = $59 million). There are no user fees included in this option. The
estimated program cost is $209 million. Capital expansion costs are fully funded by
grants and sales tax revenue while the General Fund pays for the operation and
management of the Town’s stormwater infrastructure.
Estimated Timeline to Sales Tax Election (42 weeks)
• Phase 1 (12 weeks)
• Form steering committee
o 4 weeks
• Solicit feedback on proposed 1% renewal components breakdown
o 12 weeks (concurrent with forming steering committee)
• Phase 2 (16 weeks)
• Town Board consider feedback and give direction on components
o 4 weeks
• Education
o 12 weeks
• Phase 3 (10 weeks)
• Set ballot language (January 23, 2024)
• Election (April 2, 2024)
Advantages
• The approval/denial of stormwater funding is placed in the hands of
impacted voters.
• Implements the Town Board Strategic Plan goal to implement the 2018
Stormwater Management Plan.
• Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems valued at
over $17 million and capital improvement projects valued at $62 million
(2017 dollars).
• Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (70%) that
indicate the Town and County have a responsibility to address flooding
risk that threatens the economic vitality of the Estes downtown.
• Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (71%) that
indicate the proposed user fees are too high, should not be implemented,
and sales tax should fund 40% to 100% of the program costs.
• Asking voters to allocate 28% of a renewed 1% sales tax to stormwater
needs is not perceived to be materially different than asking the voters to
allocate 20% of the renewed 1% sales tax (the proportion allocated under
Option 2 and Option 3 below). The total overall tax impact remains the
same.
• Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match
contributions for future grant funding applications as soon as 2025.
• Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a large pool of
property owners, visitors, and federal funding participants.
• Exclusion of user fees reduces program cost by $20 million and eliminates
the legal and administrative effort and time required to establish a formal
stormwater utility and agreement with Larimer County.
• This option eliminates time demands placed on staff and elected officials
to address concerns over user fee amounts, fee equity, and potential
misperception of taxation without voter input.
Disadvantages
• Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would
pay when making purchases at town businesses.
• Could be perceived as not including direct contributions from
unincorporated Larimer County residents towards stormwater
improvements. While county residents would not directly fund stormwater
investments through a user fee, they would still contribute significantly
though sales tax contributions.
• Modeled sales tax revenue is delayed until and unless the voters approve
the 1% sales tax renewal.
• Inclusion of stormwater improvements in a broader sales tax initiative may
jeopardize the funding of other included elements if voters object to the
stormwater component of the requested sales tax renewal.
OPTION 2: This option adds a fourth funding source in the form of a user fee which
would be assessed administratively by the Town Board and the Board of County
Commissioners on approximately 7,700 developed land parcels in both the Town of
Estes Park and unincorporated Larimer County prior to a voter action on the
proposed sales tax increment. The cost allocation would be: future grants (25%
of the program cost = $57 million), future sales tax (31% of the program cost = $72
million = 20% of a 1% sales tax renewal), user fees (18% of the program cost = $41
million), and General Fund (26% of the program cost = $59 million). The estimated
program cost is $229 million. The additional $20M in administrative expenses are
funded by user fees, while capital expansion costs would be funded by grants, sales
tax revenue, and User Fees. The General Fund would pay for the operation and
management of the Town’s stormwater infrastructure.
Estimated Timeline to Formation of Utility (35 weeks)
• Phase 1 (13 weeks)
• Estes Park Public Works and Legal staff draft agreement and user fee
details
o 6 weeks
• Review and comment by Larimer County staff
o 3 weeks
• Joint study session with Town Board (TB) and Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) to discuss draft agreement and user fee
details
o 4 weeks
• Phase 2 (12 weeks)
• Public engagement on draft agreement and user fee details
o 6 weeks
• BOCC public hearing for adoption of Stormwater Master Plan
o 3 weeks
• TB & BOCC Public hearings on agreement and user fee
o 3 weeks
• Phase 3 (10 weeks)
• Town Utility Billing Procedures modified to add user fee
o 8 weeks
• Launch collection of user fee and begin project planning
o 2 weeks
• Sales Tax
• 1% sales tax renewal ballot language set by January 31, 2024.
• 1% sales tax election takes place on April 2, 2024.
Advantages
• A public vote for stormwater funding through a sales tax respects the
preference of voters within Town limits.
• Implements the Town Board Strategic Plan goal to implement the 2018
Stormwater Management Plan.
• Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems valued at
over $17 million and capital improvement projects valued at $62 million
(2017 dollars).
• Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (70%) that
indicate the Town and County have a responsibility to address flooding
risk that threatens the economic vitality of downtown Estes Park.
