HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-10-11The 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, October 11, 2016
AGENDA
6:00 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific
legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
REGULAR BUSINESS
7:00 p.m.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 27, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
September 27, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated,
September 22, 2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 13, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Revising Town Board Policy 101 – Board Assignments to remove the Creative Art
District appointment.
Prepared 9/30/16
* Revised:
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2.ACTION ITEMS:
1.TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE.
a. Phase II Financing. Director Hudson.
b. Walker Parking Design Consultant Change Order for Phase II. Director
Muhonen.
2.2017 STRATEGIC PLAN. Administrator Lancaster.
3.FPPA RETIREMENT PLAN OPTION FOR SWORN POLICE OFFICERS. Director
Williamson.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 2016 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS. Public Information Officer Rusch.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. – For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that
may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators regarding the Conference Center.
5.ADJOURN.
2
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
April 27, 2010
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1.To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest – Section 24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S.
2.For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
3.For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law,
rule, or regulation – Section 24-6-402(4)(c), C.R.S.
4.For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations –
Section 24-6-402(4)(d), C.R.S.
5.For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators – Section 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S.
6.For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7.For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure
provision of the Colorado Open Records Act – Section 24-6-402(4)(g), C.R.S.
3
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, “all or a portion” of the disc ussion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1.No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2.If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney’s opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
_X__ For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b).
____ For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
4
____ To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
____ For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
____ For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal
or state law, rule or regulation: under C.R.S. Section 24-
6-402(4)(c).
____ For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations
under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
____ For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.R.S.,the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days, Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-72-
204(5.5) C.R.S.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
5
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It’s _____October 11, 2016_________, and the time is ___________________. For the
Record, I am _Todd Jirsa_, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As
required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is not being electronically
recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Koenig, Trustees Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris
and Cody Walker, Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Director Duane Hudson and Town Attorney Greg White
This is an executive session for the following purpose:
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b).
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor’s discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 27, 2016
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 27th day of September, 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody 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.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented the staff and Board need to address issues such
as traffic congestion, parking, and the potential loss of sales tax and other revenues.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Nelson reported the Larimer County Open Space Board celebrated the 20th
anniversary of the program with the opening of the new visitor center at Horsetooth and
unveiled a new open space video.
Trustee Walker congratulated Steven Gillette for his recent appointment by Governor
Hickenlooper to the Solid and Hazard Waste Commission. He reminded the public of
the current opening on the Local Marketing District.
Trustee Norris reviewed the items discussed at the recent Planning Commission
meeting, including the special review process and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
The Commission continued the discussion on ADUs for the second time to further
review how the units would be restricted to workforce housing, should the units be
restricted to certain zoning districts, to gather further data, and to discuss enforcement.
Staff has drafted language for review that includes a sunset provision.
7
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 2
Trustee Martchink commented the Parks Advisory Board heard a proposal from Porter
Florence on adding shade trees around the entrance to the Carriage Hills playground
area as an Eagle Scout project.
Mayor Jirsa stated he attend the CML Mayor’s conference. He informed the community
the Town would not be moving the 911 dispatch services to Larimer County in 2017 to
reduce the budget. The Town needs to address the need for redundant fiber for the
community before the item would be discussed further.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance 3.8 Compensation and Benefits Report – Administrator Lancaster
reported full compliance with the exception of providing spousal health insurance as part
of the compensation.
Pikas in the Park – The project would provide a fun and whimsical activity for all to enjoy
in the downtown core area and would be unique to Estes Park. Life size bronze pikas
would be placed around the area between the 34/36 intersection and Tregent Park.
Handouts would be made available at the Visitor Center to begin the pika search. The
project would begin with 10 sponsored pikas named after historical figures at
approximately $475 each. This conceptual project would be reviewed and finalized
through the Arts in the Parks program and would be a Centennial project. The Board
stated care should be taken on placement to ensure the safety of the citizens and
visitors. Mayor Jirsa stated Village Goldsmith would be a sponsor.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 13, 2016 and Town Board Study
Session September 13, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, September 8,
2016.
1. Revised Invision GIS Expenditure Limit, $465,000 - unbudgeted.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated August 17, 2016 and Special
Meeting dated September 7, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated August 19, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
7.Acceptance of Policy Governance Compliance Report.
8
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 3
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM TAYLOR LEGG LLC DBA FAJITA
RITA’S TO LONGS PEAK INC. DBA FAJITA RITA’S 1560 BIG THOMPSON
AVENUE, HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson presented the application to transfer the license to Long’s Peak Inc.
All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued
on August 26, 2016. TIPS training has been completed by the applicant under
their previous license. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to
approve the Transfer of Ownership from Taylor Legg LLC dba Fajita Rita’s
to Longs Peak Inc. dba Fajita Rita’s 1560 Big Thompson Avenue, Hotel &
Restaurant Liquor License, and it passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1.DOWNTOWN PLAN CONSULTANT CONTRACT APPROVAL. Senior
Planner Chilcott stated the Town Board approved entering into a professional
agreement with Logan Simpson for the Downtown Plan in October 2015.
Logan Simpson began work on the project; however, services were not
performed as contractually required, therefore, the Town terminated the
contract in April 2016. Staff began contractual discussions with the second
choice of the selection committee, Winters and Company. The new firm and
restarting of the project has delayed the completion of the plan and
necessitated an amendment to the grant agreement with DOLA to extend the
project to December 31, 2017. A scope of work has been negotiated with
Winter at a cost of $190,000 and $20,000 from the Town to include the
services of a local consultant Steve Lane as recommended by staff and the
Town Board. The Town has expended $23,679 for services rendered by
Logan Simpson including the development of a website, branding, and
survey.
Art Messal/Town citizen questioned why the Town would hire a consultant to
provide a vision for the downtown. He stated the Town and its citizens should
discuss a vision for the entire valley and not just the downtown area.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to
approve a contract with Winter and Company at a cost not to exceed
$210,000 with $190,000 from a Colorado Department of Local Affair
Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance fund grant and $20,000 from the
General Fund, and it passed unanimously.
9
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 4
2.BROADBAND ENGINEERING DESIGN CONTRACT AND ASSOCIATED
REVENUE AND EXPENSES. Manager Fraundorf stated the Town issued an
RFP in July 2016 for engineering work to design a broadband network in and
around Estes Park funded by a Colorado Department of Local Affairs grant.
The Town received five proposals which were reviewed by a selection
committee. The committee selected Manweiler Telecom Consulting
Inc.(MTC) of Centennial, CO because of their responsiveness, capability and
cost. MTC would partner with UpTown Services LLC, a firm well-versed in
this specific type of engineering and design as they designed Longmont’s
fiber network. Approval of the contract would require a budget amendment to
account for the anticipated expenses and grant reimbursement. The project
should be complete by June 2017. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Koenig) to approve the professional services agreement with
Manweller Telecom Consulting Inc. and to revise the 2016 budget to
include the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) grant and the
associated expenditures, fiber optic contract, etc., and it passed
unanimously.
3.TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE CONTRACTS.
Construction Manager / General Contractor Contract Approval – Director
Muhonen reviewed the project history stating the process to relocated the
new transit parking structure from the north parking lot of the Visitor Center to
the south parking lot where there would be fewer utility and access conflict
took over a year of negotiation, meetings and study to obtain FTA approval of
the relocation. The project further required a new preliminary design, an
Environmental Assessment, negotiation of a Special Use permit with the
Bureau of Reclamation, mitigate concerns of the Estes Valley Recreation and
Park District, and obtain two new access permits from CDOT. The project has
been divided into two phases in an effort to meet project costs. Phase I
consists of the ground floor and one elevated second level to provide an
additional 108 spaces. Phase II consists of two additional elevated levels to
provide an additional 202 parking spaces for a total of 412 spaces at the
location after full build out. The delay in approvals has placed $400,000 in
FASTER grant funds from CDOT in jeopardy, if the project has not begun by
October 2016. In an effort to maintain the funds and minimize further
construction costs, the Town pursued a fast-tracked Construction
Management/General Contract (CMGC) project. Under the CMGC process
construction stages commence prior to and run in parallel with the completion
of the final design drawings, thereby accelerating the completion of the
project and saving on construction costs. Public Works issued an RFP and
recommends Heath Construction, LLC to provide CMGC services for Phase I
at a cost of $4.1 million and a total project cost of $7.65 million for both Phase
I and II, if funded. Authorization to proceed with Phase II would be conditional
upon Town Board approving financing. The total project would not exceed $8
million and would be completed prior to July 2017.
10
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 5
Art Messal/Town citizen commented the project would be a great start to
addressing the parking issue and would support the completion of both
phases. He stated the Town should charge for parking.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the
Construction Management/General Contractor agreement with Heath
Construction in a maximum amount of $8 million contingent upon the
terms and conditions outlined in the staff memo, and it passed
unanimously.
Independent Cost Estimator Contract Approval – The CMGC process
includes an Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) that provides accountability
to the taxpayers to ensure the price paid for the project work items are fair
and consistent with current market rates. The ICE evaluates and assists the
Town in negotiating all project costs prior to commencement of each stage
of work. Public Works issued an RFP and received one bid from Stanton
Constructability Services, LLC for an established maximum payment not to
exceed $28,000 for Phase I and $39,997,50 for both Phase I and II. The
contract would be a time and materials contract and only the actual time
expended and expenses incurred on the project would be invoiced. Stanton
has extensive experience performing ICE services on over 60 CMGC
projects and has performed ICE services for the US 34 permanent repairs
project through CDOT. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink)
to approve a professional services contract agreement with Stanton
Constructability Services, LLC in the maximum amount of $39,997.50
contingent upon the terms and conditions outlined in the staff memo,
and it passed unanimously.
Project Management Change Order Approval – Public Works hired
Space Into Place Architecture and Design (SIPAD) in November 2015 to
provide Project Management services for the project. Additional Project
Management expenses were incurred in negotiating the relocation of the
structure and in exploring the feasibility of building the Phases concurrently.
Public Works proposed the extension of the contract with SIPAD to provide
Project Management services through December 2017 and increase the
contract by $115,330 from $151,500 to $266,830. It was moved and
seconded (Nelson/Koenig) to approve a change order to extend the
Space Into Place Architecture and Design (SIPAD) project
management services contract through December 31, 2017 and
increase the price to $266,830 contingent upon the terms and
conditions described in the staff memo, and it passed unanimously.
Phase II Funding Option Discussion – Director Hudson issued an RFP
to lenders to fund Phase II utilizing the 18-hole golf course as collateral and
received two proposals. Staff initially considered using the parking
structure as collateral for the loan; however, the Special Use permit
11
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 6
restricts the Town from using the structure as collateral. The lease
purchase financing agreement would contain a non-appropriation clause
for future Town Boards, which would allow the Board to default on the loan
and transfer the property to the lender. The repayment of the loan would
be 15 years at an interest rate between 3.0% to 3.19%, completed in 6-8
weeks, and the Street Improvement (STIP) funds would be used to make
loan payments. He estimated the loan payments at $380,000 a year, well
below the $435,000 allocated for STIP annually. Director Muhonen stated
a delay in the project would increase the cost due to the number of bond
issues on the November ballot and available contractors to bid on the
project would decrease. The inflation cost of construction is three times
higher than the current interest rates. Completing both projects would be
more cost effective and be less disruptive to the community and visitors
because completing Phase II at a later date would require the structure to
be closed during construction.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: Trustee Nelson
would support and advocate the project be completed concurrently; Mayor
Pro Tem Koenig questioned if using the golf course as collateral would
present a conflict with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District for the
use of the golf course, and stated concern with a potential decrease in
sales tax during the Hwy 34 road closure over the next several years and
the repayment of the loan; Trustee Walker commented on his
disappointment that Town Hall has already been collateralized, and
questioned what the Town communicated to the citizens during the election
on how the STIP funds would be utilized; Mayor Jirsa commented on his
concern with what was promised to the voter during the 1A sales tax
election, the sunset of the tax in seven years, and the need to continue
making loan payments for an additional eight years; Trustee Norris
commented on the need to bring forward a proposal for the Board to
evaluate; Trustee Holcomb would recommend pursuing the option and
building Phase II; and Trustee Martchink would recommend staff continue
to explore the option.
Administrator Lancaster stated the STIP funds are not allocated to the
Street Improvement fund; however, the Town committed during the 1A
election to continue to fund street improvement or transportation related
issues with the STIP funds. He further noted the Town cannot charge a fee
for the use of the parking lot through the Special Use permit. The Town
may negotiate ownership of the land with the Bureau of Reclamation in the
future through a land trade. This would allow the Town to refinance the
loan and use the parking structure as collateral. Staff would continue to
investigate the option and bring the item forward for the Board’s
consideration.
12
Board of Trustees – September 27, 2016 – Page 7
4.INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING I-25
IMPROVEMENTS. Town Administrator Lancaster reviewed the proposal by
Larimer County to provide local matching funds for improvements to increase
capacity to the I-25 corridor with State and Federal funds. The County’s mill
levy supports both the General Fund and the Road and Bridge fund. It has
the authority to change the percentage that goes to each fund so long as it
does not exceed the total mill levy approved by the county voters. State
statutes require the County to share back 50% of the Road and Bridge mill
levy within a municipality back to the municipality. The County proposes to
increase the Road and Bridge tax for five years to raise over $10 million for
the match. The County further requested each municipality contribute the
additional funds they would receive from the increase to add to the local
match. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Walker) to approve the
Intergovernmental Agreement for funding the I-25 improvements, and it
passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig voting “No”.
5.FPPA RETIREMENT PLAN OPTION FOR THE SWORN POLICE
OFFICERS. The item was continued to the October 11, 2016 meeting.
6.INTERVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
(LMD) APPOINTMENT. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to
approve the appointment of Trustees Walker and Martchink to the Local
Marketing District Board interview panel, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
13
14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 27, 2016
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
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of September,
2016.
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, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
ANNEXATION PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY.
The Town does not have a formal policy or position on annexing property. A number of
communities have adopted a formal policy outlining the elected officials’ philosophy on
annexations. In developing a policy, the Town Board should consider the cost of
providing service to the annexed area, address enclaves, require annexations as a
condition of development approval, require annexed areas to meet Town infrastructure
standards, and residential properties cost the Town whereas commercial properties pay
for themselves and bring in sales tax revenue to the Town. Properties surrounded by
the Town are considered enclaves and can be annexed without the property owner’s
consent after three years. Annexed properties benefit from Town services, including
local law enforcement, 60% reduction in water rates, other services such as
snowplowing, and become eligible to vote in local municipal elections.
