Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-11-22The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, November 22, 2016 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PRESENTATION. Communities in Bloom/America in Bloom Awards and Presentation. Brian Berg and Keri Kelly. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Upcoming Study Session Topics. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 8, 2016 and Town Board Study Session November 8, 2016. 2.Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Minutes dated, November 10, 2016. 1. HDR Capital Project Engineering Expenditure Limit, not to exceed $200,000 (Budgeted). 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 2016 (acknowledgement only). 5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated October 19, 2016 (acknowledgment only). 6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated October 21, 2016 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 11/14/16 * Revised 11/16/16 1 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. RENEWAL LICENSE – BOWL FORT COLLINS LLC DBA CHIPPERS LANES ESTES PARK CENTER, 555 SAINT VRAIN, ESTES PARK, CO., TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP. Fall River Village Condominiums; 110-177 Filbey Court; Fall River Village, LLC/Applicant. Director Hunt. B. RESOLUTION #22-16 INTENT TO ANNEX – HARMONY FOUNDATION, INC., PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED JANUARY 10, 2017. Item continued to December 13, 2016 meeting. C. ADOPTION OF THE 2016 ESTES VALLEY MASTER TRAILS PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Item continued to December 13, 2016 meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE #24-16 AMENDING ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2, TO REMOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 7.1.A.2.B TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO THE RM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. Director Hunt. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #25-16 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE VERIZON WIRELESS LAND LEASE AGREEMENT. Manager Landkamer. 2. APPOINTMENTS FOR PARTNERSHIP FOR AGE-FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES BOARD. Town Administrator Lancaster. 3. INTERVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk Williamson. 5.REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. UPDATE ON 5 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek 6.ADJOURN. * * 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 8, 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 8th day of November, 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: All 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. Joel Holtzman/Town citizen thanked the Town Board for the completion of the Scott Pond reconstruction. He stated the project was well run by both staff and the contractor. A ribbon cutting would be held on November 16, 2016. Christina Kraft/EVICS Board Treasurer thanked the Trustees for their continued support and recommendation to fund EVICS in 2017 at the same level as 2016. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Nelson commented he would attend the regional Open Lands meeting on November 9, 2016. He would attend a meeting with Jeffery Boring/Estes Valley Land Trust Executive Director on November 16, 2016 to discuss GOCO grants for potential open space opportunities. Trustee Walker announced the High School Band won the State championship for the second year in a row. The Estes Thrives Learning, a new approach to teaching kids 21st century skills, held an event that was well attended by the community. He thanked all that attended for their support. Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a special meeting to discuss vacation rentals. The Commission would hold an additional study session and meeting on November 15, 2016 to make specific recommendations for vacation rentals to the Town Board and County Commissioners. The formation of a possible Family Advisory Board has begun with the intent to bring the item forward to the Town Board in early 2017. Members of the Board and staff visited with staff in Breckenridge to discuss workforce housing and childcare. At the request of the Mayor, he would be working with staff and consultants to review the hydrology study. Trustee Martchink stated the Parks Advisory Board would meet on November 18, 2016. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Lancaster stated the FLAP Program Decision Committee met to discuss the funding for the Downtown Estes Loop. In reviewing the FLAP projects slated for construction, the Committee moved the Town funding for the Loop project to 2021 because there were a number of shovel ready projects that could be completed now. The funding for the project remains available and if costs increase they have committed DRAFTministratorministr 00 p.m.m..and all desiring to do sand all de nked the Town Board for the the Town Board for the ated the project was well ruproject was well ru would be held on November 16would be held on November 16 Board Treasurer thanked the TBoard Treasurer thanked n to fund EVICS in 2017 at the n to fund EVICS in 2017 at t MMENTS.TS.DRsonon commented he would attcommented h r r 9, 2016. He would 9, 2016. He would attend a a xecuxecutive Director tive Director on Novembeon Novem n space opportunities.n space opportunities. WalkerWalk announced thced ar in a rowar in a . The Th skills, held askills, held a d for thed for the 3 Board of Trustees – November 8, 2016 – Page 2 to fund the entire project. The project would move forward if approved by the Town with acquisitions of properties occurring immediately. The project could move up in priority. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 25, 2016 and Budget Study Session Minutes dated October 14and 21, 2016. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated, October 27, 2016. 1. The Harmony Foundation Inc., Variance and Annexation Fee Waiver Request, $3,225.00 - Unbudgeted. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 4, 2016. (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Library District Board Appointments: x Beth Ellis to complete Debra Dullaghan’s term ending December 31, 2017. x Ann Coleman, 4-year term beginning January 1, 2017, expiring on December 31, 2020. x Judy Fontius, 4-year term beginning January 1, 2017, expiring on December 31, 2020. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM DEER RIDGE INC. DBA THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT TO CADESO LLC DBA THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT, 900 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary license was issued on October 1, 2015. During a recent compliance check on October 14, 2016, a shift manager and staff member failed to check the ID and served an underage operative. The shift manager was a staff member of the previous business owner and has elected to go through the Restorative Justice process rather than District Court. The Applicant stated they have been in contact with the State regarding the violation and have agreed to stipulate the violation and pay a fine in lieu of serving time. The applicant and manager have been TIPS trained in the past and have renewed their cards. Liquor policies were delivered to the Town Clerk’s office and the applicant plans to hold an all employee meeting to review the policy and other liquor issues. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Nelson/Koenig)to approve the transfer to Cadeso LLC dba The Other Side Restaurant, 900 Moraine Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, and it passed unanimously. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1.PUBLIC HEARING – 2017 BUDGET.Town Administrator Lancaster presented the Board with the results from the ranking the Board conducted of 22 budget items and the impact of each on the fund balance if added to the 2017 budget, including items such as the addition of a Dispatcher, AV for Study session full live broadcast, restore equipment rental to clean storm drains, restore police training, Document Management software and equipment, Community Service GrantDRAFTAnnexatioAnnen tes dated October 4, 2tes dated Octob pointments:pointm ullaghan’s term ending Decembaghan’s term end m beginning January 1, 2017nning Janu term beginning January 1, term beginning Janua ded (Holcomb/Koenigomb/Koenig) )to appto app nanimously.nanimous ER OFOF OWNERSHIP FROM OWNERSHIP FROM DRRESTAURANT TO CADEURANT TO CADE DRSTAURANTTAURANT, 900 MORAINE AV00 MO DRND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LND RESTAURANT LIQU DRapplication to transfer the capplication to transfer the required paperwork and feerequired paperwork and fee onon October 1, 2015. DuOctober 1, 2015. ftft manager and stamanager and s ative. The shative. The sh nd has end has e urt.urt. 4 Board of Trustees – November 8, 2016 – Page 3 funding for Housing Authority, Park-n-Ride Express Shuttle between Event Center, complete radio conversion from VHF to 800 Mhz for Streets, Community Services Grant for EVICS, additional footing material for Event Complex arena, and increase advertising/promotional budget, If all items were included the ending fund balance would be estimated at 23% for 2017. Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned if the 5% sales tax growth was reasonable considering Hwy 34 would be closed for a portion of the year; how often sales tax revenue would be reviewed to potentially add additional items; the extension of the shuttle service could be decided as late as April 2017; patching the parking lots would extend the life of the lots and the Board consensus was to add the item to the budget bringing the ending fund balance down to 22%; and the Board consensus was to add funds to provide a static video recording of the Board study session meetings to be rebroadcasted in lieu of providing live streaming of the meetings. Trustee Nelson commented the process of ranking items did not work for him because it did not provide the opportunity to have a philosophical discussion and identify priorities. He stated the proposed fund balance would be conservative. Finance Director Hudson stated staff would add the items proposed by the Board and present the final budget at the December 13, 2016 meeting for the Board’s consideration and adoption. A revised detail summary would be submitted for the Board’s review. Maria Cruz/Town and Veronica Pacheco/citizen thanked EVICS for the assistance they provided her in becoming a childcare provided in Estes Park. She also thanked the Board for the support the Town has provided to EVICS and the support to the families of Estes Park. Art Messal/Town citizen commented additional information should be made available for the citizen on the budget process and proposed changes during the process. He requested the Town not fund the EDC as it is a private venture with no accountability to the public. The organization should be funded by the businesses of the town. Michelle Hiland/Town citizen questioned why the Town pays for advertising for the Event Center and commented Visit Estes Park/Local Marketing District should be funding the advertising. She questioned the funding to the EDC and stated perhaps the Town does not need to be a keystone donor. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink)to continue the public hearing to the December 13, 2016 Town Board meeting,and it passed unanimously. 2.RESOLUTION #21-16 AUTHORIZING THE TOWN TO FILE IN WATER COURT AN APPLICATION FOR AN AUGMENTATION PLAN FOR THE SCOTT PONDS PROJECT.Attorney White stated the Resolution would identify the Town’s intent to appropriate the new water right and exchange; and authorize the filing of an Application for Water Right, Change of Water Rights, and Plan for Augmentation of the Town of Estes Park for the Carriage Hills Ponds 1 and 2 (Scott Ponds). This action would allow the Town to fill and maintain the water level in the reconstructed ponds and dam system destroyed during the 2013 flood. The application includes four components: changing a portion of the Pond 2 water right into Pond 1; adding a new enlargement water right for the additional capacity of Pond 1; a plan for augmentation to replace evaporation and periodic refill with Windy Gap water or wastewater; and an exchange of the Windy Gap water or wastewater up to the ponds. The end result would be to have the old rights for the ponds, which total 7.26 acre feet, redistributed to fully cover Pond 2 and cover Pond 1 to the extent of the right, add a new water right for the additional capacity of Pond 1, and to use the plan for augmentation and the exchange to keep the ponds continuously full. TheDRAFTo o tems did not wotems di a philosophical discussa philosophica alance would be conservativalance would be co add the items proposed by theadd the items proposed by t ember 13, 2016 meeting for theember 13, 2016 meeting for the ed detail summary would be sudetail summary nicanica Pacheco/citizen thankecitizen er in becomingin becoming a childcare prdcare rd for the support the Town hathe support the Town ha ies of Estes Park.es Park. citizencitizen commented additionacommented e citizen on the budget processe citizen on the budget pr e requee requ sted the Town not fund the Town not fund ntability to the public. The ability to the public. The ses of the town.he town. chellchelle e Hiland/Town citizenHiland/Town citiz que the Event Center and commthe Event Center and com should be funding the adveshould be funding the adve stated perhaps the Town stated perhaps the T as as moved andmoved and g to the g to the sly.sly. 5 Board of Trustees – November 8, 2016 – Page 4 Town has received a CBDG-DR grant in the amount of $133,000 to obtain approval of the water rights and Augmentation Plan through the Water Court. Revenues from this grant were appropriated in the 2016 Budget. