HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-01-12The 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, January 12, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION. “2016 Centennial Year of the Library”
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated December 8, 2015, Special Town Board Meeting
December 15, 2015, and Town Board Study Session December 8, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee, December 10, 2015 –
cancelled.
B. Community Development / Community Services Committee, December 17,
2015 – cancelled.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 1, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 2015 and November
17, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
6. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated November 18, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
Prepared 1/4/16
* Revised:
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
7. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated November 20, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
8. Resolution #01-16 - Public Posting Area Designation.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. WELLNESS CENTER UPDATE. Estes Park Medical Center.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM CASA CASA, LLC DBA GRUMPY GRINGO
TO TAYLOR LEGG, LLC DBA FAJITA RITA'S, 1560 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE,
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #9, Stone Bridge Estates
Condominiums, 1195 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes, Inc. /Applicant.
Planner Gonzales
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ENERGY IMPACT ASSISTANCE FUND GRANT FOR ESTES PARK FLOOD
RECOVERY. Finance Officer McFarland.
Flood Recovery Planning Technician.
Flood Recovery Project Associate
Flood Recovery Project Manager/ Civil Engineer
Extend for additional year Environmental Planner.
2. PARKING STRATEGY. Transportation Advisory Board Chair Campbell.
3. POLICY #105 - AGENDAS. Town Administrator Lancaster.
4. DOWNTOWN PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk
Williamson.
6. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 8, 2015
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 December 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested the damage on Lot 5, Stanley Historic District
caused by the large trucks used for the construction on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District
be repaired and a written agreement to re-vegetate the area be established between the
Town and Mr. Cullen. She further requested there be no further use of the lot for
construction on Lot 4, SHD.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris commented the Visit Estes Park Board approved the Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Town at their recent meeting. The Larimer County Commissioners
would hold a public meeting on December 12th on vacation homes. The Bear Task
Force held their last meeting of the year.
Trustee Holcomb recognized the snowplow crew for their efforts in keeping the roads
plowed this season. The Town’s pothole truck has filled approximately 1900 potholes at
a cost of $32.09 per pothole with a savings of $61,000 in 2015.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Rooftop Rodeo did not win the mid-size rodeo;
however, the rodeo was in the top 5. She thanked the Western Heritage committee for
their efforts in 2015 and recognized their commitment to improving the rodeo.
Trustee Phipps announced he would not be seeking re-election in April. The Estes
Valley Planning Commission would hold a special meeting on December 9th to discuss
the Special Review of the Stanley Hotel project on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District; hold
its regularly scheduled meeting on December 15th; and the public hearing on vacation
homes would not be held and has not been rescheduled.
Trustee Ericson stated the Community Development/Community Services meeting for
December has been cancelled. The Transportation Advisory Board would meet on
December 16th. Trustees Nelson and Ericson would conduct interviews along with Jon
Nicholas and staff for the Downtown Plan Steering committee.
Mayor Pinkham thanked Trustee Phipps for his service to the Town and his diligent
work in representing the citizens of the Town. He encouraged everyone to get involved
in the Winterfest chili cook-off and asked the Board to participate.
Board of Trustees – December 8, 2015 – Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Meter division has been reorganized and the inventory reviewed to save the
organization $15,000. Staff has been reviewing the option for online billing and an
option has been identified for 2016.
The Town has hired a CSU professor to complete a take rate study for broadband
services in Estes Park. A statistically valid online survey would be conducted to collect
the information needed to complete the study.
The Town has received a letter from Mary Banken/Estes Valley Land Trust Executive
Director affirming their comfort with the development of a re-vegetation plan by Thomas
Hawkinson/Heath Construction to re-vegetate the area on Lot 5, Stanley Historic District
damaged by the construction on Lot 4. The re-vegetation efforts would begin later in the
spring of 2016.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 24, 2015, and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated November 24, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, November
19, 2015.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 1, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. 2015 Financial Audit Clifton Larson Allen Engagement Letter.
6. Appointment of Reuben Bergsten to the Platte River Power Authority Board of
Directors for a 4-year term commencing January 1, 2016 and expiring
December 31, 2019.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - LA CABANA MEXICAN BAR & GRILL, LLC DBA
LA CABANA MEXICAN BAR AND GRILL, 165 VIRGINIA DRIVE UNIT 18-1
AND 18-2, ESTES PARK, NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson presented the application stating all necessary paperwork and fees
were filed. The application was submitted to the State for a concurrent review.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the New Liquor
License for La Cabana Mexican Bar & Grill, LLC dba La Cabana Mexican
Bar and Grill, 165 Virginia Drive Unit 18-1 And 18-2, Estes Park, Tavern
Liquor License, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PLAT Portions of Lot 26, Little Prospect Mountain; 531
Highland Lane; Robert Shipman/Owner; Lonnie Sheldon/Applicant.
B. RIVERVIEW PINES TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & AMENDED
PLAT, Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest
Board of Trustees – December 8, 2015 – Page 3
Subdivision & Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue;
Frederick Kropp/Applicant. Item Continued to January 26, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Items with the findings and conditions
recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed
unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #24-15 - 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the supplemental
appropriation resolution which allows a municipality to authorize additional
money for a specific fund than was originally adopted. The requested
supplemental appropriations address both revenue and expenditure difference
from the approved 2015 budget. Examples include increase revenue and
expenses from flood related reimbursements with nearly half of the $5.1 million
in expenses to be restated in the 2016 budget, General Fund due to an
increase in sales tax revenues forecasted, a reduction in the Event Center
revenues from $490,000 to $75,000, Community Reinvestment increased due
to the parking structure revenues, Open Space revenues increased due to the
Scott Pond and Hydroplant riverbank restoration grants, increase in sales tax
collect for 1A funds, increase revenues for L&P, Water revenues increased to
reflect tap fees for Falcon Ridge, Medical fund revenues and expenses
decreased, and the IT funds increased revenues due to fiber optic lease. There
are eight funds out of 16 funds that have exceeded the original 2015 budget,
including the General fund, Community Reinvestment, Conservation Trust,
Open Space, 1A funds, Utilities, Medical, and Vehicle Replacement. Approval
of the 2015 revisions would leave the General fund with an estimated
unrestricted fund balance at the end of 2016 of $2.8 million or 18%. It was
moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve Resolution #24-15 to
amend the 2015 budget, and it passed unanimously.
2. ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR STANLEY PARK AND YOUTH
CENTER. Item to be moved to the January 12, 2016 meeting.
3. VISIT ESTES PARK 2016 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. Assistant
Town Administrator Machalek presented the 2016 Intergovernmental
Agreement with Visit Estes Park. The Agreement clarifies the relationship
between the two entities and identified three major changes including: the
Destination Leadership Group would meet quarterly instead of periodically; the
Town would formally take responsibility for the management of the brochure
rack physical restocking process for 2016; and the Town and Visit Estes Park
would meet annually to review the Service Level Agreement currently under
development. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the
2016 Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and
Visit Estes Park, and it passed unanimously.
4. BUSINESS INCUBATOR EDA GRANT CONSULTANT CONTRACT. The
Town and the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EDC) issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop a business plan for a business
incubator and nine proposals were received. An RFP Review Committee
consisting of entrepreneurs, business people, individuals with incubator project
experience, Town staff, and EDC staff recommended unanimously ATP
Management Company, LLC for the project. The recommendation was
approved by the EDC Board of Directors on November 19, 2015.
Jon Nicholas/EDC President and CEO reaffirmed the recommendation and
stated the references for the company were excellent and the team consists of
Board of Trustees – December 8, 2015 – Page 4
highly capable, experienced and knowledgeable individuals. The project is
scheduled to be completed by May 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to authorize the Mayor to
sign the consultant contract with ATP Management Company, LLC for the
EDA grant to develop a business plan for a business incubator, and it
passed unanimously.
5. ORDINANCE #16-15 MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE AND CLERK
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. The Town completed a comprehensive market
study for all positions and made salary adjustments with the exception of the
Municipal Court Judge and the Municipal Court Clerk. Per state statute the
positions must be paid a salary set by ordinance. In order to effectively
determine their salaries staff tracked their time for 2014 and 2015 and found
the Judge averages 10 hours per week and the Clerk averages 14 hours per
week. Staff recommended both positions be moved to contract employment
and to adopt said agreements by ordinance to bring the two positions in line
with the Town’s current market study and to eliminate the need to set the
salaries annually. Attorney White read the ordinance into the record. It was
moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve Ordinance #16-15, and it
passed unanimously.
5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve entering into executive
session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may
be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or
instructing negotiators, MPEC/Stall Barns and for a conference with the
Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions regarding Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Pinkham called a 5 minute break at 7:55 p.m. and entered into Executive
Session at 8:00 p.m.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting into regular session at 9:30 p.m.
whereupon he adjourned the meeting.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 15, 2015
Minutes of a Special 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 15th day of December 2015.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and all desiring to do
so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
1. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, LOT
4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, 520 STEAMER PARKWAY. Attorney
White stated the Applicant requested a continuance of the land use item which
must be to a date certain.
Greg Rosener/Stanley Hotel Representative requested the item be continued to
the March 22, 2016 Town Board meeting to allow the Applicant time to prepare
for the meeting. He stated they were not able to meet the hurdles set by the
Estes Valley Planning Commission even though they met with the Planning
staff weekly. The Applicant would likely be prepared prior to March. The
construction of the hotel would continue and the Applicant would work with the
Building staff and the outside building consultant to build the structure in a
manner necessary to add the fourth floor in the future. The hotel would be
completed by May 1, 2016.
Board comments have been summarized: Trustee Ericson questioned why the
applicant requested an expedited review and now requests a delay of the
project until March 22. Trustee Norris stated the initial request for an expedited
review was critical to keep the funding on track and complete the building by
May 2016 and questioned what has changed. Trustee Holcomb questioned
how the delay would impact the completion of the project.
Mr. Rosener stated the initial building was not designed for four stories;
however, the revised construction plans would allow the fourth story in the
future. The expedited review would have allowed the Wellness Center to open
in May or June. Without the Planning Commission approval, the hotel project
would move forward with the approved building plans with a stronger roof. If
the applicant does not receive approval for the fourth floor, the Wellness Center
could be built as a standalone building on the leased area of Lot 4 when the
hospital has raised the funds.
Discussion ensued as to the timing of the continuance with Trustee Nelson
suggesting the item be continued to the first or second meeting in January
Board of Trustees – December 15, 2015 – Page 2
2016. Mallory Baker/Planning consultant stated the timing of a continuance
would be a practical issue as the item would remain quasi judicial during the
period of continuance. Mr. Rosener requested the continuance be no earlier
than January 26, 2016 to eliminate the need for an additional continuance. The
applicant would work on additional engineering, graphics and calculations in
order to be prepared for the Town Board meeting.
Administrator Lancaster stated the application could not be changed from the
initial application. If major changes are requested it would necessitate the need
for a new application, which would require review by the Planning Commission.
Susan Wolf/County citizen stated the amenities offered by the fourth floor
already exist in the community.
Those speaking in opposition of the continuance included Ed Hayek/Town
citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, Dick Spielman/Town citizen, Rebecca
Urquart/Town citizen, Eric Waples/Town citizen, and Marlene Hayek/Town
citizen. The applicant should only be allowed to build the original building and
the stairwells extending above the building should not be allowed. The
information presented to the Town Board should be the same information
presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant misrepresented the
need for an expedited review and has not shown any feasible alternatives. The
process was forced on the public and the applicant has no grounds for a
continuance. The applicant’s neglect to present the information to the Planning
Commission was their own fault. The expedited review process should be
discontinued.
Trustee Ericson offered a substitute motion to continue the item to the January
12, 2016 meeting and the motion was not seconded.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Norris) to approve the continuation of
Special Review 2014-01C, EPMC Wellness Training Center, Lot 4, Stanley
Historic District, 520 Steamer Parkway to January 26, 2016, and it passed
unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #25-15 – Officially Scheduling the municipal election – April
5, 2016. Town Clerk Williamson stated the proposed Resolution #25-15 would
establish the administration of the next regular Municipal Election on April 5,
2016 as a mail ballot election and identify the Town Clerk as the designated
election official. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to approve
Resolution #25-15, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado December 8, 2015
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
Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of December,
2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Director Bergsten and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
BRIEFING ON FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS TO SMALL WATER SYSTEMS.
Director Bergsten provided the Board with an overview on how the Town can provide
assistance to small drinking water systems to improve their quality and reliability within
the Estes Valley. In the past staff has assisted the small systems through the State
Drinking Water Revolving fund loan program. This program has been updated and now
requires a detailed design to be completed prior to funding a project. The change
places significant cost on the small water systems. Staff has been reviewing other
options including USDA Rural Development financing. The financing would allow for
upfront funding for detailed design and requires the Town to be the applicant for the
USDA RD project financing.
There are currently four systems considering improvements, including Park Entrance
Mutual Pipeline & Water Company, Hondius Water System, Charles Heights, and
Prospect Mountain Water Company. The systems will have the option to form an
Improvement District using the State program if the private nonprofit water system can
provide upfront funding of the detailed design; seek out financing for system
improvements and continue to own and operate their own systems; or request the Town
Board enter into a Voluntary Water System Transfer and the Town become the
applicant for the USDA RD project financing. The USDA option eliminates the need for
an Improvement District vote which speeds up the process; eliminates the need for
property liens; the USDA RD program requirements do not require the Davis Bacon and
Related Acts, and therefore, reduces the construction costs; and the program has a 40
year loan paid through revenue bonds which reduces the annual cost to the property
owner with no administrative costs and no penalty if it is paid off early. Staff would
recommend the implementation of a signed petition by a minimum percentage of
affected property owners before the Town would move forward with a revenue bond.
This percentage would be established by the Board. A new enterprise fund would be
established for each new system and a corresponding new rate would be collected.
Those wanting to join the new system would pay a connection fee and pay the new
water rate established. A NEPA process would be completed with public meetings
required. The Town’s Water fund would not be impacted by the separate enterprise
funds.
Ed Schemm/Larimer County Health Department stated the Improvement District
process takes considerable time to process due to the need for an election. The USDA
process eliminates the need for an election and could save approximately a year. He
Town Board Study Session – December 8, 2015 – Page 2
would encourage the Town hold public meetings to educate individuals of the USDA
program.
Attorney White stated through the establishment of an Improvement District the new
improvements would be owned by the district while the bonds are paid off. The USDA
option would require the Town to own the facilities and to take into account the facility
capital improvement costs in establishing the rates.
Board discussion was heard on the need for a petition and the appropriate percentage
needed to move forward with the USDA RD loan program. Board consensus was 51%
of the affected property owners must sign the petition to move the process forward.
AGENDA POLICY.
Administrator Lancaster presented the Board with an Agenda Policy outlining how items
are placed on the Town Board agendas and Standing Committees. The policy would
not only clarify how items are placed on the agendas but remove ambiguity for staff
preparing the agendas, and prevent items from appearing on the agendas that the
majority of the Board does not want to consider or discuss. The policy would require
additional lead time before items could be added to the agenda with the exception of
emergency situations. The Board requested the policy be added to an upcoming Board
agenda for consideration.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Trustee Norris questioned if the Town would receive an interim NEPA report for the
Loop project. Administrator Lancaster stated there would not be any interim reports and
the NEPA report would likely be released in April 2016.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:23 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 1, 2015 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, Members Wayne Newsom,
John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Smith, Members Darling, Lynch, Newsom and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were two people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes from the July 28, 2015 special meeting
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 1, VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION LESS PORTION IN TAX DISTRICT
3300, 500 Big Thompson Avenue
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant was the Town of Estes
Park, and there were two variance requests regarding the proposed Estes Park Transit
Facility and Parking Structure. The proposed four-story structure would be located south
and across the river from the existing Estes Park Visitor Center, and would utilize existing
access from Highway 36. Planner Kleisler noted that due to an amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code approximately 18 months ago, any projects requiring variances
are heard by the Board of Adjustment following all other board hearings (Planning
Commission, Town Board, and/or County Commission). The Planning Commission
approved the Development Plan for this project on August 18, 2015.
Planner Kleisler stated the initial submittal included an alteration to the parking stall
dimensions. Staff identified the Planning Commission had the authority to approve the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 2
September 1, 2015
modification to those standards, so that variance will not be coming to this board. There
are two variances being reviewed today: Section 4.4.D.2.a, which requires the main
entrance of all buildings in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district be oriented to the
frontage highway. The intent of that provision is to have all the shops facing the street. In
this case, it doesn’t make sense to have the opening to the structure oriented to the
highway. Other variance requests are for building height and setback. Planner Kleisler
stated the proposed roof of the main stair tower would extend 32 feet above grade, with
the light poles extending 47.5 feet above grade once the final level is complete.
Regarding the setback variance request, the CD zone district has a minimum and
maximum setback to encourage a building wall downtown. In this case, there is no
building wall on either side of the property. Planner Kleisler stated the Town has worked
with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to satisfy their needs. At this time, the proposed
structure complies with the setback standards; however, staff suggests allowing a setback
variance in case the BOR requests additional revisions and recommends changing the
final location of the structure.
Planner Kleisler stated a variance for a proposed parking structure was approved in early
2014. That project would have put the structure on the north side of the river in the Visitor
Center parking lot. After further review, it was determined the better site would be on the
south side of the river. The intent remains the same.
Planner Kleisler stated land ownership and zoning of this project are unique; a portion of
the proposed site is owned by the Town of Estes Park, and the other portion is federally-
owned land currently being managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District as
part of the nine-hole golf course. There are two zone districts involved, CD–Commercial
Downtown and CO-Commercial Outlying. Most of the proposed structure is in the CO
district. To the northwest of the proposed structure is commercial property, while single-
family residential zoning is to the south. Although the residential district is just across the
street, there is a significant difference in elevation (homes sit much higher than the
proposed project). In the early stages of the review process, it had to be determined
whether to review it as being in CD or CO zone district. After much thought and staff
discussion, it was decided to review it according to the CD–Commercial Downtown review
standards. Planner Kleisler stated the BOR has the final say as to the location and site
design, as the majority of the structure will be on federal land. The existing entrance
location will remain, as will the existing surface parking spaces.
Regarding the height variance, Planner Kleisler stated building height will be just over 26
feet above grade at full build-out. However, approximately 500 square feet of roof over the
main stairwell would extend to approximately 32 feet at build-out. Additionally, light poles
for the top level are proposed at 47.5 feet above grade. Planner Kleisler explained that,
similar to the initial approved variance, lighting would be necessary to address security
needs, but measures are being taken to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. Due to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 3
September 1, 2015
the existing topography, much of Phase I (ground level plus one additional level) would be
naturally screened from the highway. The Town held public meetings to explain the
design of the project, including the height.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners in at least a 1000-foot radius from the proposed site. No concerns were
addressed by affected agencies, and as of August 24, 2015, no public comments were
received.
Planner Kleisler stated this project will be considered an entryway into downtown, and the
applicant has worked to keep the variances minimized. There will be planters along the
highway side to provide a positive aesthetical entrance to the downtown area. Because
the proposed structure is nestled in between the highway and the river, there is little room
to rotate the structure and create an entrance on the front. Because of that, the code
standard requiring the entrance on the front did not fit well with this unique project; thus,
the reason for the variance request.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found that special circumstances and conditions exist. The purpose of having a
maximum setback in the CD district is to ensure a continuous “commercial street wall”.
In this particular area, there is no established street wall, as is found in the central
downtown area. Furthermore, the site is nestled between the highway and river,
limiting site design options.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found the existing surface parking lot could remain
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance was not substantial
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Similar to the original
variance request, the applicant proposes to ensure that lighting meets the
functional and security needs of the structure, while minimizing impacts to
adjacent properties. Unlike the original submittal, the existing grade on this site
will naturally screen most of the first two levels from the public street, thus
creating much less of a visual impact.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 4
September 1, 2015
Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
The applicant will lease this property from the Federal government.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Given the highway and river location, the proposed structure location is the best
fit for the site.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations;
Staff found the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general or
recurrent in nature.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots…
Staff found the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff found the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief. The applicant has shown good faith by adjusting the size and layout of
the structure in part to achieve code compliance.
6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use
not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited…
As with the original proposal, a single use is proposed; Park and Ride Facility,
which is a Use-by-Right in the CD–Commercial Downtown district.
7. In granting such variance, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as
will, in its independent judgment, securre substantially the objectives of the standard
so varied or modified;
Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor
verify building placement and height.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval with one condition, listed below.
Staff and Applicant Discussion
Greg Muhonen/Public Works Director for the Town of Estes Park stated a service road
will be built so the BOR can access the area for maintenance at the flume, and also serve
as an access for emergency vehicles. Adjustments will be made to the existing roadway
to accommodate the access. He stated the existing parking lot is roughly eight feet lower
than the highway.
There was lengthy discussion concerning the size of the parking stalls. Comments
included but were not limited to: cars coming to Estes Park are not getting any smaller;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 5
September 1, 2015
there are a lot of SUVs and pickups; following the development review at the August
Planning Commission meeting, where the Commission discussed allocating certain areas
for larger vehicles, the design team met and identified such spaces, taking spaces for
electric vehicles down and little and adding it on to other spaces; wall lighting is more
intrusive than pole lighting; Walker Parking Consultants hired a lighting consultant, and
the current proposal has the least impact of all the options investigated; wall lighting
would produce glare if you are looking down from above (Stanley Hotel, residences to the
south, etc.); the proposed lighting also enhances the level of security through photo
recognition, which would not work if wall lighting was used; lighting will be dimmed if the
structure is not being used; Member Moreau lives across the street from the fairgrounds,
and was concerned that similar light pollution would exist at the new parking structure;
Member Muhonen recognized the issue with light pollution and wasted energy when lights
are on unnecessarily, and would hope they could be on a timer. He will discuss the
fairgrounds situation with the utilities department.
