HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-11-14The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 24, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated October 24, 2017 and Budget Study Session Minutes dated October 13 and
20, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 3, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Family Advisory Board minutes dated August 3, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
6. First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and
Platte River Power Authority and other municipalities for and updated joint
Compensation Study.
7. First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Lafayette and Louisville
for Lucity Services.
8. Resolution 26-17 Continuing the Transportation Advisory Board and the Parks
Advisory Board.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
Prepared 11/03/17
*Revised 11/09/17
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE 29-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 13 FOR THE TERM “SINGLE-
FAMILY USE.” Director Hunt.
B. ORDINANCE 30-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE ATTAINABLE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IN THE RE-1 RURAL ESTATE, RE RURAL
ESTATE, E-1 ESTATE, E ESTATE, R RESIDENTIAL AND R-2 TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Director Hunt.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – 2018 BUDGET: Director Hudson.
Proposed Budget including Highway Users Trust Fund Revenues.
Continued Public Hearing and Board Action on November 28, 2017.
3. ORDINANCE 24-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 8.06 NOISE. Attorney White.
4. ORDINANCE 25-17 CONTRACT APPROVING SALE OF PARCEL #25302-13-961.
Attorney White.
5. FISH HATCHERY WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPER SELECTION. Manager
Landkamer.
6. RESOLUTION 27-17 IN SUPPORT OF THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
COLORADO STATE LOTTERY. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
7. PARKS ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT. Town
Clerk Williamson.
4. ADJOURN.
*
*
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 24, 2017
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 24th day of October, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Mayor Connie Sullivan/Town of Lyons presented Mayor Jirsa with a Lyons High School
hat to wear during the meeting because the Estes Park football team lost to Lyons.
Tracy McGinnis/County citizen questioned why the Town Board would give away its
majority vote for the removal of Local Marketing District (LMD) Board members with the
recently passed Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County. She stated the Town
Board had little to no discussion on the removal of the recent Board members, nor did the
individuals have the opportunity to comment. She also asked for clarification on what the
new look, new direction and new plan for the LMD would be. She requested a transparent
public discussion on the topic.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated the deadline for the Park Hospital draft budget to be
presented to the Board was October 15, 2017. She stated she filed a recent open record
request to review the budget and was provided a one-page budget that was incomplete.
The Board has not received the proposed budget and may not before their next meeting
on October 31, 2017. She urged the community to attend the meeting and review the
budget.
Doug Warner/Town citizen requested the public vote “No” on Ballot Issue 3A for a mill
levy override for the school district. He stated the mill levy has not been specified in the
ballot language and would be a perpetual tax with no sunset. Future mill levy increases
would continue with limits set by the state statutes.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented the Town Board has developed a structure for the
organization and has implemented it fairly well. He stated the Town Board fails at
substance as an organization by not initiating solutions to problems and measuring
success. He stated it needs to change if we are to move forward as a community.
Paula Scheils/Town citizen stated concern with public email, the purpose, and what
policies are in place concerning public email. She stated further concern with the DRAFT3
Board of Trustees – October 24, 2017 – Page 2
monitoring of these emails and the removal of emails from the site which go against the
stated policy on the Town’s website.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Norris stated during the recent Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting the
Raven Rock development was continued with the Commissioners expressing a need for
clearer guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, and requested the neighbors and the
developer discuss drainage issues. He commented on the success of the recent
recycling event.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented she toured the new facilities at the Community
Center, including the Senior Center portion. She recommended anyone interested in
seeing the progress contact the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District to schedule a
walkthrough.
Trustee Nelson stated the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board would meet on
November 8, 2017.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
A presentation by Platte River Power Authority on zero net carbon would be held at
the study session on December 12, 2017.
Policy Governance 3.3 Financial Planning and Budgeting Report – Administrator
Lancaster reported full compliance.
Director Muhonen announced the Town was awarded the 2017 Small Community
Award by APWA for the Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure.
Reviewed a recent press release from the National Park Service proposing a high
use fee for 14 parks. Rocky Mountain National Park high use fee would be
implemented during June 1 through October annually and consist of $70 for up to 7
days, $50 for motorcycles and $30 for bicycles. The NPS would accept comments
on the proposed fees through November 23, 2017.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 10, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated October 10, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 12, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated September 19, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
6. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 20, 2017
(acknowledgment only).
7. Estes Valley Library District Board Appointments:
a. Beth Ellis, term expiring on December 31, 2021.
b. Bill Gerritz, term expiring on December 31, 2021.
8. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Report.
9. Letter of Support for Fall River Trail Grant Applications.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). DRAFT4
Board of Trustees – October 24, 2017 – Page 3
1. AMERICA IN BLOOM REPORT. Parks Maintenance Worker Keri Kelly and
members of the committee, including Derek Fortini, Suzanna Simpson and
Charley Dickey presented the Town Board with awards the Town received at the
2017 America in Bloom conference for Midsize Circle of Champions with a 5 out
of 5 Blooms. The Town included the Estes valley this year which placed the
Town in the midsize category. The judges noted the planters along the new
parking structure, use of containers and baskets, and the noteworthy community
garden project. Charley Dickey thanked the companies and individuals who
sponsored the judges visit this year.
2. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
Jon Nicholas provided an update on the activities of the organization, including
policy governance training for the Board and for other agencies in the community
with 100 in attendance, board elections, the continued evaluation of the value of
a membership, held annual membership dinner, and continue the program
Explore your Store. Randy Hunt/Community Development Director held a public
forum on the long-term vision for changes to the Estes Valley Development Code
and the impact on the community relative to issues such as workforce housing.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #3, EPCO, Unit 18, 220 Virginia
Drive, Brent & Deborah Nations and the Estes Highlands Homeowners
Association/Owner.
B. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, Raven Rock
Townhomes, Metes & Bounds Parcel, TBD Promontory Drive. Request to
continue to November 28, 2017.
C. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT, Lot 1, Lake Estes
2nd Addition, 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties
I, LLC/Owner. Request to continue to November 28, 2017.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION, METES
& BOUNDS PARCEL, 1360 BROOK DRIVE, KEARNEY & SONS
EXCAVATING, INC/OWNER. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing.
Planner Gonzales stated the Town Board approved the preliminary plat at
their August 22, 2017 meeting. The proposal would create two legal lots
and an Outlot. The two lots would continue to have industrial/commercial
uses. Neither lot would be accessed from Fish Creek Road. Access shall
be maintained from Acacia Drive and Brook Drive. A sidewalk was
proposed along Acacia Drive and Brook Drive and was a condition of
approval for the preliminary plat application. The construction documents
for the sidewalk were approved by Town staff as well as the financial
guarantee. Staff has received the security and determined it is acceptable.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Kearney Final Minor Subdivision, and
it passed unanimously.
B. ORDINANCE #26-17 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, METES & BOUNDS
PARCEL, 850 CONCORD LANE, WILLIAM LILEY/OWNER. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Planner Becker reviewed the application to
vacate a 30-foot right-of-way easement granted to the Town of Estes Park DRAFT5
Board of Trustees – October 24, 2017 – Page 4
as a condition of annexation for the property formerly known as the Waldo
Additions. The easement was put in place as access for potential future
development to the north and east of the property. The potential for
development has been limited by the placement of conservation easements
on the surrounding residential properties, including land being owned by the
Bureau of Land Management and the Town. Access would be maintained
to the Pederson Lots 1, 2 and 3 via a private 14-foot wide easement along
the south. All utilities and outside entities potentially impacted have signed
off on the proposed right-of-way vacation. The right-of-way easement
borders County and would be subject to Board of County Commission
approval. The vacation of the easement would reduce road maintenance
for the Town. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read
the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve
Ordinance #26-17, and it passed unanimously.
C. ORDINANCE #27-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THE
DENSITY CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS ALLOWED. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Planner Gonzales stated the objectives included
the removal of all references to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC), remove redundant regulations on dimensional
standards in all zone districts, remove maximum FAR from Employee
Housing Density Calculation, and establish an alternative Employee
Housing Density Calculation. FAR applies to all development, except
development of a single-family dwelling on a single lot. The calculation of
FAR has been used to determine the appropriate allowed mass (cumulative
square footage) of structures in comparison to the size of the lot, and has
become an outdated planning measure used to regulate how a property
should be developed. FAR continues to be used in dense urban cores such
as skyscraper districts in metropolitan areas. Staff proposed the complete
removal of all reference to FAR in the EVDC and utilize setbacks,
impervious coverage, building envelopes and maximum allowed heights to
regulate development. The approach would increase transparency.
Removal of FAR would require an amendment to the Employee Housing
portion of the code to identify maximum allowed development. Staff
proposed the cumulative floor-area square footage of all employee housing
units on the site and their accessory use areas (garages, carports, decks,
etc.) cannot exceed the square footage of the principal use, and the
required parking for employee housing units shall not exceed the required
parking for the principal use. The Estes Valley Planning Commission
recommended approval of the text amendment on September 19, 2017 and
the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approved the amendments on
October 16, 2017 unanimously.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated concern the changes would increase
the density on residential lots. Planner Gonzales stated the removal of FAR
would not impact the density in the residential single-family zoning districts.
Jon Nicholas/EVPC member and EDC Executive Director thanked staff for
simplifying the code and utilizing the other mechanisms in the code to
control development.
Attorney White read the ordinance. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Norris) to approve Ordinance #27-
17, and it passed unanimously.
D. ORDINANCE #28-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT
FOR STEEPLY-SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES.
Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Director Hunt stated with the recent
amendment to the method used to measure building height and average DRAFT6
Board of Trustees – October 24, 2017 – Page 5
method for calculating the high plane of a gabled or hipped roof, the Board
questioned the impact on A-frame style homes. The objective of this
proposed code amendment would be to amend the EVDC to place an upper
(ridgeline) height limit on buildings with steep-sloped roofs and add an
absolute maximum limit for how tall a structure’s ridgeline (highest plane)
could be, if the slope is greater than 12:12 pitch (i.e., a 45-degree angle or
greater from horizontal). For a 12:12 or greater sloping roof, the height
would be measured to the ridgeline, instead of the average. For most
buildings, that would mean 30 feet from finished grade to ridgeline. An
additional suggested change would be to clarify the lowest-plane roofline
be changed from eaveline to a precise term used in the Building Codes of
point of the topmost top plate. Attorney White read the Ordinance. Mayor
Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #28-17, and it passed
unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk
Williamson stated the Town and Larimer County received a combined total of 16
applications for 6 positions on the Local Marketing District Board. One applicant
did not qualify because they were term limited and had only been off the LMD
Board for 9 months. All qualified applicants were interviewed by the committee
consisting of Larimer County Commissioner Donnelly, Mayor Jirsa, Trustee
Norris and LMD Board Member Jurgens. The Town Interview Committee made
the following recommendations:
Lowell Richardson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018 – 1-year term
Chris Amundson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019 – 2-year term
Anne Morris, November 1, 2017 - December 31, 2020 - 3-year term
Deborah Gibson, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021 – 4-year term
The County Commissioners would consider the appointment of Stefano
Tomasello and Pat Murphy at their meeting on October 31, 2017.
Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Norris stated they were impressed with the applicants
and the number of individuals interested in serving the community.
Tracey McGinnis/County citizen commented she agreed with the committee’s
selections; however, questioned if there would be a conflict of interest for Mr.
Amundson because of his interest in Utah Life and Colorado Life magazines.
Art Messal/Town citizen stated concern the proposed appointments would led to
4 Estes Area Lodging Association members on the Board, and therefore, change
would not occur. With the removal of the recent Board members the community
has an expectation of change and increased accountability. He requested the
removal of Elizabeth Fogarty as CEO of the organization.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen stated the Town and County would not be
considering the change in Board members if it were not for her and others
willingness to learn about the organization. She stated disappointment in not
having the opportunity to serve on the Board to affect the needed change.
Paula Scheil/Town citizen commented she was happy with the choices and the
quality of the applicants.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to appointment Lowell
Richardson for a 1-year term, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018, Chris
Amundson for a 2-year term, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019, Anne
Morris for a 3-term, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020, and Deborah
Gibson for a 4-year term, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021, and it passed
unanimously. DRAFT7
Board of Trustees – October 24, 2017 – Page 6
2. RESOLUTION #25-17 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2018
BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Lancaster stated by
state statute the Local Marketing District shall file an Operating Plan for the next
fiscal year to the appropriate local government(s) by September 30th of each
year. A plan was received by the deadline. The Board requested a third-party
expert review the 2018 LMD plan and compare it to the requirements of the state
statute and other operating plans developed. Staff contracted with Sandy Hall
Consulting LLC to complete the review and provide process recommendations
for the LMD and its Operating Plan. Through the review it was noted the LMD
was performing at or above other Marketing Districts. However, there were
areas, such as goals and objectives, that were noted as weak. Staff stated if the
Operating Plan was not approved for any given year, the District would not be
allowed to collect the LMD tax in the following year.
Mayor Jirsa recommended the newly appointed Board review the Operating
Plan, and further recommended the first quarter meeting with the LMD and the
Town include a discussion on changes to the Operating Plan to address
concerns outlined in the third-party review.
Trustee Walker stated concern with the draft Operating Plan; however, he would
vote for its approval due to the consequences if it were not approved.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated concern the Operating Plan would be
approved without a review of the budget. He strongly suggested the new Board
review the proposed 2018 budget.
Art Messal/Town citizen questioned why a third-party review was conducted. He
stated the proposed Operating Plan does not meet the standards of a plan
because there are no metrics and no strategic plan.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve Resolution #25-
17, and it passed unanimously.
3. CONSIDERATION OF QUORUM CHANGE FOR THE FAMILY ADVISORY
BOARD. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek presented a request to change
the quorum for the Family Advisory Board (FAB) from two-thirds (2/3) of the total
Board to one-half (1/2) of the total Board in order to facilitate the schedules of
the large Board. The reduction would allow additional flexibility for the FAB to
meet if members have scheduling conflicts. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve the revised bylaws for the Family Advisory
Board to change the quorum from two-thirds of the Board to one-half of the
Board, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 24, 2017
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of October,
2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Directors Muhonen and
Hudson, and Recording Secretary Beers
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:46 p.m.
DRAFT STORMWATER MASTER PLAN.
George Oamek an Economist with Headwaters Corporation provided a presentation on
Phase II of the Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study. Phase II would include financing and
financial impacts, time frame for implementation and formation of organizational
structure. The total estimated cost of the Master Plan Capital improvements would be
$75.1 million dollars set to three priority groups; Priority 1 Projects at $44.2 million
dollars, Priority 2 Projects at $19.3 million dollars and Priority 3 Projects at $11.6 million
dollars. He added the Town does not grow as fast as other communities and anticipates
relatively low future growth to help fund the plan. He stated the time frame is driven by
the community’s desire to increase public safety by reducing flood risks. He provided
financing options including; land use, monthly bills, new development fees, building a
capital reserve fund using customer charge revenues and/or sales tax revenue, grants
& federal assistance, loans and bonded indebtedness and property tax assessments.
He stated any monthly charges assessed to homeowners would be phased in a general
manner to minimize financial burden. Formation of a utility could include merging
wastewater and stormwater, development of a new Enterprise fund, which requires
working with the County and Regional Stormwater Authority requiring an IGA between
jurisdictions, taxing, or bonding authority.
Discussion by the Board followed and has been summarized; Enterprise Fund
concerns; implications of doing nothing; County involvement; concerns for homeowners
paying fees during the 30-year process and if they would see a positive change in
insurance rates; what are the current average comparisons of other municipalities;
which financing options go to a vote; establishing priorities to include public health &
safety; evaluating projects based on affected area of Town or County; how funding is
structured and assessing priorities in conjunction with capital projects. The Board
agreed more information would be needed to provide staff with direction.
PROPOSED 2018 BUDGET.