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Resolution 21-16, and it passed unanimously. 3.ORDINANCE #23-16 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. Director Hunt stated the proposed Ordinance would continue the temporary building requirements for development on lots adjacent to drainages established in Ordinance 13-13. The Ordinance would allow permanent construction in areas affected by the 2013 flood, while taking appropriate measures to reasonably protect lives and properties from flooding and minimize potential non-compliance with FEMA regulations. The Ordinance would be effective immediately and in force through May 31, 2017. Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance 23-16, and it passed unanimously. 4.DOWNTOWN PLAN COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT.Director Hunt stated staff proposes the reappointment of the current committee members through December 31, 2017 to coincide with the completion of the report and grant funding. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink)to approve the reappointment of Tom Dority, Kimberly Campbell, Holly Moore, Ginny McFarland, Sue Doylen, Ann Finley, Faith Zimmerman, Greg Rosener, Cydney Springer and Ron Wilcocks to the Downtown Plan Steering Committee, effective upon approval and continuing through December 31, 2017,and it passed unanimously. 5.LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENT.Town Clerk Williamson stated the position being filled on the Board was held by Scott Webermeier who has served two four-year terms on the committee, and therefore, term limited. The position was advertised and five applications were received. Interviews were conducted by Trustees Martchink and Walker with LMD member Webermeier attending. The Committee recommended Charley Dickey for a four-year term beginning January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. Trustee Martchink thanked the applicants for their interest and would encourage them to reapply as the Town has an appointment to the Board each year. Art Messal/Town citizen questioned the current Board and the appointment process utilized by the Town Board. He stated appointments to the LMD should have experience with marketing and have the ability to hold the staff accountable. The LMD should serve the Town and not themselves. Adam Shake/Local Marketing District Board member stated the Board supports the appointment of Charley Dickey. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink)to approve the appointment Charley Dickey to the Local Marketing District Board for a 4- year term beginning January 1, 2017 expiring on December 31, 2020,and it passed unanimously. 6.CONFERENCE CENTER CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, INC.Attorney White presented the concession agreement with the company purchasing the Rocky Mountain Park Inn in November 2016. The Town entered into a ground lease in 1989 to allow the construction and operation of the Estes Park Conference Center. Following construction of the Conference Center, the Town entered into the Service Agreement and the Food and Beverage Concession Agreement with the property owner. Pursuant to these agreements, the then Holiday Inn and now Rocky Mountain Park Inn, was responsible for providing services for the operation and food and beverage concessions for theDRAFTAttAtt dedded (N sly.sly. TMENTTMEN.Director HuntDireTent ent committee committee members thromem complecompletion of the report and greport ((Holcomb/MartchinkHolco)to approo app berly Campbell, Holly Moorberly Campbell, Holly Moor nley, Faith Zimmerman, Greey, Faith Zimm Wilcocks to the Downtowns to the pproval and continuing througpproval and contin ously.usly. DISTRICT BOARD APPORICT BOARD APPO RAhe position being filled on thebeing filled on the has served two fourhas served two fou -year t limited. The position was advelimited. The position w nterviews were conducted by Tnterviews were conducted mber Weber W bermeier attending. Tmeier attending. for a foura four-year term beginningear term beginning . Trustee Martchink thanked e Martchink thanked ncourage ncourage them tothem to reapply as therea year. year. Art Messal/Town citizenArt Messal/Town c process utilized by thprocess utilized by hould have experiehould have exper ountable. Theountable. The hakehake 6 Board of Trustees – November 8, 2016 – Page 5 Conference Center. The Town was required to provide marketing services for the Conference Center. Those agreements have been renewed over the years with the last renewal being effective January 1, 2011. The purchaser known in the concession agreement as Rocky, has requested the Town enter into a new agreement to combine the current service and food and beverage agreements, which would be substantially the same as the current agreements. Rocky has indicated that following the purchase of the Rocky Mountain Inn property, it would make considerable upgrades to the property and any capital improvements to the Conference Center would be charged against the ground lease not to exceed the limits of the lease annually. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb)to approve the Conference Center Concession Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and DNC Parks & Resorts at Rocky Mountain Park Inn, Inc., and it passed unanimously. 4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb)to enter Executive Session for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions per Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S., ballot , and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. to enter into Executive Session. Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 8:48 p.m. ACTION ITEM: DETERMINE POSITION ON BALLOT ISSUE 1A SALES TAX OVERAGE. Attorney White stated the TABOR amendment of 1992 requires a taxing entity proposing a tax must estimate the taxes to be collected in the first full year of collection and further stated any tax revenues collected in excess must be refunded. The tax exceeded the estimated revenues of $2 million established in the TABOR notice by $418,000 and did not exceed the spending limits identified in the notice. The Board must decide to either return the excess funds or hold an election to request the Town retain the funds; however, the election can only occur at a regular Municipal Election or a Coordinated Election in November. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to return the $418,000 overage by zeroing out the property taxes and applying the remainder as a credit to the Light and Power utility customers, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Todd Jirsa, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTr Executive Sesr Execu ses of receiving legal ses of receivi 02(4)(b), C.R.S., ballot 02(4)(b), C.R.S., b , a ng at ng at 8:25 p.m.p.m.to enter into to open session at n at 8:488:p.m. BALLOT ISSUE 1A SALES TASSUE 1A SALES TA RAhe TABOR amendment of 19he TABOR amendme stimate the taxes to be collectedstimate the taxes to be ny tax revenues collected in eny tax revenues collected mated revenues of $2 million mated revenues of $2 million id not exceed the spending limnot exceed the spending lim o either return the excess fundreturn the excess fund unds; however, the election caunds; however, the e nated Election in November. nated Election in Novemb as as moved and secondedmoved and second (WW g out the property taxeg out the property t er utility customerer utility custome or Jior Ji 7 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 8, 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 8 th day of November, 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, Manager Fraundorf, Town Clerk Williamson, and Recording Secretary Beers Absent:None Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Discussion of Document Management System. Town Clerk Williamson provided an overview of implementing a Town wide document management system in 2017. Jen Harris/ Peak Performance was available by conference call to provide input and answer any questions. Town Clerk Williamson provided highlights on the process, proposed software, vendor, benefits, and Jen Harris provided a quick demo highlighting workflow. She elaborated on the importance of implementing a system including; current volume of documents, space needs, accessibility of documents, compliance with record retention schedules, and enhanced transparency. The Town Board adopted a 2016 Strategic Plan, leading to Board approved funding to complete a needs assessment in 2016 and approval to hire a consultant, Simplicity Organizing Services. The Town conducted a survey of other municipalities to identify best practices, and an employee survey which provided input on the need for a standard method for intake and filing, version control, eliminate paper files & duplicate files, records retention, improved citizen access, offsite access, method to track documents, fillable forms, collaboration among departments, and improved work flow efficiencies. The Town established a document management team including one member from every department to draft processes, determine software needs and features, and complete a document inventory which concluded the Town has approximately 2 million electronic files and an unknown amount of paper files. An RFP was created which generated 11 responses from vendors using 6 different systems. Town Clerk Williamson provided in her budget plan for 2017 to the Town Board the full amount for a document management system and later found that a phased plan would be more effective. Evaluation of the RFP’s were based on main criteria to include; technical response, thoroughness of the proposal, implementation approach, experience/references, cost, maintenance, and support. Laserfiche Rio was selected as the document management platform that would meet the Town’s current and future needs. Town Clerk Williamson elaborated on the benefits the platform offers with major components being workflow, reduced staff time and storage space, reclaiming office space, enhanced document security, records retention, and collaboration between staff. Manager Fraundorf added insight on the routine process of maintaining server space that the IT division handles, stating there is an abundance of duplicate documents on the Town servers. Town Clerk Williamson stated that a document management system would prevent duplicates from occurring, accidental deletion, unintentional alterations or moving of documents, while allowing collaboration between departments and a check in and out system with a history of changes. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek added a system in place would help the Town meet CIRSA requirements and would DRAFTTT ager Frager cretary Beercretar m.m.AFAFerview of implementing a Towmpleme n Harrisn Harris/ Peak PerformancePerfo and answer any questionsd answer any questions..T ess, proposed software, vendoroposed software, vendor hlighting workflow. She elabororkflow. She elabor includingincludin; currentrrent volume ovolume o nts, compliance with record retnts, compliance with re own Board adoown Board ad pted a a 20162 to complete a needs assessmto complete a needs assess plicityty Organizing SOrganizing Serviceservices. T. T to identify best practices, and fy best practices, and d for a standardd for a standard method for intame uplicate files, records retentionuplicate files, records rete ck documents, fillable forms, ck documents, fillable forms flow efficiencies. The Town flow efficiencies. The Town ember from every departember from every de and complete and complete aa elyely 2 million ele2 million ele which genwhich gen amsoamso 8 Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2016 – Page 2 reduce the risk of non-compliance. Jen Harris provided the Board a brief navigation of the Laserfiche system functionality and a sample of forms. Trustee questions were heard and are summarized: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the level of customer satisfaction with the evolution of the software; Trustee Holcomb asked for an estimated completion timeframe for all phases, and questioned the availability of increased demand for staff/addition of staff to complete the project; Trustee Nelson asked if there are any unforeseen costs, which Town Clerk Williamson stated there may be a need to add a staff member dedicated to records management. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Mayor Jirsa stated the Superintendent of Rock Mountain National Park has requested she provide an update to the Board at the second meeting in January 2017. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig initiated a conversation on Mayor Jirsa’s approach to fulfillment of Policy 1.4., Mayor’s Responsibilities. She stated concern with recent comments the Mayor has made at public meetings and gathering on how the Town should complete items such as the Town Strategic Plan. The comments have come across as the Board’s opinion rather than the Mayor’s. Other concerns were raised as to the Mayor’s attendance, or lack thereof, at important Town functions, ribbon cuttings, etc. She commented the Mayor took an oath to follow the policies of the Town. Mayor Jirsa responded stating a number of the issues highlighted by Mayor Pro Tem Koenig are misstated or untrue. He stated Policy 1.4 has not been formally interpreted by the Board, and in his opinion he meets the intent of the policy. Further discussion was heard among the Board and a consensus was reached to hold a special Town Board Study Session facilitated by a third party to discuss the role of the Mayor further and to review the policy. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. None. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m. Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording SecretaryDRAFTPParar nuarynuary 2017 TJirsa’s appro FTcern with recent FTon how the Town shou FTmments have come acro FTconcerns were raised as to theFTwn functions, rib AFTpolicies of th AFmber of the issues hig AFstated Policy 1.4 has not AFets the intent of the policy RAFrd among the Board and a cons RAdy Session facilitated b RAeview the polic DY SESSION AGENDA ITEMSSSION AGENDA ITEMS DRe being no further business, e being no further business, MM 9 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 10, 2016 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of November 2016. Committee: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Police Chief Kufeld, Director Bergsten, Director Muhonen, Project Manager Swoboda, Manager Landkamer, Manger Ash and Recording Secretary Doering Absent: None Chair Koenig called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. PUBLIC SAFETY None. Reports 1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Chief Kufeld reported Marilyn Walsh, a local resident, was hired as the new dispatcher. There are two officers in final processes with other agencies, Loveland and Fort Collins. The department is starting another hiring process with one officer in the background process to fill one of the vacancies. The Police Department is completing training required by Police Officer standards. Captain Rose is organizing a training class for April of 2017 through the office of Homeland Security and Bombing Prevention. The forty-hour class includes preventative measures, search procedures and surveillance protection. The Department is taking a strong stance on the enforcement of the Bear Ordinance but would like to make changes to the ordinance to simplify the language. UTILITIES Recommendation to the Town Board: HDR Capital Project Engineering Expenditure Limit. Director Bergsten stated in 2013 the department issued an RFP for on-call engineering services. HDR was one of three firms selected as responsive responsible bidders with market competitive rates. In August of this year, the USDA Rural Development indicated grants and 40-year loans would be available for drinking water capital projects. The USDA estimated the Town had a four-year eligibility window as our population growth would disqualify us from funding. Water has begun capital project scoping and engineering with HDR causing the 2016 expenditures to exceed $100,000 with the addition of these projects. No change to the approved 2016 budget would be required. The Committee recommended approval to the Town Board of HDR expenditures not to exceed $200,000, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the November 22, 2016 Town Board meeting. Reports 1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Project Manager Swoboda reported on FEMA projects and reimbursements and stated the last large project to be completed include roads and trails. Town Administrator Lancaster reported on the Town Board Meeting Tuesday, November 8, regarding the Tabor refund 10 Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – November 10, 2016 – Page 2 issue, a $5.00 credit will be issued for every bill for every account. PUBLIC WORKS Reports 1. Town Hall Security Camera and Recording System Phase 1 – Manager Landkamer stated that the Town staff identified several issues and inadequacies in the existing camera system in Town Hall. The existing system in Town Hall is a mix of cameras and technologies, which are failing, and in need of updating and improvement. Public Works recommended that Inteconnex be awarded the project. The preliminary budget for this project was set at $100,000 in 2016, with $26,000 proposed for 2017. As quotes came in significantly below the target budget, Public Works will negotiate the agreement, to maximize the initial investment. Plans to add cameras to the Visitor Center and possibly the Transit Facility Parking Structure in the near future would require the installment of equipment that will adequately service this addition. 2. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Manager Ash provided updates on the following projects: Patch work has been completed around Red Tail Hawk and Devon Drive. Dry Gulch project continues with small miscellaneous projects being completed. Trustee Martchink questioned if creek restoration was to be done and Manager Ash replied that clean-up will be done but cannot do anything too impactful to that area. Carriage Hills dams: final walk thru done with the state, a ribbon cutting scheduled and the project completed on budget. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the completion of the water rights. Manager Ash responded with the Board approval on November 8, 2016, the application has been filed and with scheduled completion spring 2017. Storm Water Master Plan has begun and on schedule, to be completed by September 2017. Moraine Avenue bridgework has started and businesses being informed of the project schedule. Fall River Trail design to be completed by the end of this year. Kelly Stallworth would present an update on the Street Improvement Plan (STIP) to the Board at an upcoming study session. Trustee Martchink requested an update on bank restoration at the Visitor Center. Director Muhonen stated the construction start date or design has no commitment; however, needs to be completed before the completion of the parking structure and high water flow in May. Director Muhonen provided an update on the following projects: The School District requested Public Works assistance with patching the school parking lots. The District would fund the project. Staff would assess the request. The Town Board would hold a special Town Board meeting on November 29 at the Event Center regarding the Loop Project. Fish Creek trail repair and updates are available online. Downtown pedestrian crossings require the signal to be pushed for crossing the street as to not hold up traffic unnecessarily. The crossing at Highways 34/36 has not changed. Parking structure: a fiber optic line was discovered and not in the easement and the foundation will need to be adjusted to accommodate this discovery and now waiting on permits to continue. Trustee Koening asked if within the structure if conduits are being integrated. Director 11 Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – November 10, 2016 – Page 3 Muhonen stated they are to a degree with the lighting and security system being embedded. There being no further business, Chair Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Tami Doering, Recording Secretary 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:  Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry  White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon  Attending:  Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, White, Schneider, and Hills   Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White,  Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording  Secretary Karen Thompson   Absent:Commissioners Moon and Klink  Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.  There were approximately ten people in  attendance.  Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public  comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not  necessarily the chronological sequence.   1.PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Mares/town resident stated he served on the vacation rental task force, and there seemed to be some misunderstandings about the goals of the task force. He stated the task force administrator established two ground rules: (1) no discussion regarding enforcement; and (2) no discussion regarding the allowance of nine or more occupants in vacation rentals. The task force was to assume the County Commissioners and the Town Board wanted to approve occupancies of nine, and they were tasked with determining any proposed code changes. Mr. Mares stated there were very explicit directions as to what they could and could not discuss at the task force meetings. Dick Spielman/town resident was also a task force member. He stated the idea behind the task force was to handle all of the discussion regarding possible code changes so the Planning Commission would not continue to be bogged down with the issue. The task force recommendations were to provide a starting place for the Planning Commissioners. Because of the complexity of the issue, he suggested having members of the task force present and available to provide clarification at any future study sessions (Planning Commission & Town Board) regarding vacation rentals. 2.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, September 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. B. Continuation to the November meeting of the proposed adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.  It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and  the motion passed unanimously with two absent.  13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3.PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING LONG‐TERM RENTAL OF ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. Previous meetings included discussions and concerns about de facto rezoning, increasing density, and unintended consequences. The proposed amendment would allow long‐term rental (30 days or more), under specified conditions, of attached ADUs in the five single‐family zone districts as described in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Currently, attached ADUs are allowed on qualified parcels and occupied by members of the principal dwelling unit. Some of the current code would still apply; e.g. ADUs shall not exceed 33% of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, no short‐term rentals would be allowed, no home occupations or change in off‐street parking requirements, and a few other modest changes. A new mandatory registration process (no fees) would be handled through the Town Clerk’s office. A specific timeline for registrations would apply. Director Hunt stated the previous version of the proposed amendment had a sunset provision. This sunset provision would provide for a date by which the amendment would expire and revert back to the code prior to the amendment. The latest version extends the sunset date from October 31, 2017 to December 31, 2017, which allows for process by the appropriate boards, along with allowance for a full‐year lease for tenants. The sunset clause would allow for registered and maintained ADUs that otherwise comply with code (size, etc). to be grandfathered after the sunset date.  The Town Clerk suggested a January through March annual registration period. Director Hunt stated enforcement of ADUs has been discussed many times. With the proposed amendment, the enforcement aspect would be strengthened if we provide for the process as described. With the sunset provision and grandfathering element, staff would have the ability to confine their tasks. If the majority of ADU owners follow through with registration, the remaining minority would present a narrower task list to address. Director Hunt stated if the proposed amendment is adopted with the sunset clause, we would hopefully legitimize a sizeable number of the existing ADUs in the Estes Valley. He did not anticipate many new residential ADUs permitted through the building permit process, either through a remodel or new construction. He stated lenders have more strict lending practices than in the past, and they regularly check for zoning compliance prior to approving a loan. It would be difficult to obtain a loan if a sunset clause is in effect. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority has identified a definite housing need, and the ability to rent an ADU will solve a piece of that puzzle, though he did not anticipate it having a large impact on the housing shortage.  Director Hunt stated the Commissioners and the public have expressed concerns about changes in the character of single‐ family neighborhoods if ADU rentals were allowed, and that is a valid concern. He stated he would be remiss if staff offered a code amendment that would radically alter that balance. He did not think the proposed amendment with the specific qualifiers would have that effect. Staff and Commission Discussion 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioner Schneider requested clarification on the sunset provision, stating the sunset  provision would apply only to those that did not register their ADU, and all those that did register  would be grandfathered after the sunset provision expired (proposed date of December 31,  2017). Director Hunt confirmed the accuracy of Commissioner Schneider’s statement.   Public Comment  John Phipps/town resident stated ADUs would constitute a drastic change for the single‐family  zone districts, as it would change the character of family neighborhoods. A homeowner has a  right to rely on zoning regulations, especially when there has been no material change in the  character of a neighborhood, which he stated came from a Colorado Supreme Court case. He  stated there are other alternatives (Multi‐Family Residential, Accommodations, and Two‐Family  Residential zone districts), and questioned why single‐family zone districts were being considered.  