Additional discussion occurred concerning the location of the entrance, and how traffic will
be affected during peak periods. Comments included but were not limited to: the Traffic
Impact Analysis identified long delays during peak periods; the worst case scenario would
be installing a traffic signal; the good news is that vehicle backups will be fully contained
on the site; long term, the Town may want to look into some form of intersection control,
e.g. a signal or roundabout; the entrance is geographically situated to the other two
stoplights in the area so a signal could be placed at the entrance; during peak periods the
Town could require a right turn or obtain assistance from the Police Department to direct
traffic; if a Do Not Block Intersection sign was installed, it would allow better movement of
traffic wanting to turn left out of the structure; a traffic signal could be installed, but only
activated during peak periods; no fees are currently proposed, and if fees were charged, a
revenue-sharing agreement would have to be in place with the BOR; guests will be
encouraged to park in the structure and take the shuttle or walk downtown; one idea is to
have free parking at the parking structure and possibly charge guests to park closer to
downtown in the smaller lots; no decisions have been made concerning paid parking;
encouraged the Town to fill the lower levels first to minimize the need for lighting the
upper level; at this time, there is only enough money to build the ground level plus one;
the applicant is requesting approval for the entire four-level structure so it doesn’t have to
be reviewed again and construction can move forward at a quicker pace; the Town has
not been allowed to design the details until all environmental clearances have been
granted; signage will be created to direct pedestrians to the underpass under Highway 36;
the lighting of the project has not been finalized for how it will be phased; if a particular
grant is awarded for the structure, it would pay for the entire project; if the Town is not
awarded the grant, lighting would probably be added in phases; the applicant will have a
three-year vesting period that goes with the development plan approval.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 6
September 1, 2015
There was brief discussion concerning the vesting rights. Planner Kleisler stated the time
period would probably not be an issue because the Estes Valley Development Code was
amended to allow variances associated with development plans to have a three-year
vesting period. The time period for a variance approval without a development plan is one
year. It was determined that project vesting would lapse with the development plan
vesting.
There was additional discussion regarding lighting and the ability to have the lights
dimmed or turned off when not in use, especially during the winter when the parking lot
would less utilized. It was noted that these design questions were out of the purview of
the Board. Member Moreau reiterated his concern that the lighting would be similar to the
fairgrounds, and suggested some condition of approval to address a successful lighting
plan. Director Muhonen stated his desire is to close off the top level during snow season
to avoid the need for plowing, lighting, etc. He will think about the concept and discuss it
with other affected agencies.
Conditions of Approval
1. Setback and height certificates shall be required.
2. Project vesting shall lapse with the development plan vesting.
3. Exterior lighting shall be reduced; activated by motion sensor device, turned off, or
dimmed from midnight to dawn.
Planner Kleisler stated initial setback and height certificates will be required, based on the
location and height of the foundation. After a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, a second
height certificate will be required to verify the completed height.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/ Lynch) to approve the requested variances as
written with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the Board, and
the motion passed unanimously.
4. REPORTS
Planner Kleisler stated there will be no October meeting.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
___________________________________
Pete Smith, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
August 18, 2015
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 Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White and Moon
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 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
Candace Kane/ County resident spoke about the desire to rebuild a deck that was destroyed in
the 2013 floods. She explained in detail what the flood waters did to their property. Repairs to
the home were completed the end of 2013. Permanent sewer lines were installed in April, 2015.
She requested the Planning Commission to consider a three‐year window for rebuilding. The
current time limit is one year.
Glenn Malpiede/Town resident is a member of a vacation home owner group. He is working with
two attorneys to provide a position statement and a white paper. After listening to the discussion
concerning vacation home rentals at the study session, he requested the Planning Commission
wait to make recommendations to the Town Board concerning vacation home regulations. His
group supports revised regulations and wants to work with the Planning Commission on them.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, July 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015‐04, ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY & PARKING STRUCTURE, 500 Big
Thompson Avenue
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The applicant, the Town of Estes Park, requests to
build a four story, 414 space parking structure on government land just south of the Estes Park
Visitor Center along Highway 36. In March, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a plan to
construct a parking structure along Highway 34 to the east of the Visitor Center. Since that time, it
has been determined the new proposed location would be a better fit for the structure by
achieving better access and fewer visual impacts. The applicant is requesting a Location and
Extent Review to move the structure across the river to the other side of the property.
Planner Kleisler stated the project would be built in two phases. Phase I would be the ground, or
surface, level and a second level. The site is bordered by the Big Thompson River and the Estes
Park Visitor Center to the north, the 9‐hole golf course to the east (Federal land managed by the
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District), Highway 36 and single‐family residential homes to the
down, and the downtown area to the west. The residential area is separated from the highway by
a steep slope. The building site is 2.6 acres. The existing parking lot has 94 parking spaces, and is
connected to the Visitor Center by two pedestrian bridges crossing the river. Those spaces would
remain. Traffic entering the proposed structure would travel in a counter‐clockwise direction.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was reviewed for compliance with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The Location and Extent
review is intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of specified
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
August 18, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
public facilities and uses sought to be construction or authorized within the Estes Valley. As with
all government agencies in the Estes Valley, the applicant may exempt itself from local zoning
regulations by a majority vote of the entire Town Board. The Planning Commission is the decision‐
making body for this development plan. The applicant has also applied for several variances,
which will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2015 (pending the
outcome of this meeting). Setback and height variances will be reviewed.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant is in negotiation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) to use
a portion of their property to the east. Because federally owned land is technically not zoned, the
review process has been somewhat complicated. This project was reviewed using the standards
for the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. He stated the applicant and the BoR are close to
making final decisions on the locations of the trail and golf cart path. If there are any minor
changes to the plans following the negotiations, reviews and approvals would be made at staff
level. Major changes would be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed is as a Park and Ride Facility is a use by right in the CD zone
district. The plan attempts to limit grading disturbance by following the natural grade of the land
as much as possible. The plan proposes extensive landscaping (flower beds, shrubs and trees) at
the entryway to the structure. There is limited space available for screening along the spaces on
the west side. Roadside light poles and planters will meet the intent of the EVDC for street
frontage landscaping. The Town Parks Department will maintain the landscaping. All exterior
lighting will comply with the standards in the EVDC. Light poles on the top level will be
approximately 19 feet high (maximum height allowed is 25 feet).
The applicant has requested three minor modifications to the Off‐Street Parking and Loading
Standards, as follows:
1. Location of Parking. Section 4.4.D.3, table 4‐7 requires that off‐street parking not be located
between the building line and the lot line in the CD zone district. In this case, a small handful
of surface parking spaces to the west and east of the building will be slightly in front of the
building line. The intent of the requirement is to maintain a “street wall” in the downtown
area.
2. One‐way Drive Aisle Width. Section 7.11.K.2 requires a minimum driveway width of 15 feet for
large, non‐residential uses. The ground level plan proposes a 14‐foot one‐way drive aisle
entering from the existing surface spaces on the west.
3. Stall Dimensions. As with the original submittal, the applicant proposes slightly shorter stall
lengths, which are generally consistent with industry best practices for parking structures. The
intent of the request is to help minimize the structure footprint, while still allowing for
comfortable movement within the structure. The applicant proposed the following
alterations: Stall Depth 17’9” (19’6” standard requirement), Stall Width 8’6” (9’0” standard
requirement, and Drive aisle 26’0” (24’0” standard requirement). Additionally, the smaller
stall depth will encourage drivers to drive further into the stall, thus keeping a wider drive
aisle for vehicles passing through. While the stall will be slightly shorter than the 19’6”
requirement, the total length will be more than the minimum required.
Planner Kleisler stated concern has been expressed by Commissioner Moon concerning the ability
of large vehicles (pickups and SUVs) to maneuver through the structure and fit into the spaces.
Planner Kleisler added some vehicles with rear bicycle racks or trailer hitches would possibly
extend into the drive aisle. The Commissioners would need to consider those issues when making
their decision.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners for review and comment. The typical distance for neighbor notification is 500 feet;
however, notices for this project were sent to all property owners within 1500 feet of the site.
Additionally, a press release was published on July 31, 2015. As of August 6, no formal written
comments were received. One public comment was received late last week and was included in
the meeting material packets.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
August 18, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff
report.
2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. The requested Minor Modification concerning the location of parking relieves practical
difficulties in developing the site.
5. The requested Minor Modification concerning the parking stall and driveway dimensions
results in more effective open space preservation.
6. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐making Body.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the development plan, with conditions of
approval listed below.
Public Comment
Greg Muhonen/Public Works Director and applicant, thanked Planner Kleisler for his cooperation
with the project, saying the process has been a positive experience. Mr. Muhonen stated the
original project was put out to bid in November, 2014 and came back over budget. The previous
site proposal on the north side of the river (off of highway 34) required the ingress and egress
points for the shuttle services to be at a different location than private vehicles. There were
studies completed that indicated wait times for vehicles to turn left out of the parking structure
onto Highway 34 could be as long as 10 minutes. The original structure was designed to add 190
new parking spaces at final build out. The bid for the original project in November 2015 came in
over budget.
Today’s proposed structure moves to the other side of the river. The team looked at many issues
and alternatives to find an affordable alternative that met the grant funding requirements. If
located on the south side, it was determined 109 spaces could be provided in a two level
structure. If the structure is expanded to four levels, the structure could yield 311 new parking
spaces at a cost of $31K per stall, much less than the proposed cost across the river. The current
lot has 102 existing spaces (main lot and on the side). Phase I would add a second level and 109
spaces. Additional phases would bring the total to 413 spaces. There has been coordination with
the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District to improve the separation between the structure
and the golf course. A fence would be installed between the structure and the golf course, and
berms would hide a cart path. A new service access road is proposed on the north and west side
of the structure to serve the existing landscaped island on the open west end would be removed
and improved for the Bureau of Reclamation’s needs for river maintenance as well as access for
emergency vehicles. An extension of the water main is planned to provide required fire hydrants
to the structure.
Director Muhonen stated the proposed landscaping would create an attractive entrance to the
Estes village. Landscaping will be completed and maintained by Town staff. He showed photo
simulations of the phased structure, stating the stair tower would be built with Phase II. The
Shuttle routes would not be changed; they would still enter and exit from the north lot. The view
of the Stanley Hotel would not be hindered, except for the 4.6 seconds it takes to drive by the
structure on Highway 36. He anticipates concern over the time it will take to turn left out of the
new lot. Several options are being researched, with a signal light being the last alternative due to
the cost. If traffic continues to increase as projected, a signal would be needed.
Director Muhonen described the need for the parking stall size modification request, which was
designed in an effort to find a compromise with the Recreation and Parks District to create a
definite separation between the structure and the trail/golf course. 24% of the proposed spaces
with Phase I are the same size as they are today (compliant with the Town standards). Spaces in
the parking structure itself will accommodate standard vehicles, but not extended cabs or
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
August 18, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
oversized vehicles. There are various alternative parking spaces in town that could accommodate
oversized vehicles.
Ginny McFarland/Town project manager reviewed the minor modification requests (1) the
proposed structure would encroach slightly into one setback owned by the Town, and another
owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The goal is to create a compliant piece of land in the CD–
Commercial Downtown zone district. The structure will be right next to the street, as intended in
the EVDC. (2) One‐Way Drive Width modification from 14 to 15. This would not change the level
of service of driveability as one enters the structure; (3) parking stall length and width
modification request is to reduce the overall stall length by 1.5 feet. The basis behind this minor
modification is to create a smaller building footprint, recognizing the sensitivity to the golf course.
Chair Hull commented on the tightness of the proposed stalls and was concerned about having
enough room to get in and out of the vehicles.
Anirudh Chopde/consultant with Walker Parking stated the stall size is based on parking
standards that have been established through over 50 years of research. The proposed stall size
would comply with national standards. It has been determined that the current proposal would
not allow enough room for large vehicles. If the spaces are made larger, we would lose 24 spaces.
Comments from discussion included, but were not limited to: eight surface spaces would remain
the same size as they are today; the Planning Commissioners would need to decide whether or
not the proposed number of spaces is a reasonable amount; Estes Park may have a larger number
of oversized vehicles that pull RVs; has there been discussion about a mix of different sized
parking spaces to accommodate large and compact sized spaces; signage could direct larger
vehicles to certain areas within the structure; the Town has applied for a grant to purchase
electronic signs that would be used to guide visitors to available parking spaces; the lighting plan
is compliant with the EVDC.
Public Comment
Paul Fishman/Town resident addressed concerns about left hand turns when the previous plan
was being considered. He was supportive of having left turns out of the proposed structure.
Concerning the stall size, he stated drivers of large vehicles have an expectation that they will
need to find alternative parking instead of using the structure. He suggested having westbound
shuttles leave from the proposed south lot. He would not agree that this parking structure would
be considered “downtown.”
Glenn Malpiede/Town resident supported the idea for directional signage to spaces that could
accommodate large vehicles and compact vehicles.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hills) to approve the Estes Park Transit Facility and
Parking Structure Development Plan with findings and conditions recommended by staff, with
the addition of allowing for further study for mixed vehicle use (pertaining to size) and
additional signage and the motion passed with one absent.
Director Muhonen stated the Town will be applying for a grant to allow the construction of all
four levels as one phase.
4. REPORTS
A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
1. Wilson Residence variance, Hummingbird Drive, was approved at a special Board
meeting on July 28, 2015. The lot was such that the size of the lot and the size of the
setbacks made the entire lot in setback.
B. Downtown Plan. Planner Kleisler reported the deadline for proposal submittals was
Wednesday. Eight proposals were received. A selection committee consisting of community
members, staff, reviewed each proposal in detail. Commissioner White was a member of
this selection committee. The consultants of the top two proposals would be interviewed,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
August 18, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
with a formal recommendation tentatively schedule to go before the Town Board at the first
meeting in September. Following acceptance, staff would enter into a contract with the
consultants to begin the process.
C. Vacation Home Update Process. Planner Kleisler reported information can be viewed at
www.estes.org/vacationrentals. A public meeting was held earlier this summer, and another
is scheduled for September 11th. The second meeting will include discussion of
recommendations that were refined following the first meeting. The Town Trustees will
hear recommendations on August 25th at the study session. Recommendations may include,
but are not limited to: occupancy limits, different fee structure, adding a county fee, how to
maintain residential character, contact with neighbors. The goal is to present the ordinance
in November and December, to be effective January, 2016.
D. Planner Kleisler reported the County Commissioners approved the cell tower on Prospect
mountain, and the applicant has applied for the building permit
E. Director Chilcott reported she presented “Zoning 101” to the Town Trustees at their last
study session. Zoning 101 is a brief overview of zoning basics, including the history of zoning,
an overview of our zoning code, and how it applies to our community. This was provided to
the Town Trustees to aid in their decision‐making. She would be willing to provide the same
presentation at a future Planning Commission study session if the Commission so desired.
There was general consensus among the Commission to hear the presentation.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:57 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
November 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Russ Schneider,
Michael Moon, Steve Murphree, Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Schneider, Murphree, White, and Moon
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Board Liaison John
Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were six 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
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, September 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as amended and
the motion passed 6‐0 in favor with Commissioner Hills abstaining.
3. HUGHES‐WEBER BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT; Metes & Bounds Parcel located at 2041 & 2045
Devils Gulch Road
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This item is a request by property owners Deborah
Hughes and Leo Weber to adjust the boundary line between two existing parcels, resulting in two
legal lots. There are currently two parcels zoned RE‐1–Rural Estate, each with a single‐family
dwelling. It is proposed to build a new single‐family dwelling on one of the lots after demolishing
the existing dwelling. In order to keep the new home out of the required 50‐foot setback, the
boundary line needs to be shifted to the east. Both parcels contain steep slopes on the western
side. The preliminary plat for this proposed boundary line adjustment will establish limits of
disturbance to protect those steep slopes as well as a delineated wetland area on the property. A
private access easement and utility easements will also be noted on the plat. Both parcels will be
accessed by a shared driveway off of Devils Gulch Road. If the boundary line adjustment is
approved, both lots will still meet the minimum lot size requirement of ten acres. Planner
Gonzales stated there is a conservation easement on both lots, prohibiting any division or
subdivision of the existing lots. This easement also prohibits the two parcels to be separately
owned. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies and notices were
sent to adjacent property owners. No significant comments or concerns were received.
Staff Findings
1. This boundary line adjustment application does not fall within the parameters of staff level
review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body, the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners is the decision‐making body.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in the staff
report are incorporated as staff findings.
3. Adjusting the boundary lines between the two parcels would not create non‐conforming
lots nor would it go against the policies and guidelines of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan.
4. This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code.
5. Limits of site disturbance are to be delineated that protect steep slopes, wetlands and
significant trees.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
November 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6. A private access easement between the two lots will be recorded with this plat as well as
utility easements.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the boundary line adjustment with one
condition of approval, listed below.
Public Comment
Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the applicant was supportive of the conditions of
approval.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Condition of Approval
1. The proposed private access easement shall be submitted with mylars for recording. The
easement shall include a graphic description and include provisions for maintenance of any
common driveway.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to recommend approval to the Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the
motion passed unanimously.
4. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, CENTENNIAL HILLS SUBDIVISION, 2969 Little Valley Road
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. In late 2014 the applicant, Eric Throne, applied for a
variance to construct a proposed garage in the required setback. At that time, it was determined
that a building envelope existed, which required an amended plat rather than a variance. The
variance request was withdrawn, and the application to expand the platted building envelope and
encroach into the required 50‐foot setback is being presented today. The location for the
proposed garage will be over an existing gravel driveway, so impervious coverage will not change.
Planner Gonzales stated the building envelope would reduce the current setback on the south
property line for approximately 20 linear feet, while retaining the existing platted setback on the
north, east, and west property lines. The proposed change would widen the building envelope by
a maximum of seven feet ten inches on the south, with the proposed garage encroaching just
under four feet into the 50‐foot setback. Planner Gonzales stated grading and site disturbance
limits will not be exceeded. The encroachment into the setback is addressed through a minor
modification. The applicant has proposed to encroach just under eight feet into the required 50‐
foot setback. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners.
No significant comments or concerns were received. The project is in compliance with the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Findings
1. This boundary line adjustment application does not fall within the parameters of staff level
review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning commission. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body, the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners is the decision‐making body.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in this staff
report, are incorporated as staff findings.
3. Amending the building envelope for Lot 2 would not compromise the intent of the original
subdivision approval.
4. The requested Minor Modification concerning the 50‐foot setback results in relief from a
practical environmental difficulty in developing the site.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the amended plat, with one condition of
approval listed below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
November 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the applicant was supportive of the staff findings
and the condition of approval.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Condition of Approval
1. Minor Modification approval for the building setback.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to recommend approval of the amended plat and
minor modification to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
5. AMENDED PLAT OF PORTIONS OF LOT 26, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION, 531
Highland Lane
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The property owner, Robert Shipman, desires to
remove an internal lot line to create one legal lot of record to construct a proposed detached
garage. Both parcels are owned by Mr. Shipman. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant applied
for a building permit for a new detached garage, and during the review process, it was
determined the proposed structure would not meet the setback requirements from the internal
lot line because the existing single‐family dwelling currently straddles this internal lot line.
Planner Gonzales stated the site slopes from the south to the northeast. The proposed garage
would be built in an area that does not have many trees. The final plat will have two recorded
utility easements. The minimum lot size for this lot zoned E–Estate is 0.5 acre. One of the current
lots is less than the minimum lot size. The lot consolidation will bring the new lot into compliance
with the minimum lot size required. Additionally, with the amended plat, the applicant will be
able to comply with the setback requirements for the zone district.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. No significant comments or concerns were received.
Staff Findings
1. This boundary line adjustment application does not fall within the parameters of staff level
review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning commission. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body, the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners is the decision‐making body.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in this staff
report, are incorporated as staff findings.
3. Amending the plat to combine two parcels would not compromise the intent of the original
subdivision. It would bring the two parcels into conformance in regards to lot area
dimensions.
4. Utility easements on the newly created legal lot will be recorded with the final plat.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval with one condition of approval, listed
below.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated this is a complicated process for a simple lot
consolidation. He would appreciate consideration of a simpler process to move through this type
of situation in less time.
Public comment closed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
November 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Condition of Approval
1. Relabel the preliminary and final plat from Lot 26A to a description not used on any
previous plat maps for this subdivision.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to recommend approval of the amended plat
to the Estes Park Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the
motion passed unanimously.
6. RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015‐07 & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION
PLAT, 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant has decided to make changes to the proposed
development, which will delay the review. The applicant has requested this application be
continued to the December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to continue the Riverview Pines Development Plan and
Preliminary Subdivision Plat to the December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
7. REPORTS
A. Director Chilcott reported the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved variance
requests for the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure.
B. Director Chilcott reported more than 20 applications have been received for the Downtown
Plan Advisory Committee. The selection process for eleven committee members will begin
soon. There is an option to add four more members at a later date, if needed. A contract
with the consultant, Logan Simpson, is being negotiated.
C. Director Chilcott reported Karen Thompson and Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz attended
a Flood Hazard Mapping meeting on November 6th. It is likely the mapping process will be
sooner than originally expected. Ultimately, the Town will have less time to complete
mitigation projects prior to new maps being drawn. The initial drafts show a much larger
increase in the mapped floodplain than what is currently adopted. There was brief
discussion about how flood insurance for property owners will be affected.
D. Director Chilcott reported Karen Thompson and Tina Kurtz, both Certified Floodplain
Managers, attended a week‐long class on the Community Rating System. With information
we currently have, and if we were accepted into the program, it may be possible to begin
with a rating of eight or nine, meaning a discount on flood insurance premiums would be
available to property owners.
E. Director Chilcott reported there will be a Special Planning Commission meeting on
Wednesday, December 9, 2015. A study session will begin at 4:30 p.m., with the meeting
commencing at 6 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the Town Board room. Planner Mallory
Baker with McCool Planning & Development will be reviewing the project and providing
the staff report.
F. Director Chilcott reported the regular December Planning Commission meeting will be held
at the regular time of 1:30 p.m. Study Session time has yet to be determined.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 1:58 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 18th, 2015
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 18th day of November, 2015.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Ann Finley
Bryon Holmes
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Liaison
Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
Samantha Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant
Gordon Slack, future Board member
Absent: Thom Widawski
Vacancy
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Black/Finley) to approve the October minutes with the
motion passing unanimously.
Sandy Osterman provided a Shuttle Committee update. No change for the current
budget and they will be providing the same type of service with adjustments to routes
and stops. The Town is considering funding operational activities for year round service.
Sandy mentioned the possibility of a grant but the application will not be reviewed until
June 2016 and not effective until 2017. Schedules and maps for summer 2016 are to be
published in the Estes Park visitor guide. Catch the Glow, Santa’s Workshop, along with
Tinsel and Taverns will run downtown. Sandy discussed a possible once a week service
during the off season which would qualify the Town for a specific grant.
Interviews have taken place for potential candidates to be appointed to the Board.
Gordon Slack was expected to become a member in December, following a formal
appointment.
STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS
Public Works Director Greg Muhonen reported that the Public Works department had
been dealing with challenges on multiple flood repair projects. The Dry Gulch Road
Rehabilitation Project has yet to be re-bid upon. The Downtown Estes Loop Technical
Advisory Committee identified two new items that were being explored with the potential
of adding them to the Environmental Assessment (scheduled to be released in the
spring). There was a finding of no significant impact so the Loop is expected to go
through but The Town is waiting for the Environmental Assessment and public comment
to be released before official plans can progress. This is expected to take place mid-
summer 2016.
Transportation Advisory Board – November 18th, 2015 – Page 2
Update on the transit facility parking garage: The Town didn’t receive the Tiger Grant for
levels 3 and 4. A new grant application had been submitted to CDOT which could lead
to the possibility of more FTA funds. The Environmental Assessment is still not released
for public comment. The FTA will not give approval to move forward on the final design
until that EA has been completed and the public comment period has been met.
Preparation for the December meeting with Larry Hass: The Board prepared for the
December meeting with Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Operations Engineer.
Discussion was held involving traffic signals, bicycle lanes, speed limits, etc.
CDOT issued an opinion that there was no intention of implementing the Barns Dance
in Estes Park. There opinion was based on a preliminary report on with all supporting
printouts and documents.
NEW PROJECT SELECTION
The Board began discussions of a new project selection. Among the projects mentioned
were infrastructure, trails master plan, transportation, signage, employee parking for
downtown and incentives associated with that, etc.
Success of small parking strategy to look at how successful it was deemed to have,
what impact it had, perceptions of the recommendations we have made and will make
to the Trustees.
Board members discussed more effective ways of seeing projects become agenda for
the Town Board in fear that the Downtown Proposed Parking Strategy would die for the
fact that it is not present in the 2016 Town Strategic Plan. The idea was thrown around
to prioritize a specific strategy to present to the Board that would be a possibility for
2016.
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGY
Minor edits were made that Chair Campbell will distribute. The Strategy will be
presented to the Town Board next Tuesday at 5:30 pm. If it’s accepted as is, it will be
taken to the Trustees for an adoptive action on the 18th.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 20th, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of November, 2015.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (via conference phone)
Also Present:Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant
Bob Brunson, Rotary
Vicki Papineau, future Board member
Carlie Bangs, future Board member
Lori Mitchell, Senior Center Director
Absent: Ronna Boles
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 10:59 am
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Lebeau) to approve the October meeting
minutes with the motion passing unanimously.
Two unofficial Board members, Vicki Papineau and Carlie Bangs, who are to be
appointed in December, were in attendance and introduced to the current Board
members. The December meeting will see the Board at its full capacity.
PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE
Laurie Mitchell, the Senior Services Director, gave an overview of the Senior Center and
its activities. She explained that the art is rotated approximately every 1-12 months with
new art appearing throughout the year. She requested that certain pieces throughout
the Center be exempt in the upcoming AIPP Consideration process. Board members
made a command decision that already existing artwork hung for display shall be
grandfathered into the inventory. Merle Moore requested that even pieces that are
exempt be included in the Town Artwork Inventory. The Board then switched their
thoughts from partial exemption for the Senior Center artwork to full exemption since the
Senior Center has had good standing with the Board throughout all of its artwork
choices. The Board decided that total exclusion will be given to the Senior Center,
which is to be added into the policy before the December PAB meeting. Moore made a
motion to include the Senior Center in the exemption list which was seconded by
Dewain Lockwood. It was encouraged by the Board members that the Senior Center
follows the guidelines per the AIPP policy.
REVISIONS TO AIPP POLICIES
Parks Advisory Board – November 20th, 2015 – Page 2
Approval was sought for the AIPP brochure created by Merle Moore and Samantha
Phillips. With minor edits such as correcting the website link, the brochure was
approved and will be presented to the Town Board in a future meeting.
Attention was brought to the “Wishful Thinking” sculpture in regard to its water flow
feature which fails to function the way the artist intended it to. It was inquired on whether
Parks Supervisor Brian Berg and Public Works Director Greg Muhonen could assess
the piece and brainstorm a way to keep the water flowing while being able to clean it
easier and properly. The piece is at an exceptionally difficult location in regard to spring
runoff making it dangerous for maintenance.
OPEN LANDS NAMING POLICY DISCUSSION
Brian Berg gave a brief overview of the Naming of Town-Owned Property Facilities,
which was created by Assistant Town Administrator Travis Machalek. Travis gave
special attention to the clarifying both 3.a.iii and 3.b.i. with Board members who were
concerned over what significance level must be reached by an individual, or business,
for The Town to consider naming a facility after that individual.
With no other business to be discussed, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 11:56
am, with all voting in favor.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-16
WHEREAS, Section 26-6-402(2)(c) of the “Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972” as
amended, requires a municipality to designate a public place to post notices of its
meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
1. That the lobby area immediately adjacent to the Administrative Offices in
the Estes Park Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park,
Colorado, is hereby designated as the Public Place for Posting Notices of
Town Meetings.
DATED this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: January 12, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Casa Casa, LLC dba
GRUMPY GRINGO, to Taylor Legg, LLC dba FAJIA RITA’S, 1560 Big
Thompson Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 1560 Big Thompson Avenue to the
applicant, Taylor Legg, LLC.
Present Situation:
A Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced
above by Casa Casa, LLC dba GRUMPY GRINGO. The applicant is requesting a
transfer of the license and submitted a complete application to the Town Clerk’s office
on December 11, 2015. A temporary permit was issued on January 5, 2016. The
temporary permit authorizes the transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as
permitted under the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of the
license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Taylor Legg, LLC dba FAJITA RITA’S.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License to Taylor Legg,
LLC.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License
transfer is $1319. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the
application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee
payable to the Town for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License is $869 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor
License filed by Taylor Legg, LLC dba FAJITA RITA’S.
April 2003
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed December 11, 2015 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a LLC .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Taylor Legg, LLC doing business as
FAJITA RITA’S for a Hotel and Restaurant License be approved/denied.
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: January 12, 2015
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #9 - Stone Bridge Estates
Condominiums, 1195 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes, Inc./Applicant.
Objective:
Review of Stonebridge Estates Condominium Map application, submitted by applicant
Kingswood Homes, Inc., for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) to allow sale of the unit.
Present Situation:
The applicant has submitted a supplemental
condominium map application f or Stone Bridge
Estates Condominiums.
The property is zoned RM Multifamily
Residential and is located at 1195 Fish Creek
Road.
Development approval provided for a total of
fourteen units. To date, 11 of the units have
been built and condominiumized; this unit
represents the 12th unit to be condominiumized,
leaving an additional two units.
Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be finalized until the units are
substantially complete. Because of this, final supplemental maps will be submitted as
the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the E VDC, the Final
Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is not reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Proposal:
Approval of the supplemental condominium map #9, condominiumizing one residential
unit. The unit is addressed 1195 Fish Creek Road.
Advantages:
This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section
10.5.H “Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace
Ownership.”
Approving the subject Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the unit.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the proposed Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums Supplemental
Condominium Map #9.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to Approve (or Deny) the application for the Supplemental Condominium map
#9, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1195 Fish Creek Road.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Site Plan
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: January 12, 2016
RE: Energy Impact Assistance Fund grant for Estes Park Flood Recovery
Staffing
Objective:
To hire three (3) new positions and extend one (1) existing position to assist with flood
recovery, mitigation and resiliency efforts with funds from the Department of Local Affairs
(DOLA), Energy/ Mineral Impact Assistance Funds (EIAF).
Present Situation:
As a result of the September 2013 floods, increased workload on Town employees has
continued resulting in the need for additional staffing positions.
Historically, the Energy Assistant Impact Fund grants for staff positions have been
approved through the Consent Agenda (Oct. 14, 2014; Jan. 13, 2015). Staff is bringing
these Awards forward as an Action Item because the newly granted positions are not
included in the 2016 Budget. There is no net cost to the Budget, but expenditures and
staff positions are being added. The Budget will (can) be adjusted by Resolution later in
the year to include these changes.
Proposal:
EAIF #7634
The amendment (#2) to EAIF #7634 extends Community Development’s Environmental
Planner/Planner III’s position for an additional year, increasing the Grant $97,758, from
$547,900 to $645,658.
EAIF #9044
EAIF #9044 totals $442,377. This new grant breaks down as follows:
Community Development - Flood Recovery Planning Technician. This position will be
responsible administrative, technical and environmental planning support work and
supervised by the Environmental Planner/ Planner III. This will be funded for one (1) year
at $67,911.
Public Works - Flood Recovery Project Associate. This position is funded for two (2) years
at $78,193/year ($156,386), will have administrative oversight of flood recovery,
mitigation, and resiliency projects, and works closely with Finance on disaster recovery
grant reimbursement management and compliance. This position includes coordination of
consultants, and works closely with Town engineers on construction management.
The second Public Works position is a Flood Recovery Project Manager/ Civil Engineer
also funded for two (2) years at $109,040/year ($218,080). This position will perform
project management and administration activities including bridge replacement and
channel resiliency; and includes preparation and management of bid documents, project
design and specifications, and as-built documentation for project closeout; surveying work;
construction management; and assisting citizen with questions.
Advantages:
Employees will be in a better position to continue their daily, non-flood responsibilities.
Positions funded to support these positions from DOLA.
Disadvantages:
Office space for these new positions is limited.
Action Recommended:
It is recommended to the Board to approve these grant-funded positions.
Budget:
These positions will be added to the 2016 and 2017 budgets in the appropriate
departments/ funds. Funding and expenditures for these positions will appear in the same
departments/ funds (Community Development and Public Works).
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of hiring the positions referenced in this memo, along with the
extension of one existing position, as funded by Department of Local Affairs. The
specifics are outlined in support documents EAIF #7634 and EAIF #9044, and in this
memo.
Attachments:
DOLA supporting documentation for position extension (EIAF#7634) and 3 new positions
(EIAF#9044).
Governor John W. Hickenlooper | Reeves Brown, Executive Director | Chantal Unfug, Division Director
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.864.7720 TDD/TTY 303.864.7758 www.dola.colorado.gov
Strengthening Colorado Communities
November 30, 2015
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
P. O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
RE: EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery, Contract Amendment #2
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
Attached is Contract Amendment #2 for the above-referenced Energy Impact Assistance Fund project. If the
amendment is satisfactory as written, please print and execute three (3) originals of the amendment, signed and
dated by an authorized signator (original signatures only; no photocopies, stamped or e-signatures). Please
note that an authorized signator is a County Chief Elected Official, City/Town Mayor, or District Board President.
If any other individual should sign this contract, you must provide a letter from the Chief Elected Official
documenting the specific individual’s delegated authority to sign.
Please be sure that you return three (3) sets of the entire amendment and not just the signature
page. An attesting signature and seal is not required.
Please send these documents along with the return routing memo (see below) to:
Department of Local Affairs
ATTENTION: Hannah Cichocki
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521
Denver, CO 80203
If you have any questions, please call Don Sandoval at (970) 679-4501 or me at (303) 864-7731.
Sincerely,
Beth Lipscomb
Internal Services Manager
Department of Local Affairs
Enclosures
Cc: Don Sandoval, DOLA Regional Manager
Governor John W. Hickenlooper | Reeves Brown, Executive Director | Chantal Unfug, Division Director
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.864.7720 TDD/TTY 303.864.7758 www.dola.colorado.gov
Strengthening Colorado Communities
RETURN ROUTING MEMORANDUM
TO: Hannah Cichocki
THROUGH: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator, Town of Estes Park
FROM: Beth Lipscomb
DATE: November 30, 2015
RE: Contract Amendment Approvals
FOR FINAL APPROVAL ROUTING (3 COPIES ENCLOSED):
RE: EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery CA#2
Contractor’s Federal I.D.# on file with Accounting
Form sent to Contractor to complete
Don Sandoval, DOLA Regional Manager
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 1 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Amendment #: 2 Encumbrance #: F15S7634
Original Contract CMS #: 73742, 75915 Amendment CMS #: 85744
1) PARTIES
This Amendment to the above-referenced Original Contract (hereinafter called the Contract) is entered into
by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK (hereinafter called “Grantee” or “Contractor”), and the STATE
OF COLORADO (hereinafter called the “State”) acting by and through the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs (the “Department”) for the benefit of the Division of Local Government (“DLG”).
2) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY
This Amendment shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State
Controller or designee (hereinafter called the “Effective Date”). The State shall not be liable to pay or
reimburse Contractor for any performance hereunder including, but not limited to, costs or expenses
incurred, or be bound by any provision hereof prior to the Effective Date.
3) FACTUAL RECITALS
The Parties entered into the Contract to provide funds to the Town of Estes Park for salary and benefits to
hire two staff positions to assist the Town with flood recovery efforts. The Town has indicated the need to
extend the term of the environmental planner position for an additional 12 months . Grantee requested
additional State grant funds in the amount of $97,758 to cover the additional costs of the Project; this request
was approved in November 2015 as a 2nd Supplement to the original grant award. This Amendment
modifies the Project Budget to reflect the award of additional supplemental funding needed to extend the
environmental planner position to assist the Town with flood recovery efforts, and extends the time of
performance as requested.
4) CONSIDERATION-COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Amendment. The P arties agree to
replacing the Colorado Special Provisions with the most recent version (if such have been updated since the
Contract and any modification thereto were effective) as part consideration for this amendment.
5) LIMITS OF EFFECT
This Amendment is incorporated by reference into the Contract, and the Contract and all prior amendments
thereto, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified herein.
6) MODIFICATIONS
The Contract and all prior amendments thereto, if any, are modified as follows:
a. Grant Agreement, Cover Page, Award Amount is modified by deleting the current amount:
“Award Amount: $547,900.00”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Award Amount: $645,658.00”
b. Grant Agreement, Cover Page, Project Information is modified by deleting the Performance Period:
End Date:
“Performance Period: Start Date: End Date: 12/31/16”
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 2 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Performance Period: Start Date: End Date: 12/31/17”
c. Grant Agreement, Section 5, Term
Subsection A, Initial Term-Work Commencement is modified by deleting the subsection:
“Unless otherwise permitted in §2 above, the Parties’ respective performances under this Grant shall
commence on the Effective Date. This Grant shall terminate on December 31, 2016 unless sooner
terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein.”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Unless otherwise permitted in §2 above, the Parties’ respective performances under this Grant shall
commence on the Effective Date. This Grant shall terminate on December 31, 2017 unless sooner
terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein.”
d. Grant Agreement, Section 7, Payments to Grantee
Section 7.A, Maximum Amount is modified by deleting the current language in its entirety:
“The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $547,900.00 (FIVE
HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED and XX/100 DOLLARS), as
determined by the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional funds required
for the successful completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid obligated
balance of the Grant as set forth in Exhibit B.”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $645,658.00 (SIX
HUNDRED FORTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT and XX/100
DOLLARS), as determined by the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional
funds required for the successful completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid
obligated balance of the Grant as set forth in Exhibit B.”
e. Exhibit B, Section 2, Description of the Project (s) and Work
Subsection 2.2, Work Description is modified by deleting the current subsection in its entirety:
“The Town of Estes Park (Grantee) will hire three short-term staff positions to assist the Town with
flood recovery efforts. The positions include: 1) a full-time project manager who will provide
management of flood recovery projects; 2) a full-time environmental planner who will provide planning
assistance in the flood recovery efforts of the Town; and 3) a full-time grant accountant who will assist
with the accounting processes needed for flood recovery efforts of the Town. All three positions will be
funded for 24 months.”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“The Town of Estes Park (Grantee) will hire three short-term staff positions to assist the Town with
flood recovery efforts. The positions include: 1) a full-time project manager who will provide
management of flood recovery projects; 2) a full-time environmental planner who will provide planning
assistance in the flood recovery efforts of the Town; and 3) a full-time grant accountant who will assist
with the accounting processes needed for flood recovery efforts of the Town. The project manager and
grant accountant positions will be funded for 24 months; the environmental planner position will be
funded for 36 months.”
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 3 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
f. Exhibit B, Section 6, Funding
Subsection 6.2, Budget is modified by deleting the current subsection in its entirety:
“Budget Line Item(s) Total Cost Grant
Funds
Matching
Funds
Matching Funds
Source
Personnel Services Costs $547,900 $547,900 $0 No Match
Total $547,900 $547,900 $0”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Budget Line Item(s) Total Cost Grant
Funds
Matching
Funds
Matching Funds
Source
Personnel Services Costs $645,658 $645,658 $0 No Match
Total $645,658 $645,658 $0”
g. Exhibit B, Section 7, Payment
Subsection 7.1, Payment Schedule is modified by deleting the Payment Schedule Table:
“Payment Amount
Interim Payment(s) $520,505 Paid upon receipt of actual expense documentation and
written Pay Requests from the Grantee for
reimbursement of eligible approved expenses.
Final Payment $27,395 Paid upon Substantial Completion of the Project (as
determined by the State in its sole discretion), provided
that the Grantee has submitted, and DOLA has
accepted, all required reports.
Total $547,900”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Payment Amount
Interim Payment(s) $613,376 Paid upon receipt of actual expense documentation and
written Pay Requests from the Grantee for
reimbursement of eligible approved expenses.
Final Payment $32,282 Paid upon Substantial Completion of the Project (as
determined by the State in its sole discretion), provided
that the Grantee has submitted, and DOLA has
accepted, all required reports.
Total $645,658”
h. Exhibit E, Project Performance Plan is modified by deleting the Fourth Milestone:
“Project Completion.
December 31, 2016 Review past quarterly reports, conduct on-site
monitoring, and review final report.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Project Completion.
December 31, 2017 Review past quarterly reports, conduct on-site
monitoring, and review final report.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 4 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
i. Exhibit E, Project Performance Plan is modified by deleting the Fifth Milestone:
“Submit quarterly progress reports, which includes: Project
Performance Plan accomplishments and a Financial Summary Report
for:
4th Quarter 2014
1st Quarter 2015
2nd Quarter 2015
3rd Quarter 2015
4th Quarter 2015
1st Quarter 2016
2nd Quarter 2016
3rd Quarter 2016
4th Quarter 2016
Progress shall be evaluated by the Grantee and documented and
included at least upon submittal of Quarterly Progress Reports. Such
evaluation shall include the results of question and answer sessions with
the contractor to confirm the following conditions have been met:
Personnel Services Costs:
-are all position(s) funded by this Grant filled (fully staffed)?
-were vacant positions filled according to established HR policies and
procedures?
-are/is the pay rate(s) comparable to market?
-are/is the employee(s) in these Grant-funded positions performing
satisfactorily or better?
-are/is the performance documented?
(30 calendar days
after each quarter):
January 30, 2015
April 30, 2015
July 30, 2015
October 30, 2015
January 30, 2016
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
Review
documents
and provide
follow up
technical
assistance as
necessary.
If needed,
respond to a
request for
training within
10 days.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Submit quarterly progress reports, which includes: Project
Performance Plan accomplishments and a Financial Summary Report
for:
4th Quarter 2014
1st Quarter 2015
2nd Quarter 2015
3rd Quarter 2015
4th Quarter 2015
1st Quarter 2016
2nd Quarter 2016
3rd Quarter 2016
4th Quarter 2016
1st Quarter 2017
2nd Quarter 2017
3rd Quarter 2017
4th Quarter 2017
Progress shall be evaluated by the Grantee and documented and
included at least upon submittal of Quarterly Progress Reports. Such
evaluation shall include the results of question and answer sessions with
the contractor to confirm the following conditions have been met:
Personnel Services Costs:
-are all position(s) funded by this Grant filled (fully staffed)?
-were vacant positions filled according to established HR policies and
procedures?
-are/is the pay rate(s) comparable to market?
-are/is the employee(s) in these Grant-funded positions performing
satisfactorily or better?
-are/is the performance documented?
(30 calendar days
after each quarter):
January 30, 2015
April 30, 2015
July 30, 2015
October 30, 2015
January 30, 2016
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
April 30, 2017
July 30, 2017
October 30, 2017
January 30, 2018
Review
documents
and provide
follow up
technical
assistance as
necessary.
If needed,
respond to a
request for
training within
10 days.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 5 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
j. Exhibit E, Project Performance Plan is modified by deleting the Sixth Milestone:
“Submit, at a minimum quarterly
basis, pay requests and
supporting documentation of
expenses.
January 30, 2015
April 30, 2015
July 30, 2015
October 30, 2015
January 30, 2016
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
Review backup
documentation and proof of
payment prior to approving
pay request.
Reimbursement should not
exceed pro rata share.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Submit, at a minimum quarterly
basis, pay requests and
supporting documentation of
expenses.
January 30, 2015
April 30, 2015
July 30, 2015
October 30, 2015
January 30, 2016
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
April 30, 2017
July 30, 2017
October 30, 2017
January 30, 2018
Review backup
documentation and proof of
payment prior to approving
pay request.
Reimbursement should not
exceed pro rata share.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
k. Exhibit E, Project Performance Plan is modified by deleting the Seventh Milestone:
“Submit the Project Final Report to
DLG within 90 days after the Project
Completion or expiration of Grant
Agreement.
March 31, 2017 Provide forms to Grantee within 30 days of
completion of work or end of the Grant
Agreement. Process the Final Report and
deobligate any remaining grant funds within
30 days of receiving a complete Final report.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Submit the Project Final Report to
DLG within 90 days after the Project
Completion or expiration of Grant
Agreement.
March 31, 2018 Provide forms to Grantee within 30 days of
completion of work or end of the Grant
Agreement. Process the Final Report and
deobligate any remaining grant funds within
30 days of receiving a complete Final report.
ACHIEVED:
MM/DD/20YY”
7) START DATE
This Amendment shall take effect on the later of its Effective Date or December 15, 2015.
8) ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
Except for the Special Provisions, in the event of any conflict, inconsistency, variance, or contradiction
between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions of the Contract, the provisions of this
Amendment shall in all respects supersede, govern, and control. The most recent version of the Special
Provisions incorporated into the Contract or any amendment shall always control other provisions in the
Contract or any amendments.
9) AVAILABLE FUNDS
Financial obligations of the state payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that
purpose being appropriated, budgeted, or otherwise made available.
EIAF 7634 – Estes Park Staffing Assistance – Flood Recovery
Page 6 of 6
Effective Date: 1/6/09-Rev 5/4/10
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT
* Persons signing for Contractor hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Con tractor’s
behalf and acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect.
