HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-03-22The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
AGENDA
6:00 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any
member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the
Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters
personal to particular employees – Town Administrator Annual Review.
REGULAR BUSINESS
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: The Month of April is “Estes Cares About Bears”
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report.
STATE OF THE TOWN REPORT. Mayor Pinkham.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 8, 2016 and Town Board Study Session March
8, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, March 10, 2016.
1. Replace 2 Dodge Charger Patrol Cars, Vendor to be determined - $32,000
from Vehicle Replacement Fund, Unbudgeted.
2. L&P Derrick Truck Replacement, Terex - $237,408, Budgeted.
Prepared 3/14/16
* Revised: 03/18/16
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. Additional L&P and Water Personnel – $446,158, Budgeted.
4. 2016 Crack Sealing Contract, Superior Asphalt, LLC - $151,580, not to
exceed $200,000, Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated February 17, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated February 19, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 16, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated February 25, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
8. Estes Park Housing Authority reappointment of Eric Blackhurst for a 5-year term
expiring April 25, 2021.
9. Resolution #06-16 - Setting the public hearing date of April 12, 2016, for a new
Tavern Liquor License for Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch
and Wranglers, 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park, CO 80517.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #08-16 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE RELATING TO DEED-RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
REGULATIONS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Administrator
Lancaster
2. REPORT ITEMS:
A. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING
TO RESIDENTIAL & ACCOMMODATION DENSITY CALCULATIONS. Planner
Kleisler.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #05-16 - PUBLIC HEARING - 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
CODES ADOPTION & LOCAL AMENDMENTS. Chief Building Official Birchfield.
2. RESOLUTION #07-16 AUTHORIZATION OF THE FIRE CODE ADOPTED BY THE
FIRE DISTRICT. Chief Dorman & Attorney White.
3. RESOLUTION #08-16 - 2016 BUDGET RESTATEMENT. Finance Officer
McFarland.
4. PERSONNEL POLICIES. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
Policy 303 Compensation, Policy 305 Benefits, Policy 306 Leave
5. ORDINANCE #09-16 AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20 MAYOR AND
TRUSTEES COMPENSATION. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. ADJOURN.
*
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22nd, 2016
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Each March I report on the following staff limitations:
Policy 3.1 Customer Service
Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff
Policy 3.4 Financial Condition and Activities
Policy 3.5 Asset Protection
Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board
Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming
Policy 3.11 General Town Administrator Constraint – Quality of Life
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3.1 The quality of life in The Town of Estes Park depends upon the
partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees.
Therefore, within the scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall
not fail to ensure high standards regarding the treatment of our citizens.
3.1.1 The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic
attitudes in employees:
3.1.1.1 The Citizens of The Town of Estes Park deserve the best possible
services and facilities given available resources.
3.1.1.2 Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues.
3.1.1.3 Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that
demonstrates a high level of professionalism.
3.1.1.4 Each employee represents excellence in public service.
3.1.1.5 Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public.
REPORT: I continue to stress the importance of high standards regarding
treatment of our citizens to all staff and leadership. Any citizen’s
concerns I become aware of are addressed asap. I am therefore
reporting compliance.
3.1.2 The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the
partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees.
Accordingly, regarding the treatment of citizens and customers, the Town
Administrator shall not:
3.1.2.1 Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to due
process.
3.1.2.2 Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make material
decisions affecting the community in the absence of relevant community
input.
3.1.2.3 Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an untimely
basis) about relevant decision making processes and decisions.
3.1.2.4 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the
community.
3.1.2.5 Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to address
them in a timely manner.
3.1.2.6 Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment from Town
employees.
3.1.2.7 Unduly breach or disclose confidential information.
REPORT: With regard to treatment of citizens and customers, I am unaware
of any major failures to comply with any of the requirements of this
section. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.2 With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town
Administrator may not cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or
undignified.
Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority,
the administrator shall not:
3.2.1 Operate without written personnel policies that clarify
personnel rules for employees.
REPORT: The Town has written personnel policies that clarify
personnel rules for employees. There has been extensive
work on updating and rewriting these policies over the last
year and that project is now complete. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.2.2 Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy
upon employment.
REPORT: New employees are informed of their rights under this
policy upon employment. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.2.3 Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal
Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act.
REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.2.4 Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working
environment for employees, volunteers and citizens
utilizing Town services
REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.2.5 Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the
responsibilities of volunteers and of the Town for all
volunteers.
REPORT: The Town has adopted volunteer policies. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.4 With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s
financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of
fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives.
Accordingly, the Town Administrator may not:
3.4.1. Expend more funds than are available.
REPORT: We have not expended more funds than are available. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.4.2. Allow the general fund and other fund balance to decline
below twenty percent of annual expenditures as of the end
of the fiscal year, unless otherwise authorized by the
Board.
REPORT: The general fund balance at the end of 2015 is projected
to be approximately 21%. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.4.3. Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle
payroll and debts in a timely manner.
REPORT: Available cash has not dropped below the amount
needed to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.4.4. Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately
filed.
REPORT: All payments and fillings have been made in a timely
manner. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.4.5. Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent
protection has not been given against conflict of interest
and may not engage in purchasing practices in violation of
state law or Town purchasing procedures.
REPORT: The Town has not engaged in any purchases wherein
normally prudent protection has not been given against
conflict of interest nor in purchasing practices in violation of
state law or Town purchasing procedures.. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.4.6. Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund
was established.
REPORT: I have not used any fund for a purpose other than for
which the fund was established. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.5 Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the
Town Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected,
inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.5.1. Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which
insures against property losses and against liability losses to
Board members, staff and the Town of Estes Park to the
amount legally obligated to pay, or allow the organization to be
uninsured:
3.5.1.1 Against theft and casualty losses,
3.5.1.2 Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the
town itself in an amount equal to or greater than the
average for comparable organizations,.
3.5.1.3 Against employee theft and dishonesty.
REPORT: The Town has in place adequate insurance and risk
management procedures. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.5.2. Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear
and tear or insufficient maintenance (except normal
deterioration and financial conditions beyond Town
Administrator control).
REPORT: The Town owned facilities and equipment have not been
subject to improper wear and tear, within the control of the
Town Administrator. Current preventive maintenance
procedures for facilities are being updated by the Facilities
Director. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.3. Receive, process or disburse funds under controls
insufficient to meet the Board-appointed auditor’s
standards.
REPORT: The Town has not received, processed or disbursed
funds under controls insufficient to meet the Board-appointed
auditor’s standards. . I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.4. Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of
Town Trustees or staff to claims of liability.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not unnecessarily exposed
Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff to
claims of liability. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.5 Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files
from loss or significant damage.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not failed to protect
intellectual property, information and files from loss or
significant damage. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.6 Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property
except as expressly permitted in Town policy.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not acquired, encumbered,
disposed or contracted for real property except as expressly
permitted in Town policy. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.7 Allow internal control standards to be less than that
necessary to satisfy generally accepted
accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the cost
of internal control should not exceed the benefits
expected to be derived.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not allowed internal control
standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy generally
accepted accounting/auditing standards I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.6 In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services,
the Town Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the
Town management team familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town
Administrator issues and processes.
3.6.1. The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity
of Town Administrator in his/her absence. In the absence
of the Town Administrator and Assistant Town
Administrator a Town Department Head previously
designated by the Town Administrator will act in the
capacity of Town Administrator.
3.6.2. The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training
needed to enable successful emergency replacement.
REPORT: I have designated two department heads to act in my
capacity as Town Administrator should I be unavailable to
fulfill my duties. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.9 The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be
uninformed or unsupported in its work.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.9.1 Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant
trends, anticipated adverse media coverage, material external
and internal changes, and particularly changes in the
assumptions upon which any Board policy has been
previously established.