Director Hudson presented the proposed 2018 Budget highlighting an update on the
final quote for 2018 healthcare premiums which would decrease from 8% to 5% leaving
additional funding for one-time expenses and are reflected in the budget. The Board
requested staff compile a list of one-time expenses to present to the Board for review.
The Board reached consensus to apply $400,000 set aside for the parking garage to
fund outstanding capital projects with a left turn lane at Community Drive being
suggested as a potential project. DRAFT9
Town Board Study Session – October 24, 2017 – Page 2
Trustee Norris stated he would like to find a way to fund the addition of two Police
Officers and an Environmental Planner.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig inquired as to other methods available for protecting the arena
footing and the potential of moving the Museum artifacts from the storage facility on Elm
Road to the Senior Center.
SUNSET REVIEW – PARKS ADVISORY BOARD & TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
BOARD. Town Administrator Lancaster stated Board Policy 102 requires a sunset
review for Town Committees every 5 years. After further discussion the Board agreed to
consider a resolution at a future meeting for the continuation of the Parks and
Transportation Advisory Boards.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Mayor Jirsa stated during the review of the Fish Hatchery project RFP responses a
unanimous decision was reached by the selection committee to move forward with
AmericaWest Housing Solutions and combine the Fish Hatchery and Dry Gulch projects
for workforce housing on both lots.
Mayor Jirsa stated a new liaison would be needed for the Visit Estes Park Board and
welcomed any volunteers.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated Colorado Lottery GOCO funds have benefited
various projects in Town. The Board was in agreement to bring a Resolution to
reauthorize the Colorado State Lottery.
In preparation of the Strategic Plan, Town Administrator Lancaster developed a
prioritizing option technique to compare items and compile priority for Board objectives.
The Board was in agreement to complete the prioritizing action with objectives and
goals versus key outcome areas and requested Administrator Lancaster complete the
spreadsheet to provide a staff perspective.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster requested to remove the Discussion of Proceeds and
Savings from the Parking Structure Financing. The Board agreed to bring the Licensed
UTV on Town streets to the Board in the form of an Ordinance. A briefing on cyber
security and future use of the Senior Center building would be added to a future
meeting agenda.
Trustee Nelson made a request to schedule a discussion on Building Code Changes to
Facilitate Redevelopment and 3rd Party Building Inspections.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary DRAFT10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 13, 2017
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY
SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of October,
2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Holcomb, Koenig, Martchink, Nelson,
Norris and Walkers
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Director Hudson,
Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten, Hinkle, Hunt and Muhonen,
Managers Fraundorf and McEachern and Director/Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
2017 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Administrator Lancaster provide an overview of the 2018 budget process, including the
development of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), maintaining existing service levels, a
budget that meets the Town Board’s Strategic Plan and fund balance policy. The
proposed budget includes funding for a 2% merit pool, market rate adjustments, an
increase in benefit cost, and other non-optional adjustments to worker compensation
and property and liability insurance (CIRSA). The Town utilized a service proposal
process to identify department requests for programs, equipment or staff above the
department’s base budget. The proposals were identified as one-time expenses versus
ongoing. Finance Director Hudson provided an estimate of available funds based on
base budget, projected revenues and impact on available fund balance. In order to
maintain a balanced budget not all services proposals were funded. Of the 34 ongoing
proposals only 8 have been recommended at a cost of $519,241, and 14 of the 24 one-
time expenses have been included at a cost of $1.098 million. A list of service
proposals not funded was been provided for the Board’s review.
Finance Director Hudson reviewed the process used to deliver a balanced budget for
the Board’s consideration. He reiterated the departments jointly developed
recommendations based on a town-wide perspective. Department presentations would
highlight the items that were not funded. He reviewed sales tax collection and stated
the 2018 estimates are 3% over the 2017 actuals and projected, a conservative
approach. The proposed budget does not include any significant accounting changes
from the 2017 budget. There are several grant projects expected to roll over from 2017
to the 2018 budget such as Fish Creek flood repairs. No new large grants are
projected. The General fund estimates include $14.969 million in revenues (sales tax,
property tax, departmental revenues, transfers in and other revenues), $525,612 in
transfers, and $16.406 million (O&M, personnel, capital, debt services, and transfers
out) in expenses. Director Hudson stated 50% of the Town’s budget costs are
personnel, which would be considered low for a governmental entity. Administrator
Lancaster commented the Town has continued to assess processes and use
technology or change processes in order to address issues rather than adding
additional staff because of the ongoing expense. The 2018 transfers out of the General
fund to the Community Reinvestment fund would include $515,322 for COPs payment
on the Event Center financing, $434,000 for parking garage financing payment, and
$400,000 for option to partially transfer sales tax from 2013 and 2015 for the parking
garage. Discussion followed on possible uses of the $400,000 not utilized for the
construction of the parking garage project such as refinancing the parking garage loan
or utilizing the funds for other one-time projects in 2018. After further discussion, it was 11
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 13, 2017– Page 2
determined a separate study session would be held to discuss the use of the funds. Per
Finance Policy 660 the current General fund balance has been set at 20%. The
proposed budget contains a fund balance estimate of 23%.
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION & BENEFITS
Eric Marburger/EMS Consulting Services was hired to complete the market salary
survey for 2018. After review of the market adjustments for the six market pay families,
staff recommended the following adjustments: Admin – 3%, T&P – 2.2%, PS – 3%,
LTSC – 2.5%, MGMT – 0%, and Lineworker 1.9%. Pay ranges would be adjusted and
employees would see an increase to their pay based on the pay family during the first
full paycheck in 2018. In addition, a 2% merit pool has been included for 2018.
Administrative Services Director Williamson stated merit increases are currently the only
mechanism for moving employee salaries through the pay ranges, which are set at 50%
of the market average per the Town’s compensation policy. On average employee
salaries are below 50% of the pay scales.
The Insurance Committee meet with the Town’s benefit broker Hays Companies to
review the Town’s benefit package and concluded no significant changes would be
proposed with the exception of moving from AirMed to MASA for ambulance services.
MASA provides nationwide coverage and both air and ground coverage not offered by
AirMed. The proposed budget includes an 8% increase for medical coverage, 4%
increase for dental, a slight increase to life, and no changes in costs for vision,
employee assistance or Teledoc services. Staff and the committee would continue to
educate employees on how to be good consumers of the Town’s partially self-insurance
medical plan and to grow the wellness programs in an effort to keep our employees
healthy.
INTERNAL SERVICES FUNDS
FLEET MAINTENANCE
Manager McEachern reviewed the 2018 proposed budget in which the revenues and
expenses essentially net out because the fund charges each department for the
services provided. Fleet makes up 11% of the Public Works overall annual budget.
The division maintains and repairs the Town owned equipment and the Estes Valley
Fire District equipment with a replacement value of approximately $7 million. The
division requested a service proposal for an additional Fleet Mechanic II, which was not
included in the budget. The position was proposed because the Fire District requested
a mechanic onsite part-time to maintain vehicles at the station. The District stated they
would pay for half the costs of a new mechanic that would work out of separate vehicle
and would work on the weekends to provide 7-day a week coverage for the Town and
the Fire District. The proposal would require an Intergovernmental Agreement be
approved between the Town and the Fire District. Trustee Holcomb questioned the
need for additional mechanics. Manager McEachern stated there continues to be a
need for additional mechanics based on industry standards; however, staff has to
balance the needs with the current space constraints. Facilities Manager Landkamer
has prepared a space needs analysis and included it in the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP).
INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
Manager Fraundorf reviewed the scope of services and the service proposal not
included in the proposed budget for an additional IT Support Specialist. He stated the
responsiveness of the IT staff has been good when considering the increase need to
address security issues, project work, new application systems, etc. The addition of a
staff member would have provided additional resources to address the growing security
issues without negatively impacting the day-to-day response time to issues that come
up. Revenues grow in 2018 with the charge of services increasing to departments for
equipment support and expenses increase with personnel cost for annual salary
adjustments and benefit costs. Trustee Nelson questioned the potential cost of a
breach to the Town’s system. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned if offsite consultants
or companies could be hired to address potential threats. Manager Fraundorf stated a
breach would be significant; however, the Town does not maintain trade secrets or 12
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 13, 2017– Page 3
credit card information which would make it more vulnerable. He further stated onsite
staff would be needed to address any potential threat.
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
Director Hudson stated the fund was developed to aid the Town in accumulating funds
to systematically replace vehicles and equipment. The fund currently supports 107
units with a replacement cost between $3,750 to $300,921 and depreciation tables of 6-
20 years. In 2018 the fund would replace 5 units with a replacement cost of $208,001,
and would be fully funded for the first time since 2013. The service proposal included
the funding for a new police officer patrol vehicle and a new facilities vehicle at a total
estimated cost of $90,000.
Mayor Jirsa called a break at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
GENERAL FUND. Each fund was reviewed and requests for additional information was
noted:
Executive – Service proposals requested and funded included $15,000 for the
completion of a Community Report/State of the Town Newsletter and $20,000 for
a Community Marketing Video Campaign. An additional request for a Visitor
Survey was not funded because Visit Estes Park (Local Marketing District) has
agreed to fund the project. Expenses decrease overall with a reduction in
personnel costs.
Legislative – No service proposals were requested. Overall expenses for the
fund increase with an increase in benefit costs and IT costs.
Judicial – A service proposal was included to move the part-time Municipal
Court Clerk to a full-time position within the Administrative Services department.
Currently the Court Clerk does not have regular office hours, and therefore, can
only be reached by phone or email. The position would also perform part-time
Human Resources Administrative work and assist the Human Resource
Manager. This would provide the citizens with direct access to the court during
normal business hours Monday through Friday. The Administrative Service
Director would be responsible for the budget and supervision of the department
staff with the exception of the Municipal Judge who would be reviewed annually
by the Town Board.
Administrative Services – The service proposals for the department included
the funding of Phase II and Phase III of Laserfiche in 2018 at a cost of $133,800.
Phase III has been requested in order to address the urgent need in Community
Development to replace the Building Safety division’s software. Staff had
identified a new software package at a cost of approximately $230,000. It was
determined Laserfiche could be used in lieu of new software if Phase III was
implemented to provide the web-facing servers. Utilizing Laserfiche would save
the Town money and realize long term efficiencies by storing all the data within
one software accessible by staff. The funding of the additional half-time hours for
the Municipal Court Clerk/Administrative Assistant was included as an additional
service proposal. Revenues for 2018 are projected to remain flat while expenses
increase with the inclusion of a Municipal Election in April 2018, maintenance
cost for Laserfiche, IT consulting services and an increase in IT costs.
Finance – No services proposals were requested. Revenues decrease in 2018
with the funding for the flood recovery finance position ending. Overall costs in
the department increase slightly with personnel and benefit costs increasing and
an increase in IT costs.
Employee Benefits – No service proposals were requested. The fund includes
funds for the benefit consultant, home ownership program, wellness program,
post-employment benefits and tenure awards. The 2018 budget increases due
to the number of individuals participating at the 3-year home ownership program 13
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 13, 2017– Page 4
and the number of employees eligible for the post-employment medical
insurance benefit.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning – Service proposals requested and not funded in 2018 included an
Environmental Planner currently funded by a flood recovery grant ending in 2017
and an increase in legal services associated with code amendments. Revenues
drop significantly with the completion of the grant. Expenses decrease with the
removal of one FTE and reallocation of floodplain administration to Public Works,
reduction in contract services and the completion of the Downtown Plan. With
the hiring of the Senior Planner a number of items would be brought back in
house for completion. Trustees Holcomb and Norris questioned if the
department had the staff needed to complete the current workload and address
the code amendments outlined by staff.
Building Safety – A service proposal was requested and not funded to provide
contract labor to provide records management. The revenues for the division are
estimated to remain flat in 2018 and overall expenses to decrease with the
reduction in outsourcing plan reviews.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Visitor Services – The 2018 budget includes the following service proposals:
interior wood staining of the Visitor Center, interior paint for the Visitor Center
and new carpet for the Visitor Center. The proposed budget does not include a
request for a part-time seasonal and the conversion of 2 part-time temporaries to
1 full-time position.
Events – The division has budgeted expenses at $2.336 million and revenues of
$731,801. Service proposals requested and included are a mobile stage, Event
Center acoustics, barn painting and arena 1-4 footing renovation. Additional
service proposals not included were the conversion of a seasonal to a full-time
employee, landscaping, Events Complex Master Plan, and events exhibit and
display. Revenues increase in 2018 with the addition of three horse events that
left in 2017 and are returning due to the improved arena footing. Expenses
increase with the proposed service proposals, proper allocation of expenses
added purse money and utility costs. Estes Park Feed and Supply has gone out
of business; therefore, the Events Complex would provide shaving and feed as a
pass-through cost to event attendees. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the
need for an Events Complex sign that can be read. Director Hinkle stated
improved signage for the entire property has been included in the 2019 CIP.
Trustee Holcomb questioned if a wind break could be built to address the footing
issue. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig suggested staff review the possibility of
developing the area as a temporary ice rink to hold the footing in place.
Transportation – The division requested the addition of RideHop, a real-time
passenger information service, which was added to the budget. Other service
proposals considered and not funded in 2018 included a seasonal part-time
employee and additional weekend shuttle service for September 15-17.
Revenues are anticipated to increase in 2018 with additional sponsorships
purchased. A discussion was heard on providing services outside of Town limits
to entities such as the YMCA at no cost and the need for the entities to pay for
the service. Trustee Holcomb advocated the need to continue to review the
possibility of year-round transit and regional transit to provide a link to the Front
Range. Administrator Lancaster stated the Town could expand the services
provided if services were limited to within town limits.
POLICE 14
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 13, 2017– Page 5
The department completed a staffing assessment which outlined the need for additional
patrol personnel (27 total) to meet the service needs of the community and visitors. The
2018 service proposal requested the addition of 3 patrol staff and required patrol vehicle
and equipment. The 2018 budget was prepared with the inclusion of 1 officer. Chief
Kufeld stated the officers are busier and are going from call-to-call, and stated the
severity of crimes has become more complex as well. Trustees Holcomb and Norris
suggest additional conversation be heard on how to provide additional officers to meet
the needs of the department. Revenues in 2018 have been budgeted flat. Expenses
would increase with the addition of a Police Officer and the associated costs.
Captain Rose provided a review of the budget for Ballot Issue 1A Emergency Response
fund. In 2018 the proposed projects have been identified, including stream gauge
operation maintenance, portable table, video/still digital camera and accessories, 3 APX
6000 hand held radio, 1 APX 6500 mobile radio, NOAA weather alert radio for the
communication van, employee safety equipment PPE, comprehensive first aid kits for
field use, satellite phone service, and information station specialist. Revenue for 2018
has been budgeted at $69,800 and estimated expense of $45,685. Trustee Nelson
questioned if the funds could be used for training. Captain Rose stated the ballot
language would not allow training with the exception on how to use any new equipment
or software.
The next Budget Study Session is scheduled October 20, 2017 8:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
15
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 20, 2017
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY
SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of October,
2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Holcomb, Koenig, Martchink, Nelson,
Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Directors Bergsten, Fortini, Hinkle, Hudson and
Muhonen, and Director/Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Director Hudson presented a summary of the official debt and obligations. The Town’s
current debt consists of the 2013 Certificates of Occupancy for the Event Center with a
payoff date in 2027, 2014 Radio Equipment Lease Purchase to be paid in fully in 2019,
and 2017 Lease Purchase for the parking garage with a payoff in 2032. The total
General fund obligation stands at $8.886 million at the end of 2017. There are 2
obligations in Utilities for the 2007 Light and Power Revenue Bond with a payoff in 2027
and 2008 Series A CWRPDA Water Loan with a payoff in 2028. The total obligation
from the perspective funds is $7.157 million.