He asked the Commissioners to envision what the zoning map would look like if all the single‐ family zone districts were removed, and wondered if Estes Park would be a resort community or  just a resort. He disagreed with the sunset provision, and the possibility of renewal at the time of  expiration. He asked if illegal ADUs became registered, would they be grandfathered at the end of  the sunset period? Does this mean if enough people violate an ordinance for long enough, they  would eventually be grandfathered if they registered? He had concerns about building codes,  proper utilities, parking, etc. Mr. Phipps did not think the effort would create enough long‐term  rentals to benefit the housing shortage. He was opposed to the long‐term rentals of ADUs.  Fred Mares/town resident has been following the history of ADUs since 2012. There seemed to be  a rush on this proposed amendment because of the highway closure, and now it seems to be  related more to workforce housing. He was concerned the Planning Commission was creating de  facto rezoning if they approved the amendment making long‐term rental of ADUs in residential  zone districts a use by right. He wondered why we were going through this process if it would not  have a large impact on workforce housing. He asked the following rhetorical questions, including  but not limited to: How many ADUs are there in town now? How many ADUs are outside the  Town limits? How large are the existing attached ADUs? Should ADU property owners be required  to pay commercial utility rates? What happens if the tenant loses their job? How many times can  and ADU be re‐rented without being considered short term?  Who will be keeping the records?  If  we aren’t doing this to facilitate workforce housing, why are we doing it at all? What does  removing the lot size and structure size restrictions have to do with rentability of an ADU? He  stated this was a risky code amendment, and wanted to know the ground rules. If this is  approved, he liked the permit system, stating it would be important to ensure staff had the ability  to implement the plan and track the results. He disagreed with property owners having the ability  to get a “free pass” if they participated in the “experiment.”    Dick Spielman/town resident agreed with Mr. Phipps and Mr. Mares. Concerning the proposed  sunset clause and the enforceability of the issue, he stated he saw no reason for property owners  to come forward and register their property if they had been successfully renting it (legally or  illegally) for many years.  15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion  None  It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer  County Board of Commissioners disapprove the proposed text amendment, including the  proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code, as presented in Exhibit A, finding  that it would constitute a rezoning of five residential zone districts. Density is at the heart of  zoning. This would double the density in those zone districts. Neither the Estes Valley  Development Code nor the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan support this. The method of  drastically changing the zoning by changing the uses allowed rather than going through the  rezoning process does not constitute sound community planning. The motion to disapprove was  approved 5‐0 with two absent.      Town Attorney White was excused from the meeting.  4.PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RM‐MULTI‐ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. The concept was to remove the minimum lot size in the RM–Multi‐Family Residential zone district for development or redevelopment of multi‐family housing on multi‐family zoned lots. He explained the limitations of the existing code’s minimum lot size would allow only seven or more housing units per lot, as well as single‐family or duplex units. By removing the limit, three to six units could be constructed on any given RM‐zoned property. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority’s Housing Needs Assessment encouraged multi‐unit housing, and this amendment would provide for an option that could fill a niche for development and redevelopment.  In Table 4‐2, the 40,000 square foot lot size requirement would be removed, while all other standards would still apply. Director Hunt stated he did not think this was an intended barrier to development. He stated he thought the intention of the minimum lot size may have been to encourage developers to combine lots for multi‐family housing projects; however, instead it discouraged development and redevelopment. The proposed amendment would remove a barrier, and potentially encourage development/redevelopment. Public comment None Staff and Commission Discussion None 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of the proposed  amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to the Town Board and Larimer County  Commissioners and the motion passed 5‐0 with two absent.   5.REPORTS A.  Director Hunt reported there will be a special study session for the Planning Commission regarding vacation rentals on Tuesday, November 1, 2016, beginning at noon in the Town  Board Room. Vacation rentals will also be discussed at the study session prior to the regular  Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. Direction received from the  Town Trustees and County Commissioners at the August 30, 2016 joint meeting was to draft  code language regarding vacation homes with occupancies of nine and above, with  regulations as recommended by the task force. Director Hunt stated there were some items  discussed at today’s study session where the task force had not reached consensus. Any  remaining issues can be worked through at the November 1st study session. Additionally, any  revisions that need to be done with the occupancies of eight and under could be addressed in  order to make the amendment as synchronized as possible.  B.  Director Hunt reported on a revision to the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers development plan that  was approved by the Town Board earlier this year. The Board of Adjustment did not approve a  variance request for the placement of the proposed loading area. He stated it was determined  the approved Development Plan could not be completed as proposed, but could be amended  to provide an appropriate location for the loading area.   This will be an action item for  recommendation to the Town Board at the November Planning Commission meeting.  Commissioner Schneider requested answers to the Planning Commissioners’ questions  regarding the Temporary Use Permit from a previous Planning Commission meeting.    C.   Director Hunt reported Planner Audem Gonzales was promoted to from Planner I to Planner  II, and staff is in the process of hiring a Planner I.  Once that position is filled, we will be up to  full strength. Director Hunt stated one of his goals as director is to revise the EVDC to be  easier to administer, regulate, and enforce, and there is a balance to be reached in all of that.  Any changes proposed in the code will come before the Planning Commission.  D. Chair Hull asked the Commissioners for comments regarding the vote to recommend  disapproval of rental of ADUs. Comments included but were not limited to: Commissioners  Hills and White objected, stating it would result in zoning changes in five zoning districts. Chair  Hull commented ADUs make sense if they are for family. Commissioner Schneider was  concerned about how you would collect data without a registration process, and was  supportive of a definite sunset provision, but did not agree with the grandfathering aspect.  When asked if there were other ways to move forward with ADUs, Director Hunt stated the  ability to have ADUs in specific zone districts is an option, though he has not seen it done  across all districts. There is a possibility to adopt a density standard. He has not worked in a  community where rental regulation has been a common practice.  Commissioner Hills stated  she was not against ADUs, but wanted to see them contained to the proper zone districts.  Commissioner White agreed, stating Accommodations or multi‐family zone districts would be  better suited for ADUs. There must be other communities that have made this work.   17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:37 p.m.  _________________________________  Betty Hull, Chair  ___________________________________  Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary  18 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 19, 2016 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 19th day of October, 2016. Present: Kimberly Campbell Ann Finley Gordon Slack Belle Morris Gregg Rounds Tom Street Amy Hamrick Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Absent: Ken Zornes Stan Black Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Brian Wells, Shuttle Director Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION It was moved and seconded to approve the September meeting minutes as presented (Street/Hamrick) and the motion passed unanimously. PROJECT UPDATES, Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Dry Gulch Road x Manager Ash informed the TAB of a ribbon-cutting ceremony taking place on October 26, 2016 for the completion of the road and trail system (with the exception of a short section). After the ceremony, Public Works staff would be offering a walking tour of the new trail to the connection with the Lake Estes Trail. Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure x Construction had started on the new parking structure and the existing parking lot, south of the Visitor Center, had been closed. MacGregor Avenue Trail x The plan for this trail was now in the design phase. Manager Ash stated that the TABOR Rules were affecting the funds from 1A Sales Tax. Trustee Liaison Holcomb stated that the funds would be escrowed until a time that citizens can vote. The first opportunity to vote would likely be in November of 2017. 19 Transportation Advisory Board – October 19th, 2016 – Page 2 The TAB held a brief discussion surrounding the problems CDOT was facing with funding the US 34 reconstruction relative to replacing the bridges to private properties. TAB INITIATIVES Chair Campbell reviewed a version of the TAB Downtown Parking Plan edited to bring it into agreement with the Estes Park Plan. This included changes to the implementation plan in the Paid Parking section and changes to other parts of the original draft plan. Board member Slack made a motion to have Campbell move forward on the TAB Downtown Parking Plan. The changes would be completed and the plan submitted as the final version to the TAB members for an e-mail vote before the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Finley. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 12:57 pm. 20 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 21, 2016 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Executive Board Room of the Estes Park Events Center, in said Town of Estes Park on the 21st day of October, 2016. Present: Celine Lebeau Carlie Bangs Terry Rustin Vicki Papineau Ronna Boles Also Present: Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Town of Estes Park IT Support Specialist Mike Donnachie, Town of Estes Park – Parks Department Blake Babbit & Family, Scout Absent: Dewain Lockwood Merle Moore Patrick Martchink, Trustee Liaison Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. GENERAL BUSINESS It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Boles) to approve the September meeting minutes with corrections and the motion passed unanimously. AIPP SUGGESTION Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Town of Estes Park IT Support Specialist, attended the meeting to open a discussion about utilizing the Town Hall main corridors as a method to display local art. She indicated there are primary hallways within Town Hall that have available space and the items currently displayed are not hung consistently. 21 Limmiatis stated that the art could have an established period of time to hang (i.e. 3 months, 6 months, etc.) before it’s time to change it out for another local artist. During the piece’s display term, there could be some type of label showing additional information about the piece, or the artist, as well as a price in the event the art is for sale. It would be responsibility of the PAB to solicit, track and approve the individual art displays, as well as coordinate the art hangings. Barbara Jo committed to being a resource for this initiative. Chair Lebeau would be attending the next Arts District Meeting and would discuss this idea with them. Member Rustin stated that he would send an email to Lars Sage (not in attendance) to bring him up to speed. Member Boles made a motion to approve this idea and Chair Lebeau seconded the motion. All were in favor. AIPP: Blake Babbit Eagle Scout Proposal Blake Babbit, studen, was tasked with conceiving his plan for his final Scout project which is due in 2017. Having an art background, Blake met with Town Administrator, Frank Lancaster, to see if there was something he could provide the community as part of his project. Frank suggested the possibility of painting one of the electrical boxes in town and encouraged him to reach out to Joe Lockhart of the Town of Estes Park – Light & Power Dept., to discuss further. Blake brought drawings and other examples of work for the PAB to review during his presentation. He did not, however, have specific examples of what would be done on all sides. The PAB loved the idea of covering a utility box with art, but requested more specific information on what he plans to paint. Additional discussion took place outlining the needs of the product being used to create the art and the maintenance plan. SMITH SIGNS, of Smith Signs, verified that the type of paint being used is outdoor sign paint, which is enamel-based. He stated that the paint is extremely durable and is believed to have a longer life (8-10 years) than the wraps used on some of the utility boxes in Fort Collins (3-5 years). Chair Lebeau will confirm the type of topcoat needed for this environment. 