HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2026-08-25Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 25, 2026
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 25th day of August, 2026.
Present: Gary Hall, Mayor
Kirby Hazelton, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bill Brown
Chris Eshelman
Mark Igel
Frank Lancaster
Jamie Mieras
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Sarah Stoddard Cameron, Recording Secretary
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Agenda Approval.
It was moved and seconded (Eshelman/Brown) to approve the Agenda with the
addition of Report and Discussion Item #3 Downtown Plan and Funding Mechanisms,
and it passed with Trustee Igel voting “No.”
Public Comments.
Sara Barwinski/Town resident reported celebrating Habitat for Humanity International’s
70th anniversary and reported $1500 had been rasied for the organization through the
“Live Generously” action team. She reflected on what “live generously" meant to her,
noted the importance of civility, and recognized the necessity of home-ownership
opportunities for the community.
Tom Kaszynski/County resident questioned whether the Town’s population growth
corresponded with previous growth projections, reported he had spoken with several
members of the workforce who enjoyed commuting from the Front Range, and requested
a list be generated of people in immediate need of housing. He provided the Board a
Habitat for Humanity property listing and explained that the property had been on the
market for 115 days. Kaszynski proposed housing feedback forms be placed in Bond
Park to gain more insight into the issue.
Trustee Comments.
Board comments were heard and have been summarized: Encouraged the public to
attend Trustee Talks; noted Trustee Talks give constituents the opportunity to discuss
matters without the regular time constraints of public comment; reported the Estes Park
Housing Authority (EPHA) had been working on the Annual 6E Funding Plan draft and
would continue collecting data on seasonal housing; noted the EPHA housed 32 seasonal
workers this summer; noted Mayor Pro Tem Hazelton would attend a Colorado
Association of Ski Towns (CAST) meeting to discuss the use of AI in municipal operations
and the decarbonization and electrification of public facilities; reported applications were
being accepted for a Town appointed board member on the Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board
of Directors and encouraged the public to apply; noted VEP had been drafting the 2027
budget in preparation for a Joint Study Session with the Board of County Commissioners;
commended retiring VEP Finance Director Mike Zumbaugh for his service; welcomed and
expressed excitement for incoming VEP Finance Director Jorge Rodriguez; reported VEP
had started using software company Zartico to provide past and current geolocation,
spending, and lodging data, and noted this data would be available from VEP upon
request; acknowledged VEP approved renewal of a five (5) year partnership with Frozen
Dead Guy Days; noted Frozen Dead Guy Days are working with Colorado State
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2026 – Page 2
University to develop a zero waste festival; reported the Estes Arts District identified
counterfeit checks which had been reported to law enforcement and was still under active
investigation; noted the Arts District would be modifying their budget to account for the
loss; attended the annual naturalization ceremony at Rocky Mountain National Park in
which 29 individuals took the Oath of Allegiance to become official U.S. Citizens; and
commended Parking and Transit Manager Klein for his tireless work to improve parking
and transit operations to bring Estes Park a step closer towards “mass transit”.
Town Administrator Report.
Town Administrator Machalek recognized the Water Division for successful completion of
the State Sanitary Survey, a comprehensive inpection of water treatment facilities, and
acknowledged passing the survey with zero violations was a reflection of the division’s
dedication and technical expertise. He then acknowledged the public might have
expected to see an action item on this meeting’s agenda regarding a Temporary Use
Permit for Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and reported staff was working with the State to
define a restricted covenant area.
Consent Agenda:
1. Expenditure Approval List - Bills
2. Town Board Meeting and Study Session Minutes dated August 11, 2026
3. Estes Park Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 21, 2026
(Acknowledgement Only)
4. Resolution 95-26 Intergovernmental Agreement with the Estes Park School District
for Emergency Fleet Shop Space Sharing
It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Igel) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
Report and Discussion Items (Outside Entities):
1. New Fire Chief Introduction and Thunder Mountain Project Update Fire Chief
Nunn introduced himself and expressed enthusiasm for his new position. It was then
reported that 200 acres of forest on Thunder Mountain would be cleared and thinned
to reduce wildfire risk. The board thanked him for his attendance and commended
former interim Fire Chief Jones for the work he accomplished during his interim
tenure.
