Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2007-02-27FlLE . Prepared 2/19/07 ''A k % 4.. b. ...46·.4. · 44/3·12'.*4-* ..lt' N·' ~04£'.·':DINA.·'„ J·' > X .r.=<·r·*.v,4. jo.%,R.'J:'4'..·cb.¢'rr...flifli.. ·:*.: i· I~5:'=:.·. 2 :"':P. -. ..'.~ ,·.15·i'.,42.s·..bw ..4.,f.:f.Ri~~·i·.t:?9~4.~>~~:.Be/724)8?:t. Uk TOWNWORISTES"PARK .. i.*.% » 9- The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community * by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 27,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTION OF DEPUTY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR SWEARING-IN CEREMONY: Town Clerk Williamson and Aaron Hulme, Police Officer. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 13, 2007 and Study Session Minutes dated January 29,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, February 16, 2007: 1. Light & Power Policy Manual - Update 2006/2007 Rates. 2. Low Income Energy Assistance Act Exemption Resolution 3-07. 3. Water Policy Manual - Update 2007/2008 Rates. 4. Contract HDR for Peak Demand and System Development Fee Studies - $39,520. B. Public Safety, February 22,2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 16, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 6,2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. IMA 2007 Service Agreement. 7. Deputy Town Administrator contract. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Sundance Condominiums Supplemental Map #5, Unit 7, Tract 69B of the 1St Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, Brian Murphy, LLC/Applicant. B. REZONING 1. Stonebridge Subdivision, Metes & Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rezoning of proposed Lot 1 from RM - Multi-Family Residential to O - Office, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant - Applicant request continuance. C. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1. Stonebridge Preliminary Subdivision, Metes & Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. - Applicant request continuance. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR A BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE HELD BY SWEET BASILICO CAFE, INC. DBA SWEET BASILICO CAFE, FROM 401 E. ELKHORN AVE. TO 430 PROSPECT VILLAGE DR. Town Clerk Williamson. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - WIND ENERGY SURCHARGE RATE CHANGE - ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #5-07. Utilities Director Goehring. 3. MARY'S LAKE SUBSTATION UPGRADES. Utilities Director Goehring. 4. RESOLUTION #4-07 RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2006 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2007 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland. 5. 4~h QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 7. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ® hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Feb-23-2007 10:47AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 73 2/23/2007 10:35:22AM Send 6672527 .1:28 3 OK 74 2/23/2007 10:36:55AM Send 5869561 1:26 3 OK 75 2/23/2007 10:38:26AM Send 5869532 2:06 3 OK 76 2/23/2007 10:40:37AM Send 5861691 2:30 3 OK 77 2/23/2007 10:43:12AM Send 6353677 2:06 3 OK 78 2/23/2007 10:45:23AM Send 5771590 2:16 3 OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 13, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of February, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Town Attorney White Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Wayne Newsom, Bill Pinkham Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Levine welcomed members of the Citizen's Information Academy (CIA) who were in attendance at the meeting and thanked them for the time they were investing in taking the class to learn about Estes Park town government. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 23,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 25,2007. 1. Colorado State Firefighter Conf. Road Closure - Manford Avenue, between EP Rent-All and Community Drive, on June 22,2007. 2. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract - $7,500 Budgeted. B. Public Works, February 8,2007. 1. Parks Dept. - Purchase Irrigation Truck - $26,575 Budgeted 4. Swanhorst & Company LLC - Approval of 2007 Engagement Letter for audit services. 5. MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corp. - Approval of 2007 Engagement Letter for investment services. I . N Board of Trustees - February 13, 2007 - Page 2 Trustee Levine declared a conflict of interest with the Estes Valley Victim Advocates contract and requested Item 3.A.2 be voted upon separately, thus it was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) all Consent Items excluding Item 3.A.2 be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Eisenlauer) Item 3.A.2 be approved and it passed with Trustee Levine abstaining. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. OVERVIEW OF THE ESTES VALLEY TRAIL SYSTEM. Facilities Manager Sievers presented a comprehensive report including historical data related to the Colorado Big Thompson project, Lake Estes, and the trail system project. Identified as a tourist commodity, the trail system master plan was supported by the Town Board. Construction began in 1995 and the system currently consists of the Lake Estes Trail, the Fish Creek Trail, and the Fall River Corridor Trail. To date, the 7.34 miles of ten-foot wide concrete trail have been constructed at a cost of $5,717,730. In addition to the Town of Estes Park, the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, the Colorado Department of Transportation, Larimer County, the Bureau of Reclamation, and GOCO have participated in the funding of trail construction. Ongoing and future plans include extending the Fall River Trail to Rocky Mountain National Park, possible perimeter trails along Devils Gulch Road and Dry Gulch Road, the installation of pedestrian counters to calculate trail usage, and trail maintenance. The Board thanked Mgr. Sievers for his report and commended the Public Works department on the existing trail system and encouraged future trail development. A discussion regarding the operation of Segway motorized vehicles on the trail resulted in a request for the Town to develop a consistent policy for Segway usage on the trails. 2. FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING REPORT. The Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) initiated the Resort Community Benchmarking Group (RCBG) in 2006. The goal of RCBG is to improve existing services, processes, and procedures by compiling information from member municipalities. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the first-phase of the two-phase report containing information regarding demographic data, comparisons, and the financial health of participating towns. Estes Park compared favorably with the other 15 participating towns in the study in the areas of bond rating, liquidity, long-term debt, full time equivalents (FTE) per capita, general fund balance, and affordability. This information will be used for financial analysis and to identify trends from year to year. 3. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT ORDINANCE #4-07 - CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR SIX UNITS OF CBT WATER TO AN ANNUAL WATER CONTRACT. In 2006, the town acquired six units of Colorado Big Thompson Water (CBT) pursuant to the Water Lease Agreement with Continental Water Bank. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), the Town is required to transfer the six units of CBT water to a Permanent Section 131 Contract by March 1, 2007. Attorney White read portions of Ordinance 4-07 the purpose of which is to authorize application to the NCWCD for conversion of six acre-feet of CBT water from a Temporary Use Permit to a Permanent Allotment Contract. The ordinance contains an emergency clause allowing it to take effect and be in force immediately after its adoption and the signature by the Mayor, since in the opinion of the Board of Trustees the acquisition of water is essential for the Board of Trustees - February 13, 2007 - Page 3 well-being of the community. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) that Ordinance #4-07 be approved, and it passed unanimously with Mayor Baudek voting in order to achieve a super majority. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • Administrator Repola informed the Board that the Utilities Committee Meeting has been rescheduled for Friday, February 16, 2007 at 8:00 a.m. due to a CML meeting in Denver that he and several members of the board will be attending on Thursday, February 15, 2007. • Larimer County had been designated as a disaster area due to the December snow storm and initial paperwork is being submitted to ensure Estes Park can be considered for the recovery of up to 75% of the costs related to the snow storm which were approximately $61,000. • The newly hired Deputy Town Administrator, Jacqueline Halburnt is scheduled to begin work on Monday, February 26,2007. • The Town is currently accepting applications for the position of Public Works Director. Announcements have been placed on the Town website, in the local newspaper, the Denver Post, the CML job finder, and at University of Colorado and Colorado State University graduate schools. The application deadline is Friday, February 23,2007 with the hiring process to take place in late March. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 29,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 29th day of January, 2007. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Administrator Repola, Utilities Director Goehring, Project Manager Mangelsen and Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. UTILITIES FINANCIAL PLAN Sara Clark/HDR reviewed the current plant conditions at Glacier Creek and Mary's Lake Water treatment facilities and the options for retrofitting and expanding the capacity of the Mary's Lake facility to meet new regulations. Trustee Blackhurst questioned the use of 20+ year old demand data and requested a new demand study be conducted prior to making any decisions. Further discussion was heard regarding water rights, the current state of the Glacier Creek facility, co-op with YMCA for use of their facility as a back up, use of mothballed Fall River Plant (not a viable option due to high turbidity), the design and construction schedule, implications of only running one plant with no redundancy in the system. Water Financials Cil Pierce/HDR reviewed the current town financial and rate-setting policies, present financial plans, findings, and results, and reviewed rate recommendations. HDR is recommending rates increase by 5.6%/year through 2013; however, it is recommended that the utility look at a rate study in 2010 after the new water treatment facility is built and operated for 1 year. This could provide information on future rates to meet depreciation. Discussion followed regarding rates as compared to demand, review capital improvements, review water tap fees and reclassify as capital, Phase I is mandatory to meet new regulations, review water rights and determine if rights should be sold, and lease unused water rights. Administrator Repola stated a review of the comprehensive plan could establish the potential growth of the community and potential future demands on the utilities. Dir. Goehring stated this plan is conservative and takes into account the worst case scenario. The proposal for tap fee increases and a proposed method for informing the public of the project and the phasing will be presented at the Utilities Committee. Design and construction management will be presented at the March Utilities Committee. Light and Power Financials Cil Pierce/HDR discussed a proposed rate change from 2.0% to 2.5% through 2013 that would generate working capital of 30%; however, a fund balance of 90 days O&M would not yet be established. It was agreed to move this item to the Utilities Committee for approval of the 2.5% change with a note to provide information to the citizens that the upgrades will provide a reliable system with built in redundancy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - January 29,2007 - Page 2 General Fund & Community Reinvestment Fund Cil Pierce/HDR reported the fund balance will decline from $1.032 million in 2007 to $651,000 in 2013, and the fund balance would dip below 500,000 in 2012 with planned expenditures at the Stanley Park fairground. HDR proposes the Town consider outside funds for the completion of the Stanley Park Master Plan or defer capital projects, increase revenue or reduce operating expenses. FIRE DISTRICT Attorney White reported that he and Chief Dorman have discussed options the Town may want to consider due to the defeat of the Fire Protection District at the General Election this past fall. Fire protection in the Other Protection Area (OPA) is the responsibility of the County and the Larimer County Sheriff's Office. Therefore, Attorney White recommends the Town enter into discussions with the County to discuss future protection in the OPA. It was agreed that Administrator Repola, Attorney White and Mayor Baudek would meet with County Administrator Lancaster to discuss the future protection of the OPA and possible funding scenarios. MARKETING DISTRICT Administrator Repola provided an update on the status of the bill in the legislature. This bill would allow a statutory town to exceed the state sales tax cap. If approved, statutory towns will be allowed to impose a sales tax on lodging of up to 2% subject to voter approval. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 16, 2007. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of February 2007. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Utilities Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Newsom Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT Wind Energy Surcharae - Request Approval. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduced the wholesale rate the Town of Estes Park and other member cities pay for renewable energy by 50%, from $.024/kWh to $.012/kWh. Customers have been notified of the proposed change and of the public hearings. Staff recommends that the Town of Estes Park reduce the retail rate charged to its customers to $.013/ kWh, which is in line with the rate other member cities (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont) are charging. An Ordinance will be prepared for the February 27~h Town Board meeting and, upon approval, will become effective March 1, 2007. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the surcharge rate as described above. Light and Power Policv Manual Update- Request Approval. The Light and Power Department Policy Manual contains Procedural Policies and Tariffs which are periodically updated. Staff requests approval to update the Light and Power rate schedule with the 2006/2007 rates. The Committee recommends approval of the updates to the Light and Power Policy Manual as outlined. Financial Assistance Resolution - Request Approval. In 2005, the State of Colorado adopted the "Low Income Energy Assistance Act." This act instructs and encourages utilities to solicit monetary donations to be used to assist customers who are financially unable to pay their utility bills. The donated funds are collected by the utility and then forwarded to a PUC-approved non-profit organization such as Energy Outreach Colorado that then distributes the funds to local agencies, like Crossroads Ministry, to be distributed to qualifying customers. The Low Income Energy Act, Section 40-8.7-106 (2) provides that, if a municipally- owned electric utility determines that the service area of such utility has a limited number of people who qualify for energy assistance, said utility may be exempt from the obligations of the Act. Due to the limited number of eligible customers within the Town's service area, it is the opinion of Town Attorney Greg White that the Town is exempt from the provisions. Staff requests approval of a Resolution to exempt the Town of Estes Park, Light and Power Department from the Low Income Energy Assistance Act 40-8.7-106. Additionally, staff requests approval for the Light and Power Department to donate $500/quarter to Energy Outreach Colorado to be earmarked for water and electric bills of customers in our service area ($2,000 unbudgeted monies 502-6401-550-29-07). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 16, 2007 - Page 2 The Committee recommends approval to 1) opt out of the Low Income Energy Assistance Act with the proposed Resolution; 2) donate $500/quarter to the program; 3) a follow-up report be provided on how the funds were used. Authorizing the Marv's Lake Substation Upgrades - Request Approval. Dir. Goehring informed the Committee that to ensure electrical system redundancy and reliability, distribution system improvements must be made including the replacement of the Mary's Lake substation. These improvements have been scheduled for 2008 at an estimated cost of $6,000,000: $4,000,000 to replace the substation and $2,000,000 in distribution system improvements. Upon finalization of design for distribution system improvements, bids will be presented to the Committee for approval in 2008. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) will design-build the substation with the Town reimbursing PRPA for all costs at the end of the project. To meet the 2008 construction schedule proposed by PRPA a portable substation needs to be rented from Western Area Power Administration and two 25 MW Transformers must be ordered due to the estimated year for delivery. Staff requests approval to send PRPA a letter formally authorizing them to proceed with the replacement of the Mary's Lake substation. The Light and Power financial plan presented by HDR in January 2007 outlined that a bond would be required to pay for the project with an electric rate increase of up to 2.5%/year for six years beginning in 2008 to pay the debt service for this project. After further discussion, the Committee recommends the upgrades to the Mary's Lake Substation be presented as an action item at the February 27th meeting with the anticipated costs of the entire project presented. WATER DEPARTMENT Water Policv Manual Update - Request Approval. Dir. Goehring requested approval to update the Policy Manual with a new Water Rate schedule through 2008 and update system connection charges with 2004 Water Rights fees. The Committee recommends approval of the updates to the Water Policy Manual as outlined. Proposed Water Leasing PolicY - Request Approval. The Water Department owns 300 acre-feet Windy Gap, 500 acre-feet USA and 1,217 acre-feet CBT for a total of 2,017 acre-feet of western slope water. Depending on how much Windy Gap Water is ordered and the CBT allotment, the Town's average yield is 1,400 to 1,700 acre-feet of water. This amount, combined with the average 950 acre-feet eastern slope water used at the Glacier facility, totals 2,400 to 2,700 acre-feet available annually to the community. Total water available for 2007 is estimated at 2,632 acre-feet and a production demand estimate, based on a10 year average, of 1,613 acre-feet of water in 2007 resulting in a surplus of 1,019 acre-feet. Staff recommends adoption of a policy that would allow the Water Department to lease up to 80% of the projected surplus (815 acre-feet in 2007) annually at an average cost of $25/acre-foot with estimated revenue of $23,500. The remaining 20% surplus would result in an additional 45 day supply for the Town. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval to 1) lease surplus water at 70% of the calculated surplus for 2007; 2) yearly surplus water calculations to be conducted in December/January and presented to the Committee for annual lease approval; 3) Water Department to report quarterly on the leased surplus water and revenues generated. System Development Fee and Water Demand Study - Request Approval. The Mary's Lake Water Plant is scheduled to be upgraded in 2008 as presented in the HDR financial plan at the Utilities Committee meeting in January 2007. Modifications include new treatment technology (membrane filtration) and increased capacity (up to 4 MGD). The cost of this project, estimated at $5,100,000, would be shared by existing and new customers due to the increase in capacity and system buy-in. The facility's ability to meet future peak demands, the Town's current water rights and future water rights requirements need to be evaluated. HDR Engineering has completed some of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 16, 2007 - Page 3 the initial work; therefore, would be qualified to evaluate these items without duplication of effort. The scope of services would include the following: 1. Potable water demand projection through 2030 $23,810 2. System Development Fee Charge $15,710 TOTAL: $39,520 Staff recommends contracting with HDR Engineering to estimate peak demand, water rights requirements, and develop a system development fee charge at a cost not to exceed $39,520 (503-6500-560-22-07). Additionally, some of the figures used and developed by HDR could be incorporated in the comprehensive plan update. The Committee recommends contracting with HDR to provide water demand study through 2030 and a recommended system development fee at a cost not to exceed $39,520 (503-6500-560-22-07). Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Water Financial Reports -Dir. Goehring and Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. MISCELLANEOUS Update of the Comprehensive Plan has been assigned to the Utilities Committee. Each Committee member will be given a copy of the plan for review and a timeframe will be discussed at the next meeting. A scope of services will be drafted and an RFP produced once the Committee has determined which sections of the document should be updated. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk j RESOLUTION NO. 3-07 WHEREAS, in 2005, the State of Colorado adopted the "Low Income Energy Assistance Act", Colorado Revised Statutes 40-8.7-101 et seq; and WHEREAS, Section 40-8.7-106 (2) provides that if a municipally owned electric utility determines that the service area of such utility has a limited number of people who qualify for energy assistance said utility may be exempt from the obligations of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that there are a limited number of people who qualify for energy assistance within the Town's Light and Power service area. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 40-8.7-106 (2) C.R.S. the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby determines that there are a limited number of people who qualify for energy assistance pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Low Income Energy Assistance Act. 2. Due to this determination, the Town of Estes Park's Light and Power utility is exempt from the obligations of the Low Income Energy Assistance Act. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 22,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of February, 2007. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Attending: All Also Attending: Chief Richardson, Chief Dorman, Town Clerk Williamson, Deputy Clerk Deats Absent Chairman Newsom Trustee Eisenlauer called the meeting to drder at 8:00 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Rapid Entry System - Request Approval. A Lock Box System, such as a Knox Box, is a rapid entry system specifically developed for fire departments, that uses a computer cut master key to gain access to certain commercial and residential properties. The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has encouraged property owners to voluntarily install a Lock Box on their property in an effort to provide rapid access in the event of an emergency. This is quickly becoming an industry standard and is required through Fire Codes in many communities nationwide. All Town owned buildings, with the exception of the Dannels Fire Station, would be required to purchase a Lock Box at a cost of $200 to $300 each, if they have not already done so. Since the Town of Estes Park does not have a separate Fire Code, staff is recommending an ordinance be adopted requiring the installation of a Lock Box on qualifying properties throughout the community. A discussion followed regarding the number of buildings in Town that would be required to install the device, the expense that would be incurred by those property owners affected by the ordinance, the procedure to be followed when tenants change in leased properties, and how and where the devices are installed on buildings. Trustee Blackhurst expressed reluctance to proceed with the ordinance based on the costs involved with installing the Lock Box and the lack of information available as to the number of properties affected. The Committee recommends postponing the issue until the March 13th Town Board meeting at which time additional information will be provided and a public hearing will be held. Reports: 1. 2006 Year End Report - Chief Dorman provided the Committee with a report summarizing activities of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department through December 31, 2006, which included the election of officers, financial information, a recap of training programs, and incident totals for the year categorized by type and location. 2. Engine #1 Repair Update - Repairs to Engine #1 are complete and the truck will be returned to Estes Park today after being out of service for the past three weeks. The 23 year old truck's water tank required repair due to damage from rust. Upon the return of Engine #1, Engine #2 will be sent out for pump repair. POLICE DEPARTMENT. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - February 22,2007 - Page 2 Reports: 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Annual Report - Executive Director Mary Mesropian reported that there are new members on the Board of Directors due to former members having moved out of town and reported on the basic services offered by the Estes Valley Victim Advocates including assisting victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, emotional support for survivors of unattended deaths and suicides, short term counseling, and the addition of a Safehouse for those in need. There are currently 11 active victim advocates and, they served over 340 individual people during the past year. The organization will continue to provide services here in the Estes Valley and focus on continuing to develop safe, protective procedures for the Safehouse, making it completely accessible, and hiring a manager for the Safehouse. 2. PTO Presentation - To satisfy a requirement of new police officer training, Officer Shaun Bledsoe researched the Estes Park community and identified Addressing and Emergency Services as a public safety issue. Officer Bledsoe presented the committee with photographic evidence of the inconsistencies that exist in current addresses around Town, from buildings with no address signage, to signs that are too old, faded, or small to be legible from a distance. He pointed out that in order for law enforcement and/or emergency personnel to locate a property, it is extremely important for address signage to be easily located and read. He suggested informing the community about the importance of this issue through a newsletter, public service announcement, or a mailing. Officer Bledsoe will look into presenting this information at the senior center and at meetings of Estes Park service organizations. There being no further business, Trustee Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 9:09 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1- 1 ~-A]ET Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007, 1 :30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Town Attorney White Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed Commissioner Grant to the Planning Commission. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated December 19, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Amos nominated Commissioner Hull for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Klink. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Hull was elected Chair by acclamation. Commissioner Klink nominated Commissioner Eisenlauer for Vice-Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Hull. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Eisenlauer was elected Vice-Chair by acclamation. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the Community Development Department Secretary or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary. There being no further nominations, the Community Development Department Secretary or designee was appointed by acclamation. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Director Joseph stated information and public comment on proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code short-term rental policies have been presented at the last three Planning Commission meetings. He welcomed anyone present to provide further comment to the Planning Commission. None spoke. He stated the proposed changes are essentially on hold pending further work by planning staff to produce a more exhaustive analysis of the issues for review by the Town Trustees. He stated his expectation that the analysis will be presented at the next Community Development Committee meeting at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2006 in the Board Room of Town Hall; this will be the next opportunity for public comment on the issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 16, 2007 Commissioner Hull thanked Chair Pohl for his twenty-three years of volunteer service to the Town, stating he had been a mentor and friend and will be missed as a member of the Planning Commission. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC Chair Pohl explained that a packet of information had just been provided to the Planning Commission by Carl Towner, representing Real Estate Investment Cet 1, LLC. He called a ten-minute recess to allow time for Commissioners to review the information. The meeting reconvened at 1:51 p.m. This proposal was heard and continued at the December 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Amos and Grant recused themselves from participation on this agenda item due to their absence from that meeting. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to redevelop an existing accommodations site that currently has twenty-six unith. The property consists of two lots zoned A-Accommodations, as are most of the surrounding properties. The applicant proposes removal of the existing units and development of twenty,three new units for accommodations and multi-family use. For thb proposed development to occur, the two lots must be combined into one via an amended plat, which will also dedicate easements, right-of-way, and so forth. Planning staff recommends requiring recordation of the plat prior to issuance of the first building permit. Two adjoining properties are accessed through the applicant's property via a road that will be widened to meet current road standards; the entry on Elkhorn Avenue will also be realigned for safety. This road is a private road but will be dedicated as public right-of-way. Dedication of right-of-way on the applicant's property will also be provided for a portion of a cul-de-sac bulb, which will be shared by neighboring property owners and may be constructed in the future. At the December 19, 2006 meeting, Commissioners and/or staff expressed concern regarding the proposed impervious coverage, building setbacks, and building heights. The proposed plan has since been amended and now meets the following requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): land use, density, impervious coverage, setbacks, and proposed unit heights (the heights will be verified as individual building permits are issued). Planning staff and other affected agency staff originally held a pre-application meeting with the applicant on April 14, 2006 to discuss this develdpment proposal. During the meeting, planning staff expressed concern regarding the extent of site disturbance proposed. Staff reiterated this concern in a follow-up letter on April 19, 2006. Planning staff repeatedly expressed concern with overall site impact and stated disapproval of the plan would be recommendeil if these concerns were not addressed, including in September 2006 when an incomplete application was submitted and in a letter dated November 6,2006. Planner Shirk noted that the portion of the sit6 on the north side of Fall River was developed in 1997, prior to the adoption of current development standards, with the removal of only four trees and a portion of a stand of aspens. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan policies state buildings should be located and designed to fit the land, new development should minimize the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley, and development impacts within riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains should be minimized. These policies are codified in Section 7.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code, Grading and Site Disturbance Standards. An area in the southwest portion of the development may violate the EVDC standard that prohibits cutting to create benches/pads for development. The applicant proposes extensive and significant overlot grading, and the proposed limits of disturbance cover roughly the entire site with the exception of a small area of non-disturbance near the river corridor. It is staff's L 2 AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 16, 2007 opinion that the proposal does not meet the grading and site disturbance standards required by the EVDC. For instance, the EVDC states that limits of disturbance (LOD) may be multiple and noncontiguous on a site and provides illustration of preferred "pockets" of LODs. The Comprehensive Plan states that development along this highway (Fall River Road) should be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Information provided by the applicant's engineer indicates the applicant proposes removal of many significant trees, including 52 coniferous trees and 22 deciduous trees. These trees meet the definition of a significant tree as provided in the EVDC. The applicant submitted a report at today's meeting prepared by Dan Speedlin of A Growing Business, Inc. that conflicts with the numbers provided by his engineer and shows significantly fewer trees will be removed. However, Mr. Speedlin's definition of significant tree does not coincide with that provided in the EVDC. A number of trees shown on the applicant's plans as trees to remain are in locations shown on the applicant's grading plan where either utility line work will damage root zones or cut and/or fill will occur in the location of the trees. Staff recommends that utility lines be placed under driveways where possible in order to preserve trees. Setback requirements for both wetlands and stream-corridor protection apply to this proposal. The applicant proposes adequate screening, including supplementation with native plantings. The proposed stormwater detention ponds have been redesigned to provide native vegetation and meet the Code requirements. Planning staff recommends that each driveway area provide dedicated guest parking. Each unit provides two parking spaces as required by the EVDC; however, not all driveway aprons are deep enough for guests to park in front of the garages. Access may be limited or blocked by inappropriately parked vehicles, which may result in units being inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Also, the garage loading for units 21-23 is designed such that if a vehicle is parked outside one of the garages, access to the other units will be blocked. Staff recommends redesign of this building to address this concern. Three sections of the EVDC require the minimization of curb cuts to the maximum extent possible via the use of shared driveways or other means. Planning staff has recommended the applicant eliminate the two southernmost proposed driveways and load those units from the drives to the north. Planner Shirk corrected information provided in the staff report, stating the applicant will need to bring in fill for the road in the area of the cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sac standards provide for a maximum of 120 vehicle trips per day, which this proposal will exceed. Staff recommends waiving this standard because the applicant could instead create a second access point on Elkhorn Avenue to serve a portion of the units and reduce the trips on the cul-de-sac. However, a second access point on Elkhorn Avenue would create potential traffic hazards. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department. A letter from adjacent property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, 1130 West Elkhorn Avenue, was received expressing concern about loss of view corridors, substantial loss of trees, an increase in the number of buildings from seven to twenty-three, increase in traffic and noise, loss of wildlife habitat, and potential pollution of Fall River. Two additional adjacent property owners, at 1152 and 1250 West Elkhorn Avenue, verbally expressed their concerns to planning staff regarding the proposed limits of disturbance. The applicant provided letters of support from the property owners at 1152 and 1250 West Elkhorn Avenue as part of the packet of information submitted to the Planning Commission at the start of the meeting. Significant changes have been made to the applicant's proposal since the December 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting that bring the proposal closer to compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Redevelopment of the site would increase traffic safety. However, it is the opinion of planning staff that the proposed limits of disturbance exceed that allowed in the development code and staff recommends disapproval of the application. L LAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 16, 2007 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The submitted application fails to meet Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D, and in Staff's opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 "Cutting to Create Benches." 2. There are several corrections and changes that could be made conditions of approval. These include: a. Number of driveways and driveway intersection design; b. Lighting plan; c. Refine grading and landscaping plans; d. Off-street parking design; e. Amend LOD to encompass all site work (this was completed with the applicant's most recent submittal); f. The proposed sediment pond on the north side of the river shows grading in an area where vegetation is to be preserved and should be corrected; g. The proposed sediment pond nbar the wetlands does not include any grading information and should be corrected; h. The relocated hydrant near the intersection of River Walk Court and Elkhorn Avenue should be shown; i. The existing water line easement in the southeast corner of the lot shall be shown on the development plan; j. The lienholder's signature should be removed from the deOelopment plan; k. The proposed stop sign should include reference to MUTCD standards; 1. The correct crosspan widths should be shdwn; m. Retaining wall materials should be included in the notes section; n. Construction plans should account for root protection as outlined in Appendix D. 3. Staff recommends the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7. and Appendix D.111.6. 4. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a cul-de-sac has been fully developed. 5. An amended plat will be required to be recorded prior to issuance of any permits. This amended plat will need to account for sewer easement, postal cluster box easement, relocated water line easement, and right-of-way dedication. 6. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.11.E2 "Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day" because reducing the number of access points on West Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street). 8. Construction plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any permits. 9. The applicant should review the Staff report and devdlopment code for all requirements, such as construction barrier fencing, timing of utility installation, as-built drawings, etc. 10. This request has been submitted *to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 11. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan. Per Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the Town Board. Due to noncompliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, Staff recommends disapproval of Development Plan 06- 08 "River View Pines." Discussion followed among Commissioners and planning staff, and is summarized as follows. The EVDC defines significant trees by their diameter at breast height. Significant conifers are eight inches or greater; significant deciduous trees are four inches or greater. Concerns regarding disturbance to riparian habitats relate to proposed installation of sewer mains along the river corridor. Concerns regarding visual impact and the view from the Li.AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 16, 2007 highway corridor relate to the number of trees proposed to be removed. The Fall River corridor is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area with uniquely desirable visual characteristics and an important area to resident and visitor experiences because it is a corridor to the national park. There are a variety of policies in the Comprehensive Plan to protect the natural appearance of this corridor, including providing for development that consists of small, residential cabins "tucked in" among native vegetation along the stream corridor. There may be a few significant trees on the site that should be removed due to lightning or insect damage. Public Comment: Carl Towner, representing Real Estate Investment Cet 1, LLC, provided a visual presentation to the Planning Commission. He requested assistance from the recording secretary in setting up his laptop computer; minutes reflecting that portion of the meeting are taken from the audio recording of the meeting. Mr. Towner noted the EVDC recommends removal of trees that pose a threat to public safety. He stated the EVDC does not require provision of parking for parties. If proposed units on the south side of the river were "bottom-loaded" (to meet staff' s recommendation of removal of the southern driveways), congestion would be compounded. Providing "tucked in" units along the Fall River corridor is not a requirement of the EVDC. The proposed development is on the west end of Elkhorn Avenue, not on the main road to the national park. The existing units on the site are modular homes from 1997 and do not have garages. Proposed removal of trees would allow the new units to have garages. Trees add value to the property and he will take care to protect root zones of trees. Mr. Towner stated he had contacted all adjoining property owners but one. He read a letter of support signed by neighboring property owners Jon and Paula Bryson, stated he has the support of Deer Crest Resort, and quoted from a letter of support signed by neighboring property owner Michelle LeCIerc. He rebutted issues raised in a letter received by planning staff from neighboring property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, and stated that a portion of the Four Seasons Inn (owned by the Eldridges) encroaches onto his property. He stated only 2,000 square feet of the 4.35-acre property is untouched by previous development. He addressed issues raised in current and previous staff reports, stating unit design has changed to save as many trees as possible, impervious coverage is less than the maximum allowed by the EVDC, building heights comply with standards, other approved developments have more extensive grading for benching than that requested in this proposal and the proposal does not violate EVDC Section 7.2, and based on Mr. Speedlin's report on significant trees, 39 trees would be "declassified" as significant trees and only nine significant trees would be removed. Mr. Towner stated all significant issues raised by planning staff have been addressed and requested approval of the proposed development plan. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Towner, summarized as follows. Trees. Staff requested several months ago that the applicant provide a report on significant trees to aid with design and evaluation of the site. Mr. Speedlin's report was prepared on January 11, 2007 and could not have influenced site planning. The Estes Valley Development Code specifically defines significant trees. Many of the significant trees recommended for removal by Mr. Speedlin are listed because of their proximity to existing buildings; however, the applicant intends to remove all existing buildings from the site. Damage to root zones of trees designated to be saved may result in loss of those trees. Access. Access to units 8-12, 13-16, and 21-23 may be blocked, particularly access to adjoining units' garages, if a vehicle is parked outside the garage of any of these units. Commissioners expressed general concern about access for owners, guests, and/or emergency vehicles. Wildlife. Extensive grading proposed by the applicant may negatively impact wildlife. Other. Chair Pohl expressed concern that the applicant, over the last ten months, received repeated suggestions by planning staff and warnings from staff that the proposal would be recommended for disapproval, yet did not address staffs' concerns. Mr. Towner argued that other developments approved by the Planning Commission have greater levels of site disturbance than his proposal. L _ - FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 16, 2007 Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. In regard to staff's opinion that the development is not designed to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement to "fit the land," he stated the project was designed to fit the existing terraces on the site. He stated the plan will not impact the visual corridor along Fall River. He stated that between the right-of-way and setbacks, there is a small area left to work in and the applicant is attempting to save a significant number of trees. The grading plan does show grading close to trees and a retaining wall to allow top-loading of some units. He noted Planner Shirk had amended a statement in the staff report relating to the slope for the cul-de-sac-the slope will be changed from 12% to 9% and will create a better cul-de-sac. Although the proposed guest parking could be improved, it meets the requirements of the EVDC. Condominium declarations could require residents to park inside garages. The southern driveways that staff recommends be removed should be retained so congestion is not increased and access can be provided off the cul-de-sac. Mr. Todd expressed concerh about a condition· of approval for the amended plat (which was approved but not acted upon and has since lapsed), stating the water line easement can not be vacated until the line is relocated, and the line can not be relocated until the development plan is approved. He listed benefits to the community ' provided by this proposed development, including the bike path, improved access to adjoining lots, and installation of new sewer and water mains. He noted existing development on the applicant's property has already impacted the site. He stated the issues have come down to the proposed limits of disturbance and proposed removal of trees-these have been issues from the beginning. There are a total of 219 trees on the site; removal of 80 is proposed. At the River's Edge development, 83 out of 288 trees were removed from the site. He referred to Mr. Speedlin's report and to contact with Tony Simons, Larimer County's wildfire hazard expert, who approximated ten to fifteen trees should be removed due to fire hazard. He stated they would attempt to save trees that could be saved. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Todd. Commissioners Klink and Hull expressed conbern about the location of guest parking. In response to questions from Commissioner Kitchen, Mr. Todd provided proposed heights of various retaining walls; none exceed six feet. Director Joseph,quoted from EVDC Section 7.5.D.2, which states that existing trees shall be incorporated into the landscape to the maximum extent feasible and states root zones of existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. He questioned Mr. Todd whether an analysis of the proposed plans had been done to ensure these requirements were met. Mr. Todd answered, "No." Chair Pohl called a recess at 4:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 4:16 p.m. Adjoining property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, owners of the Four Seasons Inn at 1130 West Elkhorn Avenue, stated they are not opposed to the development plan but listed a variety of concerns, including the proposed location of units 19 and 20, impact on the views for their guests and for their personal residence, loss of grazing· area for elk, increased dust and noise with no mitigation plan, loss of trees and view corridor along Fall .River, potential loss of income, and increased density. They stated their willingness to work together with the applicant. Adjoining property owners Jon and Paula Bryson, 1152 West Elkhorn Avenue, stated their support of the proposed development and noted their concerns about trees near the bridge creating a sight-visibility hazard for traffic and pedestrians. They stated the proposed retaining walls are necessary to meet the objective of providing a safer access road and that new landscaping on the property would be welcomed. Mr. Towner expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission. Chair Pohl noted that the decision-making body for this application is the Planning Commission; the decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Town Board of Trustees. -11 1 I'll"In:gllill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 16, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Hull/Pohl) to disapprove Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, due to the number of significant trees proposed to be removed, the lack of safe guest parking areas, and non-compliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, as outlined in the staff report and findings, and the motion passed unanimously with two abstaining. Commissioner Kitchen stated she had voted in favor of disapproval only because of her concern about inadequate parking. 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT and REZONING, Stonebridge Subdivision, Metes and Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Commissioner Kitchen recused herself from participating on this item. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel located on the west side of Fish Creek Road into three lots. The northernmost lot, proposed Lot 1, would contain the existing Van Horn Engineering office building. The applicant proposes to rezone this lot from RM-Mu#i-Fami/y Residen#a/ to O-Office at the request of planning staff, thus accurately reflecting its current and proposed future use. Lot 2 would be 1.594 acres in size and Lot 3 would be 2.741 acres; both would retain their current zoning of RM-Mu#i-Fam#y Residentia/. Prior to the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned for commercial use, which also allowed multi-family-residential development. The applicant may submit a development plan proposal for the site for Planning Commission review in March or April. Planning staff recommends that some review issues be delayed until the development plan and/or final plat submittal is received. Planner Shirk stated the most pertinent issue is the right-of-way width. The property is located inside Town limits and the Town Board of Trustees is the decision-making body for the subdivision plat. However, the property is adjacent to Fish Creek Road, which is a county road. Larimer County regulations regarding right-of-way width apply to this property. The applicant will appear before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on February 20, 2007 to request a waiver to the road right-of-way width standards. The applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage plan and has indicated an intention to augment the wetlands along Fish Creek. Review of the final drainage plan, as well as required landscaping and buffers, will occur when the development plan and/or final plat application is submitted. Wetlands expert Darcy Tiglas has identified two wetlands areas on the property. One is a fringe wetland along Fish Creek. The second is a small wetlands community on the southern portion of the site. Ms. Tiglas believes this wetland was created by a blocked culvert that was meant to drain from the east side of Fish Creek Road onto the applicant's property. If water flowed through the culvert as designed, this small area of wetlands would not exist. The applicant proposes to remove this wetland and replace it by augmenting the wetlands along Fish Creek. Wetlands setback requirements apply to this property. Because the wetland along Fish Creek is a fringe wetland, planning staff recommends the thirty-foot stream corridor setback apply rather than the fifty-foot wetlands setback. Utilities are in place to serve the property. A new sewer main will be installed by the applicant parallel to the existing main. The applicant will also install a new water main, which will run the length of the property along Fish Creek Road. There is a private water line crossing the property from west to east; this line serves properties to the north along the east side of Fish Creek Road. The applicant proposes to remove this private water line but must obtain permission from the owners of the line to do so. If this does not take place, planning staff recommends that a twenty-foot-wide easement be dedicated for the line. Recommended condition of approval #12 has been added to address this issue. DRA-FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 16, 2007 The Larimer County Assessor's records indicate that a small portion of property on the east side of Fish Creek Road is a portion of the applicant's property. A letter has been submitted by William Van Horn, Trustee for Paul H. Van Horn Trust, owner of the property, stating theproperty on the east side of Fish Creek Road is not owned by the Trust and is not included in the Stonebridge development. It is the opinion of planning staff that the land is a portion of the former Fish Creek Road right-of-way and dates from the realignment of the road in the 1950s. Staff recommends that this discrepancy be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor's office prior to submittal of the final plat. Planner Shirk reviewed the findings and recommendations as shown in the staff report and added a gth finding, as follows: The preliminary plat does not include the submitted grading plan. The grading plan will be reviewed with the developmdnt plan. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. With the exception of the Fish Creek Road right-of-way width, no significant concerns issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering, Town Attorney White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Assessor's office, and the Town of Estes Park Light and Power, Building Safety, and Public Works departments. Written comments in opposition to the request were received from neighboring property owners John Poulos, 1805 Powelly Lane, and William B. and Marguerite R. Paynter, 810 Fish Creek Road. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: Frank Theis, CMS Planning and Development, was present to represent the applicant and property owners. He stated their agreement with all recommended conditions of approval except condition #12 regarding the private water line easement. Bill Van Horn stated his family currently owns the property. He stated his concern that owners of the private water line would use staff's recommended condition #12 as a lever to restrict development of the property. No easement exists for the line and he does not want to grant an easement. He requested relief from condition #12. Following further discussion between Mr. Van Horn, planning staff, and Acting Public Works Director Bob Goehring, Mr. Van Horn agreed to condition #12, providing the easement is provisional and would revert to the property owner if the private water line is relocated or abandoned. Director Joseph stated that planning staff would need to review and approve the proposed easement language prior to Town Board action on this proposal. Mr. Van Horn agreed. Bob Trump, 830 Fish Creek Road, stated he is a member of the associtition that owns the private water line. He submitted written comments to the Planning Commission and agreed that many of his concerns would be more appropriately addressed when the development plan is reviewed. Jan Verschuur, 2361 S. St. Vrain Avenue, stated although he does not live on Fish Creek Road, he often uses the Fish Creek corridor, including the pedestrian trail. He stated that the Fish Creek area has uniquely desirable visual qualities and the development of twenty- four condominium units in this location will detract from the area rather than enhance it. He expressed concerns about development impact to the wetlands on the site. Chair Pohl provided clarification on the subdivision of land versus development plan proposals. He noted that approval of a subdivision does not guarantee approval of a development plan for the property. Commissioner Amos moved to extend the meeting beyond the 5:00 p.m. ending time in order to complete the review of this proposal. He noted the importance of preserving the meeting end time of 5:00 p.m. whenever possible. Commissioner Klink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E FLAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 January 16, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision request for Stonebridge Subdivision, Metes and Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, and to recommend approval of the request for Rezoning from RM-Mu/ti-Fami/y Residentia/ to O-Office for proposed Lot 1, Stonebridge Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with the applicant's agreement that language to meet required condition #12 regarding the private water line easement will be reviewed by the Town Attorney, and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Kitchen abstaining. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the proposed right-of-way width modification from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. 2. The proposed open space area shall be graphically delineated on the final plat. 3. The wetlands and associated setbacks on proposed Lot 3 shall be protected from development through limits of disturbance unless the applicant submits a specific plan delineating how these wetlands will be replaced and how the riparian corridor will be enhanced. This plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to final plat application. 4. Development of these lots shall require each unit to have individually dedicated service lines for sanitary sewer. 5. All utilities (including fire hydrants) and required landscaping shall be accounted for with the final plat unless a development plan for Lots 2 and 3 is submitted for concurrent review with the final plat. 6. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White dated December 15, 2006, with the exception of comment #4. 7. Compliance with memo from Light and Power dated December 19, 2006. 8. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated December 22, 2006. 9. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works dated January 8,2007. 10. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Water Department dated December 18, 2006. 11. The discrepancy between the Larimer County Assessor's office and the property owner's claims of ownership for property located on the east side of Fish Creek Road shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor's office prior to final plat submittal. 12. The private water line crossing the property shall be placed in a twenty-foot easement unless abandoned prior to submittal of the final plat. Said easement shall automatically become null and void if the water line is abandoned. REZONING CONDITION: 1. Recordation of the final plat. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 5:11 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS L L _ JET Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 6,2007,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Vice-Chair Lynch; Members Dill, Levine, and Sager; Alternate Member Grant Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Chair Newsom, Director Joseph Vice-Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 5,2006 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2006 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. LOT 5, AMENDED PLAT OF CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION, 1505 FISH CREEK ROAD, Applicant: Raymond and Shara Davies - Request for a post-construction variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E.2 and Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42 feet. Member Levine recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his status as de facto Homeowners Association president and due to ex parte communication he received regarding this request. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from the building height limitations found in Estes Valley Development Code sections 1.9.E.2 and Table 4-2 to allow the height of a newly constructed residence to remain 3.43 feet in excess of the maximum allowable slope-adjusted height limit of thirty-seven feet. Approval of this post-construction variance request would allow the applicant to avoid destruction of the existing roof structure and construction of a new roof design. The residence was built farther up the slope than was shown on the approved site plan. Building permit approval required verification of the building location and height; this requirement was not met. During a pre-construction meeting with Chief Building Official Will Birchfield in June 2005, the applicants were informed of the need for height verification at the footing-and-foundation stage; this requirement was not met. In reviewing the building permit application, planning staff made a mathematical error in the height calculation. The height calculation was also based on the applicant's site plan, which was not followed. During a building inspection in November 2005, building department personnel discovered RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 February 6,2007 the building exceeded the maximum allowable height. A stop order was not issued at that time. The applicants were advised to consider "hipping" the roof and were allowed to proceed with construction at their own risk. In considering whether special circumstances exist, it is planning staff's opinion that although the lot is sloped, this is a self-imposed hardship because a code-compliant structure could easily have been designed for the site. The height regulation was in place at the time the design of the home was commenced. Changes to the Estes Valley Development Code were adopted several years ago to provide for slope-adjusted building height limits to accommodate structures built on slopes; few height variance requests have been requested since the akloption of these changes. Approval of the proposed height variance would have minor impact on the character of the neighborhood. Beneficial use of the property may continue without approval of a variance. It is planning staff's opinion that the requested variance is substantial because it exceeds the height allowed by existing language in the development code that provides a slope-adjusted height limit. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from one neighbor who is concerned about the precedent approval of this request would set. Letters in support of the request were signed by William and Margaret Henderson of 1488 Creekside Court and Edmond Baisley of 1490 Creekside Court. Planning staff would support a modified request to limit the demolition of the existing roof structure to retain an existing load-bearing point; however, this request as presented does not represent the least deviation from the regulations that would afford relief. Planning staff recommends denial of the request. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicants. He requested clarification of staff findings 12,13, and 14 in regard to their relevance to this variance request. Planner Shirk read findings 12-14 and explained that the Board of Adjustment must find these standard items in order to approve any.variance request. Mr. Sheldon distributed to the Board photos showing the residence from two different angles and how the appearance of the residence would be altered if a portion of the roof line was lowered. He stated the following: the steep slope and a drainage easement on the lot left a small building envelope in which to build the house; the Town did not catch the height error in a timely fashion, and it would be a hardship on the applicant to change the height at this point; the requested variance is only 9.2% of the building height; the Town now has procedures in place to prevent an error like this from occurring again. Discussion followed among the Board Members, Planner Shirk, and Mr. Sheldon, summarized as follows: Town staff did not require a height certificate until the framing was essentially complete; planning staff can grant a variance of up to 10% for setback requirements but cannot grant any variances to the height limit due to existing EVDC allowance for slope adjustment; the applicant was informed that an elevation certificate was required prior to placing the foundation walls, but Town staff did not ask for the certificate at that time; new review procedures are now in place toaddress such situations; changing the roof line of the residence would create an extreme hardship for the applicant; the appearance of the residence is similar to others in the neighborhood; changing the roof line to meet the height requirement would change the overall appearance of the residence very little. ir 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 February 6,2007 Recognizing that the small difference that would be made by lowering a portion of the roof line is not worth the effort or expense to do so, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Grant) to approve the variance request for Lot 5, Amended Plat of Creekside Subdivision, to allow to allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42 feet, and the motion passed unanimously with Member Levine abstaining. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:47 a.m. John Lynch, Vice-Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRA-FT Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 6,2007 Subject: 2007 Renewal of Insurance Advisory Agreement with IMA Background IMA has provided us with certain insurance services (as reported in Schedule A - Description of Services - Benefit Risk Management) since 2004. IMA assists and advises the Town with the administration and selection of its $950,000 medical- dental-vision-life insurance-employee assistance programs for the set fee of $30,000. Documentation/explanation Attached please find the IMA "Agreement for Services" document. IMA requests to have these agreements extended annually. Refusal/failure to execute the agreement simply means that we by default enter into an agreement with IMA on a monthly basis. The annual agreement protects us from fee increases except on an annual basis. The insurance team is going to do an RFP for our insurance-related services in 2007. Action steps requested Approval for signature on the "Agreement for Services" document. Agreement for Services This Agreement for services is made and entered into as of the 4th day of January, 2007, by and among the Town of Estes Park, having offices at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517, for itself and its Named Insureds (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Client"), and IMA of Colorado, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "IMA"). Named Insureds shall be defined as those entities set forth on policies of insurance covered by this Agreement. Client has requested IMA to perform certain services (the "Services") described in Schedule A attached hereto. IMA desires to render such Services to Client on the terms and conditions set forth below, and IMA and Client agree it would be to their mutual advantage to execute this Agreement and thereby define the terms and conditions which shall control the rendering of Services to Client by IMA. Fees and payment terms for the provided Services are described in Schedule B attached hereto. Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Confidentiality. IMA and the Client agree that all such Proprietary Information exchanged during the performance of Services under this Agreement shall remain the sole and separate property of the party providing the same, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Proprietary Information includes, without limitation, all information concerning the identities, needs, expirations, policies, or purchasing habits of the Client, all business systems, financial data, computer data or processes, forms appraisals, loss experience, other similar data and other business records; provided, however, such Proprietary Information shall not include information that is in the public domain or is readily available or accessible to the public. IMA and the Client agree that all such Proprietary Information shall not be disclosed, communicated or otherwise transferred or made available to unrelated third parties without the prior written consent of the entity whose Proprietary Information is being shared, except for those employees, agents, representatives and permitted assigns with a reasonable need to know such Proprietary Information to facilitate the performance of services hereunder. Notwithstanding any term or condition herein to the contrary, each party understands and agrees that upon receipt by either party of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, the restrictions set forth herein shall not prohibit the receiving party of such order from compliance with any such order. The confidentiality provisions set forth herein shall survive the termination of the Agreement. 2. Term and Termination. This Agreement will become effective 12:01 a.m., January 1, 2007 and terminate 12:01 a.m. December 31, 2007 or unless canceled by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice of said cancellation, except in the case of nonpayment. Upon cancellation or expiration of the term of this Agreement, no further Services will be provided by IMA to Client except those Services deemed M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-3 1-07.doc 5/06 necessary in the sole discretion of IMA to complete the,existing Services provided to Client by IMA during the term of the Agreement. 3. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by the Client without the prior written consent of IMA and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and permitted assigns. Nothing in the Agreement is intended to nor shall confer upon any person or legal entity other than Client or IMA and their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement. 4. Compensation Disclosure. IMA of Colorado, Inc. is a subsidiary of The IMA Financial Group, Inc., a national financial services company with numerous affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively the "IMA Group"). In addition to the compensation received by IMA as described in this Agreement, other parties, such as excess and surplus lines brokers, wholesalers, reinsurance intermediaries, underwriting managers and similar parties (some of which may be owned in whole or in part by the IMA Group), may earn and retain usual and customary commissions or other compensations for providing insurance products to Client under separate contracts with insurers or reinsurers. Such paymentswill not be considered as compensation to IMA ahd will not offset any compensation payable to IMA pursuant to this Agreement. Further, the IMA Group may receive contingent or incentive payments or allowances from insurers or finance companies based on the size or per*mance of an overall book of business produced with them by the IMA Group. Additionally, expense reimbursements for travel or technology enhancements, salary offsets or de minimus gifts may be provided. The IMA Group may also receive interest of premium being held prior to disbursement to clients. Upon written request, the IMA Group will provide to Client additional details and information about such arrangements. 5. Business Responsibility. All Services hereunder shall be provided by IMA to Client in accordance with applicable industry standards and applicable laws and regulations. In turn, Client acknowledges that IMA has made no representation, warranty, or guaranty concerning either the performance of, or the results to be obtained from, the Services provided hereunder. Additionally, IMA has made no representation, warranty, or guaranty concerning the financial condition of any insurance carrier providing coverage to Client. The Client remains solely responsible for reporting and communicating changes in exposures, loss-related data, ownership and other material changes in writing to IMA; further, the Client remains solely responsible for the conduct , and governance of its business operations., Client further agrees that any fines or penalties assessed against Client under any local, state, or federal occupational safety and health law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, any local, state, or federal order, rule or statute pertaining to the protection of the environment, or any other local, state, or federal laws, statutes, orders, or regulations shall be the Client' s sole responsibility, and that IMA shall have no responsibility or liability for any portion of any such fines or penalties. M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Est'es Park 1-1-07-12-31-07.doc 5/06 6. Final Agreement and Jurisdiction. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, supersedes all prior negotiations between such parties, and cannot be amended, supplemented, or modified except by an agreement in writing signed by the party or parties against whom enforcement is sought and making specific reference to in this Agreement. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement or any application thereof shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of the Agreement and any other application thereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado applicable to contracts made in that state. 7. Execution bv Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. 8. Notice. Any notice by either party to the other party shall be deemed served effective (i) upon delivery, if personally delivered, (ii) upon delivery to Federal Express or other similar courier service, marked for next day delivery, addressed as set forth below, (iii) upon receipt if sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as set forth below. The notice addresses of the parties are: If to Client: Steve MeFarland Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 If to IMA: Kevin Hawkins IMA of Colorado, Inc. 1550 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 The customary registered/certified receipt or Federal Express or other courier receipt shall be evidence of such notice. Either party hereto may change the name and address of the designee to whom their notice shall be sent by giving written notice of such change to the other party hereto in the manner above provided, at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such notice. 