Attorney White confirmed a formal policy would provide staff with direction when
discussing potential development or redevelopment of properties. Annexation
agreements can be negotiated with property owners and developers to address Town
concerns and provide advantages for the owner. A number of communities require
annexation in order to obtain municipal utilities.
15
Town Board Study Session – September 27, 2016 – Page 2
Board discussion followed and the consensus was to develop an annexation policy
addressing the issues outlined by staff. Staff would prepare a draft policy for review by
the Town Board within the next two months.
2017 STRATEGIC PLAN AND MAP.
Administrator Lancaster presented the draft 2017 Strategic Plan for the Board’s review
and comment prior to formal adoption. The following were requested changes:
Key Outcome Area – Public Safety, Health and Environment, the objective
related to restoring streams damaged during the 2013 flood would be moved to a
5-7-year goal.
Key Outcome Area – Town Financial Health, the redundant statement related to
adequate fund balance would be removed. Add the development of an
annexation policy under objectives as well as other revenue enhancement
options.
Key Outcome Area – Infrastructure, remove redundant statement regarding
repairs to Fish Creek trail.
Key Outcome Area – Robust Economy, revise the broadband statement to
complete engineering design.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris stated Paul Brown has provided information on tiny houses that the
community of Walsenburg, CO has developed for seasonal housing.
Trustee Nelson commented on the role of the Town Board liaisons to other Boards and
Committees, stating the Town Board members are not members and should not
participate in the groups meetings or influence their decisions. He further commented it
would not be proper for the liaison to be included on the agenda for the Board or
Committee. Attorney White stated concern has been raised in the past that liaisons
have been active members of the Boards or Committees. The liaison should be present
to observe, answer questions if asked, and be the communication link between the
group and the Town Board.
Administrator Lancaster requested direction from the Board on a response to the
Mountain Pack to fund fire suppression. The Board consensus was not to support the
request. A citizen has requested the Board consider the adoption of an Ordinance to
address idling cars. After Board discussion the consensus was not to move the item
forward.
Town staff has discussed the need to limit shuttle services to within town limits, and
those wanting the services in the county could pay a fee for the service based on a fee
per rider. After further discussion, it was determined to maintain the current shuttle
service for 2017 and follow up with discussions with the EDC, EVPC, LMD and the
Shuttle Committee to discuss the topic further.
16
Town Board Study Session – September 27, 2016 – Page 3
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
None.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
17
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 22, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
22th day of September, 2016.
Committee: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Directors Hinkle, Hunt, and Fortini, Manager
Mitchell and Recording Secretary Doering
Absent: None
Chair Walker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CULTURAL SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Senior Service Quarterly Report – Manager Mitchell reviewed the meal program
update in her submitted report.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Manager Mitchell stated questions
regarding the move of Senior Services to the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District (EVRPD) have slowed; however, questions continue to be heard on the meal
program and if it was a budgetary decision. Manager Mitchell continues to work with
Public Information Officer Rusch on updated FAQ’s, with an ongoing communication
plan. Trustee Holcomb asked whether the kitchen issue has been resolved.
Manager Mitchell replied a small residential style kitchen has been built into the base
bid of the Community Center with an option for a larger kitchen. A commercial
kitchen is no longer part of the project and no longer needed as a contractor for the
meals could not be identified. All parties are satisfied with this decision and the
EVRPD is not averse to having third parties supply the meals. The Senior Center
board has been invited to participate in the process but are still determining their
position related to the project. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated
regardless of what happened with the Community Center and the kitchen, the meal
service at the Senior Center, would have changed. The Town has been unable to
identify a vendor to prepare meals and the cost to bring it in house is prohibitively
high. Machalek also went on to say a meeting with Senior Center Inc. was held with
a follow-up meeting a couple of weeks ago where many questions were answered.
Moving forward focus will be heavily on Tom Carosello, Executive Director and the
Rec District and getting them integrated on what we are doing. The senior center
board will continue to be updated at their meetings. Trustee Holcomb questioned if
the Community Center plans allowed for the Senior Center program to grow.
Manager Mitchell replied the new center would afford the Senior Center to grow
however, additional staff would be needed. The Community Center would afford an
incredible opportunity to grow with the ability to share staff, including working with
the youth staff, senior staff and facility staff.
Museum Report – Director Fortini proposed the Museum hours be cut by one hour
and during the summer the museum would be closed on Mondays. This would allow
staff to get office work done and the volunteers are receptive to this idea when
discussing the topic. Director Fortini stated the museum continues to review the best
places to spend resources including closings of the museum during specific times of
the year. This item will be further discussed during the budget process.
19
Community Development / Community Services – September 22, 2016 – Page 2
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – The public kickoff event at the Stanley
Hotel hosted over 100 people and the conceptual plan for the museum was
presented. The event raised approximately $60,000. The conceptual plan would be
included in next month’s report.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
REPORTS.
None
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Trustees Walker and Norris asked for
an update on the Scottish Festival regarding economics. Director Hinkle stated the
item would be discussed during the budget meetings. The town provides
approximately $130,000 in funding to the event in both funds and in-kind services.
Mercedes hosted their regional meeting in Estes Park with top clients as well as
dealership’s personnel in attendance. This was the first corporate function of its kind
and staff would use this meeting to promote the idea to other auto companies.
Holcomb asked if the acoustics in the Event Center are being addressed. Director
Hinkle replied a professional sound engineer has been hired to work on the
acoustics at the Event Center this fall. He stated the department continues to learn
where to place bands and other sound events to achieve the best results and
identifying small tweaks that improve the acoustics in a metal building.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REPORTS.
None
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Trustee Holcomb questioned why the
reduced scope of the Downtown Plan has the same price as the original scope.
Director Hunt stated it now matches the DOLA Grant with additional $20,000 for
local consulting assistance. A number of the meetings with the consultant and site
visits were deleted as they were valuable but not vital. Holcomb inquired about the
additional $50,000 requested for the report but that was for writing the grant and that
has been greatly reduced. The report should be completed by December 31, 2017,
with a possible deadline to present to the Board by the end of March 2018. Director
Hunt stated the department would work on code revisions in the following areas:
revision and visitation of the special review process, public improvement, specifically
the development requirements in regards to public improvement, and Sign Code,
with an emphasis in simplifying the code and make the code user friendly. The
grading plan for the Community Center plans has been submitted, and resubmitted.
There being no further business, Chair Walker adjourned the meeting at 8:41 a.m.
________________________________
Tami Doering, Recording Secretary
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John
Lynch, Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Lynch, Newsom, Poggenpohl and Smith
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem
Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Moreau
Member Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated August 2, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented
and the motion passed 3-0 with Member Moreau absent and Member Poggenpohl
abstaining.
3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1337 CLARA DRIVE, TEMPLE RESIDENCE
VARIANCE REQUEST
Chair Lynch stated this agenda item was continued from last month so the applicant or a
representative could be present to answer questions from the Board. The criteria for
review can be read in the minutes from the August 2, 2016 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Applicant Aubrey Carson stated the primary reason for choosing this location was
because of the rock outcroppings and existing drainage. Another reason not as evident
was the concern that the excavation could compromise the boulder movement and the
foundation of the existing dwelling. Keeping this distance would allow excavation with a
reasonable amount of separation. The proposed garage location would be an extension of
the current driveway. Blasting is not an option due to the location of the rock
21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
outcroppings. The existing propane tank will be relocated. Mr. Carson stated the existing
dwelling is unoccupied. He will hire a structural engineer to draw and stamp the plans.
Member Lynch stated there could be additional drainage issues if the garage was moved
closer to the home. Mr. Carson was concerned about more hydrostatic pressure on the
foundation if the garage was placed any closer to the existing dwelling. Other comments
included but were not limited to: the garage could be moved 10 feet closer to the existing
home and further south, if needed, to help the drainage (Poggenpohl); we should consider
how the project fits on the lot, and the lot size would have minimal impact to the adjacent
property owners (Lynch); there were no plans to blast (Carson); moving the garage six
feet closer to the home would still require a variance (Gonzales); the property owner is an
excavating contractor and should know what he’s doing regarding blasting and excavating
for the garage (Newsom).
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the variance as presented
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1
with Member Poggenpohl voting against and Member Moreau absent.
4. LOT 8, RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARK HILL, 2061 E. HIGHWAY 36,
BRUELL RESIDENCE VARIANCE REQUEST
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a post-construction variance request
to allow 8-foot and 11-foot setbacks in lieu of the 50-foot setbacks required in the RE–
Rural Estate zone district. Planner Gonzales stated staff met with the project
representative in July, 2016, to discuss a building permit application. At that time, it was
discovered there were additions to the existing single-family dwelling that were not
permitted and located within the setback.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and notice
was sent to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local
newspaper. The only comment/concern received was from the Larimer County
Department of Health and Environment regarding the septic system and whether it is
large enough to accommodate the remodeled single-family dwelling.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the property is approximately 0.84-acres in size and is zoned RE–Rural
Estate. The building addition was constructed between 2012-2013 without
obtaining a building permit from the County. The addition was placed entirely within
the 50-foot required setback. When the home and garage were built in the late 60’s
the property was zoned A-Accommodations and had a 10-foot setback on the side
and rear. The home and garage were compliant with zoning regulations at the time.
During the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000 the property was zoned to RE which had a
50-foot setback on all property sides. The existing home and garage then became
22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
legally non-conforming. Any building addition had to take place outside of the
setback or apply for a Variance in order to be constructed within the setback. Staff
found that any building addition to the home or garage would have needed a
Variance in 2012 when the addition was added. The owner failed to obtain a
building permit and go through the Variance process. The special circumstance
that exists at this site is the fact that the existing structures are entirely within the
50-foot setback and would need a Variance for any type of addition.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found without the variance, the addition would need to be removed. The
property could continue to be used as a single-family home. According to the
plans, the garage does not contain a kitchen. If it did, the kitchen would also
have to be removed, as the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not
currently allow accessory dwelling units inside of detached structures on lots
undersized for the zone district.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance request is for an 84% reduction from Code
requirements. The applicant is asking for a maximum of a 42-foot variance from
the north property line and 39 feet from the west property line. The overall
proposed structure setback is substantial, but the building addition is actually
located approximately 22 feet from the west property line. Staff found that
allowing the addition to continue to be used at this location is not substantial. It
has been located at this site since 2012. There have been no public comments
or concerns associated with this addition location as of 2012.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the
adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors,
drainage, migration corridors, etc.). Since the addition has been built for four
years without any complaints or documented adverse impacts, staff believes
the situation has caused no detriment to nearby properties. Several other
structures in the neighborhood are legally non-conforming, as they are also
located within the 50-foot setbacks.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
The Larimer county Department of Health and Environment commented on this
application and will require a pumper check list to verify the existing septic
system is large enough to accommodate four bedrooms. If not, a septic
remodel permit will be required.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
23
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
Staff found the applicant purchased the property in 2011 and built the addition
in 2012-2013. A county building permit was not applied for at this time. If the
applicant had applied for a permit, the requirement of a variance and septic
inspection, as well as additional information for the garage conversion, would
have been made known at that time.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found any building addition on this property would need an approved
variance because the existing building is located entirely within the 50-foot
setback.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Staff found conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. It is
not common to have structures located entirely within a required setback.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance
request.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
A setback variance would be the least deviation from Code to allow the
addition to continue to be located at this site.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff recommends a condition be placed on this approval that a building permit/as-
built permit be applied for with Larimer County. This will ensure the structure was
built to building code requirements.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval, with one condition listed below.
Staff and Member Discussion
There was discussion regarding penalties for construction without a variance and building
permit. It was determined if the variance were denied, the addition would have to be
24
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
removed. Planner Gonzales stated there will be fees associated with obtaining the
building permit and with the septic system requirements. Due to the site location, staff
cannot require the applicant to connect to a sewer system.
Public Comment
John Bruell/applicant thanked staff for being so helpful in the process. He purchased the
property in 2012, and was not aware of some of the difficulties they are dealing with now.
The property was purchased as a two-bedroom home. Prior to purchase, there were
discussions with a designer and builder regarding adding an addition, and both did not
recommend proceeding with the addition. After purchasing the property, it was used as a
long-term rental. He stated he did not add living space as bedrooms in the garage, he just
added living space. The windows in the converted garage are not egress windows, so it is
not a room approved for sleeping. The current issues with the home are making it difficult
to sell the property. He is working with the County building department to get the
necessary permits for the unpermitted work, as well as closing out other permits from the
previous owners. Mr. Bruell apologized for doing work without permits.
Public comment closed.
Member comments included but were not limited to: septic is the biggest issue; no
negative visual impacts for the adjacent property owners; work completed without permits
is not condoned, but the distance to the neighbors makes it an easier decision; the history
of the home and the efforts to correct the problems was appreciated. Mr. Bruell
commented that he felt somewhat victimized as he inherited some of the issues without
the permits.
Staff comments included clarification that the variance request was the only real issue
before the Board. The Board can apply conditions of approval, but they have to be directly
related to the variance request. The applicant will have to work with Larimer County
regarding the septic system, building permits, and use of the property.
Condition of Approval
1. A County building permit/as-built permit shall be applied for within three (3) months
of Variance approval. If the building permit/as-built permit is not subsequently
issued by the county, the Variance shall become null and void.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request with
the findings and condition recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with
Member Moreau absent.
Chair Lynch called a five-minute recess at 9:50 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 a.m.
25
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
5. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 1665 HIGHWAY 66, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS
VARIANCE REQUEST
Director Hunt advised the Board of two observations for the benefit of the Board and the
Public: (1) A variance review is a narrow set of criteria, and this variance follows the same
criteria as any other variance request. The Board does not have review authority of the
proposed use, placement of roads, entrance, or loading dock area. If you find the variance
is not warranted for reasons determined by the criteria for variances, the Board could vote
to deny the request. The Special Review was approved by the Town Board with a
condition of approval being this variance approval. It would not be appropriate under state
law to have the Town Board decision influence the Board of Adjustment’s decision. (2)
Director Hunt stated there is a significant amount of public interest in this matter. His
observation is there will be individuals who want to provide public comment. Typically, the
public comment period would be only for the variance. He stated there are some views
today that could be expressed that are not strictly for the variance criteria. It is the Chair’s
prerogative to either allow or disallow the content matter for public comment, to make
sure it is relevant to the application. Chair Lynch stated he will recommend holding public
comments to three minutes each, without elaborating on issues unrelated to the variance.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff the staff report. The variance is from EVDC Section
7.11.O.2.b which requires loading areas be setback 110-feet from the centerline of street
centers. The variance request is to allow a 61.6-foot loading area setback from the
centerline of Mills Drive. The property is zoned A–Accommodations. Town Board
approved a development plan for this project on July 26, 2016, with a condition of
approval being approval of this variance request. He stated the property containing the
Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers project is approximately five acres of a larger 30-acre parcel.