CONTRACTOR
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:__________________________________________
*Signature
Name:_______________________________________
Printed
Title:_________________________________________
Printed
.
Date
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper, GOVERNOR
Department of Local Affairs
By:_______________________________________________
Irv Halter, Executive Director
_____________
Date
_____________________________________________
PRE-APPROVED FORM CONTRACT REVIEWER
By:_______________________________________________
Bret Hillberry, State Grants Program Manager
___________
Date
ALL CONTRACTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State Contracts. This Contract is not valid until
signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Contractor is not authorized to begin
performance until such time. If Contractor begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not
obligated to pay Contractor for such performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder .
STATE CONTROLLER
Robert Jaros, CPA
By:___________________________________________
Janet Miks, CPA, Controller Delegate
Date: __________________
Governor John W. Hickenlooper | Irv Halter, Executive Director | Chantal Unfug, Division Director
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.864.7720 TDD/TTY 303.864.7758 www.dola.colorado.gov
Strengthening Colorado Communities
December 14, 2015
Mayor William C. Pinkham
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Dear Mayor Pinkham:
Attached is the grant contract packet for the above-referenced Energy Impact Assistance Fund project. If the
contract is satisfactory as written, please print and execute three (3) originals of the contract, signed and dated
by an authorized signator (original signatures only; no photocopies, stamped or e-signatures). Please note that
an authorized signator is a County Chief Elected Official, City/Town Mayor, or District Board President. If any
other individual should sign this contract, you must provide a letter from the Chief Elected Official documenting
the specific individual’s delegated authority to sign.
The following five (5) documents comprise the complete contract packet. Please note which documents are
required to be returned to the State for final execution.
1. Grant Agreement (return 3, each must have original signature by Authorized Official – no photocopies)
2. Exhibit A – Applicable Laws (return 1)
3. Exhibit B – Scope of Project (return 1)
4. Exhibit E – Project Performance Plan (return 1)
5. Exhibit G – Form of Option Letter (return 1)
Please send these documents along with the return routing memo (see below) to:
Department of Local Affairs
ATTENTION: Hannah Cichocki
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521
Denver, CO 80203
If you have any questions, please call Don Sandoval (970) 679-4501 or me at (303) 864-7731.
Sincerely,
Beth Lipscomb
Internal Services Manager
Department of Local Affairs
Enclosures
Governor John W. Hickenlooper | Irv Halter, Executive Director | Chantal Unfug, Division Director
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.864.7720 TDD/TTY 303.864.7758 www.dola.colorado.gov
Strengthening Colorado Communities
RETURN ROUTING MEMORANDUM
TO: Hannah Cichocki
THROUGH: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
FROM: Beth Lipscomb
DATE: December 14, 2015
RE: Contract Approvals
FOR FINAL APPROVAL ROUTING (3 COPIES ENCLOSED):
RE: EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Contractor’s Federal I.D.# on file with Accounting
Form sent to Contractor to complete
Don Sandoval, DOLA Regional Manager
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Summary
Award Amount: $442,377.00
Identification #s:
Encumbrance #: F16S9044 (DOLA’s primary identification #)
Contract Management System #: 85953 (State of Colorado’s tracking #)
Project Information:
Project/Award Number: EIAF 9044
Project Name: Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Performance Period: Start Date: End Date: 2/28/2018
Brief Description of Project /
Assistance:
The project is to provide funds to the Town of Estes Park for salary and
benefits to hire three staff positions to assist the Town with flood recovery
efforts.
Program & Funding Information:
Program Name Energy & Mineral Impact Assistance Fund
Funding source: State Funds
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number (if federal funds): N/A
Funding Account Codes:
GRANT AGREEMENT
Between
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
And
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 2 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY. ................................................................................................ 2
3. RECITALS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
5. TERM ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
6. STATEMENT OF WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 5
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE............................................................................................................................................... 5
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 6
9. GRANTEE RECORDS ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS ................................................................................................. 7
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................................................ 8
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES .................................................................................................................. 8
13. INSURANCE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
14. BREACH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
15. REMEDIES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 14
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 14
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ................................................................................................................................... 15
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 15
20. RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC BENEFITS ....................................................................................................................... 15
21. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 16
22. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................................... 19
SIGNATURE PAGE .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
EXHIBIT A – APPLICABLE LAWS
EXHIBIT B – SCOPE OF PROJECT
EXHIBIT C – RESERVED.
EXHIBIT D – RESERVED.
EXHIBIT E – PROJECT PERFORMANCE PLAN
EXHIBIT F – RESERVED.
EXHIBIT G – FORM OF OPTION LETTER
FORM 1 – RESERVED.
1. PARTIES
This Agreement (hereinafter called “Grant”) is entered into by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK
(hereinafter called “Grantee”), and the STATE OF COLORADO acting by and through the Department of Local
Affairs for the benefit of the Division of Local Government (hereinafter called the “State” or “DOLA”).
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY.
This Grant shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller
or designee (hereinafter called the “Effective Date”). The State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee
for any performance hereunder, including, but not limited to costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any
provision hereof prior to (see checked option(s) below):
A. The Effective Date.
B. The Effective Date; provided, however, that all Project costs, if specifically authorized by the federal
funding authority, incurred on or after March 1, 20XX, may be submitted for reimbursement as if
incurred after the Effective Date.
C. insert date for authorized Pre-agreement Costs (as such term is defined in §4) , if specifically
authorized by the funding authority . Such costs may be submitted for reimbursement as if incurred after
the Effective Date.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 3 of 21
3. RECITALS
A. Authority, Appropriation, and Approval
Authority to enter into this Grant exists in C.R.S. 24-32-106 and 29-3.5-101 and funds have been budgeted,
appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to C.R.S. 39-29-110 (Local Government Severance
Tax Fund) and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment. Required
approvals, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies.
B. Consideration
The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Grant.
C. Purpose
The purpose of this Grant is described in Exhibit B.
D. References
All references in this Grant to sections (whether spelled out or using the § symbol), subsections, exhibits or
other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or
incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted.
4. DEFINITIONS
The following terms as used herein shall be construed and interpreted as follows:
A. Budget
“Budget” means the budget for the Project and/or Work described in Exhibit B.
B. Closeout Certification
“Closeout Certification” means the Grantee’s certification of completion of Work submitted on a form
provided by the State.
C. Evaluation
“Evaluation” means the process of examining Grantee’s Work and rating it based on criteria established in
§6 and Exhibit B.
D. Exhibits and other Attachments
The following are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein:
i. Exhibit A (Applicable Laws)
ii. Exhibit B (Scope of Project)
iii. Exhibit E (Project Performance Plan)
iv. Exhibit G (Form of Option Letter)
E. Goods
“Goods” means tangible material acquired, produced, or delivered by Grantee either separately or in
conjunction with the Services Grantee renders hereunder.
F. Grant
“Grant” means this agreement, its terms and conditions, attached exhibits, documents incorporated by
reference pursuant to the terms of this Grant, and any future modifying agreements, exhibits, attachments
or references incorporated herein pursuant to Colorado State law, Fiscal Rules, and State Controller
Policies.
G. Grant Funds
“Grant Funds” means available funds payable by the State to Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
H. Party or Parties
“Party” means the State or Grantee and “Parties” means both the State and Grantee.
I. Pay Request(s)
“Pay Request(s)” means the Grantee’s reimbursement request(s) submitted on form(s) provided by the
State.
J. Pre-agreement costs
“Pre-agreement costs,” when applicable, means the costs incurred on or after the date as specified in §2
above, and prior to the Effective Date of this Grant. Such costs shall have been detailed in Grantee’s grant
application and specifically authorized by the State and incorporated herein pursuant to Exhibit B.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 4 of 21
K. Project
“Project” means the overall project described in Exhibit B, which includes the Work.
L. Project Closeout
“Project Closeout” means the submission by the Grantee to the State of an actual final Pay Request, a final
Status Report and a Closeout Certification.
M. Program
“Program” means the grant program specified on the first page of this Grant that provides the funding for
this Grant.
N. Review
“Review” means examining Grantee’s Work to ensure that it is adequate, accurate, correct and in
accordance with the criteria established in §6 and Exhibit B.
O. Services
“Services” means the required services to be performed by Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
P. Status Report(s)
“Status Report(s)” means the Grantee’s status report(s) on the Work/Project submitted on form(s) provided
by the State.
Q. Subcontractor
“Subcontractor” means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to carry out specific vendor related
services.
R. Subgrantee
“Subgrantee” means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of its obligations.
Subgrantee is bound by the same overall programmatic and grant requirements as Grantee.
S. Subject Property
“Subject Property” means the real property, if any, for which Grant Funds are used to acquire, construct, or
rehabilitate.
T. Substantial Progress in the Work
“Substantial Progress in the Work” means Grantee meets all deliverables and performance measures within
the time frames specified in Exhibit E.
U. Work
“Work” means the tasks and activities Grantee is required to perform to fulfill its obligations under this
Grant and Exhibit B, including the performance of the Services and delivery of the Goods.
V. Work Product
“Work Product” means the tangible or intangible results of Grantee’s Work, including, but not limited to,
software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other finished or unfinished documents,
drawings, models, surveys, maps, materials, or work product of any type, including drafts.
5. TERM
A. Initial Term-Work Commencement
Unless otherwise permitted in §2 above, the Parties’ respective performances under this Grant shall
commence on the Effective Date. This Grant shall terminate on February 28, 2018 unless sooner
terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein.
B. Two Month Extension
The State, at its sole discretion upon written notice to Grantee as provided in §16, may unilaterally extend
the term of this Grant for a period not to exceed two months if the Parties are negotiating a replacement
Grant (and not merely seeking a term extension) at or near the end of any initial term or any extension
thereof. The provisions of this Grant in effect when such notice is given, including, but not limited to
prices, rates, and delivery requirements, shall remain in effect during the two month extension. The two-
month extension shall immediately terminate when and if a replacement Grant is approved and signed by
the Colorado State Controller.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 5 of 21
6. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. Completion
Grantee shall complete the Work and its other obligations as described herein and in Exhibit B. Except as
specified in §2 above, the State shall not be liable to compensate Grantee for any Work performed prior to
the Effective Date or after the termination of this Grant.
B. Goods and Services
Grantee shall procure Goods and Services necessary to complete the Work. Such procurement shall be
accomplished using the Grant Funds and shall not increase the maximum amount payable hereunder by the
State.
C. Employees
All persons employed by Grantee or Subgrantees shall be considered Grantee’s or Subgrantees’
employee(s) for all purposes hereunder and shall not be employees of the State for any purpose as a result
of this Grant.
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE
The State shall, in accordance with the provisions of this §7, pay Grantee in the following amounts and using the
methods set forth below:
A. Maximum Amount
The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $442,377.00 (FOUR
HUNDRED FORTY-TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN and XX/100
DOLLARS), as determined by the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional
funds required for the successful completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid
obligated balance of the Grant as set forth in Exhibit B.
B. Payment
i. Advance, Interim and Final Payments
Any payment allowed under this Grant or in Exhibit B shall comply with State Fiscal Rules and be
made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant or such Exhibit. Grantee shall initiate any
payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner set forth and approved by
the State.
ii. Interest
The State shall not pay interest on Grantee invoices. The State shall fully pay each invoice within 45
days of receipt thereof if the amount invoiced represents performance by Grantee previously accepted
by the State.
iii. Available Funds-Contingency-Termination
The State is prohibited by law from making fiscal commitments beyond the term of the State’s current
fiscal year. Therefore, Grantee’s compensation is contingent upon the continuing availability of State
appropriations as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions, set forth below. If federal funds are
used with this Grant in whole or in part, the State’s performance hereunder is contingent upon the
continuing availability of such funds. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made only from
available funds encumbered for this Grant and the State’s liability for such payments shall be limited
to the amount remaining of such encumbered funds. If State or federal funds are not fully
appropriated, or otherwise become unavailable for this Grant, the State may immediately terminate
this Grant in whole or in part to the extent of funding reduction without further liability in accordance
with the provisions herein.
iv. Erroneous Payments
At the State’s sole discretion, payments made to Grantee in error for any reason, including, but not
limited to overpayments or improper payments, and unexpended or excess funds received by Grantee,
may be recovered from Grantee by deduction from subsequent payments under this Grant or other
grants or agreements between the State and Grantee or by other appropriate methods and collected as a
debt due to the State. Such funds shall not be paid to any person or entity other than the State.
C. Use of Funds
Grant Funds shall be used only for eligible costs identified herein and/or in Exhibit B.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 6 of 21
i. Budget Line Item Adjustments.
Modifications to uses of such Grant Funds shall be made in accordance with §4.4 of Exhibit B. For
line item adjustments over 10% but less than 24.99% (a “Minor Line Item Adjustment”) which are
approved, the State shall provide written notice to Grantee in a form substantially equivalent to
Exhibit G (each an “Option Letter”). If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become
part of and be incorporated into this Grant.
ii. Overall Budget Adjustments.
Modifications to the overall Budget shall be made in accordance with §4.5 of Exhibit B. For overall
Budget adjustments less than 24.99% (a “Minor Budget Adjustment”) which are approved, the State
shall provide written notice to Grantee in an Option Letter. If exercised, the provisions of the Option
Letter shall become part of and be incorporated into this Grant.
iii. Setting Final Initial Budget.
All requests by the Grantee to align the initial overall Budget with current market conditions shall be
made in accordance with §4.5.1.1 of Exhibit B. If such True-up Budget Proposal (as such term is
defined in §4.5.1.1 of Exhibit B) is approved, the State shall provide written notice to Grantee in an
Option Letter. If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become part of and be
incorporated into this Grant.
D. Matching/Leveraged Funds
Grantee shall provide matching and/or leveraged funds in accordance with Exhibit B.
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION
Reports, Evaluations, and Reviews required under this §8 shall be in accordance with the procedures of and in
such form as prescribed by the State and in accordance with §19, if applicable.
A. Performance, Progress, Personnel, and Funds
State shall submit a report to the Grantee upon expiration or sooner termination of this Grant, containing an
Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance and the final status of Grantee's obligations hereunder. In
addition, Grantee shall comply with all reporting requirements, if any, set forth in Exhibit B.
B. Litigation Reporting
Within 10 days after being served with any pleading in a legal action filed with a court or administrative
agency, related to this Grant or which may affect Grantee’s ability to perform its obligations hereunder,
Grantee shall notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleadings to the State’s principal
representative as identified herein. If the State’s principal representative is not then serving, such notice and
copies shall be delivered to the Executive Director of DOLA.
C. Performance Outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States
[Not applicable if Grant Funds include any federal funds] Following the Effective Date, Grantee shall
provide written notice to the State, in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives), within 20 days
of the earlier to occur of Grantee’s decision to perform, or its execution of an agreement with a Subgrantee
to perform, Services outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States. Such notice shall specify the
type of Services to be performed outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States and the reason why
it is necessary or advantageous to perform such Services at such location or locations. All notices received
by the State pursuant to this §8.C shall be posted on the Colorado Department of Personnel &
Administration’s website. Knowing failure by Grantee to provide notice to the State under this §8.C shall
constitute a material breach of this Grant.
D. Noncompliance
Grantee’s failure to provide reports and notify the State in a timely manner in accordance with this §8 may
result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination as provided under this Grant.
E. Subgrants/Subcontracts
Copies of any and all subgrants and subcontracts entered into by Grantee to perform its obligations
hereunder shall be submitted to the State or its principal representative upon request by the State. Any and
all subgrants and subcontracts entered into by Grantee related to its performance hereunder shall comply
with all applicable federal and state laws and shall provide that such subgrants be governed by the laws of
the State of Colorado.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 7 of 21
9. GRANTEE RECORDS
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain and allow inspection and monitoring of the following records:
A. Maintenance
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete file of
all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media files, and
communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work or the delivery of Services (including, but not
limited to the operation of programs) or Goods hereunder. Grantee shall maintain such records (the
“Record Retention Period”) until the last to occur of the following:
(i) a period of five years after the date this Grant is completed or terminated, or final payment is made
hereunder, whichever is later, or
(ii) for such further period as may be necessary to resolve any pending matters, or
(iii) if an audit is occurring, or Grantee has received notice that an audit is pending, then until such audit
has been completed and its findings have been resolved.
B. Inspection
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government (if Grant Funds include federal funds) and any other
duly authorized agent of a governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and/or transcribe
Grantee's records related to this Grant during the Record Retention Period for a period of five years
following termination of this Grant or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, to assure compliance
with the terms hereof or to evaluate Grantee's performance hereunder. The State reserves the right to
inspect the Work at all reasonable times and places during the term of this Grant, including any extension.
If the Work fails to conform to the requirements of this Grant, the State may require Grantee promptly to
bring the Work into conformity with Grant requirements, at Grantee’s sole expense. If the Work cannot be
brought into conformance by re-performance or other corrective measures, the State may require Grantee to
take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to Grant requirements and exercise the
remedies available under this Grant, at law or in equity in lieu of or in conjunction with such corrective
measures.
C. Monitoring
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government (if Grant Funds include federal funds), and other
governmental agencies having jurisdiction, in their sole discretion, to monitor all activities conducted by
Grantee pursuant to the terms of this Grant using any reasonable procedure, including, but not limited to:
internal evaluation procedures, examination of program data, special analyses, on-site checking, formal
audit examinations, or any other procedures. All monitoring controlled by the State shall be performed in a
manner that shall not unduly interfere with Grantee’s performance hereunder.
D. Final Audit Report
Grantee shall provide a copy of its audit report(s) to DOLA as specified in Exhibit B.
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS
Grantee shall comply with the provisions of this §10 if it becomes privy to confidential information in
connection with its performance hereunder. Confidential information, includes, but is not necessarily limited to,
state records, personnel records, and information concerning individuals.
A. Confidentiality
Grantee shall keep all State records and information confidential at all times and comply with all laws and
regulations concerning confidentiality of information. Any request or demand by a third party for State
records and information in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately forwarded to the State’s
principal representative.
B. Notification
Grantee shall notify its agent, employees, Subgrantees, and assigns who may come into contact with State
records and confidential information that each is subject to the confidentiality requirements set forth herein,
and shall provide each with a written explanation of such requirements before they are permitted to access
such records and information.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 8 of 21
C. Use, Security, and Retention
Confidential information of any kind shall not be distributed or sold to any third party or used by Grantee
or its agents in any way, except as authorized by this Grant or approved in writing by the State. Grantee
shall provide and maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State records and other
confidential information wherever located. Confidential information shall not be retained in any files or
otherwise by Grantee or its agents, except as permitted in this Grant or approved in writing by the State.
D. Disclosure-Liability
Disclosure of State records or other confidential information by Grantee for any reason may be cause for
legal action by third parties against Grantee, the State or their respective agents. Grantee shall, to the extent
permitted by law, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and
all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related
costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or
assignees pursuant to this §10.
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Grantee shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which
conflict in any way with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations hereunder. Grantee acknowledges that
with respect to this Grant, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the State’s interests. Absent
the State’s prior written approval, Grantee shall refrain from any practices, activities or relationships that
reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations to the State hereunder. If a
conflict or appearance exists, or if Grantee is uncertain whether a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of
interest exists, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure statement setting forth the relevant details for the
State’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow the St ate’s direction in
regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach of this Grant.
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Grantee makes the following specific representations and warranties, each of which was relied on by the State in
entering into this Grant.
A. Standard and Manner of Performance
Grantee shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the highest standards of care, skill and
diligence in the industry, trades or profession and in the sequence and manner set forth in this Grant.
B. Legal Authority – Grantee and Grantee’s Signatory
Grantee warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Grant and that it has taken all actions
required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable laws to exercise that authority, and to lawfully
authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this Grant, or any part thereof, and to bind Grantee to its
terms. If requested by the State, Grantee shall provide the State with proof of Grantee’s authority to enter
into this Grant within 15 days of receiving such request.
C. Licenses, Permits, Etc.
Grantee represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has, and that at all times during the term
hereof it shall have, at its sole expense, all licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other
authorization required by law to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee warrants that it shall maintain
all necessary licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorizations required to
properly perform this Grant, without reimbursement by the State or other adjustment in Grant Funds.
Additionally, all employees and agents of Grantee performing Services under this Grant shall hold all
required licenses or certifications, if any, to perform their responsibilities. Grantee, if a foreign corporation
or other foreign entity transacting business in the State of Colorado, further warrants that it currently has
obtained and shall maintain any applicable certificate of authority to transact business in the State of
Colorado and has designated a registered agent in Colorado to accept service of process. Any revocation,
withdrawal or non-renewal of licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits or any such similar
requirements necessary for Grantee to properly perform the terms of this Grant shall be deemed to be a
material breach by Grantee and constitute grounds for termination of this Grant.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 9 of 21
13. INSURANCE
Grantee and its Subgrantees shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times during
the term of this Grant: All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be issued by
insurance companies satisfactory to Grantee and the State.
A. Grantee
i. Public Entities
If Grantee is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS
§24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the “GIA”), then Grantee shall maintain at all times during the term
of this Grant such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet
its liabilities under the GIA. Grantee shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the State, if
requested by the State. Grantee shall require each subgrant with Subgrantees that are public entities,
providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet
Subgrantee’s liabilities under the GIA.
ii. Non-Public Entities
If Grantee is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the GIA, Grantee shall obtain and maintain
during the term of this Grant insurance coverage and policies meeting the same requirements set forth
in §13(B) with respect to Subgrantees that are not "public entities".
B. Grantees, Subgrantees and Subcontractors
Grantee shall require each subgrant with Subgrantees and each contract with Subcontractors, other than
those that are public entities, providing Goods or Services in connection with this Grant, to include
insurance requirements substantially similar to the following:
i. Workers’ Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by State statute, and Employer’s Liability Insurance
covering all of Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor employees acting within the course and scope
of their employment.
ii. General Liability
Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 10/93 or
equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent contractors, products and
completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with
minimum limits as follows: (a) $1,000,000 each occurrence; (b) $1,000,000 general aggregate; (c)
$1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and (d) $50,000 any one fire.
iii. Automobile Liability
Automobile Liability Insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned autos) with
a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit.
iv. Malpractice/Professional Liability Insurance
This section shall | shall not apply to this Grant.
Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall maintain in full force and effect a Professional Liability
Insurance Policy in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000 in the
aggregate, written on an occurrence form, that provides coverage for its work undertaken pursuant to
this Grant. If a policy written on an occurrence form is not commercially available, the claims-made
policy shall remain in effect for the duration of this Grant and for at least two years beyond the
completion and acceptance of the work under this Grant, or, alternatively, a two year extended
reporting period must be purchased. The Grantee, Subgrantee or Subcontractor shall be responsible for
all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from such
party’s performance of professional services under this Grant, a subcontract or subgrant.
v. Umbrella Liability Insurance
For construction projects exceeding $10,000,000, Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall
maintain umbrella/excess liability insurance on an occurrence basis in excess of the underlying
insurance described in §13B(i)-(iv) above. Coverage shall follow the terms of the underlying
insurance, included the additional insured and waiver of subrogation provisions. The amounts of
insurance required in subsections above may be satisfied by the Grantee, Subgrantee and
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 10 of 21
Subcontractor purchasing coverage for the limits specified or by any combination of underlying and
umbrella limits, so long as the total amount of insurance is not less than the limits specified in each
section previously mentioned. The insurance shall have a minimum amount of $5,000,000 per
occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate.
vi. Property Insurance
This subsection shall apply if Grant Funds are provided for the acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation of real property.
Insurance on the buildings and other improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the premises
and on the fixtures and personal property included in the Subject Property against loss by fire, other
hazards covered by the so called “all risk” form of policy and such other perils as State shall from time
to time require with respect to properties of the nature and in the geographical area of the Subject
Property, and to be in an amount at least equal to the replacement cost value of the Subject Property.
Grantor will at its sole cost and expense, from time to time and at any time, at the request of State
provide State with evidence satisfactory to State of the replacement cost of the Subject Property.
vii.Flood Insurance
If the Subject Property or any part thereof is at any time located in a designated official flood hazard
area, flood insurance insuring the buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the
Subject Property and the personal property used in the operation thereof in an amount equal to the
lesser of the amount required for property insurance identified in §vi above or the maximum limit of
coverage made available with respect to such buildings and improvements and personal property
under applicable federal laws and the regulations issued thereunder.
viii. Builder’s Risk Insurance
The subsection shall apply if Grant Funds are provided for construction or rehabilitation of real
property.
Grantee, Subgrantee and/or Subcontractor shall purchase and maintain property insurance written on a
builder’s risk “all-risk” or equivalent policy form in the amount of the initial
construction/rehabilitation costs, plus value of subsequent modifications and cost of materials supplied
or installed by others, comprising total value for the entire Project at the site on a replacement cost
basis without optional deductibles. Such property insurance shall be maintained, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by all persons and entities who are beneficiaries of such insurance, until final
payment has been made or until no person or entity other than the property owner has an insurable
interest in the property.
a) The insurance shall include interests of the property owner, Grantee, Subgrantee,
Subcontractors in the Project as named insureds.
b) All associated deductibles shall be the responsibility of the Grantee, Subcontractor and
Subgrantee. Such policy may have a deductible clause but not to exceed $10,000.
c) Property insurance shall be on an “all risk” or equivalent policy form and shall include, without
limitation, insurance against the perils of fire (with extended coverage) and physical loss or
damage including, without duplication of coverage, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief,
collapse, earthquake, flood, windstorm, falsework, testing and startup, temporary buildings and
debris removal including demolition occasioned by enforcement of any applicable legal
requirements, and shall cover reasonable compensation for Grantee’s, Subgrantee’s and
Subcontractor’s services and expenses required as a result of such insured loss.
d) Builders Risk coverage shall include partial use by Grantee and/or property owner.
e) The amount of such insurance shall be increased to include the cost of any additional work to
be done on the Project, or materials or equipment to be incorporated in the Project, under other
independent contracts let or to be let. In such event, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall be
reimbursed for this cost as his or her share of the insurance in the same ratio as the ratio of the
insurance represented by such independent contracts let or to be let to the total insurance
carried.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 11 of 21
ix. Pollution Liability Insurance
If Grantee and/or its Subgrantee or Subcontractor is providing directly or indirectly work with
pollution/environmental hazards, they must provide or cause those conducting the work to provide
Pollution Liability Insurance coverage. Pollution Liability policy must include contractual liability
coverage. The policy limits shall be in the amount of $1,000,000 with maximum deductible of $25,000
to be paid by the Grantee’s Subcontractor and/or Subgrantee.
C. Miscellaneous Insurance Provisions
Certificates of Insurance and/or insurance policies required under this Grant shall be subject to the
following stipulations and additional requirements:
i. Deductible. Any and all deductibles or self-insured retentions contained in any Insurance policy shall
be assumed by and at the sole risk of the Grantee, its Subgrantees or Subcontractors,
ii. In Force. If any of the said policies shall fail at any time to meet the requirements of the Grant as to
form or substance, or if a company issuing any such policy shall be or at any time cease to be
approved by the Division of Insurance of the State of Colorado, or be or cease to be in compliance
with any stricter requirements of the Grant, the Grantee, its Subgrantee and its Subcontractor shall
promptly obtain a new policy.
iii. Insurer. All requisite insurance shall be obtained from financially responsible insurance companies,
authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and acceptable to Grantee,
iv. Additional Insured
Grantee and the State shall be named as additional insureds on the Commercial General Liability and
Automobile Liability Insurance policies (leases and construction Grants require additional insured
coverage for completed operations on endorsements CG 2010 11/85, CG 2037, or equivalent).
v. Primacy of Coverage
Coverage required of Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall be primary over any insurance or
self-insurance program carried by Grantee or the State.
vi. Cancellation
The above insurance policies shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non-renewal without
at least 45 days prior notice to the Grantee and Grantee shall forward such notice to the State in
accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives) within seven days of Grantee’s receipt of such
notice.
vii.Subrogation Waiver
All insurance policies in any way related to this Grant and secured and maintained by Grantee or its
Subgrantees and Subcontractors as required herein shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall
waive all rights of recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against Grantee or the State, its agencies,
institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
D. Certificates
Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall provide certificates showing insurance coverage required
hereunder to the State within seven business days of the Effective Date of this Grant or of their respective
subcontract or subgrant. No later than 15 days prior to the expiration date of any such coverage, Grantee,
Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall deliver to the State or Grantee certificates of insurance evidencing
renewals thereof. In addition, upon request by the State at any other time during the term of this Grant,
subgrant or subcontract, Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall, within 10 days of such request,
supply to the State evidence satisfactory to the State of compliance with the provisions of this §13.
14. BREACH
A. Defined
In addition to any breaches specified in other sections of this Grant, the failure of either Party to perform
any of its material obligations hereunder in whole or in part or in a timely or satisfactory manner,
constitutes a breach. The institution of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or
similar law, by or against Grantee, or the appointment of a receiver or similar officer for Grantee or any of
its property, which is not vacated or fully stayed within 20 days after the institution or occurrence thereof,
shall also constitute a breach.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 12 of 21
B. Notice and Cure Period
In the event of a breach, notice of such shall be given in writing by the aggrieved Party to the other Party in
the manner provided in §16. If such breach is not cured within 30 days of receipt of written notice, or if a
cure cannot be completed within 30 days, or if cure of the breach has not begun within 30 days and pursued
with due diligence, the State may exercise any of the remedies set forth in §15. Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary herein, the State, in its sole discretion, need not provide advance notice or a cure period and
may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part if reasonably necessary to preserve public safety
or to prevent immediate public crisis.
15. REMEDIES
If Grantee is in breach under any provision of this Grant or if the State terminates this Grant pursuant to §15(B),
the State shall have the remedies listed in this §15 in addition to all other remedies set forth in other sections of
this Grant following the notice and cure period set forth in §14(B), if applicable. The State may exercise any or
all of the remedies available to it, in its sole discretion, concurrently or consecutively.
A. Termination for Cause and/or Breach
If Grantee fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder with such diligence as is required to ensure its
completion in accordance with the provisions of this Grant and in a timely manner, the State may notify
Grantee of such non-performance in accordance with the provisions herein. If Grantee thereafter fails to
promptly cure such non-performance within the cure period, the State, at its option, may terminate this
entire Grant or such part of this Grant as to which there has been delay or a failure to properly perform.
Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations hereunder. Grantee shall
continue performance of this Grant to the extent not terminated, if any.
i. Obligations and Rights
To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render
further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding
orders and subgrants/subcontracts with third parties. However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to
the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur
obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant’s terms. At the sole discretion of the State,
Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders
or subgrants/subcontracts. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary
action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest.
All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the
State.
ii. Payments
The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination. If, after
termination by the State, it is determined that Grantee was not in breach or that Grantee's action or
inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a termination in the public interest and the
rights and obligations of the Parties shall be the same as if this Grant had been terminated in the public
interest, as described herein.
iii. Damages and Withholding
Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State
for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the
State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State’s damages, until
such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may
withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State,
including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the
State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services.
B. Early Termination in the Public Interest
The State is entering into this Grant for the purpose of carrying out the public policy of the State of
Colorado, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and/or Courts. If this Grant ceases to further
the public policy of the State, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Grant in whole or in part.
Exercise by the State of this right shall not constitute a breach of the State’s obligations hereunder. This
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 13 of 21
subsection shall not apply to a termination of this Grant by the State for cause or breach by Grantee, which
shall be governed by §15(A) or as otherwise specifically provided for herein.
i. Method and Content
The State shall notify Grantee of such termination in accordance with §16. The notice shall specify the
effective date of the termination and whether it affects all or a portion of this Grant.
ii. Obligations and Rights
Upon receipt of a termination notice, Grantee shall be subject to and comply with the same obligations
and rights set forth in §15(A)(i).
iii. Payments
If this Grant is terminated by the State pursuant to this §15(B), Grantee shall be paid an amount which
bears the same ratio to the total reimbursement under this Grant as the Services satisfactorily
performed bear to the total Services covered by this Grant, less payments previously made.
Additionally, if this Grant is less than 60% completed, the State may reimburse Grantee for a portion
of actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this Grant) incurred by Grantee
which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of Grantee’s obligations hereunder;
provided that the sum of any and all reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum amount payable to
Grantee hereunder.
C. Termination for No Substantial Progress in the Work
The State may elect to terminate this Grant upon receipt and review of any Quarterly Progress Report,
submitted per the time periods defined in Exhibit E – Project Performance Plan, if such Quarterly Progress
Report fails to evidence Substantial Progress in the Work as directed, defined and expected under Exhibit
B. Further, the State may elect to terminate this Grant if the Grantee fails to complete Project Closeout
within three months of completion of the Work. Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a
breach of its obligations hereunder.
i. Obligations and Rights
To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render
further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding
orders and subgrants/subcontracts with third parties. However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to
the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur
obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant’s terms. At the sole discretion of the State,
Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders
or subgrants/subcontracts. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary
action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest.
All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the
State.
ii. Payments
The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination.
iii. Damages and Withholding
Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State
for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the
State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State’s damages, until
such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may
withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State,
including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the
State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services.
D. Remedies Not Involving Termination
The State, at its sole discretion, may exercise one or more of the following remedies in addition to other
remedies available to it:
i. Suspend Performance
Suspend Grantee’s performance with respect to all or any portion of this Grant pending necessary
corrective action as specified by the State without entitling Grantee to an adjustment in price/cost or
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 14 of 21
performance schedule. Grantee shall promptly cease performance and incurring costs in accordance
with the State’s directive and the State shall not be liable for costs incurred by Grantee after the
suspension of performance under this provision.
ii. Withhold Payment
Withhold payment to Grantee until corrections in Grantee’s performance are satisfactorily made and
completed.
iii. Deny Payment
Deny payment for those obligations not performed, that due to Grantee’s actions or inactions, cannot
be performed or, if performed, would be of no value to the State; provided, that any denial of payment
shall be reasonably related to the value to the State of the obligations not performed.
iv. Removal
Demand removal of any of Grantee’s employees, agents, or Subgrantees whom the State deems
incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise unacceptable, or whose continued
relation to this Grant is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or not in the State’s best interest.
v. Intellectual Property
If Grantee infringes on a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right
while performing its obligations under this Grant, Grantee shall, at the State’s option (a) obtain for the
State or Grantee the right to use such products and services; (b) replace any Goods, Services, or other
product involved with non-infringing products or modify them so that they become non-infringing; or,
(c) if neither of the foregoing alternatives are reasonably available, remove any infringing Goods,
Services, or products and refund the price paid therefore to the State.
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES
Each individual identified below is the principal representative of the designating Party. All notices required to
be given hereunder shall be hand delivered with receipt required or sent by certified or registered mail to such
Party’s principal representative at the address set forth below. In addition to, but not in lieu of a hard-copy
notice, notice also may be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses, if any, set forth below. Either Party may from
time to time designate by written notice substitute addresses or persons to whom such notices shall be sent.
Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices shall be effective upon receipt.
A. State:
Chantal Unfug, Division Director
Division of Local Government
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521
Denver, Colorado 80203
Email: chantal.unfug@state.co.us
B. Grantee:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE
This section shall | shall not apply to this Grant.
Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models,
materials, or Work Product of any type, including drafts, prepared by Grantee in the performance of its
obligations under this Grant shall be the exclusive property of the State and, all Work Product shall be delivered
to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination hereof. The State’s exclusive rights in such Work
Product shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and prepare derivative
works. Grantee shall not use, willingly allow, cause or permit such Work Product to be used for any purpose
other than the performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the State.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 15 of 21
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall constitute a waiver, express or implied,
of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the GIA. Liability for claims for
injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments, institutions,
agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of the GIA and the risk
management statutes, CRS §24-30-1501, et seq., as amended.
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
If the maximum amount payable to Grantee under this Grant is greater than $100,000 either on the Effective
Date or at anytime thereafter, this §19 applies.
Grantee agrees to be governed, and to abide, by the provisions of CRS §24-102-205, §24-102-206, §24-103-601,
§24-103.5-101 and §24-105-102 concerning the monitoring of vendor performance on state Grants and inclusion
of Grant performance information in a statewide Contract Management System.
Grantee’s performance shall be subject to Evaluation and Review in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Grant, State law, including CRS §24-103.5-101, and State Fiscal Rules, Policies and Guidance. Evaluation
and Review of Grantee’s performance shall be part of the normal Grant administration process and Grantee’s
performance will be systematically recorded in the statewide Contract Management System. Areas of Evaluation
and Review shall include, but shall not be limited to quality, cost and timeliness. Collection of information
relevant to the performance of Grantee’s obligations under this Grant shall be determined by the specific
requirements of such obligations and shall include factors tailored to match the requirements of Grantee’s
obligations. Such performance information shall be entered into the statewide Contract Management System at
intervals established herein and a final Evaluation, Review and Rating shall be rendered within 30 days of the
end of the Grant term. Grantee shall be notified following each performance Evaluation and Review, and shall
address or correct any identified problem in a timely manner and maintain work progress.
Should the final performance Evaluation and Review determine that Grantee demonstrated a gross failure to
meet the performance measures established hereunder, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Personnel and Administration (Executive Director), upon request by the Department of Local Affairs, and
showing of good cause, may debar Grantee and prohibit Grantee from receiving future grants and bidding on
future contracts. Grantee may contest the final Evaluation, Review and Rating by: (a) filing rebuttal statements,
which may result in either removal or correction of the evaluation (CRS §24-105-102(6)), or (b) under CRS
§24-105-102(6), exercising the debarment protest and appeal rights provided in CRS §§24-109-106, 107, 201 or
202, which may result in the reversal of the debarment and reinstatement of Grantee, by the Executive Director,
upon a showing of good cause.
20. RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC BENEFITS
This section shall | shall not apply to this Grant.
Grantee must confirm that any individual natural person is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to CRS
§24-76.5-101 et seq. when such individual applies for public benefits provided under this Grant by requiring the
applicant to:
A. Produce an identification document in accordance with §2.1.1 through §2.1.3 of Colorado Department of
Revenue’s Rule #1 CCR 201-17, Rule for Evidence of Lawful Presence, as amended.
B. Execute an affidavit herein attached as Form 1, Residency Declaration, stating
i. That he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident; or
ii. That he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law.
[The following applies if Grant is funded with federal funds].
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that there is any conflict with the provisions above or those set
forth in the Residency Declaration attached hereto as Form 1 and any provision of federal law, the provisions of
federal law shall prevail.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 16 of 21
21. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Assignment and Subgrants
Grantee’s rights and obligations hereunder are personal and may not be transferred, assigned or subgranted
without the prior, written consent of the State. Any attempt at assignment, transfer, or subgranting without
such consent shall be void. All assignments, subgrants, or subcontracts approved by Grantee or the State
are subject to all of the provisions hereof. Grantee shall be solely responsible for all aspects of subgranting
and subcontracting arrangements and performance.
B. Binding Effect
Except as otherwise provided in §21(A), all provisions herein contained, including the benefits and
burdens, shall extend to and be binding upon the Parties’ respective heirs, legal representatives, successors,
and assigns.
C. Captions
The captions and headings in this Grant are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to
interpret, define, or limit its provisions.
D. Counterparts
This Grant may be executed in multiple identical original counterparts, all of which shall constitute one
agreement.
E. Entire Understanding
This Grant represents the complete integration of all understandings between the Parties and all prior
representations and understandings, oral or written, are merged herein. Prior or contemporaneous additions,
deletions, or other changes hereto shall not have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein.
F. Indemnification-General
Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by law, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees
and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and
attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees,
agents, Subgrantees, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this Grant; however, the provisions hereof shall
not be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits,
protection, or other provisions, of the GIA, or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., as
applicable, as now or hereafter amended.
G. Jurisdiction and Venue
All suits, actions, or proceedings related to this Grant shall be held in the State of Colorado and exclusive
venue shall be in the City and County of Denver.
H. List of Selected Applicable Laws
At all times during the performance of this Grant, Grantee shall comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws and their implementing regulations, currently in existence and as hereafter amended, including
without limitation those set forth on Exhibit A, Applicable Laws. Grantee also shall require compliance
with such laws and regulations by subgrantees under subgrants permitted by this Grant.
I. Use Covenants
This section shall | shall not apply to this Grant:
For Subject Property that is owned by Grantee upon execution of this Grant, Grantee shall record a Use
Covenant substantially equivalent to Exhibit F with the county in which the property resides as soon as
reasonably practicable after execution of this Grant. For Subject Property acquired by Grantee using Grant
Funds, Grantee shall record a Use Covenant substantially equivalent to Exhibit F with the county in which
the property resides as soon as reasonably practicable after acquisition of such property.
J. Modification
i. By the Parties
Except as specifically provided in this Grant, modifications of this Grant shall not be effective unless
agreed to in writing by the Parties in an amendment hereto, properly executed and approved in
accordance with applicable Colorado State law, State Fiscal Rules, and Office of the State Controller
Policies, including, but not limited to, the policy entitled MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS -
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 17 of 21
TOOLS AND FORMS. Changes to the Grant shall be authorized to be approved by the following
State or DOLA parties:
a) Approval by Division Director
The Division Director of DOLA or his delegee shall have authority to approve changes to the
Responsible Administrator and Key Personnel specified in §5 of Exhibit B and the Principal
Representative in §16.
b) Approval by DOLA Controller
The DOLA Controller shall have authority to approve all changes to the Grant which are not
reserved to the Division Director above.
ii. By Operation of Law
This Grant is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in Federal or Colorado
State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification automatically shall be
incorporated into and be part of this Grant on the effective date of such change, as if fully set forth
herein.
K. Order of Precedence
The provisions of this Grant shall govern the relationship of the Parties. In the event of conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Grant and its exhibits and attachments including, but not limited to, those
provided by Grantee, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in
the following order of priority:
i. Exhibit A (Applicable Laws)
ii. Colorado Special Provisions
iii. The provisions of the main body of this Grant (excluding the cover page)
iv. Any executed Option Letters
v. Exhibit B (Scope of Project)
vi. Exhibit E (Project Performance Plan)
vii. The cover page of this Grant
L. Severability
Provided this Grant can be executed and performance of the obligations of the Parties accomplished within
its intent, the provisions hereof are severable and any provision that is declared invalid or becomes
inoperable for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
M. Survival of Certain Grant Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, provisions of this Grant requiring continued performance,
compliance, or effect after termination hereof, shall survive such termination and shall be enforceable by
the State if Grantee fails to perform or comply as required.
N. Taxes
The State is exempt from all federal excise taxes under IRC Chapter 32 (No. 84-730123K) and from all
State and local government sales and use taxes under CRS §§39-26-101 and 201 et seq. Such exemptions
apply when materials are purchased or services rendered to benefit the State; provided however, that certain
political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) may require payment of sales or use taxes even though the
product or service is provided to the State. Grantee shall be solely liable for paying such taxes as the State
is prohibited from paying for or reimbursing Grantee for them.
O. Third Party Beneficiaries
Enforcement of this Grant and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the Parties, and
not to any third party. Any services or benefits which third parties receive as a result of this Grant are
incidental to the Grant, and do not create any rights for such third parties.
P. Waiver
Waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Grant, or any right or remedy hereunder,
whether explicitly or by lack of enforcement, shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach of such term, provision or requirement, or of any other term, provision, or requirement.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 18 of 21
Q. CORA Disclosure
To the extent not prohibited by federal law, this Grant and the performance measures and standards under
CRS §24-103.5-101, if any, are subject to public release through the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS
§24-72-101, et seq.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 19 of 21
22. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
A. The Special Provisions apply to all Grants except where noted in italics.
i. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202 (1).
This Grant shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or
designee.
ii. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5).
Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for
that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available.
iii. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.
No term or condition of this Grant shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of
any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and
2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended.
iv. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent Grantee and not as an employee. Neither
Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the
State. Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers
compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such
coverage for Grantee or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits shall be
available to Grantee and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Grantee
or a third party. Grantee shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and
local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Grant. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or
implied, to bind the State to any Grant, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein.
Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation
insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by the State, and
(c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents.
v. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW.
Grantee shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect
or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair
employment practices.
vi. CHOICE OF LAW.
Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation,
execution, and enforcement of this grant. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference
which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision
incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole
or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of
complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this
provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Grant, to the extent capable of execution.
vii.BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED.
The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any
provision to the contrary in this Grant or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void.
viii. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00.
State or other public funds payable under this Grant shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or
maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing
restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Grant and any
extensions, Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such
improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Grantee is in violation of this provision, the
State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Grant, including, without
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 20 of 21
limitation, immediate termination of this Grant and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws
or applicable licensing restrictions.
ix. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and 24-50-507.