9. Engagement Confirmation. The parties agree that the Services provided herein contemplate services in addition to placement activity. No insurance product sale is required under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-31-07.doc 5/06 "IMA" "Client" IMA of Colorado, Inc. Town of Estes Park By: t-v-4,-~.z By: Printed Name & Title: Printed Name & Title: 14 0, A; 44-0 ' 14'Ag ~ 4£6 <Ali 4 5 /+Ct L.8, F/4 4,17/ Date: 1-9 -07 Date: M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-31-07.doc 5/06 Schedule A - Description of Services -Benefit Risk Management For the purposes of this Agreement, Services shall be defined as set forth below, provided, however, the delivery of all such Services is conditioned upon payment of all invoices, fees and premium associated therewith or due hereunder. For the purposes of this Agreement, the employee benefits risk management Services provided shall include the following insurance policy(ies) and coverages: All policies currently in force In some instances, risk placements made by IMA on behalf of the Client may require the payment of state surplus lines or other premium taxes, Federal excise taxes, and/or fees in addition to the premium itself. IMA will make every effort to identify any such tax and/or fee in advance, but in all instances the payment of these taxes and/or fees will remain the sole responsibility and liability of Client. The Client will have the responsibility to report and communicate changes in exposures, loss-related data, ownership and other material changes in writing to IMA who shall communicate such information to the Clients' insurance carrier(s). For the purposes of this Agreement, Services shall be defined as including, but not limited to: • Coordinate all activities relating to the employee benefits program • Communicate with the human resources or benefits personnel regarding benefits program issues • Plan design consultation • Benefit and cost analysis • Network disruption analysis • Review and implementation of complete cost containment procedures where applicable • Meetings with management or benefits personnel as requested and at agreed upon regular intervals • Periodic review of market trends to ensure plan compliance • Custom employee communications • Provide resources for provider questions or issues • Act as a resource for hardship provisions or late entrants • Ensure implementation of policy changes with carrier(s) • Develop RFPs and market benefit programs as needed • Request renewals • Full evaluation of renewal • Renewal negotiations with carriers • Compile renewal • Provide plan alternatives with renewals M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-31-07.doc 5/06 • Update benefit comparisons • Review renewal contracts for accuracy • Act as a resource for difficult claim situations • Coordinate open enrollment • Act as a resource for benefit program and compliance related questions • Provide information to assist with Client's compliance with state and federal mandates • Provide educational information to benefits personnel on new administrative procedures • Provide quarterly and annual reports • Provide funding information including premium equivalent rates, COBRA rates and IBNR In addition to the fee for services set forth in Schedule B, IMA will receive and retain usual and customary policy specific commission payable by the carrier for the policies listed below and such commission will not be offset or applied to the annual fee due under the Agreement. None Other services which are not listed above may be considered outside our scope of services and additional fees may apply. In the case that a service is outside the scope of services (i.e., excessive travel, meetings, etc) IMA will notify the client and negotiate additional fees prior to providing services. M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-3 1-07.doc 5/06 Schedule B - Compensation for Services 1. Client shall pay to IMA as compensation for the Services provided by IMA to Client for the annual period described above the sum of $30,000. Such annual fee shall be due and payable bi-monthly commencing January 1, 2007 in equal installments of $5,000 each. Said fee is deemed fully earned upon execution of this Agreement and Client agrees that such fee is for fees in addition to commissions for such services. 2. Payment of all invoices submitted to the Client will be made pursuant to the invoice due date. In the event Client does not remit timely payment, IMA reserves the right to terminate this Agreement. Upon such termination, all further obligations of IMA are terminated automatically, and this Agreement is void and has no further force or effect. 3. It is understood that other benefit management or insurance services may be undertaken by IMA from time to time by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties agree to amend this Agreement as necessary to describe the additional services and compensation payable to IMA for such services. M:\Operations\Service Fee Agreement\Town of Estes Park\Town of Estes Park 1-1-07-12-31-07.doc 5/06 TOWN BOARD MEETING February 27,2007 Consent #7. DEPUTY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT Town Attorney White prepared the contract and Administrator Repola has reviewed it. The contract is subject to review by Ms. Halburnt and any changes to the contract will be presented at the Town Board meeting. Memo Date: February 21, 2007 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Employment Contract - Deputy Town Administrator BACKGROUND: Accompanying this Memo is an Employment Agreement for Jacqueline S. Halburnt for the position of Deputy Town Administrator. Employment Agreement is for a three (3) year period with the same termination provisions as found in the Town Administrator's Contract. Also, the Town may terminate the Employment Agreement without cause subject to severance pay of three (3) months of salary and other benefits. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The Town will need to budget for the three months severance pay in the budget years of 2008,2009 and 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Employment Contract. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, effective the 26th day of February, 2007, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, hereinafter referred to as the "Town" and JACQUELINE S. HALBURNT, hereinafter referred to as the "Employee", is upon the following terms and conditions, to-wit: 1. Duties and Compensation. A Duties. The Employee is hereby hired as Deputy Town Administrator for the Town for a three (3) year period beginning February 26,2007. The duties of the Employee are set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto ahd made a part hereof by reference. B Compensation. 44 Employee shall be compensated<LEyathe T~Wn as described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part heredf,by*reference. »f 2. Benefits. l\\ The Town shall provide benefits to the Employbe as follows: A. Insurance. The Town shall>provide life, health and major medical/dental insurance to the Employee urtdklfie,Town's programs. The Town shall provide seventy-five percent (7596¢of the amount of premium necessary for Employee's family's health and majorhnedical/dental coverage under the Town's health and dental programs. 474\4 B. Vacation. \\ Employee shall accrue vhcatiogat the rate of ten (10) hours per month with a beginning vacation balance of Mrty (40) hours on March 1,2007. C. Vehicle. The Town agrees to contribute $325 per month for the Employee's use of her personal automobile and associated operation and maintenance costs as it pertains to Employee's duties. Employee agrees to provide comprehensive and liability insurance coverage for said automobile at a minimum of $150,000.00 per person/$600,000.00 per occurrence. The Town of Estes Park shall be named as an additional insured on the policy and a Certificate of Insurance showing the above amounts and designation shall be filed with the Town Finance Officer. The Town shall reimburse Employee for employment related travel beyond the Town's electric service area at the rate pursuant to the Town's Personnel Policy. Employee shall request reimbursement from the Town by filing an itemized expense report on a monthly basis. E. Miscellaneous Benefits. Employee shall receive all other benefits for Town Employees as set forth in the Town's Personnel Policy which are not specifically addressed in'this Agreement, including but not limited to, Retirement, Sick Leave, and Holidays. 3. Termination. A. Termination by Town with Cause. The Town may terminate this Agreement by writteQ notice to the Employee effective on the date of said written notice only for>illful malfeasance, gross negligence, active dishonesty or moral turpitude c)fill*Part of the Employee and/or Employee's failure to perform the duties off)eputy Town Administrator as set forth in Paragraph 1 above. The Town ishail' pay *the Employee only for any accrued vacation not used at the date of terminition dithis Agreement. X B. Termination by Town Without Cause. The Town may terminate this Agreement at any time, without cause, ~pon notice in writing to Employee effective on the date of said written notick h®wever, the Town shall pay to Employee upon said .termination, all salafy and other applicable benefits equal ikthe last three months of employment prior to the month of termination. The Tdwkshall include in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 Town Budgets adequate cash resehes~hich are irrevocably pledged to be held for the purpose of funding any sums dhellnder the tehns and conditions of this paragraph. V \0\ C. TerminatiOn by Employee. *4 The Employee may terminate this Agreement by giving the Town sixty (60) days writtennotice of said termination. Th~ER'ployee shall receive all salary and othel>benellfs~through said 60-day period, /7 \\ 4/ Entire Agreement. 1 Th!~nstrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties, and no repre~~ations are relied upon that are not set forth herein. 5. Defau~ ' ~ ~ In the eventigfiany default by either party in the terms and cohditions hereof, the non-defaulting<pkft~hall give the defaulting party ten (10) days' notice in writing of said default./ If said default is riot cured within said ten (10) day period, this Agreement sh@l be deemed to have been terminated for said'default and the non-defaulting party, shall bd entitled to all damages incurred by reason of said default, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. 6. Notices. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to @ither party, under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid registered as follows: Town of Estes Park Mayor P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Ms. Jacqueline S. Halburnt 7. Renewal and Amendment. This Agreement may be renewed and/OI amended only upon the written agreement of both parties. 8. Headings. gf~j ~4 Headings in this Agreement are for convenience Only and shall not be used to /\ e interpret or construe its provisions. \9 \\ 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have. executed this Employment Agreement effective the day and year first above written. 0~;2' TOWN OF ESTES PARK \\ \Ni>-9 By: j Mayor ATTEST: 1 1 \14% *-793> Town Clerk Jacqueline S. Halburnt EXHIBIT B BASE SALARY $94,000 per year MERIT BASED SALARY INCREASE /\ The Town Administrator may grant a„Merit Based Salary Increase not to exceed 5% per annum effective Septembe[14-42007. 11 A Annual reviews of Merit, Cost of Living, and/br,Salary Increases will be handled in the same fashion as all other full time employees under the Town's Personnel Policy Manual. \»9 MOVING EXPEN~ES~\~ 41,- 1 \ The Town will reimourse#Ecnployee for one-half (1/2) of Employee's moving expenses not to ekckedf$1 -, EXHIBIT A Code No. 214 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO DEPUTY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF WORK /9 General Statement of Duties: Performs a variety of administrative duties in various management functions of the town. Supervision Received: .k f 4/ Works under general guid4Ate.and direction of the Town Administrator. Supervision Exercised: :- th»-0 i Exercises supervision over personnel as Assigned. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB: The followi~g are essential functions of the job. 4 2, Any one positiogmay not include all of the duties:listed. 1.F<301(butles: (assists in): / /F' A. *Serves as assistant to the Town Administrator, performing a wide vatieW.of administrative functions of a special or day-to-day nature. p."##4~ In his/her absence, serves as Acting Town Administrator. \ B. ResearcAps, prepares, implements and evaluates a variety of new \~1 or spedja! administrative programs as assigned; recommends ~~solutions tb potential or existing administrative problems. c. ~Represdrfts the Town on Boards and Committees, as assigned. D. €@066ts informational research studies; investigates, prepares a*11presents (as necessary), complex, technical, statistical and operating reports and other items based upon existing policy or upon special direction from the Town Administrator or Board of Trustees. E. Directs planning, design, and construction of special construction projects, as assigned. F. Directs the preparation of the annual Town budget. Monitors and administers budget as adopted. G. Meets and confers with individuals and groups to explain, interpret and discuss Town policies on a variety of subjects. H. Administers the personnel functions of the Town. Recommends any changes to the Town's pay, benefit, and personnel policies. 1. Serves as the Town Public Information Officer. Establishes guidelines for distribution/dissemination of media releases and other information from all Town Departments. J. Administers the Risk Management responsibilities of the Town. Serves as the Town Safety Officer. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Required Knowledge, Skill, and Ability: 1. Working knowledge of the~#intiples and practices of public administration, including research' methods and procedures. 2. Some knowledge of budget #Ackaccounti?ig methods. ~nctio~ility to plan, direct, coordirl'al~~~~Ghl~ate various administrative 4. Ability to explain and interpret town\ordinances, rules, regulations and policies. 01 5. Ability to recognize, investigate and analyze~ad~nistrative problems and to make effective recommendations for their solution. 6. Ability to,communicate effectively verbally and?iA writing. 7. Abilit~toefttablish and maintain effective working relationships with employebs, towri,dfficials and departments, and the general public. Education: - 4 X College Graduate with a Bachelor's.Degree in Businest Public Administration, or related field. Experience: 2 Two yearb p.rofessional management experience in a public or private operation of moderate siz, and tomplexity similar to the Town of Estes Park.. OR Any equivalent combination of education and experience. Revised: October 30,2006 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: February 22 2007 Subject: Supplemental Condominium Map #5, Sundance Condominiums, Unit 7, Tract 698 of the 1 st Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, Brian Murphy, LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant, Brian Murphy, LLC, has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Sundance Condominiums on Tract 69B of the First Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition. Supplemental Map #5 consists of one unit, Unit 7, addressed 1440 Sierra Sage Lane. The final map is consistent with the approved development plan. This is a 6.77-acre lot, zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. Ten residential units are shown on the preliminary map, and this is the sixth unit to be condominiumized. At the May 23, 2006 meeting, the Town Board approved the fourth supplemental map for Sundance Condominiums. Budget. None. 22 ROCK, MOUNT'/MITION•L PARK arNOARY 11 Action. . Approval of the Sundance Supplemental ~ -Alljil. Condominium Map #5 application conditioned on .