The parcels to the south of the proposed project are zoned A-1–Accommodations, and
contain single-family dwellings, while the property to the east is zoned CO–Commercial
Outlying.
Planner Gonzales stated the Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this
request. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, the application was routed
to affected agencies, and adjacent property owners were notified. No major
comments/concerns were received by reviewing agencies. He stated staff received
several public comments in regards to this variance. All public comments were opposed
to the variance, for reasons including but not limited to: heavy truck traffic, non-local
property owners desiring economic gain, traffic noise, etc. Planner Gonzales stated the
proposed building encroaches slightly into the setback, which was approved with the
Special Review.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the development area is approximately five (5) acres in size and zoned
A–Accommodations. The setback requirements for this area are 15 feet from the
26
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
front property line for the building location, and 110 feet from the centerline of the
street for the loading area location. Applying the 110-foot loading area setback
requirement and 50-foot wetland setback requirement at this specific location
would leave approximately 50-feet for the loading area. The applicant has
expressed in their Statement of Intent that the logical placement of the loading area
for deliveries is adjacent to the proposed parking lot and situated at the entrance of
the kitchen.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found without the variance, the loading area would need to be relocated
on the site. With the approved development plan, the loading area would need
to be moved to the north end of the building, which would require a redesign of
the structure. The kitchen was placed near Mills Drive to have loading access
close to the road, which is a typical orientation for a building’s loading area for
accessibility reasons. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires a
loading area which the applicants stated cannot be placed anywhere else along
the building.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The Variance request is for a 56% reduction from Code requirements. Staff
finds this request is substantial. The applicant has proposed to mitigate
potential effects by landscaping the area south of the loading area, between the
building and Mills Drive.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
Staff found the character of the area would be substantially altered with the
proposed loading area location. The property is zone A–Accommodations, and
the property to the south is zone A-1–Accommodations but is built with
residences. Allowing the loading area to be located closer to the centerline of
the street than required will have an effect on the residential neighborhood to
the south. The proposed street buffer landscaping as well as loading area
landscaping will help to mitigate that effort. The applicant has stated the current
use of the site is RV storage and campground, and landscaping and screening
do not currently exist. The property to the east is a commercial property
containing a parking lot with heavy usage, including trucks making deliveries.
There is no screening associated with that development. Staff has received no
complaints about that operation in regards to screening.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found the variance would not affect the delivery of public services.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
27
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
Staff found the requirement for the 110-foot setback was in place when the
owner purchased the property. Staff made the applicant aware of this
requirement during the development review process. The purpose for placing
the loading area at this location was to access the kitchen, utilize the parking
lot, and minimize the need for additional site grading or impervious coverage.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found in order to meet Code requirements, the entire building would need
to be redesigned. This would be feasible in principle, but it is unclear whether
other redesign issues may emerge during that process. The new placement of
the loading area may require a redesign of the parking lot as well. The loading
space must access the kitchen for deliveries.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Staff found the conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley.
This site has several setback issues that are not generally found on all
Accommodation lots, such as street setbacks, loading area setbacks, wetland
setbacks, etc. These setbacks greatly limit the development potential of the site.
The approved building proposal is for up to 750 people. A building of that size is
difficult to place on this site.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance
request.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
A setback variance would be the least deviation from Code to allow the
loading area to continue to be located at this site.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff found the Board of Adjustment should explore additional screening
requirements to further screen the loading area. Neighboring properties are
concerned with idling and visual effects.
28
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
Staff and Member Discussion
There was discussion regarding the number of trucks at the site at one time, and Planner
Gonzales stated there would be only one truck there at a time making deliveries. There is
no loading dock proposed, just access from the loading area to the kitchen.
There was discussion regarding the size of the parcel containing this project, when the lot
was actually about 30 acres in size. Planner Gonzales stated the property owners have
contemplated subdividing off this portion of the 30 acre parcel. In order to do so, they
would have to meet criteria regarding impervious coverage. Additionally, the north portion
of the parcel is used as an RV Park, while the south portion (subject property) is used for
overflow RV storage and is not used as heavily. With the wetland to the west, there are
limited areas where it would be feasible to subdivide the parcel for development.
Planner Gonzales stated Mills Drive is a private road owned by the property owners, but
the EVDC does not distinguish between public and private for setback requirements.
Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) maintains Mills Drive because it is an access road
to the Park offices and Park housing. Planner Gonzales stated the property to the south of
Mills Drive was zoned A-1 in 2000, and has 15-foot front setbacks. Most of the homes
along this part of Mills Drive were built before 2000.
Public Comment
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant was not present, but was aware of today’s
meeting.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident was concerned about freely granting a substantial
variance to facilitate a business. She stated the owners were aware of the setback
requirement. The property owners may need to redesign. There is an existing driveway
that could be used (off of Highway 66), instead of putting the Lazy B driveway and loading
area along Mills Drive. There are reasons setbacks were established, and she stated
granting this variance would be inappropriate.
Mike Egan/town resident stated the neighbors have always been opposed to this project.
He owns property nearby. His company has hired a consultant to address the application.
Dave Shirk/planning consultant stated he is representing several property owners on Mills
Drive and Spur 66. He was opposed to the variance request, as it would have a negative
impact on the neighborhood. He stated the variance did not comply with the EVDC
standards for review. The purpose is to minimize impact on the neighborhood, and this
variance would not do so. He asked the Board to only consider the information submitted,
which did not include landscaping plan. Director Hunt and Planner Gonzales clarified the
development plan included a landscaping plan, which was approved by the Town Board.
29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
Staff is allowed to provide additional graphics for presentation purposes. Director Hunt
stated the presentation today should be considered as part of the testimony before the
Board. Planner Gonzales stated the special review included an extensive landscaping
plan. This plan was not submitted with the variance application. He provided additional
graphics for presentation purposes. The landscaping plan was conditionally approved by
the Town Board. Mr. Shirk stated there was adequate space on the 30-acre parcel to
relocate the proposed building, and other options on the site would eliminate the need for
the variance. He stated there was no practical difficulty associated with setback standard.
All properties on the south side of Mills are used as residential, and this change would be
substantial. He stated the proposed use is for an event, and the size of the building
makes this non-compliant with the proposed use. He stated approval of the loading area
would impact the street system, as a turn lane is needed on Mills drive to accommodate
the truck traffic. He stated if approved, the hours of operation should be kept to seasonal
use.
Chair Lynch requested clarification on the use. Director Hunt stated the Town Board
approved the Special Review Development Plan, and determined the use was allowed.
Planner Gonzales stated Phase I of the project includes a tent for the dining and
performance area, and a permanent kitchen. He stated the Special Review Development
Plan was conditionally approved, and had not yet received final approval.
Jay Vetter/county resident stated the developers have never responded to requests for
meetings to discuss other options, and the developer has stated he will comply with what
was approved. He stated the proposed loading area would be “right in our front yard”. The
improvements to Mills Drive would eliminate mature trees on his property. He desired the
applicant to place the entrance off of Spur 66. Mr. Vetter stated it was the developer’s
choice to locate the entrance where they did. Planner Gonzales confirmed the Mills Drive
entrance was determined by the applicant. If the property is subdivided, having the Mills
Drive entrance would eliminate the need for easements across the property.
Bryan Gillam/part-owner of Rock Inn stated their deliveries take place on Spur 66. He
stated a redesign of the location of the proposed building could still allow a portion of the
site to be used for overflow camping. Mr. Gillam stated landscaping was not included in
Phase I; however, Planner Gonzales stated there was extensive street buffer landscaping
in Phase I, which was conditionally approved by the Town Board.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
Comments included, but were not limited to: the Board is here to review the variance, and
have nothing to do with the approved development plan; there could be alternative
locations for the entire building; there was not a huge negative impact for the request as
30
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2016
long as it would be landscaped; the street is owned by the property owner; other trucks
use the road going to and from RMNP; this variance is no different from other variances.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Poggenpohl) to disapprove the variance
request with the findings presented by staff and the motion passed 3-1 with
Newsom, Smith, and Poggenpohl voting in favor and Lynch voting against. Moreau
was absent.
Comments included there were other options available on this property that would not
introduce commercial traffic to Mills Drive and have adverse impacts to the neighborhood.
6. REPORTS
Director Hunt welcomed Member Poggenpohl as the newest member of the Board,
representing the unincorporated Larimer County.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:05 a.m.
___________________________________
John Lynch, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
31
32
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 26th, 2016
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/26/2016
1.Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2.Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a.Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3.Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a)Assignments to Standing Committees:
At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial
election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following standing
committees: Community Development/Community Service and Public Safety/
Utilities/Public Works; and the Mayor shall appoint two (2) Trustees to the Audit
committee with the Mayor serving as the third member.
(Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 7-03 §1, 2003; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010; Ord. 10-14 §1,
2014; Ord. 13-15, § 1, 9-22-2015)
a.
i.Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
b.Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
33
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 26th, 2016
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/26/2016
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4.Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
5.Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may nominate
trustees to serve on committees, community groups, or in some other capacities as a
representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the
Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall present the nomination of any such
appointments to the Board for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make
every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
6.Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7.Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
8.Liaison Assignments ‐ The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.
34
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 26th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/26/2016 Board Assignments Mayor Pro‐Tem Wendy Koenig Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force Liaison Staff Liaison Type of Committee Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Norris Com dev Dir Advisory/ Decision Making Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Com dev dir Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Walker n/a Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc.Derek Fortini Outside Ambassadors Trustee Holcomb Teri Salerno Outside Police AuxiliaryWes Kufeld Working Group Parks Advisory Board Trustee Martchink Kevin McEachern Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Holcomb Kevin Ash Advisory Senior Center IncLori Mitchell Outside Estes Valley Restorative JusticeMelissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Walker n/a Outside Estes Park Board of AppealsCom Dev Dir Advisory/Decision Making Sister Citiesn/a Working Group 35
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 26th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/26/2016 Committee or Board Appointed Member(s) Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Holcomb Duane Hudson Frank Lancaster Deb McDougall Advisory Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) Primary Voting Designee Mayor Jirsa Alt Voting Designee Frank Lancaster n/a Outside Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Jirsa Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Utilities/Public Safety Committee Chair Koenig, Trustee Martchink, Trustee Nelson n/a Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Chair Walker, Trustee Norris, Trustee Holcomb n/a Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson n/a Outside Community Grant Review Committee Trustee Holcomb, Trustee Nelson n/a Board Committee Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Jirsa n/a Outside Estes Arts District Mayor Pro Tem Koenig Travis Machalek Outside 36
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 26th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/26/2016 Larimer County Wasteshed Policy Group Mayor Pro Tem Koenig n/a Outside 37
38
DEPT NAME HERE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: 10/11/2016
RE: Transit Facility Parking Structure – Phase II Financing
Objective:
Obtain $4 million in construction funding through a private financier to accomplish the
Phase 2 third and fourth levels concurrently with the currently funded Phase One ground
level plus second level.
Present Situation:
The current funding in place for the project is only sufficient to complete Phase One of
the project. Phase One (the funded phase) consists of a ground floor and one elevated
second level which would provide an additional 108 parking spaces. Phase Two consists
of two additional elevated levels which would provide an additional 202 parking spaces.
The completed project would add 310 parking spaces to the existing 102 spaces in the
south parking lot, resulting in a total of 412 spaces at this location.
The Town would like to obtain approximately $4.5 million in additional funding to complete
Phase Two of the project concurrent with Phase One. Postponing the construction of the
final Phase Two could cost the tax payers several million dollars over the cost to do it now
while interest rates are low and construction costs are cheaper. Deferral would require
another disruption caused by closing down the parking structure during future
construction.
Parking continues to be, by far, the number one complaint the Town receives from guests,
residents and businesses. Complaints about traffic are number two. Parking needs
studies indicate that the Town is short by about 1,000 parking spaces to meet the current
demand during the summer and fall with demand continuing to increase. To help meet
this need, the Town looked for options to complete the project all at once.
The Town issued an RFP for funding proposals, receiving two proposals by the deadline.
A third proposal was received after the deadline so it was disqualified.
Due to restrictions and limitations in the Special Use Permit from the Bureau of
Reclamation, the parking structure itself was not eligible to be used as collateral for any
financing. In researching funding options with lenders, we identified three critical
characteristics that guided and narrowed our options for selecting collateral. The first is
sufficient value to cover the amount of the financing. The second is clear title with no
39
current liens or encumbrances on the asset. The third is absence of an alternative use
for the asset that would be hindered if encumbered. Upon review of Town assets, the 18-
hole golf course was the only single asset that would meet all three criteria. The Town
recognizes we could potentially assemble a combination of lower-valued properties but
given the time and administrative effort to accomplish this, use of the golf course was
determined to be the best approach.
Time is of the essence for this project. The project design team must know if they will be
designing a 2 level structure or a 4 level structure by Oct 14 in order to meet the project
timeline. A delay in this decision would adversely impact the project completion date.
Proposal:
After evaluation of the proposals, the proposal by Saulsbury Hill Financial was selected
as the best option for the Town. The proposal terms are as follows:
Proposed loan amount - $4.5 million
Interest rate – 2.99% fixed rate
Term – 15 years
Payments – Approximately $377,000 annually
Prepayment – No penalty for prepayment
No appraisal requested – lender is basing decision on Town’s established credit
and the lender’s familiarity/comfort with a golf course as collateral
Any and all fees and costs to perfect the security interest will be paid by the Town,
including a title insurance policy, Phase 1 environmental study, and the normal
and standard documentation required by Colorado law
Reimburse the Lender up to $18,000 in direct legal costs should the deal not be
completed
Consider substitute collateral if use of the golf course becomes problematic.
Recognizing that the financing arrangement is not certain, Saulsbury Hill Financial has
waived their customary 1% application fee. Instead, in the event the financing
arrangement is turned down after completion of the formal agreement, the Town will be
asked to pay directly to their external attorneys any legal fees incurred in developing the
agreement, up to a maximum of $18,000. If the financing agreement is accepted, these
costs will be absorbed by Saulsbury Hill Financial and NOT charged to the Town.
The Town proposes to use existing General Fund revenue to make the annual payments.