22 Member Boles brought up the idea proposed earlier in the year by Assistant Town Administrator, Travis Machalek, outlining the possibility of having local artists enter a contest to select the art displayed on the wraps for art displays on utility boxes in Estes Park. Boles suggested Blake get in touch with ATA Machalek to coordinate and get any additional information needed. Member Bangs made a motion to approve the concept, stating that the specific drawings would be needed prior to presenting to the Town Board. Member Rustin seconded the motion. All were in favor. Chair Lebeau wanted to ensure it’s clear that the darker colors are not desirable as they generate heat on the utility boxes. She also stated that any large open spaces within the art invite vandalism so it would be better to include more details. PARKS DIVISION UPDATE: Mike Donnachie brought Parks Division Updates in Brian Berg’s absence. The Parks Division was nearing completion of irrigation blow-outs in preparation of the colder season The Parks Division would continue to work towards securing the bear-proof containers to the ground In the process of replacing the old, worn-out park benches with the newly purchased green metal benches, there were still 22 to install at the west end of Elkhorn o Member Papineau inquired about what the plans are for the old benches. Mike stated that those replaced last year were taken to auction. Papineau asked whether any could be repurposed and used at Scott Ponds. Mike indicated that it has been attempted in the past, but required much more effort than anticipated. All annuals had been unearthed for the season Phase 1 of the Tunnel Tile Project was completed Tunnel Lights Project was still to come Tree Pruning along the streets had been taking place over the previous month and would continue. Irrigation to the water fountains / fountains / turf areas had now been turned off for the winter. 23 The Parks Division would begin the discussion regarding locations for a new veteran’s memorial. OTHER BUSINESS Thoughts were brought forward regarding the combining of the Mountain Festival with the Centennial Celebration in 2017. The PAB would continue looking for a local non- profit to participate in the events in addition to regular attendees. The current thoughts would reserve Friday as an educational day and Saturday to be the celebration day – food trucks, beer vendors, etc. resembling the Pumpkins & Pilsners Festival. Member Papineau stressed the importance of Visit Estes Park being informed of the anticipated number of attendees. On Friday. October 21st, the PAB met at the Events Center Executive Board Room. Members like this location due to ease of access. Megan Van Hoozer will follow-up with the Events Center to check the possibility of booking more of our meetings at this location. Member Rustin would not be in physical attendance until the first part of May 2017. Rustin confirmed that he would be available via conference call for meetings. With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 11:59 a.m. 24 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 17, 2016 RE: Renewal License – Bowl Fort Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center, 555 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Tavern Liquor License Objective: Discussion of liquor law violations that occurred at Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center on August 24, 2015 and October 14, 2016. Present Situation: At a recent meeting the Board requested liquor renewals be brought forward for any licensed establishment that has failed back-to-back compliance checks. On August 24, 2015 and October 14, 2016, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the State’s Liquor Enforcement Division. During these compliance check, employees of Chippers Lanes sold/served an alcohol beverage to an underage person. The employees failed to request identification during each of the compliance checks from the individual and proceeded to serve the underage customer. The Tavern Liquor License held by Bowl Fort Collins, LLC was originally issued in December 2009. The establishment has two previous Sale to Minor violations, occurring in January 2011 and July 2013. A fine in lieu of suspension was imposed for the 2011 violation; a 10-day active suspension was served for the 2013 violation; and a fine in lieu of suspension was imposed for the 2015 violation. The Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) of the Colorado Department of Revenue will be handling the administrative process related to this violation. The penalty for this type of violation, if it is considered a 1st offense is up to a 15-day suspension, or entering into a stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an actual suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of time, typically one year from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within a year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the suspension held in abeyance. The licensee has provided the Town Clerk with a copy of the establishment’s alcohol sales policy in the past; however, they have not provided a current listing of permanent employees that have been T.I.P.S. trained as of the date of this memo. They have 25 submitted all necessary paperwork and fees for the liquor license renewal. The liquor license expires on December 1, 2016. Proposal: The LED is administering the violation, therefore, no administrative action will be taken by the Town. The Board must consider the renewal of the license. Advantages: Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the liquor-licensed establishment. The State will determine the penalty to be imposed for the violation and ensure that the penalty is served. Disadvantages: To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of the liquor-licensed establishment. Action Recommended: Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Tavern liquor license held by Bowl Fort Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center. The Board has the option to move to approve or deny the renewal of the license. Budget: The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Tavern liquor license is $869. Level of Public Interest Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State Liquor Laws are concerns for the community. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Tavern Liquor License held by Bowl Fort Collins, LLC dba Chippers Lanes Estes Park Center. 26 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant Hearing Date: November 22, 2016 RE: First Supplemental Map of Fall River Village Condominiums, Lot 8 and all easements of record that benefit Lot 8, Fall River Village Final P.U.D.; 511 W. Elkhorn Avenue Fall River Village, LLC, Owners Objective: Review of a Supplemental Condominium Map application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in order to render a decision on the application. Present Situation: The Condominium Subdivision, which is completely built out, was originally platted and approved in 2004 with the intent that housing would be developed to accommodate a multi-family community in accordance with the Fall River Village Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The site is currently zoned (CO) Commercial Outlying District, with a P.U.D. Overlay. The Fall River Village Condominiums Subdivision is located at the intersection of Filbey Court and West Elkhorn Avenue, with direct access provided from the Elkhorn Avenue right-of-way. The subject site borders vacant property along the north (approved for single family uses in the Fall River Village P.U.D.), public open space and Performance Park to the east, commercial and accommodations (Murphy’s River Lodge) uses to the south, and multi-family uses to the west. Proposal: The Applicant requests approval for a Supplemental Condominium Map which would allow for the multi-family units to be sold under separate ownership. Approval of this map will finalize a total of fifty six (56) units with one unit (Unit 170) being reserved as community space, and will create a total of sixty four (64) residential units available for sale. 27 Advantages: 1.Compliance with standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Conformance with the housing policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by promoting a balance of housing opportunities within the community. 3.With common land surrounding the buildings under single ownership of the HOA, maintenance of such land is expected to be of higher quality. This includes, but is not limited to, stormwater facilities, parking lots, private streets, open space and areas protected by Limits of Disturbance. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Supplemental Condominium Map application with following condition: 1.Prior to recordation, a certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq., C.R.S.) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Budget: Not applicable. Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest is low regarding the Supplemental Condominium Map as no public comments were submitted to the Community Development Department. Enclosures: 1.Development Review Application 2.Statement of Intent 3.First Supplemental Condominium Map of Fall River Village Condominiums 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Randy Hunt, AICP, Community Development Director Date: November 22, 2016 RE: Ordinance #24-16 Amending Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to Remove the Minimum Lot Size Requirement for Multi-Family Residential (RM) Zone District, and Section 7.1.A.2.b to Remove Reference to the RM Minimum Lot Size Requirement. Objective: The objective of this proposed text amendment is to remove the 40,000 square-foot minimum lot size requirement for development of multi-family housing on multi-family zoned lots, thereby removing a regulatory barrier to multi-family housing development. Note: Multifamily development is development of residential dwellings in buildings containing three or more units. The proposed amendment would not affect minimum lot size for single-family or two- family (duplex) development in the RM District. It also would not change the density standard in RM District, which remains 5,400 square feet of lot area per each unit (actual square footage required per unit may be lower due to the density rounding code amendment adopted earlier this year). Present Situation: During an Aug. 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session Housing Needs and Response discussion, “the Board consensus was to move forward with reviewing barriers to development such as those outlined by staff." Staff views minimum lot size requirement in the RM zoning district as a barrier to some types of multi-family housing development and has drafted this proposed code amendment to remove that barrier. Staff recommends regulating multi-family development density by units per area, not minimum lot size. Our current minimum parent parcel size of 40,000 square feet is an old-fashioned standard that serves no useful purpose. Density (5,400 square feet per unit in the RM district) remains a viable standard and is a true measure of capacity. For lots that meet the “magic” 40,000 sq. ft. size, multi-family development can be built with 5,400 square feet of land area per unit. An RM lot containing 39,999 sq. ft. can developed with only two units, yet an RM lot containing just one square foot more land Community Development Memo 41 can be developed with eight units. This sounds pretty silly, except that it has real and problematic consequences for Estes Valley. The minimum lot size requirement inhibits efficient use of RM-zoned land. The most visible effect is to prohibit developments of between three and seven units. The three- to-seven-unit housing niche is an under-represented segment on the local housing market. Staff has been contacted numerous times in recent years by developers who wished to propose such developments, only to find that the 40,000 square-foot minimum does not allow it. This proposed code amendment, in concert with a code amendment earlier this year to round fractional densities upward, would allow a triplex to be built on just over 13,500 square feet of land. This is in line with many communities’ development densities. Elimination of minimum lot size and regulating only units per acre is a technique suggested by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in their guide, Making Housing Affordable: Breaking Down Regulatory Barriers (1994). Minimum lot size is recognized as a barrier to affordable housing, including workforce housing. Staff propose retaining minimum lot size requirements for single-family and duplex development in the RM zoning district at this time, to incentivize multi-family development, over single-family and duplex development in the RM District. It is rather probably that we will suggest changes in these figures as well. Meanwhile, however, this amendment will provide a path forward for small multi-family developments. Action Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 24-16 as drafted. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment on October 18 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 in favor, none opposed, and none absent or recused. This amendment requires approval by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners to become effective. County consideration is anticipated on Dec. 12, 2016. Level of Public Interest: Low. Recommended Motion: I move to approve Ordinance No. 24-16, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. I move to deny Ordinance No. 24-16, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: Draft Ordinance No. 24-16. 42 ORDINANCE NO. 24-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2, TO REMOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM) ZONE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 7.1.A.2.B TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO THE RM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.3.C.4. Table 4-2: “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts”, and Section 7.1.A.2.b “RM Zone”; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.3.C.4. Table 4-2: “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts”, and Section 7.1.A.2.b “RM Zone”, as set forth on Exhibit “A” and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit “A”. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2016. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, 43 on the ________ day of , 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie W illiamson, Town Clerk EXHIBIT A ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 3. ZONING DISTRICTS Section 4.3.C.4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Zoning District Max. Net Density (units/acre) Minimum Lot Standards [1] [4] Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] [7] Max. Building Height (ft.) [8] Min. Building Width (ft.) Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) RM Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] Senior Institutional Living Uses: ½ Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 30 20 [5] Notes to Table 4-2 (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. Section 7.1.A.2.b RM Zone: Residential development in the RM Zoning District shall comply with the base zoning minimum lot area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet. In addition, for For each percentage point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum land area per unit requirement (five thousand four hundred [5,400] square feet per unit = maximum density of eight [8] dwelling units per acre) shall be increased by three hundred (300) square feet per dwelling unit. 44 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Date: November 17, 2016 RE: Verizon Land Lease Agreement - Amendment Objective: Approve the amended lease agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon, to grant them the ability to install, and operate, cell phone communication equipment and antenna in the Moraine/Weist parking lot. Present Situation: Verizon’s temporary lease on another building is expiring and they have been working with the Town of Estes Park to find a site downtown that is on a Town owned property or building. The current site was identified as a potential site when a solution for a cell phone antenna site on the roof of Town Hall could not be accomplished. Through the review process, Town of Estes Park Light & Power, requested that the proposed construction plans show that an easement be dedicated through the lot to a transformer in the northwest corner of the lot, as described in Exhibit C. Proposal: This lease agreement will not generate expense, but will generate $18,000 per year in revenue from Verizon. The location of the cell phone communications antenna will greatly improve service for Town of Estes Park visitors and businesses particularly in the downtown area. Advantages: •Improved cell phone service in the downtown area for visitors and businesses. •Generate revenue that could be used for maintenance of Town owned facilities. Disadvantages: •Visual impact of a cell phone tower in the downtown area, however, there are currently cell phone antennas on top of privately owned buildings in the downtown area. Action Recommended: Public Works recommends that the Town Board of Trustees authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement, and allow Verizon to proceed with the installation and operation of the communications equipment as described in the land lease agreement, Exhibit A, 45 Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. Construction documents have been submitted to Town of Estes Park Planning Department for review and approval. Budget: No budget necessary for this request. Staff coordination time and review by Town Attorney White have been the only costs associated with this request. Level of Public Interest Moderate: There was some public comment during the review of this plan through the Community Development process. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Verizon Land Lease Agreement as presented. 46 ORDINANCE NO. 25-16 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE VERIZON WIRELESS SITE AT MORAINE/WEIST PARKING LOT TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a land lease agreement with Verizon Wireless for the construction and maintenance of a wireless communications antenna in the Moraine/Weist parking lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: 1.The Land Lease Agreement for the wireless communications antenna between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon Wireless, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved. The officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute the Lease. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2016. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 2016. Town Clerk 47 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LAND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LAND LEASE AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the _______ day of ________________, 2016, between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation, with a mailing address of 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80017 (“Lessor”), and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal offices at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 (“Lessee”). Lessor and Lessee are referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. Lessor and Lessee are parties to that certain Lease Agreement dated May 25, 2016 (the “Lease”), whereby Lessor leased to Lessee a portion of ground space for installation of Lessee’s communications facility (“Lease Area”), together with easement rights for access and utility purposes, on Lessor’s property, legally described on Exhibit A attached to this Second Amendment (“Property”). B. Pursuant to a requirement of the Public Works Department, the driveway in front of the Lease Area was widened, such driveway also being the location of Lessee’s 12 foot-wide access and utility easement. In order to accurately depict Lessee’s easement interests, the Parties entered into a First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement, dated June 28, 2016 (“First Amendment”). By this First Amendment, Exhibit B and Exhibit C of the Lease were replaced in their entirety, with the replacement Exhibit B and Exhibit C setting forth the legal descriptions and depictions of the Lessor’s property, the Lease Area, and Lessee’s easements (the Lease Area, together with Lessee’s easements, being the “Premises”). The Lease, as amended by the First Amendment, became the entire agreement of the Parties (“Agreement”). C. Lessor and Lessee now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the length of Lessee’s 10 foot-wide easement (“10-foot Easement”) to include two (2) utility poles located on Landlord’s property, which Lessee will utilize for Lessee’s communications facility. Lessor and Lessee further desire to set forth the complete descriptions for and depictions of the Property and Premises by replacing those Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C previously attached to the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1.Extension of 10-foot Easement. Lessor grants Lessee an additional portion of the Property to extend the length of the existing 10-foot Easement from the southwest end of the easement to and along the distance between two utility poles, encompassing such utility poles. The 10-foot Easement, as extended, is legally described on Exhibit B and depicted on Exhibit C, both attached to, and by this reference incorporated into, this Second Amendment. 2.Replacement of Exhibits to Agreement. The Parties agree to replace all previous exhibits to the Agreement in their entirety and replace such prior exhibits with the Exhibit A: 48 Legal Description of Property, Exhibit B: Legal Descriptions of the Premises, and Exhibit C depicting the Property and Premises. The attached Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C are incorporated into this Second Amendment, thereby becoming the controlling exhibits to the Agreement. In the event the legal description of any of the Premises conflicts with a depiction set forth on Exhibit C, Exhibit C shall control. 3.Full Force and Agreement. Except as specifically modified by this Second Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Neither Party is in default of the Agreement as of the date of this Second Amendment. In the event of a conflict between any term or provision of the Agreement and this Second Amendment, the terms and provisions of this Second Amendment shall control. All captions are for reference purposes only and shall not be used in the construction or interpretation of this Second Amendment. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Second Amendment have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. This SECOND AMENDMENT OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT has been executed by each Party’s duly authorized representative effective as of the date first above written. LESSOR: The Town of Estes Park By: Name: Title: Date: LESSEE: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: Name: Title: Date: 49 EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 50 EXHIBIT B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lease Area: 12-foot Easement: * 10-foot Easement: * 5-foot Easement: * *THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIPS ARE TO BE LENGTHENED AND/OR SHORTENED AS TO PREVENT ANY GAPS AND/OR OVERLAPS. 51 EXHIBIT C: Depiction of Premises [to be replaced with Survey/Site Plan pages] 52 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Eileen Lynch Re: FTC Redrum (2nd Amendment) (Space above this line for recorder’s use) FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT This SECOND AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment of Memorandum”) is made this _____ day of __________________, 2016, between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation, with a mailing address of 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80017, hereinafter designated LESSOR and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with offices located at 180 Washington Valley Road, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921, hereinafter referred to as “LESSEE.” LESSOR and LESSEE are at times collectively referred to as the “Parties” or individually, as a “Party.” 1.LESSOR and LESSEE entered into a Land Lease Agreement on May 25, 2016 (the “Agreement”), whereby Lessor leased to Lessee a portion of ground space (“Lease Area”) and granted Lessee easement rights for access and utility purposes on Lessor’s Property (the “Property”, as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto). The Agreement is evidenced by a Memorandum of Land Lease Agreement, dated May 25, 2016, and recorded in the real property records of the County of Larimer, Colorado on June 6, 2016, under Reception No. 20160035514. 3.LESSOR and LESSEE amended the Agreement by First Amendment to Land Lease Agreement on June 25, 2016 (“First Amendment”) in order to replace Exhibit B and Exhibit C as depictions of the Lease Area and Lessee’s easement interests (collectively, the “Premises”. Necessitating such new depictions was widening of the driveway which passes in front of the Lease Area, and in which Lessee’s 12-foot Easement is located, in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. The First Amendment is evidenced by a First Amendment to Memorandum of Land Lease Agreement, dated June 25, 2016, and recorded in the real property records of the County of Larimer, Colorado on August 25, 2016, under Reception No. 20160056580. 4.LESSOR and LESSEE have further amended the Agreement by a Second Amendment to Land Lease Agreement on ___________________, 2016 (“Second Amendment”) by which Lessor granted Lessee an additional area of land to extend the length of Lessee’s 10- foot Easement. In order to provide complete legal descriptions for the Property and Premises, as 53 well as revised depictions, the Second Amendments replaces all prior exhibits to the Agreement with the attached Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property, Exhibit B: Legal Description of Premises, and Exhibit C, which depicts the Premises. By reference, such Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C were incorporated into the Second Amendment, thus becoming the sole exhibits to the Agreement. By this reference, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C are hereby incorporated into this Second Amendment to Memorandum. 5.No Modifications to Agreement. Other than to document the legal descriptions and depictions of the Property and revised Premises as set forth in the Second Amendment, this Second Amendment to Memorandum of Land Lease Agreement does not and is not intended to amend or modify, and shall not be deemed or construed as amending or modifying, any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of the Agreement, all of which are hereby ratified and affirmed. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Second Amendment to Memorandum and the provisions of the Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall control. The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns, subject to the provisions of the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LESSOR and LESSEE have caused this Second Amendment to Memorandum of Land Lease Agreement to be duly executed on the date first written above. LESSOR: The Town of Estes Park By: Name: Title: Date: LESSEE: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: Name: Title: Date: [NOTARY BLOCKS ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 54 STATE OF __________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________, 2016 by ___________________________ as __________________________, on behalf of the Town of Estes Park. WITNESS my hand and official Notarial Seal. ____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 2016, by ___________________________ as __________________________of Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless. WITNESS my hand and official Notarial Seal. ____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________________ 55 EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 56 EXHIBIT B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lease Area: 12-foot Easement: * 10-foot Easement: * 5-foot Easement: * *THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIPS ARE TO BE LENGTHENED AND/OR SHORTENED AS TO PREVENT ANY GAPS AND/OR OVERLAPS. 57 EXHIBIT C: Depiction of Premises [to be replaced with Survey/Site Plan pages] 58 59 60 TOWN BOARD MEETING November 22, 2016 Action Item #2. Appointments For Partnership For Age-Friendly Communities Board. Town Administrator Lancaster. Town Administrator Lancaster will present this item verbally, there will be no memo. 61 62 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 17, 2016 RE: Interview Committee for Estes Valley Planning Commission Objective: To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for two positions open on the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Planning Commission is currently made up of seven volunteer community members with three appointed by the Town, three appointed by the County and one jointly appointed by the Town and County. The Commission currently has two vacancies. Administrative Services has posted the positions and is accepting applications through December 5, 2016. Proposal: Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board. Therefore, Mayor Pinkham has requested the Board discuss the appointments at the Study Session prior to the Town Board and bring forward a recommendation to the Board meeting for approval. Advantages: To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: To appoint two Trustees to the interview committee. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest. Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the Estes Valley Planning Commission interview panel. 63 64 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Date: November 22, 2016 RE: Update on 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan Objective: To update the Board on progress made toward achieving the strategic plan goal of implementing a capital planning process and developing a capital plan for infrastructure. Present Situation: The Town does not have a consistent and standardized process for developing and publishing a capital improvement plan (CIP) for infrastructure. Staff began developing the capital planning process in 2016. The stated goal of this effort was to build an efficient and repeatable process for developing an annual CIP in concert with the Town’s budget process. Throughout 2016, staff and the Town’s Geographic Information System (GIS) consultants have been working to build a tool that integrates the Town’s capital planning needs with the Town’s existing GIS mapping abilities. The primary advantage of integrating the GIS system with the Town’s CIP planning is that it allows staff to map out the locations of future projects to more easily identify opportunities for coordination (which can create project efficiencies and cost savings). The reporting abilities of the GIS tool also enable staff to generate summary reports and individual project detail sheets. In developing this tool, staff has created a prototype 2017-2021 CIP to show the Town Board what the substantive outputs of this CIP process will be. The following items accompany this memo: 1)A summary of all capital projects by department 2)A summary of all capital projects by funding source 3)Examples of the format for the project detail sheets While staff has input details for all of the projects contained on the summary sheets, the projects have not been prioritized within funds. This will be an important component of the full process to be implemented in 2017. 65 Based on the progress made this year, the Town will be able to fully implement a capital planning process in 2017, and will be able to publish a 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan in coordination with the 2018 Budget. The 2018-2022 CIP will include any capital project that costs $50,000 or more and has a useful life of more than one year (some smaller projects may be included at the discretion of the Department Directors). Additionally, all master plans will be included in the CIP because of the volume of capital projects these plans identify. Advantages: •Allows for advanced financial planning •Facilitates communication and coordination around capital construction internally and externally •Fosters transparency (in addition to the CIP itself, the GIS component will be able to display project information on a public-facing map) •Furthers economic and community development by indicating where the Town expects to make capital investments in the coming years Disadvantages: •Initial staff time investment to set up the process is high •Capital improvement planning is necessarily a fluid exercise; new information may arise at any time that shifts the prioritization of projects Budget: The funding for the GIS consultant to develop the tool was absorbed by existing GIS consulting budget. Level of Public Interest: Moderate 66 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Public Works Engineering/Stormwater Bridge Replacement (Moraine Ave/Fall River) 1,187,000$ 1,187,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,374,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 1 -$ -$ 429,000$ -$ -$ 429,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 2 -$ -$ -$ 429,000$ -$ 429,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ 429,000$ 429,000$ Stormwater Capital Improvement Program -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ Stormwater Master Plan 330,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 330,000$ Engineering/Stormwater Total 1,517,000$ 1,337,000$ 579,000$ 579,000$ 579,000$ 4,591,000$ Facilities Fleet/Street Shop Roof 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Light and Power Roof -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Museum Collections and Research Facility -$ 75,000$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ 1,775,000$ Museum Interior Remodel 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ Town Hall Security Cameras Ph. 2 26,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,000$ Town Hall Police Department Roof -$ -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Town Hall Windows - 2nd Floor West -$ 55,000$ -$ -$ -$ 55,000$ Water Department Roof -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Facilities Total 376,000$ 250,000$ 1,820,000$ -$ 150,000$ 2,596,000$ Streets Downtown Estes Loop 384,000$ 384,000$ 768,000$ 2,592,000$ -$ 4,128,000$ Downtown Parking Program 45,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45,000$ Dynamic Message Boards 130,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 130,000$ Intersection Improvements (US36/Community Drive)50,000$ 510,000$ -$ -$ -$ 560,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Big Horn Lot)-$ -$ -$ 39,000$ -$ 39,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Brownfields Lot)-$ -$ 26,000$ -$ -$ 26,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Davis Lot)-$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ 88,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (East Riverside Lot)-$ -$ 98,000$ -$ -$ 98,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Moraine Wiest Lot)-$ -$ -$ 157,000$ -$ 157,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (North Visitor Center Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 260,000$ 260,000$ Capital Expenditures by Department 67 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Department Parking Lot Resurfacing (Performance Park Lot)-$ 148,500$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 398,500$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Post Office Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 145,860$ 145,860$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Riverside Lot)-$ -$ 61,000$ -$ -$ 61,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Spruce Lot)-$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ 36,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall Lot)-$ -$ 371,000$ -$ -$ 371,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Tregent Park Lot)-$ -$ -$ 18,000$ -$ 18,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Virginia Lot)-$ -$ -$ 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (West Riverside Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 62,475$ 62,475$ Street Improvement Program (STIP)1,192,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 7,192,000$ Trail Construction (Fall River)200,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 6,200,000$ Trail Extension (Brodie Ave)-$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Trail Extension (MacGregor Ave) 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ Trail Extension (Moraine Avenue Riverwalk Underpass)-$ 150,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Streets Total 2,551,000$ 5,116,500$ 5,424,000$ 6,336,000$ 1,968,335$ 21,395,835$ Parks Parks Irrigation System Replacement 141,500$ 49,000$ -$ -$ -$ 190,500$ Parks Total 141,500$ 49,000$ -$ -$ -$ 190,500$ Public Works Total 4,585,500$ 6,752,500$ 7,823,000$ 6,915,000$ 2,697,335$ 28,773,335$ Community Services Fairgrounds and Events Events Complex Barn Replacement -$ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$ Events Complex Grass All-Purpose Field -$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ 100,000$ Events Complex Internal Roadway 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Events Complex Master Plan 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 35,000$ Events Complex Storage Building -$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ 125,000$ Fairgrounds and Events Total 185,000$ 125,000$ 4,100,000$ -$ -$ 4,410,000$ Community Services Total 185,000$ 125,000$ 4,100,000$ -$ -$ 4,410,000$ Light and Power Distribution 68 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Department Automated Meter Reading Improvements (SG2016)190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 950,000$ Babcock (Near Goblin Castle)-$ 91,000$ -$ -$ -$ 91,000$ Carriage Hills Phase 1 -$ -$ -$ 775,480$ -$ 775,480$ Carriage Hills Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,000$ 507,000$ Fall River / Big Horn 1,110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,110,000$ Goblin Castle (GC2019)-$ 215,000$ -$ -$ -$ 215,000$ Longs Peak Area -$ 260,000$ -$ -$ -$ 260,000$ Ski Road Area -$ -$ 286,000$ -$ -$ 286,000$ Skinner Road Area -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Tahosa Park (AP2018)-$ 67,000$ -$ -$ -$ 67,000$ Distribution Total 1,300,000$ 823,000$ 776,000$ 965,480$ 697,000$ 4,561,480$ Light and Power Total 1,300,000$ 823,000$ 776,000$ 965,480$ 697,000$ 4,561,480$ Water Distribution Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement -$ 180,760$ -$ -$ -$ 180,760$ Big Horn Drive Water Main Replacement -$ -$ 193,398$ -$ -$ 193,398$ Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall Road -$ 213,000$ -$ -$ -$ 213,000$ Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) Water Main Repair -$ 173,952$ -$ -$ -$ 173,952$ Bureau Area Phase 1 401,370$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 401,370$ Bureau Area Phase 2 -$ 441,371$ -$ -$ -$ 441,371$ Bureau Area Phase 3 -$ -$ 221,846$ -$ -$ 221,846$ Bureau Area Phase 4 -$ -$ -$ 331,608$ -$ 331,608$ Distribution Sites SCADA MOSCAD/MOSCAD L 16,000$ 48,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 112,000$ Hill Streets Water Main Replacement Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 253,991$ -$ 253,991$ Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement -$ -$ 507,904$ -$ -$ 507,904$ Park View and Cyteworth Water Main Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 622,224$ 622,224$ Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main -$ -$ -$ 275,000$ -$ 275,000$ Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,496$ 295,496$ Stanley Circle Water Main Replacement Phase 3 -$ -$ 215,422$ -$ -$ 215,422$ Distribution Total 417,370$ 1,057,083$ 1,154,570$ 876,599$ 933,720$ 4,439,342$ Purification GCWTP SCADA/MOSCAD Replacement with ACE 81,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,000$ Glacier Creek WTP Pond Outlet Replacement 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 110,000$ 69 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Department USA Water Rights Contract (BOR Expires 2019)25,000$ 90,500$ -$ -$ -$ 115,500$ Water Rights Application for Source Water Intake 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Purification Total 256,000$ 130,500$ -$ -$ -$ 386,500$ Water Total 673,370$ 1,187,583$ 1,154,570$ 876,599$ 933,720$ 4,825,842$ Grand Total 6,743,870$ 8,888,083$ 13,853,570$ 8,757,079$ 4,328,055$ 42,570,657$ 70 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Federal Grant or Loan Engineering/Stormwater Bridge Replacement (Moraine Ave/Fall River)1,187,000$ 1,187,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,374,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 1 -$ -$ 429,000$ -$ -$ 429,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 2 -$ -$ -$ 429,000$ -$ 429,000$ Downtown Channel Widening Ph. 