CULTURAL SERVICES
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek presented the 2018 funding for outside entities.
In past budgets, the Town has funded Community Service grants in which a committee
of Trustees would make recommendations to the full Board. Staff developed a policy to
address the grant process and identified funding types: base funding for organizations,
community initiatives, and in-kind projects. The proposed expenses for the fund have
been budgeted at $1.059 million and include funding for the Fire District, the Larimer
County Road and Bridge fund, and the food tax refund. Base funding would include the
following:
Entity 2017 Funded 2018 Funded 2018 Recommendation
Crossroads Ministry of EP $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
EP Economic Development Corp $44,250 $60,000 $51,500
EP Housing Authority $50,000 $32,000 $32,000
EP Nonprofit Resource Center $4,000 $10,000 $5,000
Estes Valley Crisis Advocates $13,000 $15,000 $15,000
Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Saud Family Health Centers $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Via Mobility Services $30,000 $31,800 $31,800
TOTAL $206,250 $215,000 $200,300
The overall funding for 2018 contains expenses that have been reclassified from other
departments and within the fund based on the new policy approved by the Town Board.
The community initiative funding was ranked by the entire Board and based on the
ranking a percentage of the requested funding was provided and allocated as indicated
in the chart:
DRAFT16
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 20, 2017 – Page 2
Entity Program 2017 Funding 2018 Request Avg.
Ranking
Avg. Funding
Recommendation
Crossroads Meals on Wheels ‐$ 14,000.00$ 1 10,400.00$
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition 2018 Operations ‐$ 10,000.00$ 55,400.00$
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition Maintenance Fund ‐$ 5,000.00$ 53,200.00$
Estes Park Learning Place GED Program 1,000.00$ 2,880.00$ 61,576.00$
Habitat for Humanity of Estes Park Affordable Housing Initiative ‐$ 10,000.00$ 62,600.00$
Estes Valley Crisis Advocates Victim Advocate Stipend and Training ‐$ 7,000.00$ 71,500.00$
Estes Park Veterans Monument Committee Estes Park Veterans Monument/Park Plaque ‐$ 5,100.00$ 81,800.00$
Partners Mentoring Youth Mentoring Programs 2,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 81,700.00$
Estes Park Gun and Archery Club Port‐a‐Let Rental for Indoor Range ‐$ 500.00$ 9300.00$
Uni ted Way of Larimer County 2‐1‐1 Information & Resource Referral ‐$ 10,000.00$ 92,000.00$
Partnership for Age‐Friendly Communities Livable Larimer County ‐$ 5,000.00$ 10 500.00$
KREV Real‐Time Emergency Information ‐$ 2,500.00$ 11 ‐$
Oratorio Society Auditorium Rental for 2 Performances ‐$ 818.25$ 12 ‐$
Total 77,798.25$ 30,976.00$
The approximately $31,000 recommended if funded would be over the budgeted
$25,000 for outside entities. Staff stated an additional $6,000 could be added to the
budget to fund the requests identified by the ranking. The Board agreed the funding for
the Gun Club should be increased from $300 to the full amount requested of $500
because the Police department utilizes the club.
SENIOR SERVICES
The Senior Center contains funds to operate the current Senior Center for limited hours
in January 2018. In February, the staff and programming would be relocated to the
Community Center and operated by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
MUSEUM
Director Fortini presented the Museum budget and stated no service proposals were
requested for 2018. The revenues would remain flat with the Museum Friends group
providing additional funding for programs at no charge to the attendees. The expenses
increase with the museum fully staffed in 2018. The remodel of the museum has been
allocated to the facilities budget.
PUBLIC WORKS
Facilities – The 2018 budget contained a number of service proposals for the
Board’s consideration with the following included in the proposed budget:
Facilities Maintenance Worker, ADA compliance projects, vehicle and computer
for new position, and Town Hall windows on 2nd floor. Other items considered by
staff and not included in the budget: funding set aside for future parking garage
maintenance, increase R&M to address deferred maintenance, Parking Service
Manager, and Parking Services software and equipment. Revenues and
expenses remain flat in 2018; however, O&M increases with the service
proposals, electricity for the parking garage and new equipment for new position.
Capital decreases with the completion of the parking garage in 2017. Discussion
was heard on the need to develop a maintenance fund for the parking garage.
Engineering – The fund contains a service proposal for a Development Review
Engineer/Floodplain Administrator. This would move floodplain administration
from Community Development to Public Work, allowing the position already
reviewing development for drainage concerns to review the deveopment for
compliance with the floodplain. Trustee Norris stated the review of floodplain
issues has been a full-time position since the 2013 flood. He stated concern with
coupling the development review with the floodplain because development
review from Public Works has slown down the development process currently
and in the past. Director Muhonen stated the current level of service being
provided in Community Development remains higher than needed moving
forward. Other service proposals were requested and not funded, including a
transportation master plan, parking lot resurfacing, stormwater capital
improvement program, intersection improvements at US36 and Community
Drive. Director Muhonen stated the Town has an obligation to CDOT to make
the intersection improvements as agreed to during the development of the Event DRAFT17
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 20, 2017 – Page 3
Complex and Community Center. The division would not have grant funded
revenues in 2018, nor would there be associated expenditures. The overall O&M
budget decreases with the completion of studies in 2017. Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig questioned if there was grant funding for a shuttle from the fairgrounds to
downtown in a separate lane. Trustee Martchink stated the funding of $510,000
for a turn lane does not seem realistic and requested staff review funding
estimates for the project.
Streets – The division has estimated revenues at $400,567, a significant
decrease with the completion of grant funded projects, and $1.125 million in
expenses. The division requested a service proposal for the completion of
asphalt crushing within the proposed budget. A number of service proposals
were not included: roadway striping, traffic signs, fuel for snow plowing,
pedestrian bridge maintenance, contract with CDOT for striping and painting
highways through town (unknown if the contract would be revenue and expense
neutral), and a laptop for the Street Supervisor. Overall expenses for the division
decrease with the completion of grant funds; however, O&M increases with the
reinstatement of the full funding for the vehicle replacement fund. No capital has
been budgeted for 2018. Trustee Nelson stated maintaining streets makes a big
impact visually and to be a premier mountain community image has to be
considered. Administrator Lancaster commented the Board could add items if
other items are cut from the budget or the Board choses to decrease overall
General fund balance. The division would find funding in 2017 to pay for the
laptop identified for the Street Supervisor.
1A Streets Fund – The revenues for the fund have been estimated at $1.686
million for 2018 and expenses are budgeted at $1.080 million. The major
projects budgeted would include Brodie Avenue improvements, street overlays,
crack sealing, seal coats, spray patcher emulsion and aggregate, parking lot
resurfacing, spray patcher replacement reserve and personnel costs.
1A Trail Fund – The revenues are estimated at $352,100 and expenses of
$400,000. Staff has identified 2 grant opportunities to build a portion of the Fall
River trail extension, with 1 grant requiring 100% match of $400,000. The
EVRPD would provide $200,000 and the Town to allocate the additional
$200,000 for a total of $800,000 to complete Phase III of the project. A second
smaller grant could help to fund the remainder of the phase.
Parks – The division requested service proposals for the purchase of an ATV
and weed sprayer and GIS services to map irrigation, trees, ROWs and open
space. Additional service proposals were requested and not funded, including
concrete trail repairs, parking structure irrigation maintenance, parking structure
flowers, plants and materials, and a greenhouse expansion. With the Town
taking ownership of Mrs. Walsh’s garden in 2017, the Town would receive
$35,000 in endowment funding in 2018 for the maintenance. Overall expenses
would increase in 2018 for both Personnel and O&M. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
suggested staff consider implementing an adopt a plant program until a new
greenhouse can be built. Trustee Martchink questioned if the planting and care
of the flower beds outside businesses could be done by the perspective
business.
Mayor Jirsa called a 10-minute break at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:15 a.m.
OPEN SPACE
The fund contains revenues of $368,250 in 2018 from the Larimer County voter
approved one-quarter of one percent sales tax increase to be used for trails and open DRAFT18
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 20, 2017 – Page 4
space purchases. In 2018, $255,000 would be allocated to the trail underpass
improvements at the Moraine Avenue bridge.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
The fund provides funding for specific capital projects utilizing General fund, grants and
Tabor excess when applicable. The only identified project for the fund in 2018 would be
the intersection improvements at Hwy 36 and Community Drive, which was not included
in the budget. The only revenue would come from interest income of approximately
$18,000. Expenses in 2018 would consist of the debt payments for the Event Center
and the parking garage at a cost of $916,760.
CONSERVATION TRUST
The fund contains the Town’s share of the state lottery proceeds which are restricted to
acquiring, constructing, and maintaining park and open space facilities. The fund has
been managed by the Parks division throughout the years. For 2018 the staff would
complete noxious weed removal, tree purchases for Arbor Day celebration and work on
the picnic shelter at the parking garage.
COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
The funds from the 1A sales tax revenues are collected in the fund an remitted to the
EVRPD on a monthly basis for the funding of the Community Center financing.
LIGHT AND POWER
The 2018 budget includes the following service proposals: a snow plow, project trailer,
skid steer trailer, snow outage equipment, Dandie Way line rebuild, Hwy 34 and Big
Thompson line rebuild, automated meter reading improvements, Goblin Castle line
rebuild, and Longs Peak area line rebuild. The revenues and expense are estimated to
decrease in 2018 because the broadband project drove up the revenues and expenses
in 2017. Personnel costs increase with the market adjustments and merit increases.
The underground service, meters and work orders have been moved to capital for 2018
which reduced O&M costs. The budget also contains a reduction in GIS inventory labor
in 2018. Capital would include the projects outlined and Phase I for web-based utility
billing. The bond payment for the Mary’s Lake substation and various distribution
improvements and the transfer to the General fund has been estimated at $2.178
million.
WATER
The fund includes a number of service proposals for 2018, including two limited-term
meter employees, replace purification and selected lab equipment, replace pressure
testing equipment, new trench boxes and other safety equipment, Glacier Creek Water
Treatment Plant land acquisition, replace walk-behind asphalt saw, new tandem axle
dump trucks, Rockwell/West Riverside project, Phase II of the water main replacement
in Reclamation area, Big Thompson Avenue water main repair, USA water rights
contract, and Aspen Avenue water main replacement. Revenues decrease slightly in
2018 while expenses increase for personnel cost and O&M remains flat. Bond
payments for the Mary’s Lake Treatment Plan and transfers to the General fund are
estimated at $548,860.
BUDGET SUMMARY
Director Hudson provided a 2018 budget summary stating the ending fund balance
would be 23% with sales tax growth projected at 3%. There are a number of projects
that are estimated to roll over from 2017, including Moraine Avenue bridge, Fish Creek
Road repairs, broadband project, and several other projects. The proposed budget
contains a number of new positions, including a Police Officer, Development/Floodplain
Engineer, Municipal Court/HR Assistant, Facilities Maintenance Worker, and 2 Meter
Maintenance Workers. The proposed budget also includes 44 service proposals at a
cost of $6.131 million and 37 service proposals not included at a cost of $4.877 million.
The net zero-sum budget would require any additions to be offset with reductions to
maintain the stability of the funds. He stated there would be approximately $35,000 DRAFT19
Town Board Budget Study Session – October 20, 2017 – Page 5
available for one-time expenses if the Board identifies service proposals to be added to
the budget. The next Town Board Study Session would include a discussion by the
Board on any changes to the proposed budget. Staff proposed 23% fund balance, 3%
above the limit set by policy, to allow for unknown items that may come up during the
year. Administrator Lancaster stated there are additional revenue sources staff
continues to investigate such as annexations and sales tax collection.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek provide the draft 2018-2022 CIP for the Board’s
review. He stated the document would be updated to reflect the changes in the service
proposals included in the proposed 2018 budget. The document would be a significant
first step in addressing the Town’s overall capital planning needs. Staff has identified
four opportunities to help improve the process moving forward; including prioritization
process, five-year financial plan, deferred maintenance, and project inclusion criteria.
He stated prioritizing over multiple years becomes difficult because priorities change
from year-to-year and with changes in Board priorities. Staff has tried to align the
projects with the Strategic Plan, however, staff cannot prioritize the Board’s objectives.
Staff would provide the Board a mechanism for prioritizing the Board’s objectives to
provide staff with clear direction on the priorities for 2018. The CIP would be adopted
with the 2018 budget as a guiding document.
MISCELLANEOUS
Trustee Norris commented on the need to address staffing levels for the Police, IT and
Community Development. He stated concern with cyber security and the need to
address preventative maintenance. He further commented on the increase cost of
construction and the need to re-evaluate the estimated construction costs for 2018
projects.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 11:17 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
October 3, 2017 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau,
Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There w ere three people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
Director Hunt introduced Senior Planner Jeff Woeber. He stated Planners Becker and
Gonzales are in Telluride this week at the Colorado American Planning Association
conference.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Smith) to approved the agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated September 12, 2017
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Poggenpohl) to approve the minutes as
presented and the motion passed 4-0 with Member Moreau abstaining.
4. PORTION OF LOT 41, GRAND ESTATES; 521 GRAND ESTATES DRIVE
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. He stated the request is to allow a 16-foot setback
in lieu of the 25-foot setback requirement in the E-1–Estate zone district. The applicants,
Jim and Eunice Docter, propose a 12-foot garage extension. The existing dwelling already
extends eight feet into the east side setback, which was the result of a boundary line
adjustment several years ago. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. The
application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant
comments were received.
21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
October 3, 2017
Director Hunt reviewed the criteria for variances and the specific staff findings. These can
be viewed in the staff report. He noted one mathematical error in the staff report regarding
the percentage of variance, as follows: In determining whether the variance is substantial,
the percentage of variance from the code should be 36%, not 64%. Staff is
recommending approval with no conditions of approval.
Staff and Member Discussion
Member Poggenpohl stated the home was built prior to the adoption of the EVDC. At 0.9
acre, the lot size is currently nonconforming. There was brief discussion regarding how
nonconforming lot sizes could be handled in the future, and how the boundary line was
adjusted several years ago, which placed the dwelling in the setback.
Public Comment
Jim Docter/applicant stated the boundary line adjustment was prior to 2000. He stated the
addition to the garage would be in line with the existing dwelling on the east side, and
would make room behind the garage to create a master suite.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Poggenpohl) to approve the variance request
according to findings of fact and the motion passed unanimously.
5. LOT 35, GRAND ESTATES; 507 GRAND ESTATES DRIVE
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. He stated this was a request for a variance from
CO–Commercial Outlying to RM–Residential Multi-Family. The zoning and lot size allows
16 units on the parcel. Standard multi-family zoning allows for eight units/acre, but when
the planned units qualify for attainable or workforce housing, the density bonus is
increased to a maximum of 16 units. The units would require deed restrictions for at least
50 years, indicating the attainable/workforce status.
Director Hunt stated if the developer wants to take advantage of the attainable/workforce
housing density bonus, all of the units will be required to have the attainable/workforce
housing status. Early in the review process, staff informed the applicant that a variance
could not be granted due to financial hardship. Director Hunt stated alternative designs
were possible, as were the type of real estate ownership (townhomes versus
condominiums), which would allow the buildings to be closer to each other than what the
current plan requires. He clarified the number of parking spaces required is related to the
number of housing units planned.
Applicant and Member Discussion
Trevor Kropp/applicant stated the buildings would be constructed as four-plexes, and not
sold as individual units. He stated there would be a Home Owner’s Association, but was
unsure how it would operate. Jes Reetz/project engineer stated the plans meet the
parking requirement per the EVDC.
Member comments included, but were not limited to: concern about the number of parking
spaces; no need for a variance if the plan did not include a subdivision of the property into 22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
October 3, 2017
four lots; concern regarding increase in traffic at Grand Estates Drive and Big Thompson
Avenue. Director Hunt stated additional parts of the approval process for this
development would be a townhome subdivision process and a development plan, and the
proposed lot lines create added difficulty with the project. He stated there may be some
confusion as to the code interpretation regarding the density bonus.