Historically, the Town has spent approximately $435,000 for street expansion projects
like the Dry Gulch Road work done this summer. The proposal is to redirect these funds
toward addressing another critical part of the transportation system, the parking shortage
in Town, considering that we now have an annual revenue stream of about $1.4 million
40
from the 1A sales tax dedicated for street improvements. With annual payments of
approximately $377,000, funds would still be available out of the $435,000 traditionally
used for streets and transportation improvements, in addition to the 1A sales tax
revenues.
Advantages:
Parking shortage is the number one complaint received from visitors regarding
Estes Park. Building the full project now demonstrates the Town Board and staff
are taking ownership and decisive action to address this problem.
Census forecasts predict the Larimer County population will grow by 52% by the
year 2025. Visitation to Estes Park will grow in proportion to this regional
population growth. Downtown traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution,
conflicts, and guest frustration with the scarcity of parking will continue to grow as
visitation increases. Construction of these additional spaces now prepares Estes
for this anticipated visitation growth.
Increased sales tax revenue from the additional 202 parking spaces within walking
distance of downtown potentially will be realized in 2017 and each year thereafter
as opposed to postponing delivery of these spaces and revenue to some unknown
future year.
Saving up the $4m construction cost prior to building is not a good option. Setting
aside the existing revenue stream of $435k per year would require over 9 years if
there is no inflation of the project cost. For 7% annual inflation, the Town would
have to save $435k for 26 years ($155k/year net saved) to have funds for this
Phase 2 work. Those funds would be diverted from any other project use during
the savings period. Increased sales tax revenue from retained visitors who park
and stay to shop is lost during these years.
The Town saves $30,000 on the Phase 1 work and another $30k on Phase 2 work
thru the reduction of the Construction Fee from 5% to 4.25% by combining both
phases into one project.
The proposed fixed interest rate under 3% is lower than the Denver Construction
Cost Index inflation rate of 4% to 7% experienced annually since 2012. The cost
to build this project is not likely to ever be lower than 2017, and the cost gets further
out of reach for the Town with each passing year of delay.
Planned building construction projects in the Colorado Front Range are forecast
to consume construction material and labor resources in 2017 and beyond. This
will translate to upward pressure on the construction cost inflation rates.
41
No new tax increase is needed to fund this work. The Town has an existing tax
revenue stream sufficient to service loan payments up to $435k per year. The
payment amount of $377k allows a margin of 11% for risk of diminishment in sales
tax revenue without jeopardizing solvency on the loan.
The Town can explore downtown paid parking as a revenue generator to
accelerate the payoff of the loan with no prepayment penalty.
The construction disruption to guest traffic and parking will be minimized to one
construction event in early 2017 that overlaps with the closure of US34.
As a condition of the $3.2m FTA grant, the Town committed to delivering 300 to
400 parking spaces. Postponing the 202 spaces generated by the Phase 2 project
seriously jeopardizes the Town's ability to fulfill this grant obligation. It is unlikely
this Phase 2 work will ever get built if not done concurrently with the funded Phase
1 project.
The Town currently has in place a team of highly committed professionals with
focused vision and passion who have invested 2 years in overcoming a myriad of
challenges to champion this project to completion. Re-establishing this passion,
energy, and momentum in the future may prove difficult, diminishing the potential
for the Phase 2 work to advance.
Disadvantages:
Expanding the project to include the Phase 2 work increases the cost.
Applying a lien on a Town property creates an encumbrance which limits the
potential for that property to be used as collateral for other unknown future Town
projects.
Committing to loan payments redirects future Town funds to one specific purpose
and limits its use for other potential future needs/interests. This is true for any
service or project the Town commits to delivering.
Potential loss of the 18-hole golf course if a future Town Board decides to not
budget for the repayment. This decision would go through the full budget process,
providing ample time for public input if a future Town Board was considering this.
Action Recommended:
No staff recommendation. Option presented for board discussion and consideration.
Should the Board decide to proceed, staff recommends awarding the financing
agreement to Saulsbury Hill Financial subject to the conditions and terms described
above.
42
Budget:
General Fund taxes will be used for the repayment in the form of the $435,000 committed
for street and transportation system improvements.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this project is high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to award the financing to Saulsbury Hill Financial
contingent upon development of mutually acceptable documentation using the golf course
or other acceptable assets as collateral with reimbursement of up to $18,000 in legal fees
if the Town Board turns down the final negotiated financing arrangement.
Attachments:
Saulsbury Hill Financial Proposal Letter
Letter of Support – Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board
Letter of Support – Town of Estes Park Shuttle Committee
43
44
Proposal Letter
To: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, (CO)
From: Mr. David J. Clamage
Date: 6 October, 2016, V2
Re: Letter of Proposal; RFP: FINANCING FOR TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE
6 October, 2016, V2
Mr. Duane Hudson
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, (CO)
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mr. Hudson:
SAULSBURY HILL FINANCIAL, LLC, or its’ nominee or assignee, (Lessor), is pleased to submit the
following lease Proposal to Mr. Duane Hudson for TOWN OF ESTES PARK, (CO), (Lessee):
Lessee: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, (CO)
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Security: The underlying property and assets per your request for proposal, “FINANCING FOR
TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURE” as may be funded with the proceeds
of the lease anticipated by this proposal.
Security as offered in the aforementioned “FINANCING FOR TRANSIT FACILITY
PARKING STRUCTURE” , currently proposed to be the Golf Course, or other
mutually acceptable collateral
45
Cost: +/- $4,500,000, plus any applicable sales/use/property taxes and as may be adjusted
by agreement.
Form of Lease: Colorado Form, i.e. Colorado Form Non-Appropriation Lease Purchase.
Term of Lease: The lease may have a term of as indicated below. FINANCING
Interest Rate: 15 Year Term: 2.99%, (Two and 99/100’s percent)
20 Year Term: 3.29%, (Three and 29/100’s percent)
All payments are exclusive of applicable Sales, Use; or, Personal Property Taxes
which are the sole responsibility of the Lessee. This Proposal is made for 10, (Ten),
days from the date hereon.
This interest rate is valid as of the 6 October, 2016, V2; guaranteed for a “document
closing” on or before 6 November, 2016; and, shall adjust until 3, (Three), days in
advance of closing proportionate with the greater of the 7 Year US Treasury Bill or 7
Year Interest Rate SWAP as published at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/. Pending the timing and nature of
your award/decision, we may be able to lock/hold this interest rate for an extended
period of time.
Rate: All interest rate quotes are subject to Lessor’s approval of the subject credit and do not
constitute an approval of any transaction; all rates are subject to change; and, fixed rate quotes can be
made available and are subject to time limitations. The information provided in this document is not
intended to be and should not be construed as “advice” within the meaning of Section 15B of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the municipal advisor rules of the SEC or MSRB.
Purchase Option: Providing that there shall have been no default, the lease shall have an end of term
purchase option equal to $1.
Expiration: Lessors issuance of this Proposal shall remain valid for 10, (Ten), days from the date
hereon. All purchase orders must be issued by the Lessor.
Documentation
and Cancellation: This Proposal is subject to documentation satisfactory to the Lessor. This Proposal
does not yet constitute an approval of the Lessee and is subject to the normal terms
and conditions for credit approval as set forth by the Lessor.
Net Lease: The proposed lease is absolutely net, with Lessee responsible for maintenance,
insurance and all taxes. However, the Lessee may purchase Extended Service
and/or Maintenance Coverage(s) from the Vendor or Manufacturer.
Insurance: Lessee shall, prior to funding, provide Lessor written confirmation of insurance
coverage acceptable to Lessor, including: All risk physical damage, bodily injury and
property damage with an endorsement that said insurance is primary to any that
Lessor may have and that Lessor shall be "additional insured and loss payee".
Colorado forms of “self-insurance” are generally acceptable.
Lease Agreement: This Proposal is subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Lease Agreement.
46
Modification: The Lessee understands and acknowledges that the terms and conditions outlined
herein may be modified in accordance with the market conditions prevailing for the
type of finance requested. Further, the Lessee acknowledged that said modifications
are in its best interests and shall permit and hereby authorizes such modifications to
expedite the processing of this application.
Additional
Information: Please provide this office, with your signed acceptance of this Proposal, full and
complete copies of the following information:
Additional information may, from time to time, be requested by the Lessor and
the Lessee and Vendor shall provide all reasonable assistance in these
matters.
Please provide the last 3, (Three), years ending audited financial statements for
the Lessee, including the current fiscal years form of budget.
The parties to this agreement recognize and acknowledge there are conditions
precedent for the Lessee to undertake this transaction, including and not limited
to:
o Approval by the Town Council for the Lessee scheduled to take place on
or before the 11th of October, 2017
o Selection of collateral for the anticipated Security Provisions
Pursuant to these provisions in this section and elsewhere in this document, the
parties agree to undertake their best efforts to prepare and negotiate suitable and
appropriate documentation; selection of Security; and, other key provisions.
The Lessee agrees to be liable for the costs of the Lessor’s counsel up to a
maximum of $18,000, (Eighteen thousand dollars), in the event the parties
undertake these efforts and the Lessee is unable to consummate the transaction
anticipated by this proposal with said payment to be made directly to and for the
benefit of Lessor’s counsel in these matters.
Venue: In and for the matters arising out of any dispute, interpretation or any other legal
proceeding regarding this Proposal of the financing transaction anticipated by this
Proposal, the choice of law and the venue for any and all such proceedings shall be
the City and County of Denver in the State of Colorado, unless otherwise specified in
writing by Saulsbury Hill Financial, or it's nominee, (Lessor). The lease anticipated by
this Proposal shall be subject to the laws of the State of Colorado.
Application: With your acceptance of this application, please so indicate your acceptance of these
terms and conditions with your signature hereon. Lessee agrees to be bound
exclusively to Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC or its’ assigns for any and all matters
pursuant to this proposal for a period of not less than 90, (Ninety), days from the date
of Lessee's signature hereon. Further, any and all banks, lessors, investors or other
funding sources made known to the Lessee by Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC or its
assigns during the course of these matters are and shall be the exclusive property of
Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC for the duration of the longest lease anticipated by this
proposal.
47
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. David J. Clamage at (303) 629-8777. If you
agree with the terms and conditions and wish to accept this Proposal, please indicate your acceptance by
signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
David J. Clamage
DJC:ao
_____________________________________________________
Lessee: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, (CO)
By: _____________________________________________
Date: ____________________
This proposal is submitted in response to your Request for [Proposals/Qualifications/Bids] dated 15 September, 2016 as
amended. The contents of this proposal and any subsequent discussions between us, including any and all information,
recommendations, opinions, indicative pricing, quotations and analysis with respect to any municipal financial product or issuance
of municipal securities, are provided to you in reliance upon the exemption provided for responses to requests for proposals or
qualifications under the municipal advisor rules (the “Rules”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Rule 15Ba1-1 et seq.).
In submitting this proposal, we are not undertaking to act as a “municipal advisor” to you or any other person within the meaning of
Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Rules. In connection with this proposal and the transactions
described herein, we are not acting as a financial advisor or municipal advisor to you or any other person, and are not subject to
any fiduciary duty to you or to any other person. We understand that you will consult with and rely on the advice of your own
municipal, financial, tax, legal and other advisors in connection with your evaluation of this proposal and the transactions
described herein.
This is a proposal only and is not a commitment to finance. This proposal is subject to credit review and approval and proper
execution of mutually acceptable documentation.
This transaction must be credit approved, all documents properly executed and returned Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC and the
transaction funded on ALL proposals on or before 6 October, 2016. If funding does not occur within that time-frame, or there is a
change of circumstance which adversely affects the expectations, rights, or security of Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC or its
assignees, then Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC or its assignees reserve the right to adjust and determine a new interest rate factor
and payment amount, or withdraw this proposal in its entirety.
This transaction must be designated as tax-exempt under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended.
The information provided in this document is not intended to be and should not be construed as “advice” within the meaning of
Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the municipal advisor rules of the SEC or MSRB.
In its capacity as leasing arranger, Saulsbury Hill Financial, LLC (“SHF”) is acting on an arm’s-length basis and for its own interest.
SHF is not serving as a municipal or financial advisor to you or any other party involved in the proposed transaction, and has no
fiduciary duty to you or any other party. SHF is not recommending that you take an action with respect to any information
contained in this document. Before acting on this information, you are free to discuss it with the financial and/or municipal, legal,
48
accounting, tax and other advisors you deem appropriate. If you would like a municipal advisor that has legal fiduciary duties to
you, then you are free to engage a municipal advisor to serve in that capacity.
This proposal is submitted in response to your Request for [Proposals/Qualifications/Bids] dated August 2016 as amended. The
contents of this proposal and any subsequent discussions between us, including any and all information, recommendations,
opinions, indicative pricing, quotations and analysis with respect to any municipal financial product or issuance of municipal
securities, are provided to you in reliance upon the exemption provided for responses to requests for proposals or qualifications
under the municipal advisor rules (the “Rules”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Rule 15Ba1-1 et seq.).
In submitting this proposal, we are not undertaking to act as a “municipal advisor” to you or any other person within the meaning of
Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Rules. In connection with this proposal and the transactions
described herein, we are not acting as a financial advisor or municipal advisor to you or any other person, and are not subject to
any fiduciary duty to you or to any other person. We understand that you will consult with and rely on the advice of your own
municipal, financial, tax, legal and other advisors in connection with your evaluation of this proposal and the transactions
described herein.
49
50
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
Public Works Director Muhonen
From:Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date:October 6, 2016
RE:TAB Recommendation to borrow funds to complete the Visitor Center Parking
Structure
At its regularly scheduled September meeting, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) received an
update from Public Works Director Muhonen on the opportunity to finance phase 2 of the Visitor Center
Parking Lot, thereby allowing the lot to be built in its entirety at one time rather than in phases.
Based on the information received at that meeting and subsequent information shared by Director
Muhonen, the Transportation Advisory Board elected to conduct a vote by email on the following
motion:
To prepare a memo to the Town Board asking them to proceed with a $4.5 million loan in order
to construct phase 1 and phase 2 of the Visitor Center Parking Structure simultaneously, which is
expected to:
1)maximize the number of parking spaces available
2) reduce construction time, thereby minimizing impact to the community, and
3) reduce overall construction costs versus a two-phase project
Seven of the nine members voted by email, thus providing a quorum. Of the seven votes received, 6
votes were in favor, one abstained. Two members had not voted as of the writing of this memo. Given
the results of this vote, we ask the Town Board to proceed with the loan to construct the Visitor Center
Parking Structure in full. Parking is a critical need for the community.