Planning Commission Action Items:
1. Resolution 87-26 Fall River Village II Combined Preliminary/ Final Planned Unit
Development Plan, Owner/ Applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority Mayor Hall
reopened the public hearing. Senior Planner Hornbeck presented the application
submitted by the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) for a combined
Preliminary/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) continued from the July 28th and
August 11th Town Board meetings. Per the July 28th meeting discussion, the
resolution had been updated to add the following conditions: a condition requiring
parking be managed by the owner’s association, a condition to install landscaping
along Far View Dr, and a condition to bring outdoor lighting into compliance with the
Development Code. It was noted that a PUD allowed the Board to negotiate almost
every aspect of the development, PUD’s are designed encourage innovation and
promote workforce housing, the application met the definition of a PUD under the
Development Code, and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Pete Levine/EPHA Director of Real Estate Development restated property goals,
existing PUD waivers on the property, the seven (7) PUD waiver requests and the
Development Code’s standards for review. Levine then explained how the amended
PUD would assist the Town and the EPHA’s workforce housing goals, how the
EPHA intended on bringing the property into compliance with the fire code, and why
waivers were necessary.
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2026 – Page 3
Public comment ensued and has been summarized: Terry Rustin/Town resident
referenced the 2008 housing crisis and expressed concern that the EPHA was
asking the Board to bail them out of decisions and contracts they could not afford.
He then warned the Board that this behavior was cyclical.
Ryan Leahy/Town resident suggested the EPHA should sell the upper lot containing
the event center promptly, rather than trying to maintain and upkeep the asset. He
noted the property was purchased in part through constituent tax revenue, rather
than private funds, and questioned why the money wasn’t used to purchase
something more practical and within budget.
Kristine Poppitz/County resident expressed concern the application was too vague,
questioned whether sold units could be converted to vacation homes, noted that all
aspects should be understood by both parties, and stated beliefs that Ordinance 11-
25 applied to the application and that the preliminary and final plats should not be
heard at the same meeting.
Paul Pewterbaugh/Developer reported that he played a significant role in the
development of the property, submitted an offer to purchase the upper lot from the
EPHA, understood the project’s debt structure, knew the property could function as
an events facility without disturbing residents in the lower parcel, and he stated
concerns the property would not be used to its best and most prosperous use. He
stated he was prepared to improve his offer significantly, requested the EPHA
consider it prior to finalizing the PUD and Plats, and noted reassembly of the
property from individual lots might not be feasible.
Cary Messinger/Vacation home license holder reported contributing $14,000
towards the Workforce Housing Linkage Fee for vacation home licenses over the
past four (4) years and questioned whether the money was being spent wisely. He
questioned EPHA’s refusal to consider the most economically viable option for the
event space, whether the most logical outcome would be to sell the entire upper
parcel to be used as a high-end event space, and if the luxury townhomes were
appropriate for subsidized housing.
Laura Rustin/Town resident requested the Board listen to the public’s desire for
Ordinance 11-25 to be implemented and consider the questions the public had
raised.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Questioned whether existing
PUD waivers would be mitigated, whether approval of the PUD would negate the
EPHA’s ability to sell the parcel as a whole, whether the economic losses from EPHA
retaining the upper parcel; acknowledged the EPHA had planned on selling the
upper parcel prior to purchasing the property and that use of event space (SkyView)
as an office space was temporary; expressed concern about the compatibility of
workforce housing and an events space in such close proximity, a homeowner’s
association (HOA) managing parking, potential issues that could be caused by
change in ownership, and that the property would not be used for its best use;
clarified that the application was filed prior to the passage of Ordinance 11-25, must
be judged by the rules existing at the time of submission, and that the PUD must be
acted on within 30 days; debated if the PUD created benefit for the community,
whether accommodations or workforce housing were better suited for the property,
and questioned if all conditions of approval had been satisfied; noted that the
EPHA’s financial concerns were not relevant to approval of the application; and
acknowledged the EPHA’s plan could be implemented without approval of the PUD.