There was discussion regarding the recent code amendment regarding workforce housing
and the operation of the HOA.
Public Comment
Jane Rutledge/town resident was concerned about the units being purchased as second
homes. She also had concerns regarding the HOA.
Jes Reetz/project engineer stated the proposed development would have eight market
rate units and eight workforce-housing units. Each would be approximately 960 square
feet. He explained the process for obtaining financing for workforce housing.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to deny the variance request and the
motion passed 4-1 with Member Moreau voting against the denial.
6. REPORTS
1. Director Hunt welcomed Senior Planner Woeber, who comes to Estes Park from
Pueblo County and has many years of experience as a Planner. Planner McCool will
still be working with the department, mainly on the Stanley Hotel projects.
2. Director Hunt stated Safeway has leased a portion of the Stanley Hotel’s Lot 4 for
construction staging for their addition. Safeway will be required to restore the area
once the project is complete.
3. There was brief discussion regarding the fee for variance applications.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
___________________________________
Wayne Newsom, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
23
24
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 3, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of
Estes Park on the 3rd day of August, 2017.
Present: Karen Randinitis
Nancy Almond
Courtney Hill
Bin Greer
Floyd Collins
Jodi Roman
Marion Stallworth
Shannon Faith
Rachel Balduzzi
Laurie Dale-Marshall
John Bryant
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Suzanna Simpson, Administration Executive Assistant
Absent: Ron Norris
Chair Greer started the meeting at 3:34 p.m.
Public Comment
Chair Greer heard from a member of the public who expressed concern about families
and crosswalks and asking for stronger enforcement of crosswalks. CSOs are not always
able to enforce. The group feels this topic falls into accessibility for all members of the
community and more discussion will take place.
Approval of July minutes
It was moved and seconded (Stallworth/Hill) to approve the July, 2017 meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
Update on Focus Area
Chair Greer, Vice-Chair Stallworth and members Roman, Randinitis, and Almond
compiled a resource guide which was distributed to the board. The list of organizations
was aggregated by anything that applied to focus areas of group. The goal was to
simply identify agencies, where they are located, who are they targeting, and how do
they meet needs of resources being sought. The board discussed how to identify gaps
in the services listed and how to determine next steps. The conversation then turned to
where this list would be housed and how it would be accessible to the public. Many of
25
Family Advisory Board – August 3, 2017 – Page 2
the resources came from the ASK website, which no one is updating. There was a
suggestion for the list to be housed on the Town’s website, similar to the existing
“Community Organizations and Resources” tab. This would entail adding a list of
“Family Resources” to the website. Through group discussion, it was made clear that the
biggest challenge would be determining who is responsible for keeping the list
updated. Member Almond also suggested that the board explore what other
communities have done to address this? Assistant Town Administrator Machalek will
send a list of communities we most often compare to for purposes such as this. It was
moved and seconded (Randinitis/Roman) to make a recommendation to Town staff to
update the Community Organizations and Resources page to include family resources
identified by this board, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Greer asked the
board to bring any comments or concerns about the list, including additions or trends
in data and suggestions for filling identifiable gaps to the next meeting.
Staff Updates
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek updated the group on the applications received
for vacant positions – four applications were received and the interviews will take place
the week of Aug. 7. Rita Kurelja is available to attend the Sept. 7 meeting if the board
wants an update on the work of the housing authority. Discussion took place regarding
the timing and necessity of a conversation on housing without the board having a clear
direction on their role in the discussion, or if it would be identified as something the
board will address. Chair Greer suggested having Rita speak at 4:45 p.m. followed by
5:15 discussion/questions. Assistant Town Administrator Machelek announced an Aug.
10 Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center agency update and roundtable and
encouraged the board to attend.
Childcare Updates
The board discussed concerns about childcare in the community. No action was taken
but there was a consensus to continue monitoring the situation. Member Bryant stated
that the school district has taken the same position.
Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, Sept. 7, at 3:30
p.m. in Room 203 at Town Hall.
Seeing no further business, Chair Greer adjourned the meeting at 5:21 p.m.
26
Memo UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Date: November, 14 2017
RE: First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town
and Platte River Power Authority and Other Municipalities for an Updated
Joint Compensation Study
Objective:
To obtain approval for the renewal of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for an
updated Joint Compensation Study (copy of First Amendment attached).
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park collaborated with Platte River Power Authority and the other
owner municipalities, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland, for a Joint Compensation
Study in 2013. There are economies of scale when conducting a joint comprehensive
study that addresses the unique needs of the municipalities for this type of information.
It has been four years since that study was performed and it is necessary to have an
updated Joint Compensation Study completed at this time.
Proposal:
Staff proposes to renew the IGA.
Advantages:
The joint study provides an alternate source of compensation data and supports the
spirit of consolidated PRPA services. The IGA needs to be renewed for the preparation
of an updated Joint Compensation Study in order to obtain current numbers and
information from today’s market.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board approve the First Amendment to the IGA.
27
Finance/Resource Impact:
Fund Name Account Number Amount
Light and Power 502-6501-560.22-98 $4,350.00
The total cost of the study is $30,000.00 with Estes Park’s share being $4,350.00.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the renewal of the IGA with Platte River Power
Authority and the other owner municipalities, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland, for
an updated Joint Compensation Study.
Attachments:
First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement
28
First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for the 08/08/2017
Funding and Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR THE FUNDING AND COORDINATION OF A
JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY
This First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Funding and Coordination of a Joint
Compensation Study (“Amendment”) is made and entered on the ____day of __________, 2017, by and
between Platte River Power Authority, a Colorado political subdivision (Platte River), the Town of Estes
Park, (Estes Park), the City of Fort Collins, a Colorado municipal corporation (Fort Collins), the City of
Longmont, a Colorado municipal corporation (Longmont), and the City of Loveland, a Colorado municipal
corporation (Loveland). The listed municipalities may be referred to collectively as "Municipalities".
RECITALS
a.In order to attract and maintain employees with the unique skills necessary to manage
and operate retail electric distribution systems, the Municipalities previously recognized
a common need for reliable data reflecting the compensation levels offered by utilities
with whom the Municipalities compete for employees.
b.The parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement For The Funding and
Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study, dated April 11, 2013, to combine resources
for the preparation of a joint compensation study (”2013 IGA”).
c.The parties desire to amend the 2013 IGA to combine resources for the preparation of an
updated joint compensation study.
d.The results of an updated compensation study related to electric distribution utility
systems has no relevance to Platte River, but Platte River is willing to coordinate the
updated compensation study for the benefit of the Municipalities provided it is
reimbursed for the costs incurred in retaining a third party consultant to conduct the
research.
AGREEMENT
1)Platte River agrees to coordinate the performance of an updated joint compensation study for
the benefit of the Municipalities. Coordination will include activities undertaken in conjunction with the
Municipalities, including but not limited to, developing a mutually agreeable scope of work and
contracting with the consultant that will perform the joint compensation study update.
2)The Municipalities agree to reimburse Platte River for amounts paid to the consultant under
contract to perform the joint compensation study update, such amounts to be calculated pursuant to
EXHIBIT A, attached hereto, and replacing Exhibit A attached to the 2013 IGA. Platte River will bill each of
the Municipalities separately, with payment due thirty (30) days after receipt of the billing.
29
First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for the 08/08/2017
Funding and Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
3)Unless specifically amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the 2013 IGA shall
remain the same.
4)This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original and all of which together shall constitute one original agreement.
5)If any term or provision of this Amendment shall be adjudicated to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, this Amendment shall be deemed amended to delete therefrom the term or provision
thus adjudicated to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable and the validity of the other terms and provisions
of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day and year set
forth above.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ATTEST:
By: By:
General Manager/CEO Assistant Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:______________________________
Deputy General Counsel
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor Town Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO ATTEST:
30
First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for the 08/08/2017
Funding and Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
By: By:
City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
Director of Longmont Power & Communications
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Deputy City Attorney
PROOFREAD:
31
First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for the 08/08/2017
Funding and Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
EXHIBIT A
The actual costs of retaining an independent consultant to perform the updated Joint Compensation Study
will be split between the Municipalities according to the following formula: 1) one half of the actual costs
will be split evenly between the Municipalities; and 2) one half of the actual costs will be apportioned
between the Municipalities in proportion to energy sales from Platte River to each Municipality during
2016. The total of actual costs will not exceed $30,000.00 absent written modification of this Exhibit A
Attached is an example of the cost responsibility for all of the Municipalities based on the actual costs of
the updated Joint Compensation Study being $30,000.00.
32
First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for the 08/08/2017
Funding and Coordination of a Joint Compensation Study
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY
2017 Compensation Study Allocation Shared with Municipalities
Costs Based on $30,000 Estimate
(Costs Share 1/2 Equally and 1/2 Based on 2016 MWh Sales)
Municipality 25% of first
$15,000
2016 Energy
Sales (kWh)
Percent of 2016
Energy Sales
Share of
second $15,000
Municipality
Share
Estes Park $3750 131,274,412 4% $600 $4,350
Fort Collins $3750 1,541,509,232 48% $7200 $10,950
Longmont $3750 812,037,045 25% $3750 $7,500
Loveland $3750 731,650,169 23% $3450 $7,200
Total $15,000 3,216,470,858 1 $15,000 $30,000
33
34
Memo UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Public Works Director Muhonen
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Lafayette and
Louisville for Lucity Services
Objective:
To obtain approval to renew the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Lucity Software
(copy of First Amendment attached).
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park has been collaborating with the Cities of Lafayette and
Louisville to purchase and customize Lucity work flow software. This collaborative effort
was established through an IGA in 2014 by the Town Board. The IGA needs to be
renewed.
Proposal:
Staff proposes to renew the IGA.
Advantages:
Customer service response time and tracking have been improved with new workflow
tools. Through 2012 field workflow was initiated with a handwritten carbon copy form. In
2013 we switched to an Excel printed form. Earlier this year we switched to managing
our workflow electronically. This process simplifies inventory tracking, equipment usage,
and task management.
35
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board approve the renewal of the IGA.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Fund Name Account Number Amount
General / Buildings 101-1700-417.25-01 $550
General / Streets 101-3100-431.25-01 $450
General / Parks 101-5200-452.25-01 $450
Light and Power 502-6501-560.26-32 $850
Water 503-6300-540.26-32 $1100
These amounts are included in the 2018 proposed budget.
Level of Public Interest
Low. The public expects us to get our work done; however, the process used to
accomplish the work is a level of detail that would interest very few.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the renewal of the IGA with Lafayette and Louisville
for purchase of Lucity’s work management software.
Attachments:
First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement
36
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF LAFAYETTE AND LOUISVILLE AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK REGARDING
THE PUBLIC WORKS COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the Cities of Lafayette and Louisville, and the Town of Estes Park
(collectively, the “Parties”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (“Agreement”) for the shared use
and cost of a public works software maintenance and management program; and
WHEREAS, all Parties desire to continue the Agreement, for six more years, subject to annual
appropriation by each Party’s governing body.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. The first sentence of the third paragraph of 1. “Parties/Terms” of the Agreement is
repealed in its entirety and reenacted to provide:
The ELA and sublicense agreements shall remain in effect through June 17, 2018 and,
absent sixty (60) days prior written notice of non-renewal by any party, the Agreement
shall automatically renew on an annual basis for up to five additional one-year terms.
Section 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to the Intergovernmental
Agreement effective this ____ day of November 2017.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
By:
Name: Christine Berg
Title: Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
Susan Koster, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
David S. Williamson, City Attorney
CITY OF LOUISVILLE
By:
37
Name:
Title: Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Samuel J. Light, City Attorney
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Name:
Title: Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
38
Town Clerk Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Resolution #26-17 Continuing the Transportation Advisory Board and the
Parks Advisory Board
Objective:
To consider the sunset review for the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Parks
Advisory Committee.
Present Situation:
Policy 102 Town Committee established a sunset review for all non-statutory
committees every five years on a staggered schedule. The Policy schedule outlines the
Transportation Advisory Board and the Parks Advisory Board are to sunset at the end of
2017.
Proposal:
The Town Board reviewed the continuance of the two Boards during their Study
Session on October 24, 2017 and requested staff develop a Resolution for the
continuance of both for an additional five years.
Advantages:
The continuance would allow each Board to continue their work and provide the Town
Board with recommendations on park and transportation issues throughout town.
Disadvantages:
The Boards would be dissolved.
Action Recommended:
Staff prepared Resolution #26-17 for the Board’s consideration to continue the
Transportation Advisory Board and the Parks Advisory Board. As this is a policy
decision, staff does not have a formal recommendation.
Finance/Resource Impact:
No financial impact. The Town staff would continue to provide staff time and support if
the Boards are renewed.
39
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #26-17.
Attachments:
Resolution #26-17.
40
RESOLUTION # 26-17
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Board of Trustees adopted Policy Governance in
2015 and with the adoption established governing processes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy 102 Town Committees a sunset review was
established in accordance with Governing Policy 1.6.1.8. All committees will
undergo a regular sunset review, at least once every five years, unless otherwise
provided for more frequently and according to a staggered schedule to be adopted
separately by the Board of Trustees. This applies only to non-statutorily required
boards/commissions; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the continuance of the Parks Advisory
Board and the Transportation Advisory Board and has determined each Board
should continue for an additional five years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The continuance of the Parks Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory
Board is hereby approved for additional five years.
Dated this___________________________, 2017.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
41
42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance 29-17: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to
add a Definition in Chapter 13 for the term “Single Family Use”.
Objective:
Review and approve proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) to create a definition for the term “Single Family Use.”
Present Situation:
The EVDC has definitions and regulations for several concepts related to use of a
structure and/or premises for single-family use. We define “Dwelling, Single-Family” and
“Dwelling, Detached”, which are cross-referenced related concepts in Chapter 13
(Definitions). We also define the terms “Household” and “Household Living”, which are
parallel concepts in defining a single family in the specific context of zoning and land
use. However, we don’t have a specific definition in EVDC for the term “Single-Family
Use”
Proposal:
The specific origin of this Code request was a citizen request to staff and the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the overall concept in a June
meeting, followed by consideration of draft Code language in a July study session, and
on both occasions requested staff to bring this matter forward for public hearing – which
brings us to today.
Although no specific application to date has required the definition to be invoked, there
is a reasonable link between potential future administration of the EVDC and this
specific use. As long as our Code is in compliance with other statutory and case law
and regulations, such as US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development stipulations for
group homes, Fair Housing Act regulations, and similar matters, there is no downside to
adding this use definition to EVDC. Staff is not aware of any such regulations that would
conflict.
The definition in Exhibit Red defines “Single Family Use” in parallel with these matters.
Much of the actual language in the exhibit is borrowed from our existing definition of
“Household” (Sec. 13.3.125), which is appropriate in maintaining Code continuity.
Advantages: 43
Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
Disadvantages:
Does add slightly to the length and complexity of the EVDC.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission heard this item on October 17, 2017, and voted
in favor (6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent) of a motion to recommend that the Town Board of
Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment (Exhibit
Red).
Staff continues to support this amendment as drafted in Exhibit Red.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Low interest in this specific Code amendment; high in the overall issue of matters
affecting single-family uses in the Estes Valley. The amendment itself was initiated by
request of a concerned citizen.
No public comment has been received to the date of this writing (Nov. 9, 2017)
specifically on this item. Some comments on Ord. 30-17 (also on this agenda) generally
addresses both items.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 29-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit Red, finding that the amendment is
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 29-17
2. Exhibit Red [Single Family Use Definition] 2017-11-14
44
ORDINANCE NO. 29-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD
A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 13 FOR THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY USE”.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 13.2 (Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and
Examples); and found that the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development
Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit Red, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit Red.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2017.