The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial
interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Grant. Grantee has no interest and shall
not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of Grantee’s services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known
interests.
x. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4.
[Not applicable to intergovernmental agreements] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State
Controller may withhold payment under the State’s vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to
State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of
tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to
the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) amounts required to be paid to
the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of
final agency determination or judicial action.
xi. PUBLIC GRANTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101.
[Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory
services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental Agreements, or
information technology services or products and services] Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees that
it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who shall perform work under this
Grant and shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for
employment in the United States to perform work under this Grant, through participation in the E-
Verify Program or the State program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Grantee shall
not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant or enter into
a grant with a Subgrantee that fails to certify to Grantee that the Subgrantee shall not knowingly
employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant. Grantee (a) shall not use E-
Verify Program or State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants
while this Grant is being performed, (b) shall notify the Subgrantee and the granting State agency
within three days if Grantee has actual knowledge that a Subgrantee is employing or contracting with
an illegal alien for work under this Grant, (c) shall terminate the Subgrant if a Subgrantee does not
stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d)
shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to
CRS §8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Grantee participates
in the State program, Grantee shall deliver to the granting State agency, Institution of Higher
Education or political subdivision, a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Grantee has
examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements
of the State program. If Grantee fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8-
17.5-101 et seq., the granting State agency, institution of higher education or political subdivision
may terminate this Grant for breach and, if so terminated, Grantee shall be liable for damages.
xii.PUBLIC GRANTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101.
Grantee, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under
penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States
pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has
produced one form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the Effective Date of this
Grant.
(Special Provisions - effective 1/1/09)
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 21 of 21
SIGNATURE PAGE
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS GRANT
* Persons signing for Grantee hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Grantee’s behalf and
acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect.
GRANTEE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By: _____________________________________________
Name of Authorized Individual (print)
Title: ___________________________________________
Official Title of Authorized Individual
______________________________________________
*Signature
Date: __________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
By:__________________________________________
Irv Halter, Executive Director
Date: __________________________________
PRE-APPROVED FORM CONTRACT REVIEWER
By:__________________________________________
Bret Hillberry, State Grants Program Manager
Date: __________________________________
ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Grant is not valid until signed and
dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If
Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grant ee for such performance
or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder.
STATE CONTROLLER
Robert Jaros, CPA
By:___________________________________________
Janet Miks, CPA, Controller Delegate
Date:_____________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
12/14/2015
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 1 of 1 –Exhibit A (Applicable Laws)
EXHIBIT A – APPLICABLE LAWS
Laws, regulations, and authoritative guidance incorporated into this Grant include, without limitation:
1. Colorado Revised Statutes §29-1-601 et seq., as amended, Colorado Local Governments Audit Law.
2. 5 USC552a, as amended, Privacy Act of 1974.
3. 8 USC 1101, Immigration and Nationality Act.
4. 29 USC Chapter 8, §§201, 206, et seq., as amended, Labor.
5. 29 USC Chapter 14, §§621-634, et seq., as amended, Age Discrimination in Employment.
6. 40 USC Subtitle II, et seq., as amended, Public Buildings and Works.
7. 40 USC 327–330, Section 103 and 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended.
8. 40 CFR 1500-1508, as amended, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing NEPA.
9. 41 CFR Chapter 60, as amended, Executive Order 11246.
10. 41 USC 701, et seq., Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.
11. 42 USC Chapter 21, et seq., as amended, Civil Rights.
12. CRS §24-34-302, et seq., as amended, Civil Rights Division.
13. CRS §24-34-501 – 510, et seq., as amended, Colorado Housing Act of 1970.
14. CRS §24-75-601 et seq., as amended, Legal Investment of Public Funds.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT B – SCOPE OF PROJECT (SOP)
1. PURPOSE
1.1. Energy Impact. The purpose of the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Program is to assist
political subdivisions that are socially and/or economically impacted by the development, processing,
or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT(S) AND WORK.
2.1. Project Description. The project is to provide funds to the Town of Estes Park for salary and benefits
to hire three staff positions to assist the Town with flood recovery efforts.
2.2. Work Description. The Town of Estes Park (Grantee) will hire three short-term staff positions to
assist the Town with flood recovery efforts. The positions include: 1) A project manager/engineer to
oversee construction management of the Moraine Avenue bridge project over Fall River as their
primary work assignment. This position is a 24 month position. Salary and benefits will be up to
$109,040 annually; 2) A project associate to work on the Fish Creek Road and Trail project as well as
to work on grant compliance and resiliency. This position will also coordinate with Estes Valley
Watershed coalition projects that run through town. This is a 24 month position with an annual cost up
to $78,193 for salary and benefits; and 3) A Planner Technician to work with the floodplain manager
and the community development department on flood recovery projects. This is a 12 month position
with an annual cost of $67,911 for salary and benefits.
2.3. Responsibilities. Grantee shall be responsible for the completion of the Work and to provide required
documentation to DOLA as specified herein.
2.3.1. Grantee shall notify DOLA at least 30 days in advance of Project Completion.
2.4. Recapture of Advanced Funds. To maximize the use of Grant Funds, the State shall evaluate
Grantee's expenditure of the Grant Funds for timeliness and compliance with the terms of this Grant.
DOLA reserves the right to recapture advanced Grant Funds when Grantee has not or is not complying
with the terms of this Grant.
2.5. Eligible Expenses. Eligible expenses shall include: salary and benefits costs for the three above-
mentioned positions.
2.6. Cost Savings. Cost Savings derived while completing the Project shall be:
2.6.1. split on a pro-rata basis between the State and Grantee
2.6.2. returned to the State
3. DEFINITIONS
3.1. “Cost Savings” means the Project Budget amount less the amount expended to complete the Work.
Cost Savings are determined at the time the Work is completed and the final payment request is
submitted by the Grantee to the State. Cost Savings do not result in payment by the State to Grantee
above actual expenditures beyond the required ratio, but deobligates unexpended Grant Funds and
reduces Grantee’s matching funds requirement. State shall provide written notice to Grantee verifying
any Cost Savings.
3.2. “Cumulative Budgetary Line Item Changes” means a cumulative or increasing accumulation of
additional expenses within a specific line item as listed in §6.2 Budget within this Exhibit B.
3.3. Project Budget Line items.
3.3.1. “Personnel Services Costs” means program-specific allowable salary and benefits costs.
3.4. “Substantial Completion” means the Work is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Grant so it
can be utilized for its intended purpose without undue interference.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 2 of 5
4. DELIVERABLES
4.1. Outcome. The final outcome of this Grant is the provision of short-term staff assistance to aid the
Grantee in the flood recovery process..
4.2. Service Area. The performance of the Work described within this Grant shall be located in Estes Park,
Colorado.
4.3. Performance Measures. Grantee shall comply with the performance measures detailed in Exhibit E.
4.4. Budget Line Item Adjustments. Line Item Adjustments shall not increase the Grant Funds or the
total amount of the Budget.
4.4.1. Grantee shall have authority to adjust individual budget line amounts without approval of the State
up to an aggregate of 10% of such line item from which the funds are moved. Such authority shall
not allow Grantee to transfer to or between administration budget lines. Grantee’s Responsible
Administrator shall send written notification of allowed adjustments to the State within 30 days of
such adjustment.
4.4.2. All changes to individual budget line amounts which are in excess of 10% but less than 24.99% of
such line item from which the funds are moved (each a “Minor Line Item Adjustment”) shall
require prior written approval of the DOLA Controller. Grantee’s Responsible Administrator shall
submit a written request for changes pursuant to this Section to the State. Such request shall
include the amount of such request, the reason for the request and any necessary documentation. If
the State approves such request, the State shall unilaterally execute an Option Letter accepting
such request pursuant to §7(C)(i) of the Grant. Grantee is not authorized to perform until Grantee
receives an executed Option Letter accepting such change.
4.4.3. All changes to individual budget line amounts which are in excess of 24.99% of such line item
from which the funds are moved shall require a prior written amendment executed by the Grantee
and DOLA pursuant to §21(J) of the Grant. Grantee shall submit a written request for changes
pursuant to this Section to the State. Such request shall include the amount of such request, the
reason for the request and any necessary documentation. Grantee is not authorized to perform until
a bi-lateral amendment is fully executed by the DOLA Controller accepting such change.
4.4.4. Signature Authority. All Grantee notices and requests submitted to DOLA pursuant to this §4.4
(each a “Line Item Proposal”), must be signed and dated by a person authorized to bind the
Grantee to such Line Item Proposal.
4.5. Overall Budget Adjustments.
4.5.1. All changes to the overall Budget which are less than 24.99% (each a “Minor Budget
Adjustment”) shall require prior written approval of the DOLA Controller. Grantee’s Responsible
Administrator shall submit a written request for changes pursuant to this Section to the State. Such
request shall include the amount of such request, the reason for the request and any necessary
documentation. If the State approves such request, the State shall unilaterally execute an Option
Letter accepting such request pursuant to §7(C)(ii) of the Grant. Grantee is not authorized to
perform until Grantee receives an executed Option Letter accepting such change. Minor Budget
Adjustments shall not increase the Grant Funds.
4.5.1.1. Exception for Setting Final Initial Budget. Within 30 days of bid opening for its selection
of its prime Subcontractor, Grantee shall submit a written request for changes to the overall
Budget to revise the initial overall Budget estimate to align it with current market conditions
(a “True-up Budget Proposal”). Grantee’s Responsible Administrator shall submit a
written request for changes pursuant to this Section to the State. Such request shall include
the amount of such request, the reason for the request and any necessary documentation. If
the State approves such request, the State shall unilaterally execute an Option Letter
accepting such request pursuant to §7(C)(iii) of the Grant. Grantee is not authorized to
perform until Grantee receives an executed Option Letter accepting such change. True-up
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 3 of 5
Budget Proposals shall not increase the Grant Funds. The overall Budget adjustment
permitted by this §4.5.1.1 is only permitted once under this Grant.
4.5.2. All changes to the overall Budget which are in excess of 24.99% shall require a prior written
amendment executed by the Grantee and DOLA pursuant to §21(J) of the Grant. Grantee shall
submit a written request for changes pursuant to this Section to the State. Such request shall
include the amount of such request, the reason for the request and any necessary documentation.
Grantee is not authorized to perform until a bi-lateral amendment is fully executed by the DOLA
Controller accepting such change.
4.5.3. Signature Authority. All Grantee notices and requests submitted to DOLA pursuant to this §4.5
(each a “Budget Proposal”), must be signed and dated by a person authorized to bind the Grantee
to such Budget Proposal.
4.6. Quarterly Pay Request and Status Reports. Beginning 30 days after the end of the first quarter
following execution of this Grant and for each quarter thereafter until termination of this Grant,
Grantee shall submit Pay Requests and Status Reports using a form provided by the State. The State
shall pay the Grantee for actual expenditures made in the performance of this Grant based on the
submission of statements in the format prescribed by the State. The Grantee shall submit Pay Requests
setting forth a detailed description and provide documentation of the amounts and types of
reimbursable expenses. For quarters in which there are no expenditures to reimburse, Grantee shall
indicate zero (0) in the request and specify status of the Work in the Status Report. The report will
contain an update of expenditure of funds by line item as per §6.2 of this Exhibit B Scope of Project as
well as a projection of all Work expected to be accomplished in the following quarter, including an
estimate of Grant Funds to be expended. This report is due within 30 days of the end of the quarter or
more frequently at the discretion of the Grantee. See Exhibit E for specific submittal dates.
4.7. DOLA Acknowledgment. The Grantee agrees to acknowledge the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs in any and all materials or events designed to promote or educate the public about the Work and
the Project, including but not limited to: press releases, newspaper articles, op-ed pieces, press
conferences, presentations and brochures/pamphlets.
5. PERSONNEL
5.1. Replacement. Grantee shall immediately notify the State if any key personnel specified in §5 of this
Exhibit B cease to serve. Provided there is a good-faith reason for the change, if Grantee wishes to
replace its key personnel, it shall notify the State and seek its approval, which shall be at the State 's
sole discretion, as the State executed this Grant in part reliance on Grantee’s representations regarding
key personnel. Such notice shall specify why the change is necessary, who the proposed replacement is,
what their qualifications are, and when the change will take effect. Anytime key personnel cease to
serve, the State, in its sole discretion, may direct Grantee to suspend Work until such time as
replacements are approved. All notices sent under this subsection shall be sent in accordance with §16
of the Grant.
5.2. Responsible Administrator. Grantee’s performance hereunder shall be under the direct supervision of
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator (flancaster@estes.org), an employee or agent of Grantee,
who is hereby designated as the responsible administrator of this Project. Such administrator shall be
updated through the approval process in §5.1. If this person is an agent of the Grantee, such person
must have signature authority to bind the Grantee and must provide evidence of such authority.
5.3. Other Key Personnel: None. Such key personnel shall be updated through the approval process in
§5.1.
6. FUNDING
The State provided funds shall be limited to the amount specified under the “Grant Funds” column of §6.2,
Budget, below.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 4 of 5
6.1. Matching Funds. Grantee shall provide the required (see checked item) Matching Funds, as listed
in the “Matching Funds” column of §6.2 below during the term of this Project. Funds used as match on
previous grant(s) cannot be used as Matching Funds for this Grant.
6.2. Budget
Budget Line Item(s) Total Cost Grant
Funds
Matching
Funds
Matching Funds
Source
Personnel Services Costs $442,377 $442,377 $0 No Match
Total $442,377 $442,377 $0
7. PAYMENT
Payments shall be made in accordance with this section and the provisions set forth in §7 of the Grant.
7.1. Payment Schedule. If Work is subcontracted or subgranted and such Subcontractors and/or
Subgrantees are not previously paid, Grantee shall disburse Grant Funds received from the State to
such Subcontractor or Subgrantee within fifteen days of receipt. Excess funds shall be returned to
DOLA.
Payment Amount
Interim Payment(s) $420,259 Paid upon receipt of actual expense documentation and
written Pay Requests from the Grantee for
reimbursement of eligible approved expenses.
Final Payment $22,118 Paid upon Substantial Completion of the Project (as
determined by the State in its sole discretion), provided
that the Grantee has submitted, and DOLA has
accepted, all required reports.
Total $442,377
7.2. Remittance Address. If mailed, payments shall be remitted to the following address unless changed in
accordance with §16 of the Grant:
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
7.3. Interest. Grantee or Subgrantee may keep interest earned from Grant Funds up to $100 per year for
administrative expenses.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
8.1. Reporting. Grantee shall submit the following reports to DOLA using the State-provided forms.
DOLA may withhold payment(s) if such reports are not submitted timely.
8.1.1. Quarterly Pay Request and Status Reports. Quarterly Pay Requests shall be submitted to
DOLA in accordance with §4.6 of this Exhibit B.
8.1.2. Final Reports. Within 90 days after the completion of the Project, Grantee shall submit the final
Pay Request and Status Report to DOLA.
8.2. Monitoring. DOLA shall monitor this Work on an as-needed basis. DOLA may choose to audit the
records for activities performed under this Grant. Grantee shall maintain a complete file of all records,
documents, communications, notes and other written materials or electronic media, files or
communications, which pertain in any manner to the operation of activities undertaken pursuant to an
executed Grant. Such books and records shall contain documentation of the Grantee’s pertinent activity
under this Grant in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
8.2.1. Subgrantee/Subcontractor. Grantee shall monitor its Subgrantees and/or Subcontractors, if any,
during the term of this Grant. Results of such monitoring shall be documented by Grantee and
maintained on file.
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 5 of 5
8.3. Bonds. If Project includes construction or facility improvements, Grantee and/or its contractor (or
subcontractors) performing such work shall secure the bonds here under from companies holding
certificates of authority as acceptable sureties pursuant to 31 CFR Part 223 and are authorized to do
business in Colorado.
8.3.1. Bid Bond. A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to 5 percent of the bid price. The “bid
guarantee” shall consist of a firm commitment such as a bid bond, certified check, or other
negotiable instrument accompanying a bid as assurance that the bidder shall, upon acceptance of
his bid, execute such contractual documents as may be required within the time specified.
8.3.2. Performance Bond. A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the
contract price. A “performance bond” is one executed in connection with a contract to secure
fulfillment of all the contractor's obligations under such contract.
8.3.3. Payment Bond. A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract
price. A “payment bond” is one executed in connection with a contract to assure payment as
required by statute of all persons supplying labor and material in the execution of the work
provided for in the contract.
8.3.4. Substitution. The bonding requirements in this §8.3 may be waived in lieu of an irrevocable letter
of credit if the price is less than $50,000.
9. CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION. The following subsections shall apply to construction and/or
renovation related projects/activities:
9.1. Plans & Specifications. Construction plans and specifications shall be drawn up by a qualified
engineer or architect licensed in the State of Colorado, or pre-engineered in accordance with Colorado
law, and hired by the Grantee through a competitive selection process.
9.2. Procurement. A construction contract shall be awarded to a qualified construction firm through a
formal selection process with the Grantee being obligated to award the construction contract to the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder meeting the Grantee's specifications.
9.3. Subcontracts. Copies of any and all contracts entered into by the Grantee in order to accomplish this
Project shall be submitted to DOLA upon request, and any and all contracts entered into by the Grantee
or any of its Subcontractors shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
9.4. Standards. Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall comply with all applicable statutory design
and construction standards and procedures that may be required, including the standards required by
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and shall provide the State with
documentation of such compliance.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT E – PROJECT PERFORMANCE PLAN
Funding: EIAF
Project Number: 9044
Name of Grantee Town of Estes Park
Name of Project Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project is to provide funds to the Town of Estes Park for salary and
benefits to hire three staff positions to assist the Town with flood recovery
efforts.
DLG Staff: Don Sandoval - Regional Manager (970) 679-4501 DS Robert Thompson - Regional Assistant (970) 679-4503 RT
MILESTONES – Grantee shall… By: STATE ROLE- DLG shall…
Advertise positions. Within 10 days of the
Effective Date of this
Grant Agreement.
Assist Grantee with recruiting process, if
necessary. Provide feedback to Grantee
identifying issues or concerns, if any.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Hire all positions. Within 30 days of the
Effective Date of this
Grant Agreement.
Assist Grantee with selection process, if
necessary. Provide feedback to Grantee
identifying issues or concerns, if any.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Provide DOLA with Project Timeline. Within 30 days of the
Effective Date of this
Grant Agreement
Review timeline to ensure timely completion
of Project. Provide feedback to Grantee
identifying issues or concerns, if any.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Project Completion.
February 28, 2018 Review past quarterly reports, conduct on-
site monitoring, and review final report. ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Page 2 of 3
Submit quarterly progress reports,
which includes: Project Performance Plan
accomplishments and a Financial
Summary Report for:
1st Quarter 2016
2nd Quarter 2016
3rd Quarter 2016
4th Quarter 2016
1st Quarter 2017
2nd Quarter 2017
3rd Quarter 2017
4th Quarter 2017
1st Quarter 2018
Progress shall be evaluated by the
Grantee and documented and included at
least upon submittal of Quarterly
Progress Reports. Such evaluation shall
include the results of question and
answer sessions with the contractor to
confirm the following conditions have
been met:
Personnel Services Costs:
-are all position(s) funded by this Grant
filled (fully staffed)?
-were vacant positions filled according to
established HR policies and procedures?
-are/is the pay rate(s) comparable to
market?
-are/is the employee(s) in these Grant-
funded positions performing satisfactorily
or better?
-are/is the performance documented?
(30 calendar days after
each quarter):
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
April 30, 2017
July 30, 2017
October 30, 2017
January 30, 2018
April 30, 2018
Review documents and provide follow up
technical assistance as necessary.
If needed, respond to a request for training
within 10 days.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Page 3 of 3
Submit, at a minimum quarterly basis,
pay requests and supporting
documentation of expenses.
April 30, 2016
July 30, 2016
October 30, 2016
January 30, 2017
April 30, 2017
July 30, 2017
October 30, 2017
January 30, 2018
April 30, 2018
Review backup documentation and proof of
payment prior to approving pay request.
Reimbursement should not exceed pro rata
share.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
Submit the Project Final Report to DLG
within 90 days after the Project
Completion or expiration of Grant
Agreement.
May 29, 2018 Provide forms to Grantee within 30 days of
completion of work or end of the Grant
Agreement. Process the Final Report and
deobligate any remaining grant funds within
30 days of receiving a complete Final
report.
ACHIEVED: MM/DD/20YY
QUARTERLY QUESTIONS
List Reimbursement Requests for the three months being reported on:
Month January Amount
Month January Amount
Month January Amount
Were any months “zero payment” (no costs incurred) during this quarter? If so, please provide an explanation.
What are the forecasted costs for the next quarter?
Are the budget lines still adequate? Is a contract amendment needed at this time? Are there any anticipated concerns or issues?
Do you foresee any potential problems meeting the Grant Agreement completion deadline?
Were previously identified problems (if any) corrected? Was a budget adjustment needed/done to address the problem(s)?
EIAF #9044 – Estes Park Project Staff – Flood Recovery
Page 1 of 1 –Exhibit G (Form of Option Letter)
EXHIBIT G
Form of Option Letter
Date: Original Grant CMS #: Option Letter # CMS Routing #
1) OPTIONS:
a. Option to issue a new Budget (§6.2 of Exhibit B) for a Minor Line Item Adjustment (as defined in §4.4.2 of
Exhibit B).
b. Option to issue a new Budget (§6.2 of Exhibit B) for a Minor Budget Adjustment (as defined in §4.5.1 of Exhibit
B).
c. Option to issue a new Budget (§6.2 of Exhibit B) for acceptance of a True-Up Budget Proposal (as defined in
§4.5.1.1 of Exhibit B).
2) REQUIRED PROVISIONS. All Option Letters shall contain the appropriate provisions set forth below:
a. For use with Option 1(a): In accordance with §7(C)(i) of the Original Grant referenced above between the State
of Colorado, acting by and through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and Grantee's Name (“Grantee”),
the State hereby approves the Minor Line Item Adjustment listed on the attached revised Budget for §6.2 of Exhibit
B. Section 6.2 of Exhibit B of the Original Grant is hereby deleted and replaced with the attached §6.2 of Exhibit
B. All references to §6.2 of Exhibit B in the Original Grant shall refer to the attached Exhibit. Minor Line Item
Adjustments shall not increase the Grant Funds or the total amount of the Budget.
b. For use with Option 1(b): In accordance with §7(C)(ii) of the Original Grant referenced above between the State
of Colorado, acting by and through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and Grantee's Name (“Grantee”),
the State hereby approves the Minor Budget Adjustment listed on the attached revised Budget for §6.2 of Exhibit B.