• Implementation of user fees is not subject to voter preference and would
improve certainty of project funding (ultimately, funding would be
contingent on the continued approval of the Town Board and Board of
County Commissioners).
• Generates new revenue (user fees) that can be leveraged as local match
contributions for future grant funding applications as soon as 2024.
• Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a larger pool of
property owner, visitor, and federal funding participants.
Disadvantages
• Contains a mandatory user fee for owners of improved parcels within the
former Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. User fees can
be contentious.
• Imposition of a user fee will be controversial and could trigger voter
rejection of the renewal for the entire 1% sales tax based on opposition to
the user fee, or the belief that the user fee already fully addresses the
stormwater needs in the community.
• Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would
pay when making purchases at town businesses.
• Is contrary to the majority of survey respondent requests to not implement
user fees at the average monthly rate of $3-$10.
• Inclusion of user fees increases program cost by $20 million and adds
legal and administrative effort and time required to establish a formal
stormwater utility and agreement with Larimer County.
• Only 50% of the user fee revenue is directed to future stormwater
infrastructure capital expansion costs.
• User fees will increase the administrative time demands placed on staff
and elected officials to address concerns over user fee amounts, fee
equity, and potential misperception of taxation without voter input.
OPTION 3: This option is identical to Option 2 except the User Fee would be
imposed after a voter action on the proposed sales tax increment.
Estimated Timeline to Formation of Utility (35 weeks from April 2, 2024)
• Sales Tax
• 1% sales tax renewal ballot language set by January 31, 2024.
• 1% sales tax election takes place on April 2, 2024.
• Phase 1 (13 weeks)
• Estes Park Public Works and Legal staff draft agreement and user fee
details
o 6 weeks (concurrent with hiring Stormwater Engineer)
• Review and comment by Larimer County staff
o 3 weeks
• Joint study session with Town Board (TB) and Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) to discuss draft agreement and user fee
details
o 4 weeks
• Phase 2 (12 weeks)
• Public engagement on draft agreement and user fee details
o 6 weeks
• BOCC public hearing for adoption of Stormwater Master Plan
o 3 weeks
• TB & BOCC Public hearings on agreement and user fee
o 3 weeks
• Phase 3 (10 weeks)
• Town Utility Billing Procedures modified to add user fee
o 8 weeks
• Launch collection of user fee and begin project planning
o 2 weeks
Advantages
• Same as Option 2 above.
• If the sales tax renewal is rejected by the voters, the Town Board and
Board of County Commissioners could decide to implement a user fee that
generates the necessary funding for stormwater improvements.
Disadvantages
• Same as Option 2 above.
• Implementation of user fees after passage or denial of a sales tax by
voters could be perceived as unnecessary or punitive to the voters.
• The amount of the user fee would need to be increased by 3.5X to offset
the loss of the proposed sales tax revenue for stormwater infrastructure if
the ballot measure did not pass and the Town Board and Board of County
Commissioners wished to fully-fund the Stormwater Master Plan on a 30-
year timeline.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Year one (2024) revenues from a renewed 1% sales tax are estimated to be
$4,617,299. The implementation of any stormwater management program will require
new funding. The range of values for fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely
depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and
preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales
tax.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High.
Attachments
• N/A
6/14/2023
1
1% Sales Tax Renewal Components
and Stormwater Considerations
Town Board Study Session
June 13, 2023
Agenda
Direction Requested
Present Situation
Proposed 1% Renewal Components
Street Maintenance
Stormwater
Trail Expansion and Maintenance
Wildfire Mitigation
Stormwater Considerations
1
2
6/14/2023
2
Direction Requested
Is the Board comfortable with the proposed breakdown of the 1% sales
tax renewal components as a starting point for public engagement?
If so, are there particular strategies that the Board would like staff to
implement to solicit feedback from the public about the proposed
breakdown (for example, engaging with the Transportation Advisory
Board, meeting with community partners, public meetings, and
workshops)?
Which stormwater options or options would the Board like staff to
pursue further?
Present Situation
1% Sales Tax (1A) expires on June 30, 2024
Streets Improvement (60%)
Trail Expansion (12.5%)
Community Center (25%)
Emergency Response (2.5%)
February 28 Study Session direction to develop proposal using local resident feedback
National Community Survey (2021)
Comprehensive Plan
Subject-matter experts
Stormwater Considerations included after May 24 Joint Study Session
3
4
6/14/2023
3
Proposed 1% Renewal Components
Street Maintenance (46%)
Stormwater (28%)
Trail Expansion and Maintenance (17%)
Wildfire Mitigation (9%)
Street Maintenance (46%)
46% of NCS respondents indicated “street maintenance and repair” services should increase, 53% indicated they should remain at current service levels.