45
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the ________ day of , 2017, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
46
EXHIBIT RED
[Single Family Use Definition]
Town Board of Trustees: 2017-11-14
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
§ 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS
AND EXAMPLES
C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples.
44.5 Single Family Use.
a. General Definition: A single family use is a land use designated for a family unit
related by blood, marriage or adoption, or for eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals
(including resident and nonresident caregivers) living together in a single dwelling
unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all
facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Single family
use shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or
more. Refer to the definition of accommodations use for renter occupancy for terms of
less than thirty (30) days.
47
48
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance #30-17: An Ordinance Amending the Estes Valley
Development Code to eliminate applicability and use of the Attainable
Housing Density Bonus in the RE-1–Rural Estate, RE–Rural Estate, E-1–
Estate, E–Estate, R–Residential, and R-2–Two-Family Residential zoning
districts.
Objective:
Review and approve proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) to remove all residential districts except RM (Multi-Family Residential) from
eligibility for bonus density incentives, and to remove other concerning language from
the Attainable Housing Density Bonus section (Sec. 11.4 EVDC).
The density bonus is aimed at increasing the supply of workforce and attainable
housing in the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
The EVDC has included a density bonus in Chapter 11 (Incentives) since at least 2002,
according to our records. The density bonus has always applied to all residential zoning
districts except R-1, which has the highest density (i.e., smallest minimum lot size) of
any single-family residential district in Estes Valley. (R-1 was excepted out of the
original density bonus, for reasons not clear to current staff.)
The same subsections on density were amended in late 2016 to change the threshold
criteria for income eligibility and to add workforce incentives, in order to address the
growing local shortage of housing in those categories. The density incentive itself was
also changed from 150% to 200% of base density.
More recently, concerns in the community have arisen regarding the possibility that the
density bonus could lead to subdivisions into smaller single-family lots for workforce or
attainable categories. That would have more impact on single-family zoned areas, due
to greater land area in the single-family districts if nothing else.
Proposal:
The proposal does two things: (a) it removes from Sec. 11.4 all residential districts
except RM – our only true multi-family residential district – from eligibility for the density
49
bonus; and (b) it removes a section of existing code in Sec. 11.4 that could have drastic
unforeseen consequences.
Regarding Reason (a):
The amendment was first suggested by a citizen some months ago, with the goal of
reducing uncertainty in single-family neighborhoods about possible future development
activity. Staff has approached this concept with some caution, but on balance this
direction is supportable and sustainable.
On the one hand, any measure that reduces the opportunities available for workforce or
attainable housing development should be approached with great caution. The problem
with attainable and workforce housing won’t be resolved by reducing the supply.
On the other hand, this amendment seems unlikely to have much impact on workforce
and attainable housing issues. Since the original 2002 amendment, a number of multi-
family projects have been proposed under this incentive section, and several built;
however, to staff’s awareness, only one single-family project (The Neighborhood
subdivision) has been done.
(We would note here that the density bonus in a single-family district would always
involve subdivision of property. Our Code prohibits more than one single family
structure on any given single-family lot. Therefore, the only way to increase density is by
splitting properties, so that a new house could be built on a vacant parcel. Some lots
that are much larger than the minimum might be split three or four ways. It’s probably
more transparent in this context to refer to “minimum lot size”, which is the reciprocal of
density… that isn’t a huge matter, though, and changing the term in Code can wait for
another day.)
Given that multi-family seems to offer most opportunities for new or redeveloped
workforce/attainable housing – nationwide and in Estes Valley – the negative
consequences of this zoning change do not seem significant, and the value in
maintaining overall community support for more important housing solutions seems
worthwhile.
Staff is reluctant to remove options from the table for incentivizing housing alternatives,
but in this case the overall good outweighs the bad in our judgment. It doesn’t appear to
us that passage or denial of the amendment will change matters, judging from the past
15 years. And there is a case for stability in this matter.
It can also be observed that single-family attainable/workforce subdivisions could still be
done in the RM zoning district. That is not the highest and best use of our RM land, but
it remains legal and available under EVDC, with or without this amendment.
A minor aspect of approving the amendment: it will bring height bonus and density
bonus provisions into parallel alignment. The height bonus is available in only RM. This
amendment may head off confusion between the bonuses.
Additionally, staff has been consistent in recommending “simpler is better” when EVDC
amendments are brought up. This will shorten the code section in question – not only by 50
reducing the number of eligible zoning districts in Sec. 11.4.B, but also by eliminating
the language in Sec. 11.4.E.1 regarding minimum lot size / area, which affects
subdivisions for single-family or duplex lots only.
Regarding Reason (b):
The 2002 language in Sec. 11.4.E.1 deals with provisions that become unnecessary if
RM only is retained for the incentives, as that subsection applies only in single-family
and duplex developments. But there’s another excellent reason to remove the language
therein – namely, leaving it could allow for significantly changing the character of single-
family zoning itself, if actually implemented.
A close reading of Sec. 11.4.E.1.a in particular shows that density in some districts
could be radically affected. The most extreme example is in RE-1 zoning, where the
current 435,600 square foot minimum lot size could be reduced to 5,000 square feet per
lot. A developer pushing this existing permission to the legal max would increase
allowable density to approx. 87 times the current standard. This is justifiably scary.
Sec. 11.4.e.1 also starts with the ominous phrase: “Notwithstanding the minimum lot
area requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following
requirements shall apply…” Writing any Code section that includes the word
“notwithstanding” is like handling a live rattlesnake – it can be done, but you’d better get
it right the first time and every time. Neither rattlesnakes nor “notwithstandings” cut you
any slack.
This language is likely an example of “unintended consequences” in drafting, which
unfortunately appear more than rarely in EVDC. The section should have been vetted a
lot better in 2002. At any rate, we now have the chance to fix it.
I am going to throw in a Reason (c):
We’re using the opportunity to add a little clarity to the section, by inserting “…and
workforce…” or similar phrasing in a few spots, and fixing one or two typos. (I should
have been more thorough in 2016.)
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
Supports a goal of simplifying and providing flexibility and alternatives for
compliance under the Code and regulations.
Results in a straightforward target for reaching our workforce / attainable housing
goals.
Removes a concerning Code subsection which could undermine single-family
character in some aras of Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
51
Takes some viable alternatives off the table for providing affordability in single-family
areas of the Valley.
Does not align with a strict reading of adopted Strategic Goals.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission heard this item on October 17, 2017, and voted
in favor (6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent) of a motion to recommend that the Town Board of
Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve the amendment (Exhibit
Red).
Staff continues to support this amendment as drafted in Exhibit Red.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
High in this specific Code amendment; high in the overall issue of matters affecting
single-family neighborhoods. The amendment itself was initiated by request of a
concerned citizen.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 30-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit Red, finding that the amendment is
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 30-17
2. Exhibit Red [Density Bonus in RM], 2017-11-14
3. Public comment received to date of this writing (Nov. 9, 2017, 0930).
52
ORDINANCE NO. 30-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY
BONUS IN THE RE-1–RURAL ESTATE, RE–RURAL ESTATE, E-1–ESTATE, E–
ESTATE, R–RESIDENTIAL, AND R-2–TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 11.4 (Attainable Housing Density Bonus); and found that the
text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code
Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit Red, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit Red.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2017.
53
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the ________ day of , 2017, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
54
EXHIBIT RED
[Density Bonus in RM]
Town Board of Trustees: 2017-11-14
§ 11.4 - ATTAINABLE / WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of
attainable and workforce housing for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley.
(Ord. 2-02 #9)
B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential the RM (Multi-
Family Residential) zoning districts are eligible for the attainable or workforce housing
density bonus set forth in this Section. This Section’s density bonus for attainable or
workforce housing shall not be available and shall not be applied in any zoning district
except the RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning district. (Ord. 2-02 #9)
C. "Attainable" and “Workforce” Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter,
"attainable housing units" and “workforce housing units” shall mean the following:
1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred and
fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below,
adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing
Authority.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility
expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income
for an imputed household size based on one hundred and fifty percent
(150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income, confirmed by the
Estes Park Housing Authority. The imputed household size is equal to
one and one-half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit,. For
example, rent on a two-bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent
(30%) of the monthly income limit of a three-person family; for a three-
bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the
monthly income of a four-and-one-half-person family - the midpoint of the
range of a four- and five- person family.
c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility
allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be
subtracted from the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. (Ord 2-
02 #9)
2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred
and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or
below, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park
Housing Authority.
55
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty
percent (40%) of the one-hundred-fifty-percent Larimer County Area
Median Income, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes
Park Housing Authority. (Ord. 2-02 #9)
3. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area Median
Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Ord. 2-02 §9)
4. Workforce Housing. Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density
Bonus (Sec. 11.4.D) if at least one resident in each housing unit annually submits an
affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town and the Estes Park Housing
Authority certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District
R-3 Boundary Map.
D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Except in the R-1 Zoning District, sSubject to the
standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter, attainable or workforce
housing units are eligible for a density bonus of up to two (2) times (one two hundred fifty
percent [150%200%]) of the base Max. nNet dDensity standard set forth in the Estes
Valley Development Code.
E. Development and Design Standards.
1. [Reserved] Minimum Lot Size/Area. Notwithstanding the minimum lot area
requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements
shall apply to residential subdivisions and developments that include attainable
housing units pursuant to this Section:
a. Single-Family Detached Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for single-
family, detached attainable housing units included in a subdivision or
development shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, provided that at
least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or
development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units
are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five
percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement.
b.a. Two-Family Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for two-family attainable
housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be twelve
thousand (12,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of
the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If
less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the
minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for two-family residential
uses.
2. Public Sewers and Water Required. All developments containing attainable or
workforce housing units approved under provisions of this Section shall be served by
public central sewer service and public water service.
3. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable or workforce housing units approved
under provisions of this Section shall not be rented, leased or furnished for
tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B). (Ord. 02-10 §1)
56
4. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units developed pursuant to this
Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent
to persons meeting the income or workforce guidelines and definition set forth in
§11.4.C above, for a period of time no less than twenty fifty (2050) years. The
mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County
Attorney.
(Ord. 13-99 §D.4, 11/3/99; Ord. 2-02 #9, 2/12/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. 2-10 #1, 1/26/10)
57
From: Thomas Gootz <tdgootz@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:50 AM
Subject: Comments on Two Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code
To: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
To the Estes Park Trustees:
I support the two amendments proposed by Randy Hunt that will limit building density bonuses
to Zone MR. Currently, the code would allow density bonuses for builders who are planning on
including some or all units in a condominium project to all current residential zones. While this
is intended to boost the number of affordable housing units in Estes Park, by its nature, it would
also have the potential to greatly increase the number of general condo units in zones where
they are not appropriate.
As a resident and home owner of Estes Park, I have invested considerable money in my home
with the idea that extensive condominium construction would not likely occur in zones that allow
larger lot sizes. Many other home owners in Town invested with the same assumption. Efforts
to derail our current zoning ordinances to allow such high density building practically anywhere
in Town is not appropriate. Such off-handed decisions are inconsistent with the current Town
plan that promotes such high density building near the center of Town, not randomly in the rural
zones. Such a major departure from zoning that has guided the purchase of larger parcels for
building homes is against our understanding of the existing zoning ordinances and represents a
"takings" of our land rights.
While I understand that additional affordable housing is necessary for our workforce decisions
concerning the placement of high density developments should involve a review of the
Comprehensive Town Plan and input from many stake holders. Randy Hunt and the Planning
and Zoning Commission are correct in recommending a limited scope of such density benefits
to areas of Town where more density is already a precedent.
I hope you and the County Commissioners will vote to approve the two amendments already
approved by the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Thomas Gootz
2855 Grey Fox Drive
Estes Park
From: Larry Jones <lbjones22@msn.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:31 PM
Subject: Trustee meeting11/14
To: "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Planning is very important
Ruining the present single family zoning is not what Estes wants or needs.
Could you please include in the trustee meeting material for 11/14. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
58
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ross Maxwell <rmaxfive@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Code amendment concerning density in residential neighborhoods and zones
To: jwilliamson@estes.org
I support the zoning code amendment which would not allow double density in single family
residential zones. To be honest I see work force housing as subsidised housing for the benefit
of government workers ( according to The League of Women Voters). Please leave our
residential zoning areas a constant home owner can rely on.
Thanks
Ross Maxwell
From: Theresa Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:32 PM
Subject: Chapter 11 amendment of the Estes Valley development code
To: "bocc@larimer.org" <bocc@larimer.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Jackie and Brenda,
Please forward this to the Town Board for their respective meetings on November 14th and
20th.
Thanks!
Dear Town Board Members and County Commisioners,
I am very concerned about the proposals to allow doubling of densities in residential zoning. I
am very much in favor of workforce housing but feel that we should be exploring housing
options in other zoning categories. It feels like you are trying to change the meaning of the
current residential zones.
It feels like an assault on the residential feel of our community to increase densities in our
neighborhoods that are already subject to vacation rental accommodations. Our town needs to
preserve the sense of community that many of us initially moved here for instead of turning it
into a resort where no one actually wants to live.
Best Regards,
Theresa Oja
1313 Devils Gulch Road
Estes Park, CO
From: "Rebecca Urquhart" <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 6, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: comment for Trustees 11/14 packet, re: zoning
To: <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Cc:
All of us understand the need for attainable housing, but the vast majority of owners of single
family residences researched our neighborhoods, looked at the views and the zoning, and then
invested, in many cases, our life’s savings based on that evaluation. For example, we have a
very large undeveloped parcel above us, and determined the density of future development,
59
then decided we could accept that. Most owners did that homework. Allowing subdivision and
development bonuses threatens our investments and the enjoyment of our homes.
The better approach is to encourage the redevelopment of older, possibly rundown houses,
apartments without a zoning change, and promote housing on appropriately zoned small lots
and multifamily zones, within current guidelines.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
970-586-7586
60
Density Bonus
Wildlife corridors should be a part of the Density Balance proposal.
The wildlife is an important part of in our town and the land usage. Secondly, having higher density of
housing near the rivers will discourage wildlife access. A setback of 200 or 300 feet from Fall River and
Big Thompson River is suggested. Wildlife should have both horizontal and perpendicular access to the
river.
Do NOT increase the housing density near the river.
Thank you
Dave Albee, Estes Park, Colorado
Sheep near the Hydro Plant Museum
61
Cory La Bianca
Estes Park, CO 80517
DATE: November 6, 2017
TO: Estes Park Town Board
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro-Tem
Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
SUBJECT: Single-Family Residential Zoning and Possible Higher Density
Throughout the Estes Valley
Dear Board Members,
I write you today to express my concerns about our single-family residential areas, possible
rezoning throughout the Estes Valley to higher density, and the need for responsible planning as
you go about making decisions presented in town staff proposals.
I wish to quote Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic” regarding our responsibility to the land as you take
on these challenges. He wrote in his highly regarded book, A Sand County Almanac published
in 1949, the following:
“Quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem.
Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right…
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty
of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1996, provides the wisdom of which
Leopold’s “land ethic” speaks. This plan cost local taxpayers approximately ½ million dollars
and three years of cooperative effort to bring to fruition, and it does not call for any policy
changes when updated. Therefore, I believe it to be your mandate to write any new building
codes to reflect the vison stated therein (with or without updated details).
For example, a paragraph from Chapter 4, page 4, of the Plan states the following:
“The Plan proposes limited development on steep slopes, visually sensitive areas, areas
with significant wildfire hazards, wildlife migration routes and habitat, and flood-prone
areas allow for only limited development within the plan.”