Section 6.2 of Exhibit B of the Original Grant is hereby deleted and replaced with the attached §6.2 of Exhibit B.
All references to §6.2 of Exhibit B in the Original Grant shall refer to the attached Exhibit. Minor Budget
Adjustments shall not increase the Grant Funds.
c. For use with Option 1(c): In accordance with §7(C)(iii) of the Original Grant referenced above between the
State of Colorado, acting by and through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and Grantee's Name
(“Grantee”), the State hereby approves the True-Up Budget Proposal listed on the attached revised Budget for §6.2
of Exhibit B. Section 6.2 of Exhibit B of the Original Grant is hereby deleted and replaced with the attached §6.2
of Exhibit B. All references to §6.2 of Exhibit B in the Original Grant shall refer to the attached Exhibit. True-Up
Budget Proposals shall not increase the Grant Funds.
3) Effective Date. The effective date of this Option Letter is upon approval of the State Controller or Insert start date,
whichever is later.
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper GOVERNOR
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
By: Irv Halter, Executive Director
Date: _________________________
ALL CONTRACTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State contracts. This Option Letter is not valid until
signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such
time. If Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such
performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder.
STATE CONTROLLER
Robert Jaros, CPA
By: ____________________________________
Janet Miks, CPA, Controller Delegate
Date: ___________________
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: January 12, 2016
RE: Estes Park Parking Strategy
Objective:
The citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) requests the Town Board formally
accept the Parking Strategy and associated implementation priorities to guide future
parking project evaluation, selection, and funding.
Present Situation:
• The Town has hired engineering consultants to study the parking problem for
decades. Recommended actions have been included in the 2001
Recommended Placement of Multi-Space Parking Meters proposal, the 2003
Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study, the 2005 Republic Parking Study,
and the 2013 Estes Park Transit & Parking Study. The Town Board has
implemented the free shuttle and the Visitor Center parking structure in response
to these studies.
• Citizens have offered additional short-term, mid-term, and long-term
recommendations in the 2011 Roadmap to the Future document prepared by the
Transportation Visioning Committee. In response to this study’s findings, the
Town Board created the citizen Transportation Advisory Board to further guide
decision-making on parking and other transportation matters.
• The Town Board established the following Objective in the 2015 Strategic Plan:
o Explore with the public and business partners and the Transportation
Advisory Committee, the option of paid parking in some areas.
• The Town Board adopted the following two Objectives in the 2016 Strategic Plan:
o Complete the construction of Phase 1 of the Visitor Center Transit Facility
Parking Structure.
o Pursue funding for future phases of the Visitor Center Transit Facility
Parking Structure.
Page 2 of 3
• In 2015 Public Works (PW) staff applied for, and was denied, TIGER grant
funding to implement a Smart-technology based paid parking program and add
two additional levels to the proposed Phase 1 Visitor Center parking structure.
• In November of 2015 PW staff applied for another FTA and/or FASTER grant
administered by CDOT in the amount of $997,149 to partially fund a third level to
be added to the Phase 1 Visitor Center transit facility parking structure.
• The TAB presented this Parking Strategy document to the Town Board at the
November 24, 2015 Study Session. At that time PW Staff were requested to
bring the unedited document back to the Town Board at this meeting for further
review, public comment, and consideration for formal acceptance by the Town
Board.
Proposal:
Addressing the parking shortage in downtown Estes Park is complex and should be
approached from both the supply side and the demand side. The attached document
offers nine strategies for tackling this issue. The members of the TAB voted to
recommend the parking issues be pursued in this priority order:
Strategy 5 (Pay to Park)—highest priority
Strategy 1 (Increase Parking Supply)
Strategy 6 (Owner/Employee Parking)
Strategy 7 (Oversized Vehicles) tied with
Strategy 4 (Alternate Modes)
Strategy 3 (Directional Signage)
Strategy 9 (Special Event Management Plan)
Strategy 8 (Protect Neighborhoods)
Strategy 2 (Simplify Parking)—lowest priority.
Each strategy is conceptual in nature. Additional future effort and funding will be
needed to refine the scope and cost of implementation. While acceptance of this
Parking Strategy document does not obligate the Town to implement any projects or
concepts contained therein, PW staff will rely on this document for guidance in selecting
parking topics for future funding consideration by the Town Board. Dedication of staff
and budget resources in specific calendar years will be necessary to effectively address
the parking challenges in downtown Estes Park. Grants and/or private funding will also
be needed. Town Board agreement on the extent and timing of directing Town
resources to the specific strategies is necessary.
The advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed Parking Strategy are
listed below.
Advantages:
• An adopted Parking Strategy can guide future allocation of staff and financial
resources to address the increasing shortage of parking in downtown Estes Park.
Page 3 of 3
• The Parking Strategy document recognizes that Estes Park cannot reasonably
build its way out of the parking shortage. More efficient and better timed
utilization of existing parking resources need to be part of the solution.
• The proposed Parking Strategy was home-grown by citizens of Estes who
represent a broad view of opinions on this subject. There were no additional
consultant costs incurred for the preparation and adoption of this document.
• The document will influence the provision of ample and accessible parking which
can positively impact the economic vitality of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
• The proposed strategies are not highly detailed and will require additional effort
to refine scope, impact, and costs of each.
• While the TAB has discussed this topic in many announced & open monthly
meetings, no broadly advertised public process has been implemented yet
regarding the acceptance or adoption of the proposed strategies.
• Implementation of the proposed Parking Strategy will require the use of staff and
financial resources that are already under demand for other Town priorities.
Action Recommended:
Critically and carefully review the proposed Parking Strategy document. After
consideration of public comment, accept the proposed Parking Strategy as the guiding
document for future PW work load and budget planning. Confirm the direction for PW to
continue focusing on Strategy 1 (Increase Parking Supply at the Visitor Center) for
2016. Accept or revise the implementation priority order of Strategies provided by the
TAB. The top priority strategy is expected to be further considered and confirmed
during the 2017 goals and budgeting process which starts in June, 2016. Each year
this document should be revisited and a Strategy selected for evaluation and potential
implementation during the upcoming budget year.
Budget:
The Town budgeted $960,000 in 2013 and another $750,000 in 2015 for a parking
structure to be built at the Visitor Center. This is part of Strategy 1 in the proposed
document. No funds have been budgeted in 2016 to pursue a paid parking program or
any other strategies contained in this proposal.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to accept the Parking Strategy and implementation
priorities as presented by the TAB.
Attachments: TAB memo dated November 18, 2015 and draft proposed Parking
Strategy dated October 2015
PUBLIC WORKS
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Board
Date: November 18, 2015
RE: Proposed Parking Strategy
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has developed the attached Proposed Parking Strategy in an effort
to identify priorities, to identify appropriate grant opportunities, and guide decision-making as it relates to
downtown parking initiatives.
The report outlines a set of strategies which if followed are intended to ensure that future downtown parking
initiatives will achieve preferred objectives. Many of these key points are highly interrelated and
implementation must be coordinated to ensure an optimal outcome.
If the Trustees find the strategies in this report agreeable, we ask that the Town adopt the Parking Strategy to
guide future planning.
** Updated version. Corrections to Table 2 – Estimated parking structure capacities.
1 | P a g e
PROPOSED
PARKING STRATEGY
Prepared by the Transportation Advisory Board
Presented to the Town of Estes Park
October 2015
INTRODUCTION
There is a strong public sentiment that Estes Park needs additional parking downtown. A new parking
structure providing roughly 100 net new spaces is currently planned for the Visitor Center South lot with the
potential to expand to roughly 310 net new spaces. This location is expected to ease pressure on the
downtown parking supply, but not satisfy the need for additional parking.
Engineering studies estimate 500 additional parking spaces are needed to adequately accommodate the
locals and visitors desiring to park downtown during the peak summer season. What is known is that each
time a vehicle is unable to find parking downtown, local businesses lose a revenue opportunity and the Town
misses out on potential tax receipts.
While there are no simple parking solutions, a few key strategies will be valuable in guiding future parking
solutions. The following proposed parking strategy was developed through months of collaborative
conversations and research by the Transportation Advisory Board. We believe these strategies will keep
decision-makers focused on what is important downtown – the visitor experience. If we can maintain our
focus on the visitor, and not over-emphasize the vehicles themselves, we will be able to find a solution to our
congestion and parking shortage without jeopardizing the character of our Town.
While the Transportation Advisory Board collectively stands behind these recommendations, it was difficult
to develop a strategy on which we could agree. Divergent views brought divergent solutions. All had merit.
The strategies proposed here are thought to balance these divergent views and highlighted the best
solutions. Implementation of these strategies will still be challenging. In particular, the topic of the best
location for a parking structure downtown is likely to elicit strong and divergent opinions.
BACKGROUND
Over the years, the Town of Estes Park has commissioned a variety of transportation studies. Some of these
specifically studied the downtown parking inventory and its utilization. Below is a summary of the key
findings of the most recent reports:
Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study: In 2003, the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives
Study (April 2003) was conducted to “develop a well-balanced, multi-modal transportation system
that addresses existing deficiencies and accommodates future travel needs for the Estes Valley in a
P a g e 2 | 16
safe and efficient manner.” (page E-1). One aspect of the study was an analysis of the utilization of
existing downtown parking spaces.
According to this study, the Town is projected to need 545 additional parking spaces by 2020 (page
ES-3 and page 59) to accommodate demands from an increase in tourists visiting Estes Park and
RMNP, as well as a growing Estes Valley population and continued commercial development. The
report anticipates that current over-capacity parking conditions could increase from 25 days per year
(in 2003) to 75 days per year in 2020 (page ES-3). Key parking recommendations from this study
were fixed route transit routes through town with increased intercept parking east of downtown.
Table 1: Rocky Mountain National Park attendance
Year Actual RMNP Attendance Projected Attendance from Estes Valley
Transportation Alternatives Study
2000 3,185,392 3,379,800
2005 2,798,368 3,732,600
2010 2,955,821 4,173,800
2014 3,434,751
2015 4.1 million forecast 4,731,900
2020 TBD 5,446,600
Source: Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study, Table 8 (page 49) and
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%2
0(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=ROMO
While today we can see that while this study over-projected visitor growth in the National Park, it
appears correct that parking demand continues to grow.
2005 Republic Parking Study: In 2005, the Town commissioned the Republic Parking Study. Republic
Parking conducted a comprehensive analysis of the parking supply and utilization. Their
recommendations (page 193) included improved signage, visitor and employee shuttles, alternate
employee parking and some unique options such as golf cart shuttles and valet options. The report
did not include a recommendation for a significant expansion of downtown parking capacity. Their
analysis questioned whether a structure would be cost effective, given the high construction and
maintenance costs and seasonal usage.
Roadmap to the Future: In April 2012, the Transportation Visioning Committee presented its report
to the Town Trustees outlining its vision for Estes Park’s transportation system 20 years in the future.
Its recommendations were categorize into five areas:
1. Information distribution
2. Shuttles & Public Transportation
3. Parking
4. Road Configuration
5. Multi-modal Transportation
The TVC then broke out its recommendations into short-term, mid-term, and long-term
recommendations.
2013 Estes Park Transit & Parking Study: This study was initiated to evaluate transit and parking
enhancements that could be implemented to improve the visitor and resident travel experience
P a g e 3 | 16
during the peak summer season. The study reviewed transit and parking operations in the peer
communities of Aspen, Durango, Breckenridge and Springdale, UT. The study evaluated current
deficiencies with the Town’s parking and shuttles, and recommended additional transit parking and
revised transit routes.
2015 Downtown Parking Survey: in May 2015, an informal survey of Estes Valley residents was
created by Charley Dickey & Paul Fishman of the Downtown Parking Task Force, a citizen group, to
determine the public sentiment toward the current parking situation and to determine preferred
parking solutions. This survey was distributed by email and Facebook. While not scientific in its
approach, it did get over 800 participants and remains a valuable indicator of current public
sentiment.
Data from these reports was reviewed and discussed by the Transportation Advisory Board in their efforts to
create this parking strategy.
Guiding Principles
When developing any transportation or parking improvement, we encourage the Town Trustees and staff to
keep in mind the following guiding principles:
o Protect the natural environment:
Be future-oriented when planning developments along waterways. These cannot be
returned to their natural state. Keep these areas accessible to people, not vehicles.
Encourage alternate modes of transportation. Provide wide sidewalks, bike lanes,
shuttles.
Balance the desire to park downtown with a duty to protect the family friendly
downtown zone and its natural amenities.
Reduce pollution & improve air quality
o Design downtown to be a fun, family friendly destination , not simply a connector to RMNP.
Create an attractive, welcoming environment that invites guests to wander, sit, play, eat, shop
relax and enjoy being here. Emphasize the pedestrian experience. Maintain green spaces,
riverfront plazas and create strong pedestrian and cyclist connectivity.
o Build in harmony with nature: make parking areas architecturally attractive and consistent with
nature and existing structures. Highlight the natural beauty of the area.
o Do not allow vehicles to become the dominant characteristic of downtown Estes Park
Objectives
They key objectives we want to accomplish with this parking strategy are:
Make downtown more accessible, inviting and attractive to our residents and visitors. Make it
easy to get here, stay here and play here
Reduce congestion & pollution by reducing unnecessary vehicle circulation
Keep it simple. First time visitors should easily find parking, shops, and attractions.
P a g e 4 | 16
Proposed Parking Strategy
There are nine key points to our proposed downtown parking strategy:
1. Strategically increase the parking supply
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations, not remote locations
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
d. Consider future development opportunities
2. Simplify parking
3. Provide exceptional directional signage
4. Reduce parking demand through alternate modes
5. Implement a pay-to-park program
6. Encourage business owners & employees to park remotely
7. Redirect oversized vehicles to remote parking areas
8. Protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown
9. Develop a special event management plan
The report that follows will discuss each of these components in detail.
Strategy 1: Strategically increase the parking supply
The need for additional parking inventory downtown is evident during the summer and fall seasons by the
number of cars circling the parking lots and downtown streets looking for empty spaces and the cars parked
as far away as MacGregor Avenue north of Wonderview Avenue. With a small downtown area surrounded by
mountains that inhibit expansion and a main thoroughfare that runs right through the middle, it is
challenging to determine the correct location for additional parking. The location of any new parking
inventory will have a significant impact on traffic congestion, pedestrian right-of-ways, future development
activities, and downtown aesthetics.
The following criteria should be central to any determination of future parking locations:
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations, not remote locations
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
d. Consider future development opportunities
Each criteria is explained below.
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations:
While the Town shuttles remain a valued amenity, it is challenging to overcome the American desire
to park near their desired end-destination. As such, public sentiment appears to prefer downtown
parking spaces. When evaluating prospective parking lot locations, we looked at three parking zones:
1) downtown, 2) perimeter (within ¼ mile of downtown), and 3) remote (locations that require
shuttle service to downtown).
When selecting a location for future parking expansion, we recommend that additional spaces be
built in a “downtown” or “perimeter” location. Remote parking, as evidenced by the low usage of the
P a g e 5 | 16
fairgrounds parking lot and the results of the 2015 Downtown Parking Survey, is not a preferred
location for new parking inventory. This may be the result of a lack of awareness & signage.
Due to the limited availability of land on which a new surface lot could be built in or near downtown,
we have focused our analysis on those existing downtown and perimeter parking lots or parcels of
land that are large enough to support the construction of a moderate-sized multi-level parking
structure similar to the proposed Visitor Center Transit Hub Parking Facility.
Table 2: Potential parking structure locations and capacities
Lot Name Estimated
Structure Size
# Spaces in
existing lot
Estimated # Spaces
in 3-story structure
Location
Visitor Center South Lot
(in progress)
125’ x 255’ 102 260
361 with 4 levels
Perimeter
Town Hall – North portion 125’ x 455’ 281
combined
524 Downtown
Town Hall – South/Library lot 142’ x 255’ 260 Downtown
Riverside Lot 125’ x 275’ 91 284 Downtown
Post Office Lot 125’ x 350’ 93 380 Downtown
Weist (rectangular portion
along Moraine Ave.)
116’ x 241’ 141 195 Downtown
Piccadilly Square 125’ x 275’ n/a 260 Perimeter
Visitor Center North 125’ x 218’ 153 285 Perimeter
*Existing space counts from Estes Valley Transit & Parking Study (Dec 2013), structure size & capac ity estimates based off Visitor
Center South Lot capacities
Current public sentiment appears to prefer a parking structure at the Post Office Parking lot.
Interestingly, the 2005 Republic Parking Study found that preferred parking structure locations were
the Weist Lot and the Municipal lot. The key point is that the preferred location of the structure
changes with the times, but the perception that Estes Park needs additional parking continues to
thrive.
Table 3: Public preference for downtown parking lot
2015 Estes Park Downtown
Parking Survey
2005 Republic Parking Study
Question 5: Where would you
like to see more parking?
Survey participants could select
multiple options.
“What do you feel needs to be
done to improve the parking?”
36% of business owners surveyed
felt a parking garage was the best
solution.*
Location % Support % Support
Post Office Parking Lot 52% 2.04%
Additional Levels at Visitor
Center South lot 49%
Municipal Lot/Library Lot 28% 10.2%
P a g e 6 | 16
Weist Parking lot 28% 10.2%
Additional Levels at
Fairgrounds parking lot 28%
Cleave Street lot 4.08%
*Page 83 of the 2005 Republic Parking Study
We support expanding the Visitor Center South Parking Structure to four levels before pursuing
additional parking downtown. Once that structure has been open for a while and utilization has
caught on, conduct a new downtown parking utilization study to determine the need and location
for additional parking inventory.
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
Estes Park is a small mountain community with a significant seasonal influx of visitor traffic that
strains its infrastructure. This inflow of vehicles come from three primary traffic flows:
o Inbound traffic from Highway 36: This traffic has the opportunity to park at the fairgrounds
or the planned Visitor Center South lot.
o Inbound traffic from Highway 34: This flow’s first significant parking source is the Visitor
Center Lot (with a left turn) or the Town Hall Lot, which fill quickly.
o Outbound traffic from Rocky Mountain National Park: this flow largely occurs in the
afternoon. Outbound visitors from the National Park often seek food, refreshment, shopping
and relaxation and need a convenient, easy to find parking location.
Any new parking inventory should take into consideration the ability of the parking lot to mitigate
congestion along one or more of these flows of traffic through downtown Estes Park. Ingress and
egress patterns should be evaluated for each proposed location.
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
A new parking structure should have integrated shuttle stops, allowing visitors to leave their cars all
day and use shuttles to get around as desired. Placing the parking structure on a shuttle route with a
specially designed shuttle stop will provide the Town, and potentially Rocky Mountain National Park,
with opportunities to enhance the shuttle system as needed to meet the transportation needs of the
community.
d. Consider future development opportunities
The Town of Estes Park continues to evolve. It is inevitable. Downtown could thrive and grow, or
shrink and become more intimate. We cannot predict the future. But once a parking structure is
built, it cannot be moved. Expect it to be there forever.
With that in mind, the location of a future parking structure is significant. Do we want to use prime
riverfront land for a parking structure? Would a particular location be better for retail, or as a plaza?
Should parking be right in the middle or on the edges?
P a g e 7 | 16
It is nearly impossible to get consensus as to where the best location for a parking structure might
be. Think about land use when making this decision. Think about whether this location enhances the
visitor experience, or hinders it.
Strategy 2: Simplify parking
Estes Park’s parking can be difficult for visitors. It is broken down into more than 12 downtown parking lots
and on high traffic days, visitors often find themselves driving around searching for a lot with a vacant space.
A simplification of the parking inventory into fewer, larger parking destinations with good signage will benefit
all visitors.
As such, any new parking inventory should be moderate to significant in volume. Small lots fill quickly and
encourage drivers to circulate through downtown seeking available spaces. A parking strategy focused on a
few centralized locations can facilitate getting the majority of vehicles into available spaces efficiently and
with a less cluttered signage system.
Once the primary parking supply has been expanded, the Town should simplify the overall parking availability
downtown. This can be achieved by:
o Reduce on-street parking to reduce conflict between parked cars and congested roadways and to
allow wider sidewalks to improve visitor experience.
o Converting small parking lots to new purposes. These may include:
1. Selling for commercial development,
2. Dedicating use for special use groups (such as accessible parking, reserved employee
parking, bike parking, etc.), or
3. Converting to park or other recreational use.
o Restrict parking on residential streets to residents and their guests.
Strategy 3: Provide exceptional directional signage
The success of any downtown parking strategy lies in the ability of drivers to find available parking spaces. A
significant percentage of visitors to Estes Park are first time visitors. They do not know their way around and
rely heavily on available signage to reach their desired destination. For a visitor, it is not sufficient to find
downtown. They must then find a parking space. Particularly on high volume days, getting these visitors into
available parking spaces efficiently is integral to both reducing downtown congestion and getting visitors out
of their cars and into shops and restaurants. Signage touches all drivers and can be highly effective.
A comprehensive signage strategy for downtown that incorporates both larger scale vehicular signage as well
as smaller scale pedestrian wayfinding signage is a relatively inexpensive first step to getting visitors into
parking spaces efficiently. Both electronic and static signage options should be evaluated. Vehicular signage
must direct visitors to downtown, Rocky Mountain National Park, and other key public destinations (such as
parking lots, golf courses, the marina, the fairgrounds and the events center). Pedestrian wayfinding signage
should highlight unique destinations within walking distance of the sign (such as parks, plazas, historic sites).
Longer-term strategies should incorporate smart technologies that provide real-time parking space
availability, such as smart phone applications. These technologies are more expensive and will likely reach
fewer drivers as compared to signage.
P a g e 8 | 16
Strategy 4: Reduce parking demand through alternate modes
Building new parking structures is an expensive endeavor. For a Town like Estes Park where the need for a
parking structure is only seasonal, it is an even more challenging investment option. Rather than building
parking for every car that desires to park downtown, the Town should encourage alternate modes of
transportation such as cycling and walking, in addition to our existing shuttle system, to reduce the overall
demand for downtown parking.