Mayor Hall closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded
(Lancaster/Brown) to approve Resolution 87-26 with all recommended conditions,
and it passed with Trustees Eshelman and Igel voting “No.”
2. Resolution 88-26 Fall River Village II Preliminary Plat, Owner/ Applicant, Estes
Park Housing Authority Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Senior Planner
Hornbeck reviewed the application submitted by the EPHA for a Preliminary Plat,
and noted the application complied with all relevant standards and criteria including
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2026 – Page 4
meeting lot size, setback, and density standards. The property was located outside
of all geologic hazard areas but partially located within a mapped high-tree wildfire
hazard area. It was noted that the Water Division had expressed concerns regarding
shared water service lines due to complications with maintenance and billing. The
applicant agreed to install submeters on lots 13 and 14 to address the concern. No
other objections were expressed by utility and service providers. Different building
and occupancy standards would be created as a result of the subdivision,
necessitating installation of a fire sprinkler system on two lots and additional drywall
on several lots which lacked adequate fire separation in attics. The applicant agreed
to those conditions. It was determined that the application met all conditions of
approval and was compliant with all relevant standards.
Public comment ensued and has been summarized: Kristine Poppitz/County
resident provided three (3) printed comments to the Board, requested ADA
compliant pedestrian connectivity between the upper and lower parcels of Fall River
Village, and noted that while accessible trail connection wasn’t required under
private ownership it was extremely desirable.
Mayor Hall closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded
(Brown/Lancaster) to approve Resolution 88-26, and it passed with Trustees
Eshelman and Igel voting “No.”
3. Resolution 89-26 Fall River Village II Final Plat, Owner/ Applicant, Estes Park
Housing Authority Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Hornbeck
explained the Development Code required preliminary and final subdivision plats to
be heard at separate hearings. As no development was to occur and it was unlikely
the plat be modified in-between hearings, staff deemed it unnecessary to schedule
these hearings at separate meetings. It was noted that the same review criteria
applied as to the preliminary plat, and all applicable criteria and standards had been
met. Public comment was heard and has been summarized: Judi Smith/Town
resident noted the importance of the Fall River Village proposal to the vitality of
working individuals in and economic stability of workforce housing in Estes Park.
Mayor Hall then closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded
(Hazelton/Lancaster) to approve Resolution 89-26, and it passed with Trustees
Eshelman and Igel voting “No.”
Action Items:
1. Habitat for Humanity Fee Waiver Request Senior Planer Hornbeck explained a
fee waiver request from Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley had been
received for five (5) single-family lots being built in the Raven Subdivision. It was
noted that per Policy 402, the Community Development Director was authorized to
reduce development application fees by 25 percent for applications meeting
specified criteria. The requested fee waiver totaled approximately $19,000. Two (2)
permits had been issued prior to the request and totaled $7,000. It was explained
that 90% of building fees are paid to SAFEbuilt, while 10% are retained by the Town.
The Town would be obligated to reimburse SAFEbuilt for waivers that exceeded the
Town’s 10% allocation. Staff identified loss of Town revenue as the sole
disadvantage to the waiver, while advantages identified included decreased
purchase price for a low-income housing unit and support for Estes Forward
Comprehensive Plan Goal H1.
David Emerson/Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley,
explained that development costs are higher in Estes Park than on the Front Range,
several municipalities provide fee waivers to the organization, and that Habitat for
Humanity homes are sold for significantly less than the cost of construction. He then
expressed gratitude for the Town’s support through 6E lodging tax funds.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: expressed enthusiasm for the
fee waiver; requested the waiver not exceed 10%; questioned the potential for
Habitat for Humanity to apply for a water tap fee waiver; and clarified that a water
tap fee waiver fund still existed.
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2026 – Page 5
It was then moved and seconded (Igel/Mieras) to approve a 10% fee waiver for
building permit and plan review fees for construction of single-family homes
on the subject lots, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Eshelman/Brown) to continue the meeting past 10:00
p.m., and the motion passed with Trustees Igel and Mieras voting “No.”