62
Are these values expressed in our development codes? If not, they should be. It is my hope that
as you approach these current proposals for rezoning, you will do what is right for this beloved
community we call home and that millions of people from all over the world come to see for its
beauty and inspiration, and comply with the vision of our Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Cory J. La Bianca
16-year Estes Park resident
63
64
65
Lober, Carly
November 8th,2017
To: Town Trustees
Re: Amendment to Chapter 11 of the EVDC.
My name is Carly Lober and I am a permanent resident of Estes Park.
I support the Amendment to Chapter 11 of the EVDC. I support this Amendment that
eliminates doubling of density for Workforce Housing
or Attainable Housing in single family residental zones.
I understand that there is a need for some workforce housing units, but 1500 units
seens like a lot. I think that these housing units
should be built in areas zoned RM - multi-family.
It would be unfair to those of us who purchased a house a long time ago, with the
expectation that we would continue to live in a
single-family neighborhood. To create double density, RM units in a neighborhood
changes the integrity and character of a neighborhood.
Thank you,
Carly and Keith Lober
1230 Middle Broadview
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 1
66
TO: ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: Patricia F. Newsom 450 West Wonderview Ave
RE: In Favor of the Amendment for Chapter 11 Concerning Zoning.
TO BE ADDED TO THE TRUSTEE PACKET FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2017 MEETING
●
There are two or three “buzz words” in the air that are significant and should be of great concern to
all…not only those within the town limits of Estes Park but the entire area. These are: zoning; clustering and
density, and sustainable housing.
What is zoning? Zoning separates different land uses…”Single Family Residential” (determined by area
measured by acre(s) or sq. footage), Multi-family Residential; Commercial, Industrial and Accommodations.
Each of these zones has different rules to provide orderly land use patterns and development in a community.
Density in Single Family Residential zones is a critical issue….and I truly believe a property rights
issue.
Creating density in these zones would adversely affect home values. Does the Town really believe that
owners of a home in a single family zone is going to stand by and allow the value of their home depreciate after
reaching a life-time dream to have a home here? In many instances their home is their main asset….and in
many cases, the home and property is planned for future generations to enjoy..
I get the idea Town does not respect Single Family Residential zoning or property rights.
Changing zoning by changing uses or densities within a zone is de facto re-zoning. Keeping Single Family
Residential zoning is more important now than ever considering Vacation Rentals and B & B’s are being
allowed in these zones for several years now.
What is being purposed is double density, clustering , density bonus amendments for attainable and
workforce housing. For the RM, A and perhaps C, I can see where this is feasible. The approval of height
variance was the first hurdle. And now… wanting to combine small Single Family lots to accommodate the
clustering of housing in residential area?
There is talk of creating smaller lots and density in the valley. For example, a developer subdividing a
vacant (or scraping) a 5 acre parcel in E-1 (one acre lots in single family zoning) but first rezoning it to E (half
acre lots) and then being granted a double density bonus, would change the density from 5 to 20 (housing units)
is a very possible scenario. Don’t you think a discussion of residential density is in order for the community to
hear and understand?
Just a personal note regarding workforce housing… this summer we had a granddaughter with us who
worked at two restaurants; thus we became acquainted with her co-workers. The majority of wait-staff were
single, foreign students. Some were housed by the restaurant owners but others had to find their own housing.
In visiting with them, several who were working in different restaurants were all in the same situation and were
living in motels or in private homes around town with several to a room at $500 per person per month…and
being here for working for low wages for a short time– three months +/-. If Workforce housing could be 67
available to those in these situations I think there are some motels in town a developer could purchase, renovate
and rent out to temporary workforce. Of course, they won’t make a million dollars from the investment but if
they really wanted to help with some of the housing shortage, I believe it is a possibility. And, just think of the
good name they could make for themselves.
I have heard from several sources regarding the sustainable housing to accommodate the employees of
different entities really had rather not live in that model of living quarters. So, what’s the answer? I don’t know.
But to build housing for just anyone who wants to move to Estes Park with no strings attached is not fair to the
community as a whole. You think traffic is bad 90-110 days a year now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. The stress
on the infrastructure which even now is in need of repair/upgrade…and who ends up paying for this? – the
current property owners thru taxes – many of whom are senior citizens…and this could go on and on.
To end my letter to you, I would like for you to please read a question I sent to a member of the Housing
Authority and his response...which should be public.
Question: I realize there is a need for some work-force housing, but I have a question. If there is A/S
housing, what are the qualifying elements as far as some of the Occupants working within the school
district?...and if it is for long-term or seasonal? What happens if it is only seasonal and the workers are no
longer needed and can not find employment in town. Guess what I want to know is how does one qualify for
housing (work-force) –and tell me again re: the terms for sustainable.
Response: “Pat,
Thanks for the e-mail. I don’t believe all of the regulations have been finalized through the Community
Development Department, but this is what I can tell you at the moment.
The current requirements for residents in property built and managed by the Housing Authority are
dictated by Federal Standards because they are funded through a Low Income Housing Tax Credit program.
For those in rental units the requirement is that the tenant earns 60 percent or below of the area median income
and have lawful presence in the US. Most tenants work in the Estes Park area but that cannot be a requirement.
When using this financing tool there can be no restrictions such as working within the community. With Falcon
Ridge (the latest project to be built) there was preference given to those who were displaced by the 2013 flood,
but the income requirement still had to be met. I believe I have provided you with the Area Median Income
chart in the past.
For the home ownership program such as Vista Ridge (30 of the 59 units are income restricted) the
income level is 80 percent of the area median income. Homes cannot be rented without express permission of
the EPHA Board and the property must be on the market for sale to an income-qualified buyer.
The workforce housing initiative by the Town is to provide housing for those individuals working in the
Estes Park School District boundaries earning up to 150 percent of the area median income. Minimum leases
would be for 1 year and there will probably an annual audit to ensure that the employment status is being met.
Not all of those details have been worked out as far as I know.
Let me know what else I can do for you. Thanks for your interest.”
68
My intentions of this letter are to confirm that I am in favor of the proposed amendment restricting “double-
density development bonuses” to the multi-family – RM zones when promoting the attainable and workforce
housing.
Many people wonder “What will the Legacy be for the mountain community of Estes Park?”
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Frye Newsom
450 West Wonderview Ave
Estes Park, CO
Property owner for 50 years – full time resident and property owner(s) for 39 years.
69
To: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees of Estes Park
From: Rick and Vicki Papineau, 1711 Dekker Circle, Estes Park, CO
Date: Nov. 5, 2017
Subject: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
After considerable thought and financial investment, we chose to retire in Estes Park. Recent plans to
change use in single family residential zones to high density housing are a serious threat to our
investment and quality of life. In just the last couple of years, we have already experienced our quiet
neighborhood change from single family residences to vacation rentals and rentals that sub rent by the
room which can mean nine or more cars at a single residence.
We agree some additional work force housing is needed, but not to the over stated extent by out‐of‐
town consultants. There is a reason for zoning, and the Town and County benefit from property
valuations based on zoning. Zoning is an incentive for folks to purchase property and move to Estes
Park. Workforce housing should be built in zones CD (commercial downtown), CO (outlying
commercial), and A and A‐1 zones (accommodations). By honoring current zoning, you are fulfilling your
agreement to home owners who purchased homes in single family residential zones.
70
NOVEMBER 7, 2017
TO: ESTES PARK TOWN TRUSTEES AND LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
CONCERNING DOUBLING DENSITIES IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN
THE ESTES VALLEY
THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS HERE FOR A LONG TIME. IT IS GOING TO
TAKE SEVERAL YEARS OF CAREFUL THOUGHT AND PLANNING TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO EITHER OVERSTATE OR UNDERSTATE THE PROBLEM.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PLACE THE BLAME OR BURDEN ON ONE SEGMENT OR ANOTHER OF OUR
VALLEY POPULATION.
WE CANNOT DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY AS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY SLOW THE PROGRESS.
WE CANNOT MAKE BROAD, UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS.
WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER AND OBJECTIVELY.
FAILURE TO HONOR OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ZONES NOW WOULD BE A CRITICAL
MISTAKE.
JOHN & CONNIE PHIPPS, 585 WONDERVIEW AVE., ESTES PARK
71
-- JUNE 20 PRESENTATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION –
FOR SOME TIME NOW, I HAVE DISCUSSING A MATTER WITH RANDY AND MIKE REGARDING THE FACT
THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY AS IN SINGLE FAMILY USE IN THE CODE. SINCE THE
TERM, AS A USE, IS USED IN THE CODE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ZONING SECTION, AS WELL AS IN THE
STATUTE, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS CRITICAL THAT THIS BE TAKEN CARE OF NOW – LIKE AT YOUR JULY
MEETING.
THE DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY USE COULD SIMPLY BE ONE HOUSEHOLD AS “HOUSEHOLD” IS
DEFINED AT DEFINITION NUMBER 28 IN THE CODE.
WHICH IS – A FAMILY RWELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE OR ADOPTION, OR 8 OR FEWER UNRELATED
INDIVIDUALS, LIVING IN A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT, WITH COMMON ACCESS TO AND USE OF ALL EATING
AND LIVING AREAS.
THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DEFINITION OF SMALL
GROUP HOME AT NUMBER 26, SHOULD NO DOUBT BE CONSIDERED AS WELL AS THE STATUTE
CONCERNING SMALL GROUP HOMES, AND THEN TABLE 4-1 SHOULD BE CLEANED UP ACCORDINGLY, IF
IT HASN’T BEEN ALREADY.
ALSO, A SHORT TIME AGO, YOU DEALT WITH CHAPTER 11 WHEN YOU RECOMMENDED INCREASING THE
60% AMI TO 150% BUT YOU LEFT SECTION 11.4 ALONE WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES
ARE ELGIBLE FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING AND THE DENSITY BONUS. DID YOU INTEND THAT TO APPLY
TO ONLY RM ZONES? COULD YOU DISCUSS THIS AT YOUR NEXT STUDY SESSION?
[Note: Document provided to Randy Hunt via email by John Phipps on June 19, 2017:
RANDY - JUST A COURTESY HEADS UP - I WILL BE DEALING WITH THE ATTACHMENT HERETO
AT PUBLIC COMMENTS AT TOMORROW'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LET ME KNOW IF
QUESTIONS. JOHN PHIPPS
72
\NGE
EALTY,LTD. EST. 1969
The Oldest Real Estate Company In Estes Park
Novel] iber 7, 2017
I strongly support the amendment that would prevent double densities in residential
zones except RM zoning.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Broker/Owner, GRI, CRS
300 East ElkhcJrn Avenue P.O. Box 1604 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-2345 Fax (970) 586-5293
73
To: Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners
From: Dick Spielman 584 Audubon St, Estes Park, 80517
Re: Density in Residential Zones
I am writing you in favor of the amendment that would prohibit doubling density incentives in single
family zones for workforce or attainable housing, by eliminating the mentioning of all such zones, RE1,
RE, E1, and E.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dick Spielman
74
75
76
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: 2018 Strategic Plan
Objective:
For the Town Board to consider adoption of the 2018 Strategic Plan.
Present Situation:
The development of the 2018 Strategic Plan began in April with detailed Study Session
reviews of each Key Outcome Area:
04/11/2017 – Robust Economy
04/25/2017 – Town Financial Health
04/25/2017 – Exceptional Guest Services
05/09/2017 – Infrastructure
05/09/2017 – Transportation
05/23/2017 – Public Safety, Health, and Environment
05/23/2017 – Outstanding Community Services
06/13/2017 – Government Services and Internal Support
These Study Session reviews gave the Board an opportunity to do a “deep-dive” into
the objectives, goals, and programs of each Key Outcome Area. After completing these
detailed Study Session reviews, the Town Board held a Strategic Planning Study
Session (07/06/2017) to evaluate the Strategic Plan as a whole. The 2018 Strategic
Plan under consideration today is the product of these conversations and reviews.
Proposal:
The proposed 2018 Strategic Plan is attached.
Advantages:
Strategic planning helps to ensure that the Town makes deliberate decisions
about where to allocate its limited resources; and
An adopted Strategic Plan is a policy document that sets the Town’s priorities
and guides the work of staff.
Disadvantages:
77
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends that the Town Board adopt the 2018 Strategic Plan.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Staff develops the budget in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The 2018 Objectives
often have both direct (dollar) and indirect (staff time, opportunity cost, etc.) costs.
Level of Public Interest
Medium.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the 2018 Strategic Plan.
Attachments:
2018 Strategic Plan
78
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
a. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user-friendly
and easier to understand and use, while ensuring they are effective and
enforceable and support development.
1. Accelerate code updates and improvements
b. We will construct and maintain a high-speed broadband network for
businesses and residents. 2. Decide on a course of action and delivery model for Broadband in the Estes Valley
c. We will create and sustain favorable business climate and attitude
3. Where appropriate, the Town will play a supportive role with specific local and/or
regional economic development projects, including but not limited to those outlined in
the EDC Economic Strategy Plan
d.The Town will encourage events, activities and development that
enhance a year round economy.
4. Complete Downtown Neighborhood Plan and develop implementation options in
partnership with the downtown residents and businesses. (e.g. BID, DDA, URA, etc.)
6. Continue to participate in local, regional, and state economic development.
a. We will develop plans and build the financial strength for redundant
raw water sources to our water treatment plants. 1. Engage the Community in discussions of the role of renewable energy in Estes Park
b. We will continue to address parking options throughout the Town.2. Develop an overall parking strategy plan with input from residents, businesses and
guests
c. Use results from PRPA Technical and financial studies to establish long
term energy goals 3. Implementation of Parking Plan recommendations, including funding options
d. We will pursue flood mitigation measures to reduce the risk to lives
and properties and minimize costs to the community.4. Pursue funding for flood mitigation projects
2 Infrastructure - We have
reliable, efficient and up-to-
date infrastructure serving
our residents, businesses
and guests.
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
1 Robust Economy - We have a
diverse, healthy year-round
economy.
e. The Town will participate as a partner in local, regional and state
economic development efforts.
79
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
e. We will complete stall replacements at the Fairgrounds
5. Implement recommendations of stormwater master plan (tentative, based on
future board discussions)
6. Explore options for incentives for developers to include renewable energy
infrastructure in workforce and attainable housing
7. Develop a facilities needs assessment in 2019
a. We will explore options for the future ownership and operation of the
Conference center
1. Partner with other entities to conduct a Visitor Needs SurveyExceptional Guest Services -
We are a preferred Colorado
mountain destination
providing an exceptional
guest experience.
3
80
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
4
a. We will improve and protect the quality of the environment.1. Participate as a partner in the County's regional wasteshed planning.
b. We will implement projects and policies which promote sustainability.
2. We will prioritize and pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood
insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valley
c. We will maintain safe and healthy environments on Town-owned
properties.
d. We will investigate alternative technologies for recycling and waste
management.
e. We will work in partnership with the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition,
to restore stream corridors damaged by the 2013 flood and to implement
resiliency projects to protect streams and property from future flooding.
Public Safety, Health and
Environment - Estes Park is a
safe place to live, work, and
visit within our
extraordinary natural
environment
81
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
a. We will serve as a catalyst to develop available housing solutions for
underserved segments of our community
b. We will serve as a catalyst to encourage infant and childcare solutions
for our community.
1. Define housing needs and identify potential plans for action. Develop a strategy for
addressing workforce housing demands, reflecting the housing needs assessment
implementation strategies.
c. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user-friendly
and easier to understand, while ensuring they are effective, enforceable
and support reasonable development. 2. Develop and adopt appropriate code changes to encourage housing development
3. Begin implementation of the Downtown Paln
4. Explore code changes that could encourage childcare services
1.Complete Biennial Ctizen Survey in 2018
a. We will maintain a well-trained and educated town staff.
b. We will provide adequate funding for staffing needed to provide the
appropriate level of services to our citizens and guests.
Outstanding Community
Services - Estes Park is an
exceptionally vibrant,
diverse, inclusive and active
mountain community in
which to live, work and play,
with housing available for all
segments in our community.