Residents and visitors to Estes Park are attracted to our beautiful landscapes and the opportunities for
outdoor activities, be they hiking, photography, animal and bird watching, rock climbing or cycling. Our
population is notably healthy and active. Many of our residents and visitors prefer to get around by foot or
bike, rather than driving. In addition, a notable number of residents and visitors reside within walking or
cycling distance of downtown Estes Park. Motivating these groups to visit downtown by these alternate
modes of transportation, rather than driving, could reduce downtown parking demand.
Pedestrians: The existing walk/bike paths that connect to downtown and the shuttle systems are a great first
step in encouraging residents and visitors to leave the car behind when visiting downtown. Continued
expansion of the walking trails, such as a safe walking route along Moraine Avenue, would further indicate
the Town’s support for pedestrian traffic in downtown.
Widening the sidewalks along Elkhorn Avenue and wider landing areas at street crossings to allow people to
gather without hindering pedestrian flow would further enhance the experience of visitors and residents.
Cyclists: Cycling is a growing sport and encompasses a range of styles, including street cycling, mountain
biking and casual family transportation. At this time, downtown Estes Park is not bike friendly. We cannot
expect residents or visitors will ride bikes into town rather than driving until we provide safe methods for
them to do so. The lack of bike lanes along main thoroughfares and pedestrian trails that do not allow cyclists
leave few routes that bikes may safely travel. The heavily congested roads in the summer season further
discourage cyclists.
Bike routes: Either on-street bike lanes or off-street trails must be available in order for bicyclists to
safely travel in and out of downtown Estes. It is understood that bike lanes are incorporated into the
Downtown Loop project. If this project proceeds, this would be a significant first step in the
development of bike lanes along all main thoroughfares in and out of downtown. Further
continuation of bike lanes along Highways 34 and 36 into town and along Moraine Avenue would
significantly improved bicycle access to downtown.
In addition, a signage program along multi-use trails (such as the Fall River Trail) indicating that
bicycles are allowed might help visitors understand that these are safe trails for families and others
who would like to ride into town but may not be comfortable sharing the road with vehicles.
Bike racks: In order for cycling to be an effective method of transportation downtown, we must
accommodate parking for bicycles as well as vehicles. Currently, there are approximately 13 bike
racks in downtown Estes, but most hold less than ten bikes. In order to be effective, bike racks must
be centrally located, easy to find, have sufficient capacity and be located near shuttle stops or other
transportation options. (See Appendix A for a table of downtown bike racks)
Shuttles: The Town’s shuttle system is a great service for our residents and visitors that also reduces traffic
congestion and parking demand. In 2015, over 500,000 visitors rode the Town shuttles during the summer
season. Shuttles should remain a key component of the downtown parking strategy and efforts to increase
P a g e 9 | 16
ridership, and therefore reduce the number of vehicles downtown, should continue to be pursued. Bike racks
on the Town shuttles would further increase the opportunities for residents and visitors to get around by
bike.
Strategy 5: Implement a pay-to-park program
The Transportation Advisory Board recommends implementing a pay-to-park program in downtown Estes
Park during high traffic periods. Paid parking downtown has the potential to:
Influence visitor behavior – encourage more visitors to use the free shuttles
Improve the distribution of vehicles – encourage visitors to park at the free lots a little further
out, thus removing vehicles from downtown roadways
Provide a revenue source that could support the cost of additional parking inventory
There has been a shift in public sentiment toward paid parking in downtown Estes. In the 2015 Downtown
Parking Survey, over 50% of respondents supported paid parking in downtown Estes in contrast to only 41%
support in 2005.
Table 4: Do you support paid parking downtown?
2015 Estes Park Downtown Parking
Survey
2005 Republic Parking Study
Yes 50.8% 40.88%
No 49.2% 59.12%
There are many technology options available to implement a pay-to-park program. Town staff is best suited
to research and recommend an appropriate technology. That said, it would be beneficial to select a newer
parking technology that has the capacity to:
Monitor availability of individual parking spaces and provide data at lot entrance kiosks, smart
phone applications and electronic message signs.
Accept credit card payments
Communicate with the customer via smart phone:
o Location of available spaces
o Send text reminder when purchased time is nearing expiration
o Provide option to pay for additional time
Smart enforcement:
o Notification of occupied stalls that haven’t been paid or expired meters
The ideal time to implement a pay-to-park strategy would be at the start of the high traffic season following
the completion of the Visitor Center South parking structure. Prior to its completion and during its
construction, downtown Estes will not have sufficient parking supply to provide visitors with sufficient
parking alternatives. Upon completion of the Visitor Center South parking structure, there will be sufficient
inventory to allow downtown visitors to select to 1) pay to park in the central downtown area, 2) park free at
perimeter and remote lots or 3) to take the shuttle.
P a g e 10 | 16
Due to the seasonal nature of our downtown visitations, we recommend that pay-to-park technology be
implemented when average monthly traffic counts are expected to exceed 300,000 vehicles per month
(Highway 34 and Hwy 36 combined). This is the point at which downtown parking becomes limited. Based on
recent traffic volumes, paid parking would be in effect from May through October.
Graph 1: Traffic counts by month on Highways 34 & 36 (combined)
Daily enforcement is recommended from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. We recommend allowing all day parking in
most locations and removing the 3-hour time limit that currently exists. Visitors should be encouraged to stay
and enjoy downtown Estes Park for as long as they desire. A few key short-term, free parking areas will be
needed to facilitate pickups, drop offs, etc.
Rates: We recommend a three-tiered pricing strategy. Tier 1 would be the most centrally located parking
spaces in town and charge the highest rates. Tier 2 would be a bit further away and be priced more
moderately. Tier 3 would be free.
Tier 1 would include:
Town Hall/Library Parking lots
East Riverside Lot (adjacent to Dairy Queen/Casa Grande)
Riverside lot (at Confluence Park)
Post Office lot (with some short term free parking for Post Office customers)
Virginia Lot (corner of Elkhorn and Park Ave)
Curbside parking surrounding Bond Park
Brownfields lot
Tier 2 would include:
Spruce lot
Tregent lot
Performance Park lot
Big Horn lot
Moraine/Weist lot
P a g e 11 | 16
Davis lot
West Riverside curbside and lot
Curbside parking on MacGregor Avenue
Tier 3 (free parking) would be located at:
Visitor Center South parking structure
Visitor Center north lot
Fairgrounds/Event Center lot
Revenue generated from paid parking should be spent first on costs to maintain parking lots, parking
technology and enforcement costs. Once those costs have been covered, remaining funding should be set
aside for additional parking capacity in the future.
Strategy 6: Encourage Owners & employees to park remotely
With a shortage of parking in downtown, each space becomes valuable. It is in the best interest of the
downtown merchants and the Town to fill these spaces with revenue generating visitors. But each day, a
significant number of downtown parking spaces are being filled by owners and employees of the shops,
restaurants and Town Hall.
Stan Black of the Transportation Advisory Board walked downtown and made some informal inquiries about
summer staffing levels in an effort to quantify the impact of downtown employees on parking. He found over
200 businesses with about 10% of these being restaurants or bars. Interviews with shop owners indicated
two employees typically worked per shift, with two shifts per day. For food and beverage establishments, it is
estimated that they have five employees per shift. Factoring in the Town and Library, this results in roughly
600 employees at any given time during the day. Providing for carpooling, walking, cycling and shuttles, we
estimate that 300 parking spaces are being consumed throughout the day by downtown employees. With
1073 downtown parking spaces and another 256 spaces at the visitor center, 22.5% of the downtown parking
supply is being used by employees.
The question remains what can we do to encourage employees to park elsewhere and make room for
residents and visitors? It typically comes down to incentives or deterrents. For instance, the current shuttle
system is a beneficial option available to many downtown employees. Unfortunately, it does not run early
enough in the morning or late enough into the evening to meet the needs of all employees, particularly food
service employees. If the Town were to implement a pay-to-park program, this is expected to be a significant
deterrent for many employees, but it is likely years away from implementation. The Town implemented an
incentive program for Town employees in summer 2015 encouraging them to park remotely or use alternate
methods to get to work.
The Town may need to work with the business community to create a broader set of incentives for
employees to find alternate ways to get to work. For instance, could employees get entered into a drawing
for a vacation to Hawaii each time they ride the shuttles? Or a guaranteed prize from a prize catalog if certain
thresholds are met? Would downtown merchants donate prizes or make financial contributions to prize
packages? Another suggestion was to increase downtown business licensing fees, but offer a rebate (or
discount on next year’s registration) to those businesses who can document that their employees are parking
elsewhere.
P a g e 12 | 16
Any program developed will incur costs in the form of program development, education and awareness,
implementation and prizes/incentives. Measuring the results is often the hardest part of the equation (do
employees get a punch card punched by the shuttle driver? Do we staff remote parking lots with an
attendant to log employee vehicles? Do we provide RFID parking stickers on employee vehicles that record
how often they park at offsite lots?).
Hiring a consultant to develop an incentive program may be a wise investment. The situation does not need
to be studied again. What is needed is a comprehensive, actionable plan to encourage employees to park
outside downtown, developed in conjunction with business owners and business associations. This needs to
be a community effort in order to be successful.
While these may seem like expensive options, the cost to do nothing is even greater.
1. Loss of revenue to downtown merchants : If each vehicle parks downtown for an average of 4
hours, each parking space will have at least 2 cars per day. If each car purchases meals for two at
$25 plus spends $50 in downtown shops, then the downtown merchants have collectively lost
$75/car x 2 cars/day x 250 parking spaces = $37,500/day x 90 days of the season = $3,375,000 in
lost downtown revenue
2. Loss of sales tax to Town: Using the above scenario of a loss in sales of $3,375,000 times the 5%
tax rate results in a loss of $168,750 in sales tax revenue to the Town.
3. Parking Structure: If we want to continue to allow employees to park downtown, we could
construct a parking structure to replace the spaces they take up. At the recent price per stall of
$50,000 for parking structure construction, this lot would cost $12,500,000 (250 spaces x
$50,000/stall).
Strategy 7: Redirect oversized vehicles to remote parking
Buses, RVs and other oversized vehicles create challenges in our narrow downtown corridor. In addition to
our Town shuttles and Rocky Mountain National Park Shuttles, each day our town sees tour buses driving
through on their way to the National Park or bringing their passengers for lunch and shopping downtown.
Other visitors arrive in RVs and drive through town on their way to local RV parks or the National Park.
Many of these oversized vehicles desire to park downtown. Currently, there is a total of 24 designated
Bus/RV parking spaces in Estes Park (17 in the Town Hall lot, 4 at the Visitor Center lot, and 3 at the Event
Center). There are an additional 17 stalls at the Event Center lot that are extra-long, but not Bus/RV spaces
(these spaces may not have sufficient ingress/egress to accommodate buses or RVs). We need to ensure that
there are sufficient spaces to accommodate our oversized vehicle demand. These spaces should not be
downtown, but close to shuttle routes to allow passengers easy access to downtown.
The Town should:
Restripe the fairgrounds lot to accommodate a greater number of RVs
Remove the RV parking designation at the Town Hall parking lot
P a g e 13 | 16
The Town should also encourage RVs to avoid driving through downtown when possible. This can be
accomplished by:
Encouraging RV parks to direct their customers to arrive/depart via alternate routes. Consider
providing specific maps or marketing tools to help them communicate these routes to their
customers.
Specifically discuss alternate oversized vehicle routes in the transportation section of
appropriate websites, such as www.visitestespark.com or http://www.nps.gov/romo/index.htm,
and local maps.
Identify a central location, such as the visitor center lot or fairgrounds lot, with sufficient RV
parking and mark it clearly with signage, on maps, and on local websites.
In addition, the Town should adopt a policy on tour buses. This policy should dictate where tour buses may
make drop-offs and pick-ups downtown, and where they may park while waiting for their passengers. This
policy should be proactively distributed to Colorado based tour operators who operate tours in Estes
Park/Rocky Mountain National Park.
Strategy 8: Protect Residential Neighborhoods
When towns implement pay-to-park program, a common unintended consequence is increased visitor
parking along residential streets where there is no fee to park. The neighborhoods surrounding Estes Park’s
downtown will be particularly vulnerable if Estes Park implements a pay-to-park program. These
neighborhoods include:
Virginia Drive area
Big Horn Drive area
East Riverside Drive
If the Town chooses to implement a pay-to-park program, it would benefit these neighborhoods if a proactive
approach were taken to prevent visitors from parking along their roadways. One common approach is to
require residential permits for residents and their guests and not allow public parking in these areas.
The Estes Park Police Department currently issues overnight parking permits for downtown residents. An
expansion of this permit program should be implemented simultaneous with or before any pay-to-park
program is in place. Protect the neighborhood before they experience negative impacts, not after they have
been inconvenienced.
Strategy 9: Develop a Special Event Management Plan
There are a handful of days in Estes Park, where traffic congestion is exceptionally bad. These are typically
holidays or free Rocky Mountain National Park days. The most notable are the Fourth of July, Public Lands
day in September, Memorial and Labor Day weekends. A special event management plan would be helpful to
address the unique characteristics of these challenging days.
P a g e 14 | 16
The primary characteristics of these high congestion days are:
Heavy traffic, particularly inbound traffic from Highways 34 and 36 in the mornings
Parking shortages
Strong pedestrian presence
In order to address each of these issues, a strategy must be developed in advance.
Traffic Management: To address heavy inbound traffic days, such as on a Rocky Mountain
National Park free admission day, have a plan in place with CDOT to keep signals on Elkhorn
Avenue westbound green for longer periods. Consider closing some cross streets to traffic for a
couple of hours to facilitate the Elkhorn traffic, much like is done on parade days, or lengthen
the time between green lights for these side streets on high volume days. Provide good signage
on Highways 34 and 36 directing park traffic onto Wonderview as well as Elkhorn.
Create alternate parking opportunities : Make arrangements with local landowners whose
properties could serve as overflow parking on key days. Create signage notifying the public
where parking is available. Consider asking public service groups to staff the lots and charge a
parking fee as a fundraiser. For long days, such as Fourth of July, extend shuttle service to get
people back to their cars.
Possible locations for overflow parking include: Elkhorn Lodge, Our Lady of the Mountains
Catholic Church, St Bartholomew's Episcopal Church on MacGregor Avenue, and the school
district parking lots. Town would need to ensure there is no code that conflicts with these
activities.
Strong Pedestrian Presence: High volume visitor days means more pedestrians downtown.
Consider closing certain crosswalks with barricades to facilitate vehicular traffic (such as the
east/west crossing at Highway 36 where an underpass is available. Use signage to direct
pedestrians to the underpass.
Extend shuttle hours: When overflow parking is in use or on days where events such as the
fireworks show on the Fourth of July or the Rodeo or Scottish Festival keep people active long
into the evenings, continue to keep the shuttles running. Remote parking can only be successful
if the last visitor is able to return to their car easily at the end of the night.
Treating these high volume days like a special event – a SuperBowl or State Fair – needs special planning. Our
streets are not designed for the volumes they see but with intervention, the movement of vehicles and
pedestrian can be improved. Keep traffic flowing. Get cars into parking spaces efficiently. Keep pedestrians
on the sidewalks and out of the roads. Bring the community together to help with these activities. Have all
Community Service Officers on duty. Staff parking lots with community service groups. Have an abundant
supply of shuttles available.
These are busy days. These are long days. These are great days for the community to come together to make
Estes Park a great experience for our visitors.
P a g e 15 | 16
Appendix A – Public & private bike racks in downtown Estes
The map here indicates where bicycle racks are located throughout Estes Park:
http://www.bikeestes.org/bike-racks-in-estes-park/
TITLE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Visitor Center Bike racks (existing) On the right side of the visitor center (+- 5 bikes)
Safeway Bike racks (existing) Right side of the building (Nice view of Stanley
Hotel) (+- 10 bikes)
Kind Coffee (side) Bike racks (existing) Left side of the building (+- 10 bikes)
Ed's Cantina Bike racks (existing) Front of building (+- 6 bikes)
Library Bike racks (existing) Back of the building (+-3 bikes)
Town Hall Bike racks (existing) Front of Town Hall, close to entrance
Performance Park Bike racks (existing) Close to bridge (+- 10 bikes)
Tregent Park Bike racks (existing) (+- 3 bikes)
Moraine Avenue Restrooms Bike racks (existing)
A la carte Bike racks (existing) 2 bike racks on plaza between A la carte & White
orchid (3 bikes)
McDonald's Bike racks (existing) Between McDonald's and Parking lot (+- 8 bikes)
White Orchid Bike racks (existing) 2 bike racks on plaza between A la carte & White
orchid (3 bikes)
Performance Park parking
lot
Bike racks (existing) Parking lot (+- 6 bikes)
Riverside Drive (behind
Subway)
Bike racks (existing) Behind Subway, across from the public restrooms,
close to sidewalk
The Barrel Bike racks (existing)
Source: http://www.bikeestes.org/bike-racks-in-estes-park/
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 1 of 6
Effective Period:
Review Schedule:
Effective Date:
References:
TOWN BOARD GOVERNANCE POLICIES
105
Agendas
1. PURPOSE
The Town Clerk is responsible for the preparation and publication of the agendas for
any meeting of the Board of Trustees. The Town Clerk shall establish deadlines for
items to be added to the agenda in order to provide adequate public notice of Board
meetings and to fully meet the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
2. REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS
a. Agendas for regular board meetings shall follow the format approved by the Board in
Policy 103 – Town Board Procedures
b. Adding items to the Agenda
i. Routine Administrative Issues – Routine administrative issues, including renewal
of ongoing contracts, approval of bills, approval of minutes, issuance, renewal
and transfer of liquor licenses, land use issues requiring quasi-judicial action and
proclamations or other ceremonial actions may be placed on the agenda by the
Town Clerk without any further approval.
ii. Items requested by Town Staff – Any items, other than routine administrative
items, must be approved by the Town Administrator before being placed on the
agenda. The Town Administrator may place these items on the Regular Board
agenda without any further approval of the Board.
iii. Reports or requests from outside entities – the Town Administrator has the
authority to approve any requests from outside or partner agencies wishing to
present before the Town Board. This includes update reports (i.e. updates from
the Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park) and requests requiring
action (i.e. requests for letters of support, requests for board participation on
community projects).
iv. Legal issues – Legal issues requiring Board discussion or action may be placed
on the agenda by either the Town Administrator or the Town Attorney.
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 2 of 6
v. Trustee requested items – Any trustee may request that an item be added to the
regular board agenda by one of the following methods:
(1) Request that the item be added to the agenda of an upcoming Regular
meeting during the Trustee comment period at a study session. If any other
Trustee objects to the item being placed on the agenda, the request must be
made at a Regular Board meeting.
(2) Request that an item be added to an upcoming agenda during Trustee
comment period at a regular board meeting. The Board may approve the
addition of the item to a future board meeting by consensus or may call for a
vote. If a vote is called for, a majority affirmative vote of the Board is required
to add the item to a future agenda.
(3) By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting,
additional matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long
as it is allowed by statute.
(4) By referral from a Board Standing Committee.
(5) Emergency items – At times it may be necessary to add items to an agenda
on short notice to protect the immediate health, safety and well- being of the
community or the organization. The Mayor, Town Administrator or Town
Attorney may add emergency items to any agenda at any time, at their sole
discretion.
(6) Issues raised during Public Comment – For any issue raised during public
comment that requires additional Board discussion or an action, any Board
member may request that the item be placed on an upcoming agenda. Taking
action on any item raised during public comment but not previously listed on
the agenda is discouraged in order to give adequate notice for opportunity for
public participation.
3. STUDY SESSIONS
a. The Town Board will review the schedule for upcoming Study Sessions. The Mayor,
Trustees or staff may request or recommend any appropriate matters for Town
Board consideration; however the Town Administrator will only place items on a
Study Session agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
b. By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting as long as it is allowed by
statute.
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 3 of 6
4. BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES (PUP, CD/CS, AUDIT)
a. The Town Clerk shall prepare the agendas for the Board Standing Committees in
consultation with the committee chair and appropriate staff.
b. Items on the agenda should be limited to the scope of the specific committee.
c. Any items requiring Board approval or further action must be referred by the
Committee to the full board including a recommendation as to whether the item
should be considered on the Consent Agenda or as an Action Item.
d. By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long as it is allowed by
statute.
e. All Actions of Standing Committees are to be considered recommendations and not
final actions representing the Board of Trustees, unless otherwise authorized by
Board policy.
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 4 of 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. POLICY ............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDIX 1 ‐ FORMS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
a. Form 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 5 of 6
5. PROCEDURE
Approved:
_____________________________
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
_____________
Date
Document Title Draft 1 1/8/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX 1 - FORMS
a. Form 1
Downtown Plan Steering Committee Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: January 7, 2016
RE: Downtown Plan Steering Committee Appointments
Objective:
To appoint eleven members to the Downtown Plan Steering Committee.
Present Situation:
The Downtown Plan Steering Committee was formed with the passage of Resolution
#16-15 by the Town Board at the October 13, 2015 meeting. The committee is to consist
of eleven (11) committee members appointed by the Town Board and four (4) members
appointed by staff. The positions will be for approximately 9 months to work with the
consultant to help develop a Downtown Plan. The positions were advertised through
November 2, 2015 and 24 applications were received. The interview committee
consisted of Trustees Ericson, Trustee Nelson, Jon Nicholas/EDC President and CEO,
Alison Chilcott/Community Development Director, and Phil Kleisler/Planner. The
committee interviewed 22 applicants on December 9th and 10th with 2 candidates
withdrawing.
Proposal:
The interview committee recommends the appointment of the following individuals to the
committee: Tom Dority, Frank Theis, Kimberly Campbell, Holly Moore, Ginny McFarland,
Sue Doylen, Ann Finley, Faith Zimmerman, Greg Rosener, Cydney Springer and Ron
Wilcocks. The proposed appointments represent a wide range of community interest
and professional experience, including downtown business owner, the arts, EPIC,
administration, finance, development, developer, river coalition, transportation,
accommodations, EALA, urban development, housing, ARD, EDC, former Trustee and
former EPURA Commissioner.
The committee was impressed with the applicant pool. It was noted that although
individuals were not selected for the committee it was largely due to the need to ensure
the committee was as diverse and represented as many sectors of the community as
possible.
Advantages:
To appoint qualified individuals to the committee to move the Downtown Plan process
forward.
Downtown Plan Steering Committee Appointment
2
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made the positions would remain vacant.
Action Recommended:
Appointment of Tom Dority, Frank Theis, 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.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate for the general population and high for those directly affected by the outcome
of the plan.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointments of Tom Dority, Frank Theis, 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.