•~ 1 provision of measurements for all limited common elements on Sheet 2 of 2. .. r.% i. 2~ TTr17--1 i 1 1- . 1 VICINTY MAP ' · Feb 22 07 10:182 CMS 970 577 9744 P. 1 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FAX TO: DAVE SHIRK FROM: FRANK THEIS DATE: 2/22/07 RE: STONE BRIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT This Fax contains 1 page including this cover sheet. DAVE: ON BEHALF OF ROCK CASTLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, I AM REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN BOARD HEARING OF THE STONE BRIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING BE CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS A WAIVER FROM LARIMER COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDARDS, WHICH WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED YET. SINCE THIS MAUER IS STILL BEING NEGOTIATED, WE REQUEST CONTINUANCE UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SINCERELY, -- FRANK THEIS CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TEL/FAX (970) 577-9744 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 20,2007 Subject: Sweet Basilico Caf6 - Change of Location Background. The Town received a letter from Sweet Basilico CaM on January 16th requesting a withdrawal of the change of location approved by the Town Board on November 28, 2006 and approved by the State on December 6, 2006. The State requires that a change in location must take place within 60 days of approval. Unfortunately, the recent weather prevented the business owners from completing the new location by February 6th (the 60 day cut off). Therefore, the owners have submitted a new application for a change of location with a tentative move at the end of March. January 16,2007 Town of Estes Park To Whom It May Concern: Please withdraw the request to change location for liquor license number 24- 56617-0000 from 401 East Elkhorn Avenue to 430 Prospect Village Drive in Estes Park Colorado that was approved on December 6,2006. Thank-you I i Janumy 16,20~7 Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street Lakewood, Co 80214 To Whom It May Concern: Please withdraw the request to change location for liquor license number 24- 56617-0000 from 401 East Elkhorn Avenue to 430 Prospect Village Drive in Estes Park Colorado that was approved on December 6,2006. Thank-yop 0-2 LAN ·. 1/ 1 July 2002 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Sweet Basilico Caf6 Inc. dba SWEET BASILICO CAFE, for a Change of Location of a Beer and Wine Liquor License from 401 E. Elkhorn Avenue to 430 Prospect Village Drive. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: E The application was filed January 23,2007. 0 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 23,2007, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27,2007. 0 The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.8 miles. E The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. E The applicant is filing as a Corporation E The property is zoned CO - Commercial Outlving which allows this type of business as a permitted use. 0 The notice of hearing was published on Februarv 16, 2007. 1 0 The premises was posted on February 13, 2007. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. m Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled Completed (Date: ) - Not Required 0 There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. 3. APPLICANT. 0 The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. 4. OPPONENTS. 0 The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. m The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 5. MAYOR. 0 Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. 0 Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. 0 Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. n Declare the public hearing closed. 6. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this change of location. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this change of location be granted/denied. 2 DR 8442 (06/02) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET #108 PERMIT APPLICATION WOOD CO 80214 205-2300 & REPORT OF CHANGES CURRENT LICENSE NUMBER 24 - 544 1 -3- - Orce> ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COLORADO LIQUOR & BEER CODE BOOK TO ORDER CALL (303) 370-2165 DO NOT WAITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant Is a '"PRESENT LICENSENUMBER:© M Corporation C Individual E Partnership l Limited Liability Company 2. Name of Applicant 3. Trade Name 5(02-23 726; 6023#232 4Lx_12-Qi- 796~ \Ic-o E- 4. Address 4 0 L EAOI- 91 k j/torn A-val.i,Li City ZIP County 2%*e.131 + Lci. r i rn,ev-- %05 11 ~ Daae 2. - ·gge*,£6*44*{1%48*Gths**COPEAR#ag™jEit.7.,4..I*AF,~b,TIMATW.448.2ig.'~~.di¢iii#H*22~9?*Niet:.13%g 1) O 2210-100 (999) Retail Warehouse Storage Permit (ea) ...... $ 100.00 • License Account No. 2) O 2200-100 (999) Wholesale Branch House Permit (ea) .......... 100.00 1970-750 (999) O Manager's Registration (Hotel & Restr.) ....... $75.00 3) O 2260-100 (999) Change Corp or Trade Name Permit (ea) ...,... 50.00 2010-750 (999) m Manager's Registration (Tavern) .................. $75.00 4)~2230-100 (999) Change Location Permit (ea) ..,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,. 150.00 Il Change of Manager (Other Licenses)........ NO FEE 5) O 2280-100 (999) Change, Alter or Modify Premises $150.00 x Total Fee i,*93%4*§-EditoN: 0%-bOPLICA¥E LICE#§EFF :i 4.%:1&~.fF ...24 6) El 2220-100 (999) Addition of Optional Premises of Existing H/R · LIQUOR LICENSE No. $100.00 X Total Fee [3 2270-100 (999) DUPLICATE LICENSE ..................,..,,......,....,.. $ 50.00 7) O 2340-100 (999) Bed and Breakfast Permit .,.,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,, 50.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY DATE LICENSE ISSUED LICENSE ACCOUNT NUMBER PERIOD TOTAL -100 (999) DR 8442 (06/02) Page 2 INSTRUCTION SHEET . + I % - I - 496 -----i:----- fi fs- -fotal,44jion*Icotmplet¢-40@ti®9 -1-4 ibcated.*n €abel»1 ----=-1_-31 - i--4 £ Section A To Register or Change Managers, check the appropriate box in section A and complete question 9 on page 4. Proceed to the Oath of Applicant for signature (Please note: Hotel and Restaurant licensees are required to register their managers). U Section B For a Duplicate license, be sure to include the liquor license number in section B on page 1 and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 0 Section C Check the appropriate box in section C and proceed below. 1) For a Retail Warehouse Storage Permit, go to page 3 complete question 5 (be sure to check the appropriate box). Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 2) For a Wholesa/e Branch House Permit, go to page 3 and complete question 5 (be sure to check the appropriate box). Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 3) To Change Trade Name or Corporation Name, go to page 3 and complete question 6 (be sure to check the appropriate box). Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 4) To modify Premise, go to page 3 and complete question 7. Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 5) For Optional Premises, go to page 3 and complete question 7. Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 6) To Change Location, go to page 3 and complete question 8. Submit the necessary information and proceed to page 4 for Oath of Applicant signature. 7) For a Bed and Breakfast Permit, go to page 4 and complete question 10. Submit the neces- sary information and proceed to Oath of Applicant signature. DR 8442 (06/02) Page 3 Retail Warehouse Storage Permit or a Wholesalers Branch House Permit '49,/h U Retail Warehouse Permit CC* 1 11+ U Wholesalers Branch House Permit 4.+ "g Include full address of storage premises. 43% If granted, will the proposed warehouse or branch house be in compliance with local building and zoning laws? Yes No · Name and title of Person in Charge of Premises 00 42 d:AS: C] Attach a lease/deed and a diagram of storage premises. 4,2 6. Change of Trade Name or Corporation name m. OJZ U Trade/DBA Name Change only U Corporate Name Change (Attach a Certificate of Amendment from Colorado Secretary of State) ~19 + Old Name New Name q g 1122 7. Modification of Premises or Addition of an Optional Premises to an existing Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License 14*tty.P (a) Describe change proposed .·00$, *Ul. (b) Will the proposed change result in the licensed premises now being located within 500 feet of any public CC LU or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus rom of any college, university or seminary? Yes No ch.a U.1 2-1 (lf yes, explain in detail and describe any exemptions that should apply) m El 0*- -Z (c) When will the proposed change R It Start (mo/day/year) End (mo/day/year) O (d) Is the proposed change in compliance with local building and zoning laws? Yes No O0 :NO (e) If this modification is for an additional Hotel and Restaurant Optional Premises, has the local authority te.O authorized by resolution or ordinance the issuance of optional premises? Yes No rE*-9 00 -409 (f) Are such changed premises owned or leased? 0 Owned C] Leased (Attach a signed copy of deed or lease in the name of the licensee only) (g) Attach a diagram of the current licensed premises and a diagram of the propesed changes for the licensed premises. %*k* Change of Location 9]* 22.© (a) Address of current premises 40\ Ect:31- 6.1 thorn Av-en.u-e cityGrbteilel r-\L county l_sar i n~=f ZIP <80331'3- *ZE e (b) Address of proposed New Premises (Attach a copy of the deed or lease that establishes possession of T=om the premises by the licensee) fF:ilt· *63 Address 433&»pek vt 'lacY br 18*18 City 855125 . County Lavi Yntr ZIP -¥AE¥- 92¢43 (c) New mAiling address if applicable :715* NiZE Address 4=41 ty# City County ZIP AW16% (d) Attach a diagram of the premises showing the area where alcohol beverages will be stored, served, **8 possessed or consumed. Include food preparation facilities for Hotel and Restaurants. 4%©2%32 Stxt 61.45 SIORA 6 DR 8442 (06/02) Page 4 al 9. Change of Manager or to register the manager of a Tavern or a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. Former manager's name (a) Change of Manager (attach Individual History DR 8404-1 H/R only) 92+ New manager's name te (b) Compensation of Mgr. Date of Emp. Exp. Date Has manager ever managed a Liquor licensed establishment? CJ Yes [3 No 4zb Does manager have a financial interest in any other liquor licensed establishment? U Yes U No kSM: If yes, give name and location of establishment ·..6 ..· ~94 10. Bed and Breakfast Permit i.9.,t . Attach a copy of a deed or lease iIi the exact name of the applicant only, reflecting possession of the permitted area WAR for at least the minimum duration of this permit (1 year from date of issuance). *40 · Attach a diagram of the premises which accurately reflects the area where alcoholic beverages will be stored, served, r:32* possessed or consumed. 1. Applicant is a: 0 Partnership C Corporation (attach DR 8177) f U Individual (attach DR 8404-1) U LTD Liability Company (attach DR 8177) LUP 6:4 2. Name of Applicant 4<4 3. Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) 40 -I.:c 4. Address of Premises (specify exact location) 5. State Sales Tax Number Business Phone ( ) R.3 fet Pursuant to 12-47-410, C.R.S., Applicant hereby states that it qualifies for a Bed and·Breakfast Permit to serve complimentary ARE; alcoholic beverages, and does certify to the State Licensing.Authority: Wa 6 That it has no more than 20 sleeping rooms, and ~f~ That it provides at least 1 meal per day at no charge other than for·overnight lodging, and That it does not sell alcoholic beverages by the drink or in sealed containers, and C.·se -*210. That it shall not serve alcoholic beverages for more than 4 hours in any one day, as follows: 10,4 n 46341 MONDAY HOURS TUESDAY HOURS WEDNESDAY HOURS THURSDAY HOURS FRIDAY HOURS SATURDAY HOURS SUNDAY HOURS .A-i. 594 From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. *fil To: m. To: m. To: m. To: m. TO: m. To· m. To· m. 3ifffY*2¢~*9lt?29**82*#0&x#+40»39%2»*~*i:~ '**4-",te.984334(f.~~ Ft?%*04'k:~41~6<i.Il~t.c~.ikli:·RA'..':t~~3893;111~?~}?- .{:declarefinaer Dehalty,.of·perjilry'·in~the #ecdfid'ddaTee-~trldblthave re,aalne-toregti}nd»pticatiorrandiall;aftkGnents·tnereike 9 929299*199.(W3.?41*»}re:*red t~&afd,~m~~1~1~MJE€,9¢Ej€Rt? 9%33 4-*,1~.F~~,~,~.~~44*~*,2~.f~~F& ~*35~1*4~ (-51§191 2/Id- 4 Title Date 5.w...4,4'>***Ai.80»-u,ve,-,»;FA.,K,j«**vaigze---.- ~f· 237.26 I~~FC. /33 0/19/1%~ 1 1 12 ICI+ 9~i»2·%11REPORL-.AND~. ROVAIPOIN1N56)2tibkii@iR*b~:matir·»t·-'~·'*«·2~ ~w; ** 9·049*39~* t.1-he'fots*di~j**16?fi*jigj~*Ajolll;afilfIA*~26*Fs~b~,j2ilf~Ntibucted:arld c aracter 0¥34@ Apii *mis:*ilisfact&01&684&3£ 434#W ·.rkk·..·pll' is•:'do 0reljort.that-suc[Gfmi¢if*ft#*i[I~%84Ii >imit -ii@M)*94***j~*Ff#29%9~*32*fFs{FAR#*94 ,317.,2,9.-:49:42;2 e :40.Lrq :tgt·~'4&#,; ' ·HEREFORERTHISAPPLICATIONilS:]APRROVED2:*f~49»*4 '+1€1%7+681*<Aft'.stal>i·; ··14€3·27.9.1 1%44#AQUL·¢t.W#*45**WA#faa»twem'OM#4*AWN-;mit:Rip~·5*E~3.20?PAM'#51.4~hi*61* 4*ragu Local Licensing Authority (City or County) Date filed with Local Authority //23/07- Signature Title Date 31431034430...6~ ~~~,:~~',~~~,~~~.~I~~~~,~~.~~,4~~,j~~~.'4*.f„~..,~,.<~'~'.~~ ·«Thdjor#~oina(lias-bedn examinectand:tom plies~With tha.fi|10£j rexiui~m®is·~of;Jik12¢Article642*C?R:St>**aM&;id38> ***24 ,4.·45%(·#,+J·3·76·'...°4.~..,6:-e.traf{4.1%40,»»Aftes<t'faL):'EN.*,4~·j»***2*ag,41:19*,394?5*Ut.2¢05,*mitf~9»f ,£<.·blfi~*4* Signature ~ Title Date e.,%*OVA-9 1 '.11£ TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Depariment January 26,2007 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Sweet Basilico Caf6 Perez, Raul V. 02/17/54 Perez, Shawn M. 05/17/61 Dear Ms. Williamson: A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named persons and business was conducted. There was a report of Harassment where Raul Perez was named as a suspect. There are no other reports involving the business or the individuals listed in the past year. Sincerely, »41 Lowell Richardson Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department P. O. BOX 1287 • 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: 970-586-4465 • FAX 970-586-9681 www.estesnet.com/pd 1~1 TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2007 TO: Town Board FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Wind Energy Surcharge Background: Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduced by 50% the wholesale rate that the Town of Estes Park and the other member cities pay for renewable energy. The charge went from $.024/kWh to $.012/kWh. Proposed: Keeping in line with the other member cities of Fort .Collins, Loveland, and Longmont it is proposed that the Town of Estes Park follow suite and reduce the retail rate to its customers from $.025/ kWh to $.013/ kWh. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the retail Renewable Energy rate be reduced by the specified amount. Ordinance to be read at the next Town Board meeting with the effective date being March 1. f 1-1 f '. 12 2 esl 4 : i (D 0 04 CD , 01 00 /-1 0 4 28 7# 40 U 8: r .S r . 0 P U =4 04 60 * S ... 