5
Governmental Services and
Internal Support - We will
provide high-quality, reliable
basic municipal services for
the benefit of our citizens,
guests, and employees,
while being good stewards
6
82
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
c. We will conduct a citizen survey biennially to measure our
performance and citizen preferences.
a. We will continue to manage traffic congestion throughout the Town.
1. Installation of left turn lane on US 36 at Community Drive
2. Explore potential for Safe Routes to School Funding
3. Continue preventative maintenance activities on Town roads, as adequate funds
become available.
4. Pursue acquiring electric trolleys and supporting charging stations
c. Coordinate transportation planning with the transportation and transit
plans of RMNP
5. Investigate the costs and opportunities to expanding transit services including
possibly applying for funding from FTA for June 2018 funding cycle
d. We will continue to develop connectivity of trails in the Estes Valley in
partnership with other local entities as described in the Estes Valley Trails
Master Plan.
6. Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the downtown neigborhood, coordinated
with the Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
e. Include bike/pedestrian lanes wherever possible along with the street
improvements.7.Further investigate the formation of a Rural Transit Authority
f. We will provide safe access for users to the trail system 8. Pursue funding opportunities for construction of the Fall River Trail
a. Continue to evaluate financial policies that provide adequate fund
balances and reserves. 1. Develop and adopt a comprehensive debt/capital financing policy
8 Town Financial Health - We
maintain a strong and
sustainable financial
Transportation - We have
safe, efficient and well
maintained multi-modal
transportation systems for
pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles
and transit.
7
b.The street rehabilitation efforts will result in an average pavement
condition index of 70 or above for the Town street network by 2024.
while being good stewards
of public resources
83
2018 Strategic Plan
11/14/2017
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority order
KEY OUTCOME AREAS GOALS (5-7 YEARS)2018 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)
Town of Estes Park 2018 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals*
VISION: The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain community.
MISSION: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and
our natural setting.
2. Explore areas for enhancing Town revenue
condition, balancing
expenditures with available
revenues, including
adequate cash reserves for
future needs and
unanticipated emergencies.
84
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Public Hearing – 2018 Budget
Objective:
To present the proposed 2018 budget for the Town of Estes Park, including intended
use of the Highway User Trust Fund (HUTF) revenues received from the State of
Colorado, and to seek public input regarding the proposed budget.
Present Situation:
Staff has compiled the proposed budget for 2018, reflecting changes discussed during
the Oct 13, 20, and 24 Board of Trustee work sessions. As always, the need for
budgetary funding far exceeds the amounts available so some tough prioritization
decisions were necessary. The budget includes all Town departments and operations,
including the dedicated sales tax funds and utility operations.
State statutes dictate that the Town hold a public hearing on the proposed budget,
including the use of the HUTF revenues. This hearing is intended to meet that purpose.
Proposal:
The proposed budget is available for inspection online (see link below) and in person at
the Finance Department.
C.R.S. 43-4-204 provides that all moneys received from the HUTF revenues are
appropriated for the construction, improvement, repair, maintenance and administration
of the Town’s street systems and other public roads and highways. In short, Street
Department operations are generally eligible costs. The Town proposes to use the
HUTF revenues for the following costs within the Street Department in compliance with
state statute.
85
Estimated Highway Users Trust Fund revenues: $ 278,067
Estimated Street Department General Fund Expenditures
Street lights $ 60,000
Fuel and oil 52,800
Traffic signs 12,000
Street maintenance 75,000
Vehicle and equipment maintenance 139,740
Other street department operating expenses 322,712
Street department personnel costs 481,910
Total qualifying street expenditures $ 1,144,162
Advantages:
Provides funding for continuance of Town operations in compliance with state
statutes
Exceeds the 20% ending fund balance policy in the General Fund to strengthen
the Town’s financial condition
Balances the needs and priorities to address the strategic objectives, goals and
outcomes adopted by the Board of Trustees
Disadvantages:
Some identified needs were excluded due to funding limitations
Action Recommended:
No action necessary.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Impacts all operations upon adoption.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest is expected to be moderate. The Finance Department has not received
any inquiries regarding the proposed budget from the general public.
Sample Motion
I recommend approval/denial to continue the Public Hearing to November 28, 2017.
Attachments:
Draft Budget Document Link
86
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 24-17 Amending Chapter 8.06 of the Estes Park Municipal
Code Relating to Regulation of Unreasonable Noise
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, adopt Ordinance No. 24-17 which amends Chapter 8.06
Noise to the Municipal Code.
Present Situation:
The current Town of Estes Park’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal
Code regulates maximum noise by decibel noise levels. In my Memo dated October 7,
2017, I provided the Board with my opinion concerning the need to replace the current
decibel based Noise Ordinance with an Ordinance prohibiting unreasonable noise. The
new Chapter 8.06 Noise Ordinance regulates unreasonable noise based upon the
definition of unreasonable noise as any sound of such level, intensity or duration as may
or tends to be injurious to human health or welfare, or that unreasonably interferes with
the enjoyment of life or property, or causes damage to any property.
The provisions of this new Noise Ordinance will allow Law Enforcement or Code
Enforcement personnel to make a prima facie determination as to whether a noise is
unreasonable based upon the factors provided in Section 8.06.020 (2). Also, the new
Noise Ordinance provides regulation for unreasonable noise for motor vehicles, and
restricts amplified outdoor music.
The new Chapter 8.06 contains exceptions to the prohibitions of unreasonable noise as
set forth in Section 8.06.040. These restrictions are common exemptions found in most
municipal noise ordinances in the State of Colorado.
The Town Staff is recommending to replace the Town’s current decibel based noise
ordinance with prohibiting unreasonable noise which in the Staff’s opinion will enable
the Town to reasonably regulate unreasonable noise and enforce the new regulations
as set forth in this new Chapter 8.06.
Advantages:
Adopts a new Noise Ordinance which provides reasonable regulation of unreasonable
noise within the Town and is enforceable in the Town’s Municipal Court.
87
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The adoption of Ordinance 24-17.
Budget:
There are no budget implications.
Level of Public Interest
High.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 24-17 Amending Chapter 8.06 of the Estes
Park Municipal Code Relating to Regulation of Unreasonable Noise.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 24-17
October 7, 2017 Board Memo
88
ORDINANCE NO. 24-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.06 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO UNREASONABLE NOISE
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code regulates noise levels within the
Town; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Chapter 8.06 to enable the Town to
effectively regulate unreasonable noise levels within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Town to amend Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code regulating unreasonable noise
within the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code is amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
89
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2017.
Town Clerk
90
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 8.06 ‐ NOISE
8.06.010 ‐ Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Amplified outdoor music means the use of musical instruments or sound equipment to produce or
amplify sound that is not fully enclosed by permanent solid walls and a roof.
Domestic power equipment means any power equipment rated five horsepower or less used for
home or building repair or grounds maintenance, including but not limited to lawn mowers, garden
tools, snow blowers and chain saws.
Muffler means an apparatus consisting of a series of chambers or baffle plates designated for the
purpose of transmitting gases while reducing sound emanating from such apparatus.
Sound equipment means a loudspeaker, public address system, amplification system, or other
sound producing device.
Sound level means the A‐weighted sound level in decibels (dBA).
Unreasonable noise shall mean any sound of such level, intensity or duration as may or tends to be
injurious to human health or welfare, or that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or
property, or causes damage to any property.
Vehicle means any machine propelled by power other than human power, designed to travel along
the ground by use of wheels, treads, runners or slides to transport persons or property or pull
machinery and includes, without limitation, automobile, airplane, truck, trailer, motorcycle, motor
scooter, tractor, buggy and wagon.
8.06.020 ‐ Noise prohibited.
(1) No person shall make, continue or cause to be made or continued any unreasonable noise; and no
person shall knowingly permit such noise upon any premises owned or possessed by such person or
under such person’s control. For purposes of this section, Law Enforcement or Code Enforcement
personnel are empowered to make a prima facie determination as to whether a noise is
unreasonable.
(2) Law Enforcement or Code Enforcement personnel, may, in the determination of whether a noise is
unreasonable, consider factors that include, but, are not limited to:
(a) The time of day;
(b) The size of any gathering of persons creating or contributing to the noise;
(c) The presence or absence of sound equipment; and
(d) Any other factors tending to show the magnitude and/or disruptive effect of the noise.
(3) With regard to vehicles, the determination of unreasonable noise, in addition to the previously
stated factors shall include, but not be limited to:
91
(a) The continuous or repeated sounding of any horn, alarm or signal device of a vehicle, except
where an actual emergency or danger exists. For the purposes of this subsection, "continuous"
shall mean continuing for an unnecessary or unreasonable period of time.
(b) The operation of any vehicle in a manner which causes unreasonable noise as a result of
unnecessary rapid acceleration, deceleration, revving the engine or tire squeal.
8.06.030 ‐ Restrictions amplified outdoor music.
It shall be unlawful for any person to make, cause to be made or to permit amplified outdoor music
upon any premises possessed or controlled by such person where such music occurs:
(a) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m., through 10:00 a.m., of the next day except that on Friday
and Saturday nights music is permitted until 11:00 p.m; or
(b) Where any amplified outdoor music exceeds 82 dBA as measured at the premises property
line(s) or any public rights‐of‐way immediately adjacent to the property from which the
amplified outdoor music originates.
8.06.040 ‐ Exceptions.
The prohibitions set forth in subsection 8.06.020(1) shall not apply to sound from:
(a) Any bell or chime from any building, clock, school or church;
(b) Any siren, whistle, or bell lawfully used by emergency vehicles or any other alarm system used
in case of fire, collision, civil defense, police activity or other imminent danger;
(c) Aircraft which are operated in accordance with federal laws or regulations;
(d) Town authorized or sponsored events including, but not limited to, parades, fireworks
displays, concerts, and events at Stanley Park;
(e) Any domestic power equipment, except as provided within this subsection, operated upon any
residential, commercial, industrial or public place between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.;
(f) Any construction, maintenance, or repair activities between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.;
(g) Activities directly connected with the abatement of an emergency;
(h) Noise from snow blowers, snow throwers and snow plows when operated with a muffler for
the purpose of snow removal;
(i) Noise generated from golf course maintenance equipment.
8.06.050 ‐ Exhaust, mufflers.
No person shall discharge the exhaust of any steam engine, internal combustion engine, air compressor
equipment, motor boat, or other power device which is not equipped with a properly maintained
exhaust system with a muffler or a spark arrestor. It is unlawful for any person to operate a muffler or
exhaust using a cutout, bypass or other similar device.
92
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
CC: Frank Lancaster
Jackie Williamson
Wes Kufeld
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: October 7, 2017
RE: Town Noise Ordinance
At its regular meeting of September 12, 2017, the Board of Trustees continued the
hearing on the consideration of amending the current noise ordinance to comply with
the requirements of the State statute. The purpose of the continuance was to provide
adequate time to review other communities’ noise ordinances to determine how those
ordinances comply with the State statute and/or regulate noise within the respective
communities. I have reviewed noise ordinances from the following communities:
• Steamboat Springs
• Fort Collins
• Loveland
• Longmont
• Greeley
• Johnstown
• Windsor
• Breckenridge
• Lafayette
The ordinances range from complex for Greeley and Fort Collins to Windsor’s one
sentence ordinance that reads as follows:
“Section 10-6-10.- Noise, unreasonable. No person shall make, continue or
cause to be made or continued any unreasonable noise; and no person shall
knowingly permit such noise upon any premises owned or possessed by such
person or under such person’s control. For purposes of this Section, members of
the police department are empowered to make a prima facie determination as to
whether a noise is unreasonable.”
None of the reviewed ordinances complied with the provisions of the State statute. All
of the reviewed ordinances, except for Windsor and Johnstown, contained decibel
regulations for noise.
93
The ordinances which use decibel standards for noise partially comply with the State
standard on decibel readings. However, all of these ordinances expanded the time
restrictions in the State statute and provided numerous exceptions for such activities as
construction, the use of power tools and lawn equipment in residential areas,
snowblowers, bells, and emergency. These exemptions are not allowed under the
State statute. As stated above, none of the ordinances complied with the restrictions in
the State statute.
After review of the Lafayette ordinance, I contacted Bill Hayashi of the firm of
Williamson & Hayashi, LLC. This law firm has served as special counsel to the Town
for litigation, and currently is the City Attorney for Lafayette, Golden, S heridan, and
Federal Heights. Mr. Hayashi recently completed an extensive review of noise
ordinances for the City of Golden. In that review, Mr. Hayashi reviewed numerous
municipalities noise ordinances including whether they had decibel based standards.
Also, the City of Golden hired a consultant to guide the City of Golden in dealing with
noise problems in the City. Based on that conversation, Mr. Hayashi shared with me
the findings of his comprehensive review of noise ordinances.
Those municipal ordinances which contained decibel based restrictions, generally follow
the restrictions in the State statute. However, based upon review of those ordinances
and the opinion of Golden’s consultant, he determined that the decibel sound levels
meeting the State statute for residential and commercial districts are lower than or equal
to that of conversational speech.
In reviewing decibel based noise ordinances, he determined that decibel based noise
ordinances are not enforceable. He also could find no municipal prosecutor that had
ever prosecuted any violation based upon decibel based restrictions. He recommended
that the City of Golden continue to address its noise complaints through the adoption of
a reasonable standard noise ordinance. He also recommended that the City of Golden
deal with its noise concerns of establishments holding liquor licenses through its
granting and/or renewal of liquor licenses issued to those establishments. He
recommended that the City of Golden continue its practice of dealing with motor vehicle,
motorcycle and jake brake noise through the Model Traffic Code. He stated that the
City of Golden’s Police Department had received specific training in the identification of
modified mufflers to determine if mufflers had been altered through visual inspection of
the vehicles.
After reviewing all of the various municipal ordinances, and after talking to Mr. Hayashi,
I make the following recommendations to the Town Board for dealing with noise
complaints:
1. Draft a new noise ordinance which does not contain any decibel based
restrictions.
2. The new noise ordinance shall contain the wording that it is unlawful for any
person to make, cause be made, or to prevent any unreasonable noise upon any
property. The determination of unreasonable noise shall consider factors
including, but not limited to, time of day, size of any gathering of persons creating
or contributing to the noise, present or absence of sound amplification 94
equipment, or any other factors tending to show the magnitude and dis ruptive
effect of the noise. The ordinance may also address exempt activities.
3. Deal with noise from vehicles due to alteration of mufflers and or jake brakes
through the Model Traffic Code.
Use the provisions of the liquor code to establish conditions for amplified noise from
establishments having liquor licenses as a condition for the approval and/or renewal of
the liquor license.
95
96
November 3, 2017
Mayor Jirsa, Trustees, Police Chief,
I appreciated the opportunity to meet Mayor Jirsa and Chief Kufield to discuss revision of the Estes Town
noise ordinance. I have included comments that are pertinent while preparing a new ordinance.
Recognizing the maximum decibel limits established by the State in 25-12-3 CRS is a necessary step in
protecting residential and commercial interests.
1) The state of Colorado recognizes noise abatement as a required protection for health and
property under 25-12-101 CRS.
25-12-101. Legislative declaration. The general assembly finds and declares that noise is a major source of
environmental pollution which represents a threat to the serenity and quality of life in the state of Colorado.
Excess noise often has an adverse physiological and psychological effect on human beings, thus contributing
to an economic loss to the community. Accordingly, it is the policy of the general assembly to establish
statewide standards for noise level limits for various time periods and areas. Noise in excess of the limits
provided in this article constitutes a public nuisance.
International, federal and state agencies have studied and documented the consequences of excessive
noise for human health. The World Health Organization: Night Noise Guidelines for Europe determined
the potential consequences of chronic nighttime noise for residential populations:
Over 50 decibels Environmental insomnia, hypertension, obesity
Over 60 decibels Psychic disorders, hypertension, myocardial infarction,
shortened life expectancy (premature mortality).