51
October 6, 2016
Town Board
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works, made a presentation to the Shuttle Committee today at
their regular meeting concerning the options available for construction of the parking structure in
the south lot of the Estes Park Visitor Center. We are writing to affirm the proposal for the Town
of Estes Park to seek the additional funding necessary to complete Phase 1 & 2 concurrently by
obtaining outside financing. We acknowledge that completing both phases at the same time will
1)create the maximum number of parking spaces in a shorter amount of time, 2) create less
interruption to residents and guests wanting to use the Town’s shuttles and the Visitor Center,
and 3) reduce overall constructions costs.
The Shuttle Committee recommends that the Town Board move forward with adequate funding
to complete both phases by the summer of 2017.
We look forward to serving the additional riders of the Estes Park Free Shuttles who will access
the transportation hub at the Visitor Center via the new parking structure.
On behalf of the Shuttle Committee,
Brian Wells
Shuttle Coordinator
Town of Estes Park, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3963 E-mail: bwells@estes.org Web: estes.org/shuttles
52
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: October 11, 2016
RE: Project Design Services Change Order for the Estes Park Transit Facility
Parking Structure Phase 2
Objective:
Deliver 310 new parking spaces in the proposed Estes Park Transit Facility Parking
Structure before July 2017 by completing 5 critical steps:
1)Increase the price and term of the existing Project Management contract with
Space Into Place Architecture & Design (SIPAD) to reflect changes in the project
scope and duration (approved Sep 27).
2)Hire a credible & trustworthy Independent Cost Estimator to review all
construction costs and confirm fair, market-value pricing is honored throughout
the construction (approved Sep 27).
3)Hire a first class Construction Manager/General Contractor and team of
tradesmen to meet the project scope and cost goals (approved Sep 27).
4)Obtain $4 million in additional construction funding through a private financier to
accomplish the Phase 2 third and fourth levels concurrently with the funded
Phase 1 ground plus second level (Oct 11 Action Item).
5)Increase the price and term of the existing Design Services Contract to complete
the construction documents and provide periodic construction administration for
the elevated third and fourth levels in the structure (this Item).
Present Situation:
In July, 2013, the Town contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to design a ground-
plus-two level parking garage east of the Visitor Center and accessed from US34.
Several change orders were approved by the previous Public Works Director. In
November, 2014, the Town opened and rejected all bids on this project, as all bids
exceeded the available funding.
At the Town Board meeting on March 24, 2015, the Public Works staff was authorized
to seek approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Bureau of
53
Reclamation (BoR) to relocate the new transit facility parking structure from the north
parking lot to the south parking lot at the Estes Park Visitor Center where fewer utility
and access conflicts exist. This was a complicated endeavor which requires substantial
time to complete a new preliminary design, draft a new Environmental Assessment,
negotiate a Special Use Permit with the BoR, perform a new geotechnical investigation,
coordinate utility impacts, mitigate concerns from the EVRPD, obtain formal approval
from FTA, complete the final design, obtain two new access permits from CDOT, bid the
project, build the project, and complete the closeout paperwork for cost reimbursement
from the grant funding agencies. This action included a signed Additional Services
Request with Walker Parking Consultants in the amount of $300,000 for the preliminary
and final design of ground-plus-one level parking facility at the new location.
In July of 2016, the Town obtained FTA approval to relocate the proposed transit facility
parking structure. The delay to obtain the approval jeopardized our $400k FASTER
funding from CDOT. In order to preserve this grant funding and minimize further
construction cost escalation, the Town pursued a fast-tracked Construction
Manager/General Contractor project delivery method.
Preparation of the construction contracts prompted exploration of potentially building the
full parking structure in one combined phase. A number of efficiencies and benefits
were identified. Walker Parking Consultants was asked to provide a fee proposal
(change order) to expand their scope of work to design the full four level structure. A
copy of the proposed Change Order 7 is attached.
Proposal:
The Public Works Department proposes to extend the Walker Parking Consultants
(WPC) design services contract through December 1, 2017 and increase the price by
$153,030 from $969,087 to $1,122,117. The change order also changes the nature of
the Professional Services Agreement from a lump sum contract to a time and materials
contract. Only the actual time expended and expenses incurred on the project will be
paid for. Hourly rates are updated from 2013 values to 2016 values.
Advantages:
•WPC has in-depth familiarity with the project design since they assembled the
design team for the original project at the Visitor Center north site in 2013.
•WPC is a specialized, nationally renowned Colorado firm with vast design and
renovation experience on parking structures throughout the United States. They will
deliver a high-quality, well-designed structure.
•Contract extension/expansion retains the existing project momentum and
knowledge, and is necessary to meet the project objective which more effectively
addresses the parking shortage is Estes Park.
•WPC is available now to assist the Town in moving this project aggressively forward
toward the goal of construction completion in 2017.
54
Disadvantages:
•Expanding the project scope and duration increases project cost.
•Potential loan funding of Phase 2 work increases Town indebtedness while
procuring lower current construction pricing and decreasing future disruption to
traffic and the economy.
Action Recommended:
The Public Works Department recommends the Town Board authorize the Mayor to
sign the proposed Change Order authorizing the expenditure increase of $153,030 for
Phase 2 work contingent upon receipt of Phase 2 construction funding. The revised
contract price is not to exceed $1,122,117.
Budget:
The remain future expenses for the Phase 1 parking structure tasks would be paid fully
with existing grant and local funds from account number 204-5400-3544-36-53 of the
Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF). On March 24, 2015, the Town approved an
increase of $750,000 for this project which includes $300,000 for WPC design services.
Authorization to spend the proposed Phase 2 final design costs of $153,030 is
conditional upon the Town Board approving a future financing agreement and a $4
million project budget increase for the Phase 2 work.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this project is high. Public interest in this proposed
change order is low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a Change Order to
extend the Walking Parking Consultants design services contract through December 31,
2017 and increase the price to $1,122,117, contingent upon the terms and conditions
described in the staff Memo.
Attachments:
Existing Professional Services Contract
Proposed Change Order for expanded project design services (Phase 2)
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Town of Estes Park
Public Works Department
CHANGE ORDER
Change Order # _007_________ as of (date): , 2016
PROJECT NAME: _Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure Professional Engineering and Design Services
Contractor: Walker Parking Consultants Original Contract Value: $ 619,887.00__
Address: 5350 South Roslyn Street, Suite 220, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
The contractor hereby agrees to comply with the following changes and/or additions to the contract plans and
specifications. Upon Contractor and Owner approval, the work and contract documents for this Project will be
adjusted to include the following:
Description of Changes & Work (list) Value of Change
(attach drawing, detail, page #, etc.)
Term of contract end date to be extended to Dec. 1, 2017
Adjustment of Professional Services Fee due to change in Project Delivery Method to CMGC, and Professional Services
billable rates from 2013 to 2017. Services were decreased to meet original budget after professional service fee
increase of approximately 15%. $1,965.00
Additional Services to add Phase Two (Levels 3 and 4) Design and Construction Administration.
$151,065.00
Adjustments to Contract Price Completion Date
Original Contract: $ _619,887.00____ ____12/01/15__
Previous Change Orders (1-6): $ _349,200.00____ ____12/01/15__
Adjustments by this Change Order $ 153,030.00 ____12/01/17__
Revised Contract Total – including this CO $ 1,122,117.00 12/01/17
APPROVED BY:
Company: ___Walker Parking Consultants Town of Estes Park
By: __Robert Stanley, PE By: _Todd Jirsa
Title: __Vice President Title: _Mayor
Date: Date:
Signature: Signature:
This document will become supplemental to the Contract and all provisions will be included.
73
Company Expenses Total
CD's CA
Walker 134,195$ 75,030$ 3,900$ 213,125$
MKA 30,400$ 6,400$ 578$ 37,378$
SSG 5,690$ 2,585$ 350$ 8,625$
CE Group 11,540$ 2,945$ 350$ 14,835$
Van Horn 12,545$ 4,570$ -$ 17,115$
Total 194,370$ 91,530$ 5,178$
Grand Total
Company Expenses Total
CD's CA
Walker 204,095$ 120,230$ 5,350$ 329,675$
MKA 49,120$ 11,520$ 578$ 61,218$
SSG 9,860$ 3,605$ 550$ 14,015$
CE Group 15,700$ 3,870$ 550$ 20,120$
Van Horn 12,545$ 4,570$ -$ 17,115$
Total 291,320$ 143,795$ 7,028$
Grand Total $442,143
Fees
$291,078
Estes Park: Grnd + 1 Supported Lvl Parking Structure. T&M Fees 100616
Estes Park: Grnd + 3 Supported Lvl Parking Structure. T&M Fees 100616
Fees
74
ƐƚĞƐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͗'ƌŽƵŶĚнϭ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚ>ĞǀĞůZĂƚĞdŽƚĂů,ŽƵƌƐdŽƚĂůŽƐƚ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐΘZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐtĂůůƐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ^ƚĂŝƌƐWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůϮϰϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϮϮ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬΨϮϮ ϮϮϮ ϮWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌϭϵϱ͘ϬϬΨ ϰϲϵ ϵϭ͕ϰϱϱ͘ϬϬΨϮϱϴϭϲϯϮϱϰ ϰϮ ϭϮ ϯϮ ϭϮϭϮϭϮϰϭϰϬϲϬϮϬϲϰϰϬϭϬ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌϭϵϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϯϯϴ ϲϰ͕ϮϮϬ͘ϬϬΨϴϴϬ ϳϮ ϭϴ ϴϴϰϰϳϮϰϲϬĞƐŝŐŶĞƌϭϱϱ͘ϬϬΨ ϮϳϰϰϮ͕ϰϳϬ͘ϬϬΨϬϲϲ ϱϰ ϯϮ ϰϴ ϰϰϰϴϭϰϭϲϮϰĚŵŝŶƐƐƚ͘ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϴϮϴ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬΨϮϭϮ ϭϮ ϰ ϴϮϭϲϭϮϭϮϮϮϱϴϭϲϰϮϮϭϰϭϴϮ ϲϲ ϵϴ ϭϲϮϰϮϬϭϮϯϲϬ ϭϲϲϮϰϳϲ ϭϯϴϭϮdKd> ϭϭϳϱϮϬϵ͕ϮϮϱ͘ϬϬΨΨϰ͕ϴϳϱ Ψϭ͕ϱϲϬΨϯ͕ϭϮϬΨϳ͕ϵϲϬΨϯϳ͕ϲϰϬΨϯϭ͕ϵϮϬΨϭϭ͕ϭϮϬΨϭϲ͕ϰϴϬΨϮ͕ϵϲϬΨϰ͕ϰϴϬΨϯ͕ϳϮϬΨϮ͕ϬϮϬΨϲ͕ϯϰϬΨϬ ΨϮϵ͕ϵϰϬΨϰ͕ϲϲϬΨϭϯ͕ϲϴϬΨϮϰ͕ϲϬϬΨϮ͕ϭϱϬ džƉĞŶƐĞƐWĞƌdƌŝƉ džƉĞŶƐĞƐ ϭϱϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϲ Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ;/ŶĐůƵĚĞƐŵŝůĞĂŐĞ͕ƚŽůůƐ͕ĂŶĚŵĞĂůƐ͘EŽůŽĚŐŝŶŐͿDŝƐĐĞdžƉĞŶƐĞƐ;ƌĞƉƌŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ͕ĞƚĐͿϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ;ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞͿΨϯ͕ϵϬϬdKd>;ŝŶĐů͘ džƉĞŶƐĞƐͿϮϭϯ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬΨ ƐƚĞƐWĂƌŬWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͗'ƌŽƵŶĚнϯ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚ>ĞǀĞůƐZĂƚĞdŽƚĂů,ŽƵƌƐdŽƚĂůŽƐƚ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐΘZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐtĂůůƐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ^ƚĂŝƌƐWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůϮϰϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϮϮ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬΨϮϮ ϮϮϮ ϮWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌϭϵϱ͘ϬϬΨ ϲϴϯ ϭϯϯ͕ϭϴϱ͘ϬϬΨϮϱϴϭϲϯϮϱϰ ϴϬ Ϯϰ ϲϬ ϮϰϮϰϭϮϰϭϰϬϴϬϲϬϵϲϲϬϭϬ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌϭϵϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϱϱϮ ϭϬϰ͕ϴϴϬ͘ϬϬΨϭϲϴϬ ϭϰϬ ϰϴ ϭϲϭϮϰϰϭϮϬϭϲϵϲĞƐŝŐŶĞƌϭϱϱ͘ϬϬΨ ϰϳϲϳϯ͕ϳϴϬ͘ϬϬΨϬϲϲ ϭϰϬ ϴϬ ϴϬ ϴϭϮϰϴϭϰϯϮϯϮĚŵŝŶƐƐƚ͘ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϵϲϵ͕ϲϬϬ͘ϬϬΨϮϭϮ ϭϮ ϰ ϴϮϭϲϭϴϮϬϮϮϱϴϭϲϱϬϮϭϰϯϳϰ ϭϱϲ ϭϲϲ ϯϮϰϴϮϬϭϮϯϲϬ ϮϱϬϳϲ ϭϭϰ ϮϭϬϭϮdKd> ϭϴϭϵϯϮϰ͕ϯϮϱ͘ϬϬΨΨϰ͕ϴϳϱ Ψϭ͕ϱϲϬΨϯ͕ϭϮϬΨϵ͕ϰϴϬΨϯϳ͕ϲϰϬΨϲϱ͕ϱϴϬΨϮϲ͕ϲϬϬΨϮϴ͕ϰϮϬΨϱ͕ϵϮϬΨϴ͕ϴϮϬΨϯ͕ϳϮϬΨϮ͕ϬϮϬΨϲ͕ϯϰϬΨϬ Ψϰϱ͕ϰϰϬΨϭϰ͕ϳϰϬΨϮϬ͕ϱϮϬΨϯϳ͕ϯϴϬΨϮ͕ϭϱϬ džƉĞŶƐĞƐWĞƌdƌŝƉ džƉĞŶƐĞƐ ϭϱϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϵ Ϯ͕ϴϱϬ͘ϬϬΨ ;/ŶĐůƵĚĞƐŵŝůĞĂŐĞ͕ƚŽůůƐ͕ĂŶĚŵĞĂůƐ͘EŽůŽĚŐŝŶŐͿDŝƐĐĞdžƉĞŶƐĞƐ;ƌĞƉƌŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ͕ĞƚĐͿϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ;ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞͿΨϱ͕ϯϱϬdKd>;ŝŶĐů͘ džƉĞŶƐĞƐͿϯϮϵ͕ϲϳϱ͘ϬϬΨ/ƐƐƵĞEĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ/ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶƐΘůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ;Z&/ƐͿŽŶĚƵĐƚ^ŝƚĞsŝƐŝƚƚŽWƌĞƉĂƌĞWƵŶĐŚůŝƐƚΘ&ŝŶĂůWƵŶĐŚůŝƐƚZĞǀŝĞǁ;ϭƚƌŝƉƐͿdŽƚĂů,ŽƵƌƐƉĞƌdĂƐŬĞƐŝŐŶ ŶƚƌLJͬ džŝƚƐ͕/ƐůĂŶĚƐ͕ƵƌďƐ͕YƵĞŝŶŐƌĞĂƐ͕ ƚĐ͘ƚƚĞŶĚWƌĞͲĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ:ŽďƐŝƚĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ;ϬƚƌŝƉͿZĞǀŝĞǁ^ŚŽƉƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ^ĂŵƉůĞ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƐƚƚĞŶĚǁĞĞŬůLJKDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐǀŝĂŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞͲĂůůWĞƌĨŽƌŵƵƉƚŽϭϮ^ŝƚĞsŝƐŝƚƐWƌĞƉĂƌĞ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂů'ƌĂƉŚŝĐƐΘ^ŝŐŶĂŐĞWůĂŶƐWĞƌĨŽƌŵ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĞƐŝŐŶĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͕tĂƐŚͲĚŽǁŶ͕&ŝƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶΘKƚŚĞƌDĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂů^LJƐƚĞŵƐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁͬŝǀŝů ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽŶƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐ͕ƵƌďƵƚƐ͕^ŝƚĞtŽƌŬΘhƚŝůŝƚLJŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĞƐŝŐŶƐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁͬdŽǁŶŽŶ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐͬ,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐΘ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ;dŽǁŶƚŽWƌŽǀŝĚĞͿƐƐŝƐƚŝŶĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐͬZĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐDͬ'ĂŶĚ/ Z&W;KDW> d ͿƚƚĞŶĚWƌĞͲŝĚDĞĞƚŝŶŐ;ϭƚƌŝƉͿ;KDW> d ͿƐƐŝƐƚdŽǁŶŝŶ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝĚƐнWĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶŐ^ĞƐƐŝŽŶ;ϭ ƚƌŝƉͿƚƚĞŶĚtĞĞŬůLJDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐŝŶ ƐƚĞƐ;ƵƉƚŽϰĂůůĚĂLJŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐďƵĚŐĞƚĞĚͿĞǀĞůŽƉ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƌĂǁŝŶŐƐΘ^ƉĞĐƐt>< ZDͬ'^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ&/E> ^/'EKE^dZhd/KED/E/^dZd/KEdŽƚĂů,ŽƵƌƐƉĞƌdĂƐŬ&/E> ^/'EWƌĞƉĂƌĞ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂů'ƌĂƉŚŝĐƐΘ^ŝŐŶĂŐĞWůĂŶƐWĞƌĨŽƌŵ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĞƐŝŐŶƚƚĞŶĚtĞĞŬůLJDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐŝŶ ƐƚĞƐ;ƵƉƚŽϰĂůůĚĂLJŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐďƵĚŐĞƚĞĚͿĞǀĞůŽƉ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƌĂǁŝŶŐƐΘ^ƉĞĐƐĞƐŝŐŶ ŶƚƌLJͬ džŝƚƐ͕/ƐůĂŶĚƐ͕ƵƌďƐ͕YƵĞŝŶŐƌĞĂƐ͕ ƚĐ͘ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁͬdŽǁŶŽŶ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐͬ,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐΘ^ƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ;dŽǁŶƚŽWƌŽǀŝĚĞͿŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁͬŝǀŝů ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽŶƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐ͕ƵƌďƵƚƐ͕^ŝƚĞtŽƌŬΘhƚŝůŝƚLJŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĞƐŝŐŶƐĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͕tĂƐŚͲĚŽǁŶ͕&ŝƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶΘKƚŚĞƌDĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂů^LJƐƚĞŵƐƐƐŝƐƚŝŶĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐͬZĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐDͬ'ĂŶĚ/ Z&W;KDW> d ͿƚƚĞŶĚWƌĞͲŝĚDĞĞƚŝŶŐ;ϭƚƌŝƉͿ;KDW> d ͿƐƐŝƐƚdŽǁŶŝŶ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝĚƐнWĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶŐ^ĞƐƐŝŽŶ;ϭƚƌŝƉͿDͬ'^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶt>< ZKE^dZhd/KED/E/^dZd/KEŽŶĚƵĐƚ^ŝƚĞsŝƐŝƚƚŽWƌĞƉĂƌĞWƵŶĐŚůŝƐƚΘ&ŝŶĂůWƵŶĐŚůŝƐƚZĞǀŝĞǁ;ϭƚƌŝƉͿƚƚĞŶĚWƌĞͲĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ:ŽďƐŝƚĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ;ϬƚƌŝƉͿZĞǀŝĞǁ^ŚŽƉƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ^ĂŵƉůĞ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƐƚƚĞŶĚǁĞĞŬůLJKDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐǀŝĂŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞͲĂůůWĞƌĨŽƌŵƵƉƚŽϴ^ŝƚĞsŝƐŝƚƐ/ƐƐƵĞEĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ/ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶƐΘůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ;Z&/ƐͿ75
Estes Park Parking Garage - Redesign Hourly Fee Estimation
9/6/2016
Mechanical & Plumbing: Ground + 1 Supported Level
The CE Group, Inc.PrincipalProject ManagerSr. DesignerDesignerCAD DraftspersonAdministrative$180.00$150.00$130.00$105.00$75.00$70.00Line Item Sum
Construction Document - Redesign
Mechnical & Plumbing Redesign 10 60 2 8,240.00$
Fire Protection Prelim Plans & Preformance Spec. 1 10 10 2 2,880.00$
(4) Project Meeting Conf. Calls 4 420.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR REDESIGN
Construction Administration
Construction Administration (Submittals, RFI, etc.)3 2 10 2 2,030.00$
One site walks/ reports 1 7 915.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR CA
Total Hours for Redeisgn and CA 15 12 0 91 2 4
Reimbursables (printing) 150.00$
200.00$
$14,835.00
Mechanical & Plumbing: Ground + 3 Supported Level
The CE Group, Inc.PrincipalProject ManagerSr. DesignerDesignerCAD DraftspersonAdministrative$180.00$150.00$130.00$105.00$75.00$70.00Line Item Sum
Construction Document - Redesign
Mechnical & Plumbing Redesign 12 1 70 10 4 10,690.00$
Fire Protection Prelim Plans & Preformance Spec. 2 14 12 6 4,170.00$
(4) Deisgn Team Coordination Calls 8 840.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR REDESIGN
Construction Administration
Construction Administration (Submittals, RFI, etc.)4 3 15 3 2,955.00$
One site walks/ reports 1 7 915.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR CA
Total Hours for Redeisgn and CA 19 18 0 112 16 7
Reimbursables (printing) 150.00$
400.00$
$20,120.00
2016 Hourly Rate
$11,540.00
$2,945.00
Reimbursables (gas)
Total Labor and Reimbursables Fee (Hourly Not to Exceed)
2016 Hourly Rate
$15,700.00
$3,870.00
Reimbursables (gas)
Total Labor and Reimbursables Fee (Hourly Not to Exceed)
76
Estes Park Parking Garage - Redesign Hourly Fee Estimation
9/7/2016
Electrical: Ground + 1 Supported Level
SSG MEP, Inc.PrincipalProject ManagerStaff EngineerDesignerCAD/BIM DrafterBusiness Manager$165.00$135.00$110.00$95.00$75.00$95.00Line Item Sum
Construction Document - Redesign
Electrical, lighting Redesign 8 40 2 5,310.00$
-$
(4) Deisgn Team Coordination Calls 4 380.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR REDESIGN
Construction Administration
Construction Administration (Submittals, RFI, etc.)3 12 2 1,825.00$
One site walk/ reports 8 760.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR CA
Total Hours for Redeisgn and CA 11 0 0 64 0 4
150.00$
Reimbursables (gas)200.00$
$8,625.00
Electrical: Ground + 3 Supported Levels
SSG MEP, Inc.PrincipalProject ManagerStaff EngineerDesignerCAD/BIM DrafterBusiness Manager$165.00$135.00$110.00$95.00$75.00$95.00Line Item Sum
Construction Document - Redesign
Electrical, lighting Redesign 16 56 4 8,340.00$
-$
(8) Deisgn Team Coordination Calls 12 1,140.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR REDESIGN
Construction Administration
Construction Administration (Submittals, RFI, etc.)4 16 3 2,465.00$
Two site walks/ reports 16 1,520.00$
DIRECT LABOR COST FOR CA
Total Hours for Redeisgn and CA 20 0 0 100 0 7
150.00$
Reimbursables (gas)400.00$
$14,015.00
Total Labor and Reimbursables Fee (Hourly Not to Exceed)
Reimbursables (printing)
$5,690.00
$2,585.00
$9,480.00
$3,985.00
Reimbursables (printing)
Total Labor and Reimbursables Fee (Hourly Not to Exceed)
77
Estes Park Transit Facility Parking StructureLicensedSenior Staff1PF Survey2PF Survey3PF Survey SiteComputerGeneralTaskPrincipalProfessionalEngineerEngineerCrewCrewCrewVisitDraftingOfficeExpensesSubtotalsTotalHourly Rates$120$115$95$90$130$160$190$70$85$67SCOPE OF SERVICEDesign Work:1 Preliminary Design1.07.07.0$1,340.002 Removals Plan4.04.0$700.003 Grading and Drainage1.08.08.0$1,515.004. Erosion Control Concept4.06.0$870.005 Paving sections (per Geotech)3.03.0$525.006 Preliminary Drainage Study Report1.08.04.0$1,175.007 Concepts for Water Quality/Detention Pond1.04.02.0$645.008 Planning Commission Submission1.55.02.0$792.509 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Constrcution Costs (Civil Elements Only)1.08.0$835.0010 Final Design 1.04.04.0$815.0011 Site Geometrics1.06.08.0$1,335.0012 Details (Civil Elements Only)1.08.020.0$2,535.0013 Final Removals Plan2.03.0$435.0014 Final Grading and Drainage6.010.0$1,390.0015 Final Erosion Control2.03.0$435.0016 Geometry and Point Information4.08.0$1,040.0017 Final Paving Sections3.01.0$355.0018 Relevant Site Civil Notes (Including CDOT Standard Notes and Details)2.08.0$860.0019 Final Drainage Study Report and Plan1.510.08.0$1,752.5020 Final Water Quality Design0.52.02.0$407.5021 Deleted from Scope $0.0022 Final Site Civil Specifications1.08.0$835.0023 Final Schedule of Site Civil Items2.02.0$350.0024 Deleted from Scope $0.0025 Construction Phase1.010.06.0$1,525.0026 Review Shop Drawings, RFI's, and Site Visits1.010.06.0$1,525.0027 Deleted from Scope $0.0028 Meetings associated with CMGC16.0$1,520.00PROPOSAL TASK TOTAL:$25,512.50Note: This hourly fee schedule applies to both the two story and four story garage structure. Highlighted line items have already been completed and billed to date.October 6, 2016PROFESSIONAL SERVICES$8,397.50$17,115.00VAN HORN (Civil)78
Duration Principal Intern 1 Total
2015 Rate 150$ 50$
Task 1: Schematic Design 8 Weeks
Concept design, site review and Schematic design 40 40 8,000$
Cost model 8 1,200$
(24) Renderings and Elevations 20 120 9,000$
Community Presentation 8 8 1,600$
Subtotal 19,800$ Complete
Task 2: Planning Submission 2 Weeks
Document Preparation - - -$
Subtotal -$ complete
Duration Principal Intern 3 Total
2016 Rate 160$ 60$
Task 3: Construction Documentation 8 Weeks
CMGC process (2 meetings)4 - 640$
Modeling Repair and update 40 2,400$
Construction Drawings 128 80 25,280$
Specifications 4 24 2,080$
Update final Renderings NIC
Bidding and Negotiations NIC
Subtotal 30,400$
Duration Principal Arch I Total
2017 Rate (effective 1/1/17)160$ 70$
Task 4: Construction Observation 42 Weeks
Shop Drawing Q &A (Review performed by Owner)16 - 2,560$
RFIs Q & A (Response Developed and Issued by Owner)16 - 2,560$
Field Visit (1)8 - 1,280$
Subtotal 6,400$
Total T &M estimate (CDs and CA only)36,800$
Expenses (not to exceed)
Travel Miles 1 trips 77.76$ 78$
Internal Prints and Copies 500$
Total Estimated Fee (CD's and CA only)37,378$
Duration Principal Intern 1 Total
2015 Rate 150$ 50$
Task 1: Schematic Design 8 Weeks
Concept design, site review and Schematic design 40 40 8,000$
Cost model 8 1,200$
(24) Renderings and Elevations 20 120 9,000$
Community Presentation 8 8 1,600$
Subtotal 19,800$ Complete
Task 2: Planning Submission 2 Weeks
Document Preparation - - -$
Subtotal -$ complete
Duration Principal Intern 3 Total
2016 Rate 160$ 60$
Task 3: Construction Documentation 8 Weeks
CMGC process (2 meetings)4 - 640$
Modeling Repair and update 80 4,800$
Construction Drawings 200 160 41,600$
Specifications 4 24 2,080$
Update final Renderings NIC
Bidding and Negotiations NIC
Subtotal 49,120$
Duration Principal Arch I Total
2017 Rate (effective 1/1/17)160$ 70$
Task 4: Construction Observation 42 Weeks
Shop Drawing Q &A (Review performed by Owner)32 - 5,120$
RFIs Q & A (Response Developed and Issued by Owner)32 - 5,120$
Field Visits 8 - 1,280$
Subtotal 11,520$
Total T &M estimate (CDs and CA only)60,640$
Expenses (not to exceed)
Travel Miles 1 trip 77.76$ 78$
Internal Prints and Copies 500$
Total Estimated Fee (CD's and CA only)61,218$
MKA (Architectural): Ground + 1 Supported
MKA (Architectural): Ground + 3 Supported
79
80
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority orderKEY OUTCOME AREASGOALS (5‐7 YEARS)2017 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)a. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user‐friendlyand easier to understand and use, while ensuring they are effective and enforceable and support development. 1.Revise the sign code to be simpler and easier to understand while retaining thebasic intent.b. We will encourage optimal use of the PRPA/Town fiber infrastructure.2. Decide on options and next steps for implementation to provide increasebroadband accessc. We will operate in a manner that provides a business friendlyenvironment.3. Complete the broadband engineering designd. The Town will encourage events, activities and development thatenhance a year round economy.4. Complete Downtown Neighborhood Plan and develop implementation options inpartnership with the downtown residents and businesses. (e.g. BID, DDA, URA, etc.)5. Serve a supportive role in the formation and operation of a Creative Arts District.6. Continue to participate in local, regional, and state economic development.7. The Board will define what products they desire from the EDC8. Define the role of Town government in economic development as it relates to theEstes Park EDC and other organizations.a. We will provide safe access for users to the trail system.1. Repair Fish Creek Trail damaged during the floodb. We will continue to develop connectivity of trails in the Estes Valley inpartnership with other local entities as described in the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan2. Pursue funding opportunities for construction of the Fall River Trail.c. We will continue to address parking options throughout the Town. 3. Start planning for the use of the Trails Special Revenue Fund formed by Ballot Issue1A sales tax revenue.d. We will develop plans and build the financial strength for redundantraw water sources to our water treatment plants. 4. Repair Fish Creek Trail damaged during the floode. We will complete stall replacements at the Fairgrounds5. Complete construction of phase 1 of the Visitor Center Transit Facility ParkingStructure.6. Pursue funding for future phases of the Visitor Center Transit Facility ParkingStructure.7. Pursue funding for additional parking8. Develop an overall parking strategy plan9. Define and consider implementation of a paid parking program2Infrastructure ‐ We have reliable, efficient and up‐to‐date infrastructure serving our residents, businesses and guests.Town of Estes Park 2017 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.1Robust Economy ‐ We have a diverse, healthy year‐round economy.e. The Town will participate as a partner in local, regional and stateeconomic development efforts.2017 Draft 1Strategic Plan81
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority orderKEY OUTCOME AREASGOALS (5‐7 YEARS)2017 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)Town of Estes Park 2017 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.10. Develop and adopt a policy on Town installation of empty conduit with otherTown projects.11. Consider implementation of the Storm Water master plan and formation of astorm water utility12. Revise Master plan for Events Complex13. Develop a facilities needs assessment for equipment and other storage, includingthe museum collections and police evidence. 14. Replace the Mobile Stage15. Develop a plan and proposal for replacement and repair of security camera system16. Prioritize infrastructure needs and projectsa. The Events Complex meets the 2013 CH Johnson pro‐forma financialprojections.1. Re examine the findings and assumptions in the Johnson pro‐forma projectionsb. We will explore options for the future ownership and operation of theConference center2. Develop policy on the support and subsidy for special events4a. We will improve 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 floodinsurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valleyc. We will maintain safe and healthy environments on Town‐ownedproperties. 3. Work to restore the streams damaged by the flood and redefine the floodplainswithin Town boundaries. d. We will investigate alternative technologies for recycling and wastemanagement.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 environmentExceptional Guest Services ‐ We are a preferred Colorado mountain destination providing an exceptional guest experience. 32017 Draft 1Strategic Plan82