5.4% ahead of 2005; 2.85% increase in CPI-adjusted were $6.77m. Budget is $6.64m. (2% Sales Tax Facts aS I+ HAO EIV Ole SonII@Ao-~ I . 9 : 4't . 4 tl ./ 4 44, P '' . Sales Tax Report: 4th Quarter 2006 380!J 1 eoueu!:1 - puepe:pIN GAGE Action steps requested None. • Page 2 Finance Depadment Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 24,2007 Subject: Sales Tax update, 4th Q/YTD 2006 Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the fourth quarter of2006, as well as data for YTD details and results. Documentation Key points of the attached Powerpoint presentation: 1. 2006 sales tax revenues of$6.77M exceeded budget ($6.64in) by 2%. 2. 2006 was 5.36% ahead of2005; 2.85% ahead when factoring in CPI. 3. A standard deviation chart is included to demonstrate that 2006 performed at the upper end of statistical expectations. In fact, 2006 exceeded a +1 standard deviation. In English, 2006 numbers were at a level that might be expected to happen only 30% of the time. 4. While actual sales tax revenues have increased from $5.63M in 1999 to $6.77M in 2006, CPI adjusted sales tax figures forecast an increase to $5.76M in 2006. The difference between the 2.4% and 20% growth patterns is due to the CPI influence. 5. In reviewing the "Big Three" categories of sales tax (retail, food, lodging), lodging had the best year as a percent of total revenues, increasing its share from 22.2% to 23.8%. Retail increased from 16.4% to 16.6%, while food decreased from 34.1% to 33.9%. 6. The final graph would suggest that over the past 20 years, revenues by month as a percent of the total year are shifting. July now occupies a larger percentage than ever (max capacity seems to be shifting from fall to July), while late Fall (October/November) seem to be increasing their share as well. t: 5 Z 0 U CO 808 06 MAR fif W rn O (N er, U E-8 7 0- C. g.% 22 EE C = NE EE fl~E 0 U EziE 3 2% A. M N M ROLLOVER 2006 LIGHT & DESCRIPTION (DEPT/FUND) RAL REINVESTM LCOS CVB POWER WATER MEDICAL FLEET 21986 etwork backup server 1,732.05 tre ts w terline project 150,000.00 rotection for hot line trail 14,226.02 EE E:Re i Cruii iounk· ) 8,000.00 1,253.00 22020 xti 5000 m le 100 watt radio 5,700.00 211,874.12 27,108.21 44,741.02 7,550.00 258,387.24 174,988.06 7,365.00 1,253.00 1,732.05 21976 Police - radios and accessories olice) 790.00 21977 Police - radios and accessories Police) 1,253.30 re gear for 29 volunteers (Fire) 991.80 1997 nual sand screen project (Streets) 5,905.00 22019 Police - ve le od s (Police) 8,500.00 TOTAL 734,998.70 21975 Police - radios and accessories ( Mice) 22007 Furniture for admin lobby redesign Executive) 22003 CA 22006 Replac (Buildin 91: g 88 088 -- A-N Z 0 U 8 8 8 2 ~E 04 ' ..1 02 N tal·M 1 /1 6 20 5 9 2% - 1 -6 2 2 9-83€ 9 2 41 6 2+ =S 5 3 -%2 -E- 2*-1 -m <-0 28~Q e S ' 6. °11 2 i 430 2 E = & -1 8 E -2 U .2 -2 -3 b v U .5£ 0 8 1, 6 * ./ . . 0 EZ 68 2 #t6 ·ge,i ~~ e u - ~ E 2 2 2 1 ~ 5 1 1 ; 1 4 2 # e E £ . 2 5.50 1 -5 3 3 08 2 1.2 8 ·* ·a :~ . ~I E g: 2 M 1 wes 0 & = E 2 9 12 4* A M 3 ~-~ .~ ~ €2·= f . - .R.Mit2~ @28281F£21-Mo~&~c~ b b 5 0 b & 0. .2 B·B€ 8..E =:sa~o 1 50J N = 8 0 9'g'E @-Bi X 2 - a. 2 % 5 -,0 0 2 -B E 3 M 5 4 8 1 M f : a W M 91 2£ 0 . -0 . 7 G·§~%=St.~8,O4862OE@Ottlcit-U ·32 2 2 62 gE.ZE # Sk C .M Z - E.= 9 s·as E= gh ~ro<uaA=011*9282,E,S~~SG& * ~1127 r#16£ MililigER;Mil LOUC-O Emi-Luc,1/71 N - M W M No- Ix® -* Wo*=tooochoo florn - h u rn * h h M M OO Ch 0 r- B M 0 M h - D - - el B h M 00 00 0 04 M 0 m el w h 0 Q h 1- 0 0 92*28%3886:285:5153:5 E 0 S iggigg==connnESSEEZEZESE - N N el N N N N N N N N N N N N el €9 61 M N N N ¢9 N N €9 01 N N el N N eN N N N N €N el N N NCI ROLL R 2006 DESCRIFTION (DEPT/FUND) GENERALREINVE TM LCOS CVB POWER WATER MEDICAL FLEET IT 00'99£'L LE!JE r training 5,057.09 ering services 1,829.56 0075£'1 00'gE8'9 S - 9 !811/SOSSEI 018 1 00.001'5 monb/soods iod Joi,84 896 PO # LIGHT & 40,838.00 7,468.00 86,112.00 12,039.76 001711'9Z 0076*'01 08'5€6'*1 00ZL8'9 00'0«gz - of 59£'1 - Ul S Ssooje )1001 9Z.*Eg (suns lot{ UnS]O 00'ofit oods iod 10 28,876.94 27,108.21 15,864.08 3,004.80 ts (Fire) 753.00 9,427.39 OL'*84'E (Sullooutsu 00-000'LE (Sloans) 0!Pols El'£01'6 00'oot' 1 5£'LE+'TZ 00*052'62 (Sloolls) MleAU@Aqi/l ZESZE'I 00'059'L (03!10€D Op 0086£' (00!lod) IVA'~S 0101SOJq SZ.6trt 00'SLE'E <21!:11 -Ii:78 2,9 Oblul/.Wlutitl 6901 6 00 OSE'8 00005'E t Pwshop (Engineering) uhedure (Su3) 10@fold VE I! RESOLUTION NO. 04-07 A RESOLUTION RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS ENCUMBERED IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 2006 BUDGET TO THE 2007 BUDGET YEAR WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park's accounting system incorporates a purchase order system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for the purchase of goods or services are made; and WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 are reserved from the ending fund balances; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park intends to appropriate funds in the budget for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, to satisfy the commitments for the outstanding encumbrances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The following 2007 budgets are increased for appropriations for outstanding 2006 budget encumbrances. BUDGETED 2007 REVISED FUND ENCUMBRANCE EXPENSES BUDGET General $211,874 $8,048,566 $8,260,440 Community Reinvestment 27,108 959,766 986,874 Open Space 44,741 658,400 703,141 CVB 7,550 2,787,622 2,795,172 Light & Power 258,387 10,156,693 10,415,080 Water 174,988 3,253,323 3,428,311 Medical 7,365 400,455 407,820 Fleet 1,253 244,760 246,013 IT 1,732 305,470 307,202 $734,999 $26,815,055 $27,550,054 Il. The ending fund balance from the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 will be the source of funds for the budget amendments. ADOPTED this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 23,2007 Subject: Resolution to re-appropriate funds encumbered in the 2006 budget to the 2007 budget Background Certain Town departments have entered into contracts for goods and/or services that were not fulfilled by year-end December 31, 2006. In order to keep only one budget year open, purchase orders (encumbrances) that are outstanding at year-end are re-appropriated into the current budget year as a reservation of fund balance, per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Those encumbrances when liquidated and paid are charged against the prior year's budget rather than against the budget of the year in which the expenditure is actually incurred. Documentation Attached is the list ofthose encumbrances that remain outstanding at the end of2006. Action steps requested We request carrying those encumbrances over into the current budget year, per attached Resolution. . U ,rf.:0..3.14 . Ni't~,tbfy· - - . -' 1. 6,%*A> ./, 1 € 9, . .. .... e uct. 1 .O,-,26.,1,11#4:? '?·P·,I.· -, - - lilligi 16WN· 0f {SIEFARK Public Works and Utilities Deporlments February 14, 2007 Platte River Power Authority Attn: Mike Dahl 1143 Lopez Court Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Re: This letter is to authorize Platte River Power Authority to proceed with the replacement of the Mary's Lake Sub-station in Estes Park, including the rental of the portable sub-station from Western Area Power Administration. The Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department will reimburse Platte River all costs associated to this project. The Light and Power Department's anticipated cost is $3,500,000. I look forward to working with you on this project and greatly appreciate your help. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments Bob Goehring Utilities Director, Acting Public Works Director BG/Imvbs P.O. BOX 1200 • 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: 970-577-3588 • FAX 970-586-6909 2/16/2007 Marv's Lake Switchqear and Transformer Replacement Estimate 2008 QTY Price Total Cost responsibilitv Transformers 2 $850,000 $1,700,000 Estes Park Foundation 2 $25,000 $50,000 Estes Park Oil containment 2 $20,000 $40,000 Estes Park Circuit Switcher 2 $35,000 $70,000 PRPA Foundation 2 $5,000 $10,000 PRPA Switch 2 $6,000 $12,000 PRPA Foundation 2 $4,000 $8,000 PRPA Switchgear Isle 1 $650,000 $650,000 Estes Park Foundation 1 $50,000 $50,000 Estes Park Construction 1 $150,000 $150,000 50% Estes Park Removal of transformers 2 $40,000 $80,000 Estes Park Removal of building 1 $20,000 $20,000 Estes Park old CS removal 2 $5,000 $10,000 PRPA ** Estes / Marys Switch 4 $35,000 $140,000 Estes Park ** Portatable Sub station 1 $55,000 $55,000 Estes Park ** Contingency 15% 1 $540,000 $540,000 72% Estes Park ** Scada / Security 1 $75,000 $75,000 Estes Park PRPA cost & misc work 1 $200,000 $200,000 50% Estes Park TOTAL $3,860,000 ** Estimates Town Staff Estes Park Total $3,500,000 Platte River Cost $360,000 Total Project $3,860,000 TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20,2007 TO: Town Board FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Letter to Platte River Power Authority authorizing Mary's Lake Sub-station upgrades Background: To ensure electrical system redundancy and reliability, Mary's Lake Sub-station upgrades must be made. Distribution system upgrades are also necessary. These improvements have been scheduled for 2008. The combined costs for these two projects are estimated at $5,860,000: • $3,860,000: Sub-station upgrades • $2,000,000: Distribution system upgrades SUB-STATION UPGRADES. $3,860,000 of the total will go towards Sub-station upgrades. Piatte River will pay $360,000 of this, and the Town of Estes Park will pay $3,500,000. Platte River will design build the Sub-station, and the Town of Estes Park will reimburse Platte River at the end of the project the same way we did the Estes Park Sub-station in 1998. The rebuilding of the Mary's Lake Sub-station by Platte River has been discussed at the last work session and previous Utilities Committee meeting. To meet the 2008 construction schedule proposed by Platte River and the Town of Estes Park, it is necessary to start as soon as possible for the following reasons: 1. We need to be on the list as far ahead of time as possible to rent the portable Sub-station from Western Area Power Administration. 2. Platte River needs to order the 2-25 MW Transformers because they have over a year delivery time. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADES: $2,000,000 of the total will be for distribution system upgrades. Once design is finalized for the distribution system improvements, we will present bids to the Utilities Committee for approval some time in 2008. Budget: The Light and Power financial plan presented by HDR in January 2007 shows that a bond issue is required to pay for these projects. It will be necessary increase electric rates up to 2.5% per year beginning in 2008 for a period of 6 years, to pay the debt service for these projects. See the attached 2007 cost estimate for the Marv's Lake Sub-station from Platte River and staff. Recommendation: .Staff requests: Send Platte River a letter formally authorizing them to proceed with the project. This letter will state that the Town of Estes Park will reimburse Platte River an anticipated cost $3,500,000. See attached letter TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ORDINANCE 5-07 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town') has adopted Light and Power rate schedules (effective March 1, 2007) for the purpose of scheduling the rates for the service of electric power energy by the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town's rates include a rate for wind energy surcharge; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority has reduced the tariff for wind energy service to $0.012 per kilowatt/hour; and , WHEREAS, the Town desires to reduce its rate schedule for its wind energy surcharge in order to reflect the reduction by Platte River Power Authority; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed rate change was published as required by Section 40-3.5-104 C.R.S. and provided to all of the Town's light and power customers receiving service who live outside of the boundaries of the Town as provided in Section 40-3.5-104 (1)(b) C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the amendment of the rate schedule was held before the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on February 27,2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that: 1. The wind energy surcharge as more fully set forth in the Light and Power Policy Manual on Wind Energy Surcharge Rate Schedule (c) shall be amended to read as follows: (c) Monthly Rate. (in addition to normal electric rate) Platte River Power Authority Tariff-Schedule 7: Wind Energy Service charge per kilowatt- hour ($0.012 per kilowatt-hour effective 2/1/2007) plus $0.001 per kilowatt- hour. 2. This change in the rate schedule of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Rate Schedule shall be effective March 1,2007 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists, this Ordinance *hall take effect and be in force immediately after it is passed, adoption, and signature of the Mayor. INTRODUCES, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2007. 0 5 0 2006 exceeded 2005 in all four quarters. First since 1998-99 that that has Jurred. ver, the largest quarter ha smallest Sales Tax Facts : OSBOJOUI %8t dn 0 FI ' I O dn O pl€ m 9/6* g dn 0 Hit . I I dn 0 pu~ , f 0 0 -2 Lo o o 0 0 91 n CD 01 43 0 U).29.0 0 00 -1- . - 7¥42,~ 1- h Do M er, Q ON ID 0 5- N~ n h Q Q M 6,D 64 Ge #9 lilli CD Ht - 0 4- 0 0 0- CD CO 0 <C 0 51) 0-0 C J = 4% 0 4- 1 - \4 - J J Cl <C (D LL Sales T Statistics Standard Deviations of Cumulative Sales Tax Revenue $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'*$ 000'000'£$ 000'000'Z$ 000'000' LS 0$ AON 8 j uer Charts and Graphs 9002 9002 f001 BOOE 1001 LOOZ 0008 66610 8661. 266 L 9661. 9661. D'66 L £661, 1661, 1.661. 0661. 686L 8961. 286X 986L 9861, Sales tax revenues $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - - 000'000'9$ - 000'000't,$ - 000'000'£$ - 000'000'Z$ - 000'000'L$ 0$ .... ILT -I4.. . - -w.-* 0 -*- - br -4 -&15 -=-1 6 6 1 1 -1 -1 ICPI growth 60.00% ~OReal growth ~ - . -%00 oz 9001 9001 4001 £001 ZOOE LOOE 0001 666L 866L Z66 i. 966 L 966L t66L £66 L 166 L t663 066 : 686: 8861 286: 986: 100.00% - 80.00% 40.00% %00 0 -F 0 2- - 6002 0 £ - 00 - Sk £ 6> e 6 6 -% e e -% O e £ - 9 et -% - 14 L ·9 G £ e £ e L e (41/AOJe leebl) Ido - 41/v,0.IE)- ~ eN Chart and Graphs Growth - CPI (Real Growth) 12.00% - 10.00% 8.00% %009 %00-f %001 %00 0 %00-Z- %00.t- - %00-9- . . ,.rat K.er' 5/'& I 2 Charts and Graphs Sales tax percentages by group 2002-06 O Food 33.76% %99·LE Su!6poll %9Fet es,pueqojew lejejuego %48 Z se!14!ln ¤ %42'9 Bulpl!ne 19 Jeqlunl I 5640·, leieddvo %EL'Z 8Ailoutolnv l %19- I seo!AJes leuoissejoid O %99' L SlieJO 9 SUVI %98'L einl!U.In:Im %090 uo!,leeloebl 9 1Ual.Uesn{UVO %*0'0 pe!#!sseloun ¤ .9 1 0 9.3 4 + 32 + ce 01 O O a) 1 i CO N es!pue40Jel/\1 leJeueD ¤ Bumpolm Zooz £001 *002 9001 9001 Charts and Graphs 100% ------ 90% - - 70% -- -- %09 -- %09 poo 1 0 - %0* - %0£ - %0L =1 *0-0001- 66-9661.---- %00-Ot t6-066L 69-986K - 90-9001- oeG AON PO des 6nv Inf unr A e IN id V Je IN qe=1 uer shift towards u! aseeJOU! AON/100 Charts and Graphs % of total sales tax by month 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 5600-ZI %00.8 %009 %00-f %001 %000