2) The state of Colorado is clear with respect to the noise levels that constitute a threat to health
and property. Equally clear is that state maximum standards are established as a decibel reading,
not an arbitrary judgment.
25-12-103. Maximum permissible noise levels. (1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be
conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency,
or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more
therefrom in excess of the db(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima
facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance.
3) The state of Colorado provides preemptive authority for statutory municipalities to set
enforcement of standards that are more restrictive than those established by the State. However, it
does not grant preemptive authority for statutory municipalities to establish standards that are less
restrictive. (i.e. Officers can be granted the authority to make a judgment call that a noise violates
community standards - they cannot be granted the authority to determine that a noise measured at
a Db level higher than the State allows does not constitute a violation).
25-12-108. Preemption. Except as provided in sections 25-12-103 (12) and 25-12-110, this article shall not
be construed to preempt or limit the authority of any municipality or county to adopt standards that are no
less restrictive than the provisions of this article.
97
4) The State Statutes protect against extreme noise and do not prevent "normal conversational
speech"
A sound pressure wave expands in a spherical pattern causing the sound intensity to drop rapidly with
distance according to the law of inverse squares. The State mandates that the maximum allowable
daytime decibel level in a commercial area shall not exceed 60 decibels 25 feet outside of the property
line. This translates to a much higher sound level inside the property line. There is very specific reason
why 25 feet outside the property line is specified in State Law.
5) Even if inclusion of maximum decibel limits were not required -- it's still the smart move.
Compliance with State Statutes is not the only issue with a noise ordinance based solely on discretionary
judgment. The bigger problem is that it opens the door for accusations of favoritism, capricious and
arbitrary enforcement.
As Estes Park grows - there are going to be different types of businesses, increased population densities
and more tourists packed into the same space. Imagine a patrol officer standing between an angry yoga
instructor and the owner of a food truck that just parked his speakers next to the class. Imagine the a
patrol officer standing between two angry restaurant owners arguing over whether the guitarist on one
patio was interfering with the performance of the saxophone player on the other patio.
Including maximum permissible decibel levels in the town ordinance protects the officer from
accusations of bias. - "Yes, I issued a citation based on my judgment that the noise was unreasonable .
By the way here is a record of the decibel reading and a copy of the town ordinance."
6) Requested action from the Town Board for consideration:
1.Include in the new ordinance officer discretion to make judgment 2.Include the Colorado decibel
standard as stated in CRS 25-12-103:
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to
Zone next 7:00 p.m. next 7:00 a.m.
Residential 55 db(A) 50 db(A)
Commercial 60 db(A) 55 db(A)
Light industrial 70 db(A) 65 db(A)
Industrial 80 db(A) 75 db(A)
I greatly appreciate your deliberation in developing a noise ordinance that protects the health, well being
and safety of all Estes Park residents, businesses, and visitors.
Best regards,
Jack Knudson
98
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 25-17 Approving the Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate
Objective:
Approve a Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate to sell Town property (the “Property”)
to Michael and Cynthia Kingswood (the “Purchasers”).
Present Situation:
This Town owned parcel was created when the United States Bureau of Reclamation
acquired a one hundred foot right-of-way for the Lake Estes Penstock for its Colorado
Big Thompson Project. The one hundred foot right-of-way divided Lot 20, Little
Prospect Mountain Addition to the Town of Estes Park. The Property has limited value,
and the Town has not used the Property. The Purchasers own the adjoining parcel and
propose to purchase the Property in order to combine it with the adjoining parcel and
develop the two properties. The Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate provides the
terms and conditions of the purchase of the Property as follows:
1. The Purchase Price for the Property is $1,000.
2. The Contract provides that the Purchaser will be responsible for title insurance,
survey, and all closing costs.
3. Closing of the property is contingent upon the Buyer obtaining approval of a
development plan, resubdivision of both properties, and rezoning of the
properties as requested in a development application which has been filed with
the Town. If the development application has not been approved by April 27,
2018, the Contract shall be null and void.
Town Staff is recommending approval of the Contract for the following reasons:
1. The Property has little to no value; and the Purchasers who own the adjoining
property are only the possible purchasers of the Property.
Advantages:
The purchase of the Property will allow a currently undevelopable parcel to be
developed.
Disadvantages:
None. 99
Action Recommended:
The adoption of Ordinance No. 25-17
Budget:
Sale of the property will result in revenue to the Town of the purchase price.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 25-17 approving the Contract To Buy And Sell
Real Estate for the sale of Town property.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 25-17
The Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate.
100
ORDINANCE NO. 25-17
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL
REAL ESTATE TO SELL TOWN PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 31-15-713 (1)(b) C.R.S. provides that the Town, by
ordinance, may dispose of any real property not held or used for park purposes or any
governmental purpose upon terms and conditions the Board of Trustees may
determine; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received a Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate from
Michael R. Kingswood and Cynthia A. Kingswood (the “Purchasers”) to purchase
property owned by the Town described as a part of Lot 20, Little Prospect Mountain
Addition to the Town of Estes Park (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the Property is set forth on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, this parcel was created when the United States as part of the
Colorado Big Thompson Project, obtained a hundred foot right-of-way for the Lake
Estes Penstock which divided Lot 20, Little Prospect Mountain Addition; and
WHEREAS, since acquisition of the Property by the Town, the Property has not
been used by the Town as a park or for any governmental purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasers own the adjoining the property and intend to develop
their adjoining property and the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the terms and conditions of the
Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate and determined that it is in the best interest of the
Town to sell the property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Contract To Buy And Sell Real Estate is approved and the Mayor or, in the
absence thereof, the Mayor Pro Tem is authorized and directed to execute the
Contract.
2. Appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to close
the sale of the Property without further action and/or approval by the Town
Board.
101
3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2017.
Town Clerk
102
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description:
A part of Lot 20, Little Prospect Mountain Addition to the Town of Estes Park.
Parcel #25302-13-961
Larimer County Records
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
PUBLIC WORKSMemo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Jon Landkamer Facilities Manager
Date:November 14, 2017
RE:Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing Developer Selection
Objective:
Initiate negotiations with a developer to plan, design, implement, and build workforce
housing on the 75 acre, Town owned, Fish Hatchery property. The Developer will be
directed to create a Collaborative Community Effort (CCE) in this process, with the
intent of making a significant impact in the local workforce housing inventory. The CCE
will create a development at Fish Hatchery that will provide opportunities for more
people to live and work in our community. The focus for this housing market is 60% to
150% of the Average Median Income (AMI).
Present Situation:
The most recent Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment (2016) identified the
need for approximately 1600 additional units in the Valley for workforce housing. The
Fish Hatchery Property currently has four Town staff rental units, several storage
buildings, the O’Connor Pavilion, and the Hydroplant Museum buildings that are actively
used on the property. It is largely undeveloped and has great potential for significant
improvement. The property is adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park on the south
and west sides, with Aspenglen Campground immediately to the west. Discussions
have already begun with our RMNP neighbors and the Estes Valley Land Trust on the
impact this project could have on surrounding open space.
Recent discussions have identified the potential to also develop the Town owned parcel
immediately south of Crossroads Ministry on Dry Gulch Road. Development of this 3.5
acre parcel has interest to the Crossroads operation, as well as the potential for
workforce housing development. The recommended developer has already teamed up
with Crossroads and is interested in including this parcel as part of the same workforce
housing project.
Proposal:
Initiate negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development
Group as the recommended developer to plan, design, implement, and build workforce
housing on the Fish Hatchery property. Consider the Dry Gulch property as potential for
increasing the workforce housing inventory in the community. 123
Advantages:
Increase the number of available housing units in the 60% to 150% AMI range for
workforce housing.
The project will be a recruitment and retention tool for community staffing needs.
Utilizes a large parcel that is mostly vacant, and is unlikely to be developed solely for
Town of Estes Park use.
Extends infrastructure closer to the boundary of Town limits.
Increased population in the area will increase the use of the Hydroplant Museum and the
areas amenities.
Completes a another section of the proposed Fall River Trail and solidifies our
connection to RMNP.
Disadvantages:
However, there will be impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and RMNP, with
increased traffic and noise.
However, the subdividing and rezoning of the property will forever change it’s usage and
the potential for Town of Estes Park government uses.
Action Recommended:
The action recommended, is to approve the selection committee’s recommendation to
initiate negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development
Group on the development of workforce housing solutions for the Fish Hatchery and Dry
Gulch properties.
Finance/Resource Impact: Estimate of Owner’s Representative and Legal Services
2017 101-1700-417, 22-98 $25,000
2018 101-1700-417, 22-98 $20,000
Level of Public Interest
High: Workforce housing has been the recent topic of community discussion and also
the subject of a recent League of Women Voters forum.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the selection committee’s recommendation to initiate
negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group
for the development of the Town owned Fish Hatchery and Dry Gulch properties.
Attachments:
Summary of Developer Selection Process from NV5.
124
2017 ESTES VALLEY WORKFORCE HOUSING
DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
The Workforce Housing Developer interview process was intended to support the final selection
of a Development Team for the Estes Valley Workforce Housing Project. Three teams submitted
and based on initial reviews, all three teams were invited to participate in an interview with the
selection committee. The following teams were interviewed for the development:
The Encampment;
The C3 Team; and
AmericaWest Housing Solutions/Prairie Fire.
Listed below are members of the Selection Committee:
1.Frank Lancaster, Town of Estes Park Administrator
2.Mr. Jon Landkamer, Town of Estes Park Facilities Manager
3.Ms. Rita Kurelja, EPHA Executive Director
4.Mr. Jeff Woeber, Town of Estes Park Senior Planner
5.Mr. Todd Jirsa, Mayor of Estes Park
6.Mr. Ward Nelson, Town of Estes Park Trustee
7.Mr. Jim McGibney, Town of Estes Park Resident
8.John Bills, NV5 (Owner’s Representative)
9.Faith Menogan, NV5 (Owner’s Representative)
Here’s a summary of the timeline/process for selection:
Re quest for Proposals - Developer
o May 27, 2017 - The Town of Estes Park issued the RFP for a qualified Developer for
the 2017 Estes Valley Workforce Housing Project.
o July 14, 2017 – Three (3) Developer proposals were received.
1.The Encampment
2.The C3 Team
3.AmericaWest Housing Solutions/Prairie Fire
Request for Proposals – Owner’s Representative
o August 10, 2017 – The Town of Estes Park issued the RFP for Professional Services
for Developer Selection.
o August 24, 2017 – Developer Selection proposals received.
o September 9, 2017 – NV5 was notified of selection to provide Owner’s
Representatives Services to the Town of Estes Park to support an interview and final
selection process for a developer.
125
Shortlist Notification
o September 20, 2017 – On behalf of the Town of Estes, NV5 notified all three
candidates of shortlisting and issued an invitation to Developer interviews.
Interview invitations included members of the selection committee, the firms
that were selected and their scheduled interview time. As well as interview
format and objectives.
Interviews were scheduled for October 18, 2017.
Proposal Review
o September 26, 2017 – NV5 distributed Developer proposals, TOEP Workforce
Housing RFP, and a scoring matrix to the selection committee to assist them in
their review of proposals prior to interviews.
o October 4, 2017 – The Selection Committee held a submittal review meeting to
discuss proposals and establish a list of questions/comments for Developers to
address during interviews.
Interview Questions
o October 9, 2017 – NV5 issued interview questions to be addressed by each
Developer during their interview.
Interviews
o October 18, 2017 – Developer interviews were held in Estes Park. Interviews
allowed 30 minutes for a presentation followed by a 60-minute question & answers
session with each candidate.
o Once interviews were completed the Selection Committee held a debriefing session in
which members expressed their final thoughts of each Development team.
o Based on the qualifications and presentations provided by each team, the Selection
Committee determined that AmericaWest Housing Solutions/Prairie Fire was best
suited to satisfy the Town’s needs for the Estes Valley Workforce Housing project.
o The Selection Committee agreed that a recommendation should be made to the Town
Board on November 14, 2018 to move forward in contract negotiations with
AmericaWest Housing Solutions/Prairie Fire.
126
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Resolution 27-17 in Support of the Reauthorization of the Colorado State
Lottery
Objective:
Consideration of Resolution 27-17 supporting the reauthorization of the Colorado State
Lottery Division.
Present Situation:
The General Assembly created the Lottery Division in the State Department of Revenue
to administer the voter-approved Colorado Lottery. The profits from this lottery support
the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) program, the Conservation Trust Fund, and
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. Estes Park has directly benefitted from all of
these Lottery-supported programs, receiving over $26,088 from the GOCO Trust Fund
and over $679,932 from the Conservation Trust Fund.
The Colorado Lottery Division is crucial to the administration of the Colorado Lottery
and is set to expire unless extended by the General Assembly. The General Assembly
will consider extending the Division during its 2018 general session.
Proposal:
Resolution 27-17 voices the Town Board’s support for the Colorado Lottery Division and
strongly urges the General Assembly to approve legislation during its 2018 session that
reauthorizes the Colorado Lottery Division.
Advantages:
The Town directly benefits from the funds granted by GOCO and the
Conservation Trust Fund.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 27-17.
127
Finance/Resource Impact:
GOCO grants and Conservation Trust Fund money are important sources of current
and future revenue for the Town.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 27-17.
Attachments:
Resolution 27-17
128
RESOLUTION #27-17
WHEREAS, Colorado voters provided for a statewide lottery, and in a
subsequent election adopted the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) amendment to the
state constitution, which directs that lottery profits be used for parks, open space,
wildlife, and outdoor recreation purposes, and
WHEREAS, following the voters’ approval of a lottery, the General Assembly
created a Lottery Division in the State Department of Revenue to administer the lottery,
and
WHEREAS, as provided in the GOCO amendment, lottery profits are allocated to
the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO Trust Fund), the Conservation Trust
Fund, and to the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, and
WHEREAS, since 1992, the GOCO Trust Fund has distributed approximately $1
billion in grants for projects to improve communities in all of Colorado’s 64 counties.
Funds have helped connect families to the outdoors, improved local trails and parks,
built outdoor recreation facilities, preserved ranchlands, water resources, and view
corridors, improved river access and quality and conserved wildlife habitat, and
WHEREAS, the GOCO Trust Fund has distributed over $26,088 directly to the
Town of Estes Park for these purposes, and additional funding support for projects in
the area by Larimer County and the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, and
WHEREAS, since 1983 the Conservation Trust Fund has distributed
approximately $1 billion in grants to counties, municipalities, and special districts for
acquisition, development, and maintenance of new conservation sites, capital
improvements, and maintenance for recreational purposes on public sites, and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Trust Fund has distributed over $679,932 directly
to the Town of Estes Park for these purposes, and
WHEREAS, since 1992 the GOCO Trust Fund has distributed approximately
$215 million of lottery proceeds in support of Colorado’s 42 state parks, funding
parkland acquisition, park development and operations, trail construction and
maintenance, environmental education, youth and volunteer programs and stewardship
and natural resource management, and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Lottery Division is critical to the administration of the
entire GOCO program and the Division is set to expire unless extended by the General
Assembly, which during its 2018 session will consider legislation to extend the Division:
129
NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE WHICH
ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town of Estes Park strongly urges the General Assembly to approve legislation
during its 2018 session to reauthorize the Colorado lottery division.
Dated this_ , 2017.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
130
Parks Advisory Board Interview Committee Appointments
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Interview Committee for the Parks Advisory Board Appointments
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for position(s) open on the Parks
Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Parks Advisory Board is currently made up of seven volunteer community members. The
Board currently has three (3) position open.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed
by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Parks Advisory Board interview panel.
Finance/Resource Impact.
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Parks Advisory Board interview panel.
131
132