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority orderKEY OUTCOME AREASGOALS (5‐7 YEARS)2017 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)Town of Estes Park 2017 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 forunderserved segments of our community1. We will work with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District to integrate theSenior Center into the new Community Center b. We will continue to work with the Estes Valley Recreation and ParksDistrict and the other partners, to develop and build the multi‐generational Community Center, including the Senior Center.2. We will plan and implement the celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Town.c. We will work to make Town codes and regulations more user‐friendlyand easier to understand, while ensuring they are effective, enforceable and support reasonable development. 2. Define housing needs and identify potential plans for action. Develop a strategy foraddressing seasonal workforce housing demands.3. Develop and adopt appropriate code changes to encourage housing development4. Revise the sign code to be simpler and easier to understand while retaining thebasic intent.5. Request that the Board of Appeals complete a review and make recommendationson procedures for processing permits and operations of the building department6. Develop philosophy and policy on funding support to outside entities7. Explore the formation of a Family Advisory Board1. Implement an enterprise wide document management systema. We will maintain a well‐trained and educated town staff.b. We will provide adequate funding for staffing needed to provide theappropriate level of services to our citizens and guests.c. We will conduct a citizen survey biennially to measure ourperformance and citizen preferences.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. 5Governmental 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 of public resources62017 Draft 1Strategic Plan83
*Outcome areas, Goals and Objectives are not listed in any priority orderKEY OUTCOME AREASGOALS (5‐7 YEARS)2017 BOARD OBJECTIVES (1 year time frame)Town of Estes Park 2017 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 continue to manage traffic congestion throughout the Town.1. Develop a 2040 multi‐modal Transportation Master Plan2. Create prioritized lists of sidewalk, bike lanes and trail connectivity projects3. Continue preventative maintenance activities on Town roads, as adequate fundsbecome available. 4. Include bike/pedestrian lanes wherever possible along with the streetimprovements.5. Investigate the costs and opportunities of expanding transit services year round.6. Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the downtown neigborhood, coordinatedwith the Downtown Neighborhood Plan.a. Continue to evaluate financial policies that provide adequate fundbalances and reserves. 1. Develop and adopt a financial reserve policy, including consideration of an overallreserve and minimum/maximum levelsImplement the capital planning process and capital plan for infrastructure 2. Explore areas for enhancing Town revenue ‐ Annexation, Enforcement of Sales TaxCollection, Home Rule, OtherFinal 1 10/11/168Town Financial Health ‐ We maintain a strong and sustainable financial condition, balancing expenditures with available revenues, including adequate cash reserves for future needs and unanticipated emergencies.Transportation ‐ We have safe, efficient and well maintained multi‐modal transportation systems for pedestrians, vehicles and transit.7b. The street rehabilitation efforts will result in an average pavementcondition index of 70 or above for the Town street network by 2024.2017 Draft 1Strategic Plan84
The Town of
Estes Park will
enhance our
position as a
premier
mountain
community .
Robust Economy
We have a diverse, healthyyear round economy
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.
Revise the sign code to be simpler and
easy to understand but retaining the
basic intent.
Accelerate code updates and
improvements
Codes that deal with redevelopment
Codes that deal with housing
Sign code
We will encourage the optimaluse of the PRPA/Town fiberinfrastructure
Decide on options and next steps for
implementation to to provide increase
broadband access
Complete the broadband engineering design
We will operate in a manner thatprovides a business friendlyenvironment.
We will provide all business services in timely manner
The Town will encourage events,
activities and development that
enhance a year round economy.
Complete Downtown Neighborhood Plan
and develop implementation options in
partnership with the downtown residents
and businesses. (BID, DDA, URA, Etc.)
Serve a supportive role in the formation
and operation of a Creative Arts District.
move to outstanding community services
The Town participates as a
partner in State, Regional andLocal Economic Development
efforts
Continue to participate in county,
regional, and state economic planning.
Board will define what products theydesire from the EDC
Staff Participation in Estes ValleyEconomic Development Corporation
Define the role of Town Government in
Economic development as it relates to
other organizations in the Estes valley
Infrastructure
We have reliable,efficient, wellmaintained and up
to dateinfrastructureserving ourresidents,
businesses andguests
Trails and sidewalks
We will provide safe access for
users to the trail system
We will continue to develop
connectivity of trails in the Estes
Valley in partnership with other
local entities as described in theEstes Valley Trails Master Plan.
Fall river trail construction Pursue funding opportunities for
construction of the Fall River Trail
Start planning for the use of the TrailsSpecial Revenue Fund formed by Ballot
Issue 1A sales tax revenue. As includedin the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan
Repair Fish Creek Trail damaged during the flood
Parking lots and transportation hubs
We will continue to address parking
options throughout the Town.
Complete construction of the Phase 1 of
the Visitor's Center parking structure Visitor Center Parking Structure
Pursue funding for future phases of theVisitor's Center Parking Structure.
Pursue funding for additional parking
Develop an overall parking strategy plan Define and consider implementation of a
paid parking program
modify behavior of drivers parking
help fund a downtown parking structure
optimize downtown turn over for
business revenue generation
Possible public/private partnership
Improve traffic movement in downtown core
Maintain existing parking lots develop management plan for parking lots
Utilities
Water
Distribution
maintenance
improvements
Evaluate future raw water needs and supply
Treatment
We will develop plans and build the
financial strength for redundant raw
water sources to our water treatment
plants.
Light and Power
Maintenance of Distribution System
System Improvements
Street light maintenance
Fiber Optics (coordinated with PRPA)
Develop and adopt a policy on Town
installation of empty conduit with otherTown projects.
Consider implementation of the Storm
Water master plan and formation of a
storm water utility
Facilities and Real Property
Building Maintenance and repairs
Actively manage the Town's Real Property
Custodial Services
Building Improvements
Revisit Master Plan for Events Complex We will complete stall replacements
at the Fairgrounds.
Develop a facilities needs assessment
for equipment and other storage,
including the museum collections and
police evidence and property storage
and alarm system
Replace the mobile stage
Develop a plan and proposal for
replacement and repair of security
camera system
Prioritize infrastructure needs and projects
ExceptionalGuest
Services
We are the preferredColorado mountaindestination providing
an exceptional guestexperience.
Special Events
Events Complex
Continue Redevelopment of Stanley Park
The Events Center Complex will
meet the 2013 CH Johnson
pro-forma financial projections
Re examine the findings and
assumptions in the Johnson pro-forma
projections
Events
Town Sponsored events
Event Permitting
Events Coordination
Develop policy on the support and
subsidy for special events
Marketing Marketing of Fairgrounds/ Events Center Complex
Conference Center Marketing
Visitors Center
Call in assistance for guests
Assist walk in guests Coordination of Ambassadors Program
Create and distribute information material
Retail sales of limited materials
Conference Center
We will explore options for the
future ownership and operation of
the Conference center
Public
Safety,Health and
Environment
Estes Park is a safeplace to live, work,and visit within our
extraordinarynatural environment
Police Services
Criminal Justice Records
Emergency Management
Business continuity Planning
Emergency Operations Planning
Training
Patrol Community Services Officers
Investigations
Auxiliary and volunteers
Restorative Justice Mediation Program
Dispatch
Support of the Estes Valley FireProtection District
We will improve the quality of
the environment.
We will implement projects and
policies which promotesustainability
We will maintain safe and
healthy environments on Townowned properties
Playgrounds
Man-made hazards
Natural Hazards
Wildlife
Buildings
Municipal Court
Provide Fair and impartial application of Town codes
sentencing of offenders
Certification of municipal election results
Swear in Town Officials
Waste Management and Recycling
We will investigate alternative
technologies for recycling and
waste management.
Participate as a partner in the County's
regional wasteshed planning
Code Compliance
Building Safety
Flood Plain Management
We will work in partnership with
the Estes Valley Watershed
Coalition, to restore stream
corridors damaged by the 2013
flood and to implement resiliencyprojects to protect streams and
property from future flooding
We will prioritize and pursue projectsand funding to reduce flood risk andflood insurance costs for the
property owners and businesses of
the Estes Valley
Work to restore the streams damaged
by the flood on Town properties
Property Addressing
Outstanding
Community
Services
Estes Park is an
exceptionallyvibrant, diverse,inclusive and activemountain
community in whichto live, work andplay with housingavailable for all
segments in ourcommunity.
Cultural Resources
Museum
Museum operations
Facility rental and meeting space
Hydro plant operation
Senior Center
Meal Services
Meals on Wheels
Take out meals
on-site dining
Programing and Recreational
opportunities
Facility rental and meeting space
We will work with the Estes Valley
Recreation and Parks District to
integrate the Senior Center into the new
Community Center
We will plan and implement the
celebration of the 100th Anniversary ofthe Town.
Parks
Streetscapes and Landscaping
FlowersAmerica in Bloom
Irrigation
Christmas Tree Drop
Riverwalk maintenance
Sculptures, public art, and donations
Arboriculture programs
Turf maintenance and weed control
Park Maintenance
Park improvements
Holiday Decorations
We will serve as a catalyst to
develop available housing
solutions for underserved
segments of our community.
Define housing needs and identify
potential plans for action. Develop a
strategy for addressing seasonal
workforce housing demands.
Workforce housing
Support for the EPHA
Seasonal Housing
Childcare services
Develop and adopt appropriate code
changes to encourage housing
development
ADU's
Density bonuses
deed restrictions
Develop plan for use of the Fish
Hatchery property
Community Center
We will continue to work with
the Estes Valley Recreation and
Parks District and the other
partners in the CommunityCenter, to develop and build the
Community Center, including the
Senior Center
Planning and Land use
Long Range Master Planning
We will work to make Town
codes and regulations more
user-friendly and easier to
understand, while ensuring theyare effective, enforceable andsupport reasonable
development.
Revise the sign code to be simpler and
easier to understand while retaining the
basic intent.
Request that the Board of Appeals
complete a review and make
recommendations on procedures forprocessing permits and operations of thebuilding department
Current Planning
Support to other entities
Fire District
EDC
Community Grants
Housing Authority
Off cycle requests for support
Develop philosophy and policy onfunding support to outside entities
Explore the formation of a Family
Advisory Board
Governmental Services
and Internal Support
We provide high-quality, reliable basicmunicipal services for the benefit of ourcitizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources
Financial Management
Accounts Payable
Utility Billing
Investments
Accounting/CAFR
Grant Compliance
Town "Front Desk" reception
Information Technology
PC Support
Network support
GIS
Telephone Support
Town Clerk
Records ManagementImplement an enterprise wide document
management system
Liquor Licensing
Business Licensing
Clerk to the Board
Codification of codes
support for Trustees
Maintain Policies and Procedures
Human Resources
Payroll
TrainingWe will maintain a well trained and
educated town staff.
BenefitsMedical Self Insurance
Purchased Benefits
Recruitment and classification
discipline/ personnel issues
Board of Trustees and Mayor
We will provide adequate fundingfor staffing needed to provide theappropriate level of services to our
citizens and guests.
Town Administration
Strategic planning
We will conduct a citizen survey
biennially in even years to measure
our performance and citizen
preferences
Operational Oversight
Preparation and monitoring of the budget
Public Information Programs
Community relations
Intergovernmental Relations
Support for Trustees and Mayor
Maintenance of Board and
Administrative town policies.
Risk Management
Fleet Maintenance
Town Attorney
Transportation - We have safe,
efficient and well maintained multi-modaltransportation systems for pedestrians,cyclists, vehicles and transit
TransportationWe will continue to manage traffic
congestion throughout the Town.