Report and Discussion Items:
1. Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board of Commissioners Appointment
Process Staff reported that 14 applications had been received for the three (3)
EPHA Board of Commissioners openings. Direction was requested on how the
Board desired interviews be conducted and whether modifications to the board’s
composition and bylaws should be made. Staff clarified that it would be statutorily
impossible to change Board’s structure to include additional Town Board members
without replacing the EPHA Board of Commissioners with the Town Board in its
entirety, and that quorum could not be achieved if the Board lost one (1) additional
member. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Trustee Igel
advocated for a change in EPHA Board structure to include additional Town Board
members and requested a formal discussion on Policy 102 regarding procedural
consistency throughout the interview and appointment process; acknowledged
communication barriers and tensions at the Joint Study Session held June 9, 2026;
expressed desire to improve communications and teamwork between both boards;
expressed concern regarding the organization’s transparency; acknowledged the
EPHA provides regular updates to the Board and holds public meetings; questioned
whether governance training could resolve transparency concerns; Mayor Pro Tem
Hazelton stated desire to maintain current processes and Board composition;
expressed concern regarding conflicts of interest should Town Board members be
appointed to the EPHA Board; noted separation between the two (2) entities is
desirable; expressed gratitude and excitement regarding the number of applications
received; and expressed a preference for screening candidates and offering
selective interviews.
2. Expansion of the Police Department Take-Home Vehicle Benefit Program Chief
Stewart presented proposed changes to the Estes Park Police Department (EPPD)
Take-Home Vehicle Benefit Program. The EPPD currently permits eligible sworn
officers who reside within the Estes Park School District R-3 boundary to take home
assigned patrol vehicles. Chief Stewart noted that no new police officers had been
recruited since April 2025, and the EPPD sought to expand the Take-Home Vehicle
Benefit Program to include sworn officers who reside outside of the district in an
effort to compete with nearby law enforcement agencies and address recruiting and
retention challenges. Additional benefits of program implementation included
increased emergency readiness, faster response time for in-town emergencies and
mutual aid, and the benefit of increased visibility of police presence outside of Town
limits. It was reported that of 16 local and regional competing agencies, 15 were
reported to offer take-home vehicles. It was clarified that officers still on probation
would not be eligible for the program, and that participating officers would contribute
towards incremental commuting cost. Officers living within 10 miles of the Park R-3
School District boundary would contribute $15 bi-weekly, 11 to 20 miles would
contribute $25 and those commuting 21 to 30 miles would $35 bi-weekly. Estimated
officer contribution to the program totaled $8,600 annually. Mileage would be verified
annually, as well as officer address changes. Costs to the Town included an
estimated $13,967 in increased fuel costs, $7,200 for additional vehicle maintenance
and repair, and a $6,320 increase to the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Total program
costs were estimated at $27,000. It was reported that due to increased fiscal
efficiencies such as $13,234 in increased savings through the Town-Issued Cell
Phone Program as well as the addition of the availability of ten (10) parking spots in
the Town Hall parking lot as a result of the programs expansion, which would result
in increased parking fee revenues totaling approximately $11,685 annually, net
benefit to the Town would total approximately $6,000. The program was estimated
to breakeven when gas cost $5.08 per gallon. Board discussion ensued and has
been summarized: Expressed approval of the program; acknowledged that assigned
Board of Trustees - August 25,2026 - Page 6
vehicles are generally care for better by officers than communal vehicles; questioned
the average lifespan of vehicles for the department; and noted the likelihood of
accidents increasing while driving in the canyon.
3. Downtown Plan Approach and Funding Mechanisms (Continued from the
Study Session on August 25, 2026) Town Administrator Machalek requested
direction from the Board on which of three implementation options should be
advanced for engagement with Downtown businesses and whether further
exploration of funding mechanisms was desired. Feedback from the other Board
members at the study session was summarized. Preference for passive and
supportive implementation, engagement with the Downtown business community,
and de-prioritizing funding mechanisms was noted. Board discussion ensued and
has been summarized: Expressed approval of Town Administrator Machalek's
summary of direction from the study session; questioned whether projects on the
current plan were outdated; and stated the necessity of adapting the plan to fit
current community needs prior to applying funding.
Whereupon Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Gary Hall, Mayor^-
ameron, Recording Secretary