Quality of Street Repair Services (NCS)
2014: 22% excellent or good
2021: 46% excellent or good
Transportation is a significant focus of the Comprehensive Plan.
Multimodal Transportation Options
Resilient Transportation System
Strategies and Funding Sources to Invest in Transportation Infrastructure
5
6
6/14/2023
4
Stormwater (28%)
38% of NCS respondents indicated “flood mitigation” services should
increase, 60% indicated they should remain at current service levels.
Quality of Stormwater Management Services (NCS)
2014: 52% excellent or good
2021: 77% excellent or good
Comprehensive plan recommends mitigating flooding risk
through infrastructure improvements and addressing
infrastructure vulnerabilities like undersized bridges and
culverts.
Trail Expansion and Maintenance (17%)
22% of NCS respondents indicated “trail repair and maintenance”
services should increase, 77% indicated they should remain at current
service levels.
42% of NCS respondents indicated “expansion of trails (currently
funded by 1A sales tax until 2024)” services should increase, 52%
indicated they should remain at current service levels.
Comprehensive Plan supports investing in multimodal transportation
walking/bicycling networks, and development of local sources of
funding for trails and bikeways.
7
8
6/14/2023
5
Wildfire Mitigation (9%)
92% of NCS respondents reported “overall feeling of safety as
excellent or good (2021 NCS).
39% indicated that they felt very or somewhat safe “from fire, flood,
or other natural disaster.”
“Much Lower” compared to NCS ratings in other communities
Strong focus in Comprehensive Plan on resiliency from wildfire
Recognize wildfire risk and proactively work to protect the Valley
Consider adoption of fire mitigation program in partnership with
Fire District
Public education
High-Priority Areas Not Recommended
Details in memo for why the following high-priority investment areas
were not included in the proposed 1% renewal breakdown:
Workforce Housing and Childcare
Free, Year-Round Shuttle Service
Land Use Planning
Downtown Parking Availability
Acquisition and Management of Open Space
9
10
6/14/2023
6
Stormwater Considerations
2019 Stormwater Survey Results
70% agree the Town and County should act to address flooding risk.
52% indicate a user fee of some amount should be part of the
program funding solution. 48% feel the user fees should be zero or
less than 5% of the program costs.
71% feel their proposed stormwater management fees (average
$3-$10 per month) are too high.
71% suggest a sales tax should be used to fund 40% to 100% of the
program costs.
Option 1 – Sales Tax Only
Timeline: 42 Weeks
Three Funding Sources
Future Grants (25% of program costs)
Future Sales Tax (47% of program costs)
General Fund Contribution (28% of program costs)
Capital expansion fully funded by grants and sales tax
Operation and maintenance funded by General Fund
11
12
6/14/2023
7
Option 2 - User Fee, Then Sales Tax
Timeline: 35 Weeks to Form Utility, 42 Weeks to Sales Tax Election
Four Funding Sources
Future Grants (25% of program costs)
Future Sales Tax (31% of program costs)
General Fund Contribution (26% of program costs)
User Fees (18% of program costs)
Additional $20M in administrative expenses funded by user fees
Capital expansion funded by grants, sales tax, and user fees
Operation and maintenance funded by General Fund
Option 3 - Sales Tax, Then User Fee
Timeline: 35 Weeks from April 2, 2024
Four Funding Sources
Future Grants (25% of program costs)
Future Sales Tax (31% of program costs)
General Fund Contribution (26% of program costs)
User Fees (18% of program costs)
Additional $20M in administrative expenses funded by user fees
Capital expansion funded by grants, sales tax, and user fees
Operation and maintenance funded by General Fund
13
14
6/14/2023
8
Questions/Direction Requested
Is the Board comfortable with the proposed breakdown of the 1% sales
tax renewal components as a starting point for public engagement?
If so, are there particular strategies that the Board would like staff to
implement to solicit feedback from the public about the proposed
breakdown (for example, engaging with the Transportation Advisory
Board, meeting with community partners, public meetings, and
workshops)?
Which stormwater options or options would the Board like staff to
pursue further?
15
July 11, 2023
• Proposition 123 Introduction
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
• FEMA Flood Map Update
• Bed & Breakfast Code Update
• Governing Policies Updates
• Stanley Park Master Plan
Implementation
• Downtown Loop Updates as Necessary
Items for Town Board Consideration:
• Southwest Energy Efficiency Project
(SWEEP)
• Town Board Representative on the
Housing Authority Board
• Solar Policy Overview
• Efficiency Works Programs Overview
• Distributed Energy Resources Strategy
Overview
• Distributed Energy Resources
Integration Planning
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
June 13, 2023