Develop a 2040 multi-modal
Transportation Master Plan
Create prioritized lists of sidewalk,
bike lanes and trail connectivity
projects
Streets
The street rehabilitation efforts will
result in an average pavement
condition index of 70 or above for
the Town street network by 2024.
Street maintenance
Maintain streets at the minimum standardCrack seal
Chip seal
Continue preventative maintenance
activities on Town roads, as
adequate funds become available.
Striping
Sweeping
Snow Removal
Include bike/pedestrian facilities
wherever possible along with the
street improvements
Street improvements
Ease of mobility for residentsand guests throughout the town
and specifically to the core
downtown area and access to
RMNP
Transit Services
RMNP Shuttle Services
Shuttle Services
Investigate the costs and
opportunities to expanding transit
services year round
Signs and Wayfinding
Develop wayfinding plan for
downtown neighborhood, as
determined by Downtown
Neighborhood plan
Town Financial Health -Wemaintain a strong and sustainable financialcondition, balancing expenditures with
available revenues, including adequatecash reserves for future needs andunanticipated emergencies.
Continue to evaluate financial
policies that provide adequate fund
balances and reserves.
Develop and adopt a financial reserve
policy, including consideration of an
overall reserve and minimum/maximum
levels
Budget PreparationImplement the capital planning process
and capital plan for infrastructure
Explore areas for enhancing Town revenue
annexations
enforcement of sales tax collection
Home Rule
5 year
goals Outcome Area
Capital Projects Programs
2017 Objective
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.
2017 STRATEGY MAP
final 10/11/2016
2017 strategy map 1.mmap - 10/4/2016 - Mindjet
85
86
Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) Retirement Plan Option for Sworn Police Officers
Administrative Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Director
Date: October 7, 2016
RE: Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) Retirement Plan Option for
Sworn Police Officers
Objective:
To establish an FPPA retirement plan option for the sworn Police Officer to vote on
during the upcoming FPPA retirement affiliation election the week of October 24, 2016.
If the election is successful the retirement plan would go into effect on December 18,
2016 for all sworn Police Officers, including the management level staff.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park Police Officers currently have a defined contribution, 401(a)
pension replacement plan, through ICMA-RC because they are covered by the
Statewide Death and Disability Social Security Supplemental Plan (SWD&D-SS)
through FPPA. The current affiliation with FPPA and the current ICMA 401(a)
retirement replacement account does not allow the sworn Police Officers to be covered
by the Town’s defined benefit plan through the Public Employees’ Retirement
Association (PERA).
The passage of Senate Bill 15-028 in 2015 requires all four entities covered under the
SWD&D-SS to affiliate with FPPA for retirement, a Social Security supplemental defined
benefit plan, by December 31, 2016 in order to maintain the Death and Disability
coverage. This coverage has been paid for by the Town of Estes Park for all sworn
Police staff since December 1986. The state statute requires a vote of the membership
with a 65% approval in order to establish FPPA retirement. If the vote does not pass,
the sworn Police Officers would lose the Death and Disability coverage through FPPA.
The Police Officer retirement plan would remain with ICMA. The Officers would only be
covered by the Town’s standard AD&D policy provided to all Town employees.
At the August 23, 2016 meeting, the Town Board passed Resolution #15-16 to allow the
Town and the sworn Police Officers to continue to review and assess the FPPA
retirement plan. Since that time staff has arranged for two meetings with FPPA to
review their retirement plan and the SWD&D-SS plan.
With the approval of Policy 305 Benefits by the Town Board all employees of the Town
of Estes Park shall contribute to their retirement plan and Town contribution amounts
87
Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) Retirement Plan Option for Sworn Police Officers
are to be based on PERA’s annual contribution requirement for all retirement plans, i.e.
ICMA-RC Management and ICMA-RC Police. The sworn Police Officers have received
a 13.7% match into their defined contribution account for the past several years with an
8% match by the employees. This is in addition to the 2.6% the Town pays for the
FPPA Death and Disability plan.
Proposal:
The sworn Police Officers would move from a defined contribution plan to a defined
benefit plan (FPPA) if the election is successful. Staff has reviewed each plan to
assess the similarities and difference, and to ensure parity amongst the employees
enrolled in PERA. The significant differences include the benefit amounts, the Death
and Disability coverage and one plan is a defined benefit versus a defined contribution
plan. The FPPA defined benefit plan is defined as a half benefit because it is a
supplemental plan to Social Security. The other significant difference is the inclusion of
the Death and Disability benefits with PERA retirement at no additional cost to the
Town. With the ICMA defined contribution 401(a) plan the funds become the
employees once they are deposited in the account.
In order to maintain parity among the retirement plans for both sworn Police Officers,
PERA covered employees and Management employees the following has been
proposed for the FPPA retirement option:
Sworn Police Officer would continue to contribute a total of 8% into their
retirement plans; i.e. 6% into FPPA Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security
Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS) and 2% into the ICMA-RC defined contribution
fund.
Town to contribute 4% to the FPPA Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security
Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS).
Town to contribute 8.35% into the ICMA-RC defined contribution fund.
Maintain the Statewide Death and Disability Plan for members of affiliated Social
Security Employers (SWD&D-SS) at 2.7% in 2017; however, the cost would be
split 50/50 with the employees. This allows the Town to contribute more to their
ICMA retirement accounts.
The above contributions would result in an FPPA retirement package equal to the
current PERA retirement package offered to employees other than management staff
that have opted out. The chart below provides an outline of the current retirement,
proposed FPPA plan and the PERA plan.
Current PERA FPPA
ICMA ‐ Town 13.70% 8.35%
PERA ‐ Town 13.70%
FPPA ‐ Town 4.00%
SS ‐ Town 6.20% 6.20% 6.20%
FPPA D&D ‐ 50/50 Split 2.70% Included 1.35/1.35%
Employee Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
Excluding SS
Town 16.40% 13.70% 13.70%
Employee Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
88
Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) Retirement Plan Option for Sworn Police Officers
Advantages:
To provide an equitable funding level for all employee retirement accounts no matter
which plan an employee is enrolled in, i.e. FPPA or PERA.
To further diversify the Police Officer retirement plan if affiliated with FPPA by
providing them with a Social Security benefit, a defined benefit at retirement, and a
defined contribution through the 401(a) plan.
The ability to maintain the current Death and Disability coverage through FPPA.
Disadvantages:
The Town’s HR and Payroll staff would have to administer an additional retirement
plan if the vote passes.
Action Recommended:
Approve the proposed Fire and Police Pension Association retirement plan option with
the Town contributing 4% to the Statewide Defined Benefit Social Security
Supplemental Plan (SWDB-SS), 8.35% to an ICMA-RC 401(a) account, and
maintaining the Statewide Death and Disability Plan for members of affiliated Social
Security Employers (SWD&D-SS) at 2.7%, split 50/50 with the employees and to make
any adjustments needed to the percentages if FPPA or PERA increases or decreases
contribution percentages.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low for the public and high for the sworn Police Officers.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Fire and Police Pension Association retirement plan option
as outlined and to make any adjustments needed to the percentages at the time FPPA
or PERA increases or decreases percentages.
Attachment
Policy 305 Benefits, page 4
89
90
Document Title
Revisions: 0
Policy 305 - Benefits
Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services
3/21/16
by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and Social
Security Administration as required by current state and federal law.
2) Senior Management (defined in Colorado State Statute 24-51-308 as
…”the city manager and key management staff who report directly to the
city council or city manager…”) may choose between participating in PERA
or participating in the International City Management Association
Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) program. If a member of Senior
Management chooses to participate in the ICMA-RC program, that person
must waive, in writing, PERA coverage.
3) For those members of Senior Management that elect to be exempted from
PERA, the Town of Estes Park will contribute an amount equal to the
Town’s PERA contribution into an ICMA-RC defined contribution plan on
behalf of the employee. In order to be eligible for the Town’s match,
members of Senior Management who choose this option are required to
contribute and amount equal to or greater than PERA’s required minimum
contribution into the ICMA-RC defined contribution plan.
4) Sworn Police Officers are covered by the ICMA-RC program, with the
Town of Estes Park contributing an amount equal to the Town’s PERA
contribution on behalf of the employee.
ii. Retirement Contributions
Benefit eligible employees are required to contribute to their retirement plan.
Contribution amounts by the Town of Estes Park are based on PERA’s annual
contribution requirement. The determined amount by PERA shall serve as the
baseline for retirement contributions by the Town for all employee retirement
plans.
f. Tuition Assistance
The Town of Estes Park values education and recognizes that the skills, knowledge,
and abilities of its employees are critical to the success of the organization. The
Town encourages higher education and has the discretion to offer tuition and textbook
cost reimbursement (dependent on departmental budget availability) for relevant
college coursework expenses as allowable under Section 127 of the IRS regulations
(currently $5,520). Tuition/textbook reimbursement is budget dependent through the
employee’s assigned department and is disbursed on a first come, first served basis.
i. Reimbursement Amount
Subject to the eligibility conditions listed in 305.3.f.ii, employees will be
reimbursed at a rate of 50% of the cost of the course tuition and textbooks. The
maximum annual reimbursement level is equal to the maximum untaxable benefit
allowed by the IRS pursuant to section 127 per year (currently $5,520).
91
92
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
Date: October 6, 2016
RE: 2016 Citizen Survey Results
Objective:
To provide an overview of the scientific results of the Town’s 2016 Citizen Survey.
Present Situation:
In support of the Town Board’s strategic plan, staff conducted a citizen survey in 2016 using
the National Citizen Survey (NCS) model. The NCS is a statistically valid survey of resident
opinions about the community and the services provided by local government. It is a
customized, yet uniform, survey tool used by more than 500 local jurisdictions across the
country, allowing benchmarking with the results of those jurisdictions. The Town conducted
this survey in 2011 and 2014, allowing comparisons to past results as well. Specific uses of
the results include monitoring trends in resident opinions, measuring performance,
communications and informing decisions on budget, land use and strategic planning.
Estes Park’s Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a random sample of 1,500 households
within Town limits beginning in late June. Of 1,459 valid addresses, 701 households responded
with completed surveys, a response rate of 48 percent. Response rates in other communities
are typically 25 to 40 percent. Responses were weighted to reflect the overall demographic
composition of the community using U.S. Census Bureau data.
Throughout August, the survey was posted to the Town’s website and promoted to the general
population for voluntary participation. The online survey was completed by 219 people. These
nonscientific results are reported separately from the scientific results. In general, results of the
scientific and nonscientific surveys are similar.
Complete results reports for the scientific and nonscientific surveys are available at
www.estes.org/citizensurvey. The attached presentation provides a summary of the scientific
survey results.
Attachments:
1. 2016 Citizen Survey results summary presentation
Administration Memo
93
94
10/6/2016Estes Park, ColoradoResults Summary 2016Complete results at www.estes.org/citizensurveyAbout The NCSCommunity livabilityCommunity characteristicsGovernanceParticipationIn this summaryScientific survey resultsKey findingsGovernanceSpecial topicsComplete results atwww.estes.org/citizensurveyCommunitiesare partnerships among...ResidentsCommunity-based organizationsGovernmentPrivate sectorThe NCS and Estes ParkParticipant in 2011, 2014 and 2016Random sample of 1,500 householdsConducted over 7 weeks701 returned surveys; 48% response rateWeighted to reflect demographics usingCensus data±4% margin of errorNational Benchmark Comparisons495
10/6/20162016 National Benchmark Comparisons71received similarratings26received higher ratings24received lowerratings2016 Ratings Compared to 201491received similarratings9received higher ratings21received lowerratingsLegendHigher than national benchmarkSimilar to national benchmarkLower than national benchmarkMost importantKey Focus AreasEstes Park continues to be a great place to live. Key Finding #1Excellent29%Good55%Fair15%Poor1%Overall Quality of LifeExcellent37%Good50%Fair12%Poor1%Place to Live96
10/6/2016Quality of Life84% likely to remain in Estes Park76% likely to recommend Estes ParkCommunity CharacteristicsOverall imageOverall appearance81%90%Neighborhood80%Lower than 201477%Place to retireAbove benchmarkSimilar to 2014The economy is a top priority for residents. Key Finding #250% positive: Overall economic health17% positive: Cost of living22% positive: Employment opportunitiesEstes Park’s EconomyPlace to VisitBusinesses and Services92%48%Vibrant Downtown/Commercial area64%29%Shopping OpportunitiesAbove benchmarkSimilar to 201497
10/6/2016The natural environment is an important and positive feature of the community. Key Finding #3At least 9 in 10 rate positively•Overall natural environment•Air quality•Cleanliness•Drinking waterGovernanceHow well does the government of Estes Park meet the needs and expectations of its residents? Excellent24%Good54%Fair20%Poor2%Overall Quality of Town ServicesExcellent33%Good53%Fair11%Poor3%Overall Customer Service by EmployeesShould service levels be decreased, maintained or increased?• For no services did the majority favor decreasing levels• Majority favor maintaining current levels for 37 services• Majority favor increasing levels for 8 servicesoBroadband/internet services (potential)oStreet Repairs (excludes highways 34/36/7)oTown-sponsored workforce housing solutions (codes, funding, land)oAdding concrete sidewalks when streets are constructedoFree, year-round shuttle services (potential)oTraffic system improvements (intersections, signs, lanes, etc.)oFinancial support to the Estes Park Housing AuthorityoOn-street bike lanesSpecial Topic/Custom QuestionConclusions and QuestionsKey findings: •Quality of life remains very high•Economy is a top priority•Natural environment is very importantComplete results: www.estes.org/citizensurvey98
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
April 27, 2010
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest – Section 24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S.
2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law,
rule, or regulation – Section 24-6-402(4)(c), C.R.S.
4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations –
Section 24-6-402(4)(d), C.R.S.
5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators – Section 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S.
6. For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure
provision of the Colorado Open Records Act – Section 24-6-402(4)(g), C.R.S.
99
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, “all or a portion” of the discussion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney’s opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
___ For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b).
_X___ For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
100
____ To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
____ For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
____ For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal
or state law, rule or regulation: under C.R.S. Section 24-
6-402(4)(c).
____ For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations
under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
____ For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.R.S.,the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days, Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-72-
204(5.5) C.R.S.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
101
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It’s _____October 11, 2016_________, and the time is ___________________. For the
Record, I am _Todd Jirsa_, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As
required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is not being electronically
recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Koenig, Trustees Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris
and Cody Walker, Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, and Town Attorney Greg White
This is an executive session for the following purpose:
For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators under
C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor’s discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.
102