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ 429,000$ 429,000$ Stormwater Master Plan 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Engineering/Stormwater Total 1,487,000$ 1,187,000$ 429,000$ 429,000$ 429,000$ 3,961,000$ Streets Downtown Estes Loop 384,000$ 384,000$ 768,000$ 2,592,000$ -$ 4,128,000$ Dynamic Message Boards 105,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 105,000$ Streets Total 489,000$ 384,000$ 768,000$ 2,592,000$ -$ 4,233,000$ Federal Grant or Loan Total 1,976,000$ 1,571,000$ 1,197,000$ 3,021,000$ 429,000$ 8,194,000$ General Fund Engineering/Stormwater Stormwater Master Plan 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,000$ Engineering/Stormwater Total 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,000$ Streets Downtown Parking Program 45,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45,000$ Dynamic Message Boards 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Intersection Improvements (US36/Community Drive)50,000$ 510,000$ -$ -$ -$ 560,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Big Horn Lot)-$ -$ -$ 39,000$ -$ 39,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Brownfields Lot)-$ -$ 26,000$ -$ -$ 26,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Davis Lot)-$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ 88,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (East Riverside Lot)-$ -$ 98,000$ -$ -$ 98,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Moraine Wiest Lot)-$ -$ -$ 157,000$ -$ 157,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (North Visitor Center Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 260,000$ 260,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Performance Park Lot)-$ 148,500$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 398,500$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Post Office Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 145,860$ 145,860$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Riverside Lot)-$ -$ 61,000$ -$ -$ 61,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Spruce Lot)-$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ 36,000$ Capital Expenditures by Funding Source 71 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Funding Source Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall Lot)-$ -$ 371,000$ -$ -$ 371,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Tregent Park Lot)-$ -$ -$ 18,000$ -$ 18,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (Virginia Lot)-$ -$ -$ 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ Parking Lot Resurfacing (West Riverside Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 62,475$ 62,475$ Streets Total 120,000$ 782,500$ 806,000$ 244,000$ 468,335$ 2,420,835$ Facilities Fleet/Street Shop Roof 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Light and Power Roof -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Museum Interior Remodel 140,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 140,000$ Town Hall Security Cameras Ph. 2 26,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,000$ Town Hall Police Department Roof -$ -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Town Hall Windows - 2nd Floor West -$ 55,000$ -$ -$ -$ 55,000$ Water Department Roof -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Facilities Total 316,000$ 175,000$ 120,000$ -$ 150,000$ 761,000$ Fairgrounds and Events Events Complex Barn Replacement -$ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$ Events Complex Grass All-Purpose Field -$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ 100,000$ Events Complex Internal Roadway 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Events Complex Master Plan 35,000$ Events Complex Storage Building -$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ 125,000$ Fairgrounds and Events Total 185,000$ 125,000$ 4,100,000$ -$ -$ 4,410,000$ General Fund Total 651,000$ 1,082,500$ 5,026,000$ 244,000$ 618,335$ 7,621,835$ 1A Sales Tax Fund Streets Trail Extension (Brodie Ave)-$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Trail Extension (MacGregor Ave)250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Street Improvement Program (STIP)1,192,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 7,192,000$ Streets Total 1,442,000$ 1,650,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 7,592,000$ 1A Sales Tax Fund Total 1,442,000$ 1,650,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 7,592,000$ Open Space Fund Streets Trail Construction (Fall River)200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ 800,000$ 72 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Funding Source Trail Extension (Brodie Ave)-$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Trail Extension (MacGregor Ave)300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Trail Extension (Moraine Avenue Riverwalk Underpass)-$ 150,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Streets Total 500,000$ 500,000$ 550,000$ 200,000$ -$ 1,750,000$ Parks Parks Irrigation System Replacement 141,500$ 49,000$ -$ -$ -$ 190,500$ Parks Total 141,500$ 49,000$ -$ -$ -$ 190,500$ Open Space Fund Total 641,500$ 549,000$ 550,000$ 200,000$ -$ 1,940,500$ Other Funding Engineering/Stormwater Stormwater Capital Impt Program -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ Engineering/Stormwater Total -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ Other Funding Total -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ Private Grant or Loan Facilities Museum Collections and Research Facility -$ 75,000$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ 1,775,000$ Facilities Total -$ 75,000$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ 1,775,000$ Private Grant or Loan Total -$ 75,000$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ 1,775,000$ State Grant or Loan Streets Trail Construction (Fall River)-$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ -$ 5,400,000$ Streets Total -$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ -$ 5,400,000$ State Grant or Loan Total -$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ -$ 5,400,000$ Light and Power Fund Distribution Automated Meter Reading Improvements (SG2016)190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 950,000$ Babcock (Near Goblin Castle)-$ 91,000$ -$ -$ -$ 91,000$ Carriage Hills Phase 1 -$ -$ -$ 775,480$ -$ 775,480$ Carriage Hills Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,000$ 507,000$ Fall River / Big Horn 1,110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,110,000$ Goblin Castle (GC2019)-$ 215,000$ -$ -$ -$ 215,000$ Longs Peak Area -$ 260,000$ -$ -$ -$ 260,000$ Ski Road Area -$ -$ 286,000$ -$ -$ 286,000$ Skinner Road Area -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Tahosa Park (AP2018)-$ 67,000$ -$ -$ -$ 67,000$ Distribution Total 1,300,000$ 823,000$ 776,000$ 965,480$ 697,000$ 4,561,480$ Light and Power Fund Total 1,300,000$ 823,000$ 776,000$ 965,480$ 697,000$ 4,561,480$ 73 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5yr Total Capital Expenditures by Funding Source Water Fund Distribution Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement -$ 180,760$ -$ -$ -$ 180,760$ Big Horn Drive Water Main Replacement -$ -$ 193,398$ -$ -$ 193,398$ Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall Road -$ 213,000$ -$ -$ -$ 213,000$ Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) Water Main Repair -$ 173,952$ -$ -$ -$ 173,952$ Bureau Area Phase 1 401,370$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 401,370$ Bureau Area Phase 2 -$ 441,371$ -$ -$ -$ 441,371$ Bureau Area Phase 3 -$ -$ 221,846$ -$ -$ 221,846$ Bureau Area Phase 4 -$ -$ -$ 331,608$ -$ 331,608$ Distribution Sites SCADA MOSCAD?MOSCAD L 16,000$ 48,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 112,000$ Hill Streets Water Main Replacement Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 253,991$ -$ 253,991$ Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement -$ -$ 507,904$ -$ -$ 507,904$ Park View and Cyteworth Water Main Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 622,224$ 622,224$ Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main -$ -$ -$ 275,000$ -$ 275,000$ Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 295,496$ 295,496$ Stanley Circle Water Main Replacement Phase 3 -$ -$ 215,422$ -$ -$ 215,422$ Distribution Total 417,370$ 1,057,083$ 1,154,570$ 876,599$ 933,720$ 4,439,342$ Purification GCWTP SCADA/MOSCAD Replacement with ACE 81,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,000$ Glacier Creek WTP Pond Outlet Replacement 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 110,000$ USA Water Rights Contract (BOR Expires 2019)25,000$ 90,500$ -$ -$ -$ 115,500$ Water Rights Application for Source Water Intake 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Purification Total 256,000$ 130,500$ -$ -$ -$ 386,500$ Water Fund Total 673,370$ 1,187,583$ 1,154,570$ 876,599$ 933,720$ 4,825,842$ Grand Total 6,683,870$ 8,888,083$ 13,853,570$ 8,757,079$ 4,328,055$ 42,510,657$ 74 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (Moraine Ave/Fall River) Project Information Department: Division: Useful Life: Capital Type: Board Goal: Project Manager: Budget Estimate: Annual Change in O&M: Location: PublicWorks $2,220,000.00 Moraine at Fall River kash 40 Infrastructure Replacement Engineering / Stormwater Project Costs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total Construction:$1,353,180$676,590 $676,590 $-$-$- Contingency:$118,700 $118,700 $-$-$-$237,400 Costruction Mgmnt:$178,050 $178,050 $-$-$-$356,100 Design:$142,440 $142,440 $-$-$-$284,880 Legal:$11,870 $11,870 $-$-$-$23,740 Right of Way:$59,350 $59,350 $-$-$-$118,700 Other:$-$- Annual Cost:$1,187,000 $1,187,000 $-$-$-$-$2,374,000 Funding Sources TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182017 $2,374,000$1,187,000 $1,187,000 $-$-$-Federal Grant or Loan NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- Annual Cost:$1,187,000 $1,187,000 $-$-$-$2,374,000$- Funding Details: Project Description 75 Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement Project Information Department: Division: Useful Life: Capital Type: Board Goal: Project Manager: Budget Estimate: Annual Change in O&M: Location: Utilities $180,760.00 Aspen Avenue ctedder 80 Infrastructure Replacement Water Project Costs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total Construction:$139,050$139,050 $-$-$-$- Contingency:$13,905 $-$-$-$-$13,905 Costruction Mgmnt:$13,205 $-$-$-$-$13,205 Design:$14,600 $-$-$-$-$14,600 Legal:$-$-$-$-$-$- Right of Way:$-$-$-$-$-$- Other:$-$- Annual Cost:$180,760 $-$-$-$-$-$180,760 Funding Sources TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182017 $180,760$180,760 $-$-$-$-Water Fund NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- Annual Cost:$180,760 $-$-$-$-$180,760$- Funding Details: Project Description Replacement of Galvanized pipe past it's useful life. Master Plan loop to Mall Road and eventually south to Fish Creek Road. 76 Goblin Castle (GC2019) Project Information Department: Division: Useful Life: Capital Type: Board Goal: Project Manager: Budget Estimate: Annual Change in O&M: Location: Utilities $215,000.00 Goblin Castle Road jlockhart 60 Infrastructure Replacement Light & Power Project Costs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total Construction:$175,000$- $175,000 $-$-$- Contingency:$- $25,000 $-$-$-$25,000 Costruction Mgmnt:$- $5,000 $-$-$-$5,000 Design:$- $10,000 $-$-$-$10,000 Legal:$-$-$-$-$-$- Right of Way:$-$-$-$-$-$- Other:$-$- Annual Cost:$- $215,000 $-$-$-$-$215,000 Funding Sources TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182017 $215,000$- $215,000 $-$-$-Light & Power Fund NA $-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- NA $-$-$-$-$-$- Annual Cost:$- $215,000 $-$-$-$215,000$- Funding Details: Project Description New poles, 6,000 feet of overhead tree cable, single phase 77 11/23/2016 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD MEETING 11/22/2016 Update on 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Why? Town Board Strategic Plan Goal in 2016 and 2017 Provides for addition, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital assets Prioritization of capital needs Advanced planning for complex projects Facilitates transparency and coordination 78 11/23/2016 Where are we now? Staff began development in April 2016 Geographic Information System (GIS) application has been built Prototype 2017-2021 CIP developed Continue to refine project detail data Base for 2018-2022 CIP Where are we going? Focus for 2018-2022 CIP will be on the process Ensure that “Out Years” projects are accounted for Prioritization within funds Budget integration Fully implement CIP process in 2017 Feedback from the Board on: Summaries Project Detail Sheets 79 11/23/2016 Questions? 80