REPORT: Through my weekly updates and individual e-mails, as well as
updates at committee and board meetings, I believe I have
informed the Board of relevant trends, anticipated adverse media
coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly
changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has
been previously established. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.9.2 Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see
policy on Monitoring Town Administrator Performance in
Board/Staff Linkage) in a timely, accurate and
understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions of
Board policies being monitored.
REPORT I have submitted my monitoring data reports as required. . I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.9.3 Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town
Trustees as many staff and external points of view, issues
and options as needed for informed Board choices on major
policy issues.
REPORT Current processes brings to the Board of Town Trustees as
many staff and external points of view, issues and options as
needed for informed Board choices on major policy issues. I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.9.4 Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy
form.
REPORT Information submitted to the Board by staff has not been
unnecessarily complex or lengthy. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.9.5 Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees
activities or communications.
REPORT I believe staff has provided adequate support for official Board
of Trustees’ activities and communications. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.9.6 Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole
except when fulfilling individual requests for information.
REPORT I have not failed to deal with the board as a whole except when
fulfilling individual requests for information. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.9.7 Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated
noncompliance with any policy of the Board of Town
Trustees.
REPORT I have not failed to report in a timely manner any actual or
anticipated noncompliance with any policy of the Board of
Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.10 With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and
improvements programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either
operational or fiscal integrity of the organization.
Accordingly, he or she may not allow the development of a capital program
which:
3.10.1 Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’
stated priorities.
REPORT No capital plans nor expenditures have deviated materially
from the Board of Trustees’ state priorities.. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.10.2 Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds
than are conservatively projected to be available during
that period.
REPORT There have been no plans nor actual expenditures for more
funds than are conservatively projected to be available during the
fiscal period. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.10.3 Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of
capital and operational start-up items, cash flow
requirements and subsequent audit trail.
REPORT Current processes provide adequate detail to enable accurate
separation of capital and operational start-up items, cash flow
requirements and subsequent audit trail.. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.10.4 Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and
replacement/perpetuation expenses.
REPORT Prior to the flood we had been working on the CAMP and
Capital Investment policies, under the direction of the Deputy
Town Administrator. This project is not completed and very
little work has been done to follow up since the departure of the
Deputy Town Administrator. I have reassigned this task to the
Finance Director and Assistant Town Administrator and they
have been rewriting the process and plans. These will be
presented to the Board at some time in the future. Our current
major capital planning is not sufficient or adequate. I therefore
cannot report compliance.
3.10.5 Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the
budget and on the progress of each active project,
including data such as changes and the financial status of
each project, including expenditures to date.
REPORT Staff has provided regular reporting on the status of the budget
and on the progress of each active project, including data such as
changes and the financial status of each project, including
expenditures to date. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.11 With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, the
Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the
Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility, and
community interests.
REPORT With respect to Town government's quality of life for the
community, I have continued to plan for implementing policies of
the Board regarding economic health, environmental
responsibility, and community interests, as directed by the Board
of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance
The State of the TownSPRING 2016
STATE OF THE TOWN - 2016ProgressProjectsPeopleProcessPrognostication
Progress
2015 Revenue vs Plan0.0%50.0%100.0%150.0%200.0%250.0%300.0%350.0%DifferenceDifference
2015 Expenses vs Plan0.0%50.0%100.0%150.0%200.0%250.0%
2016 Sales Tax off to Strong StartRECREATION0%AUTOMOTIVE3%FOOD37%RETAIL15%LODGING21%CONSTRUCTION 7%PROFESSIONAL2%UTILITIES15%YTD 2016 Sales Tax Revenue by Category1 MonthEstes Park Sales TaxGeneral Fund +3.93%New 1% +6.01%2 MonthsRMNP Recreation Visitors Beaver Meadows +27.9%Fall River +20.4%Sales tax - YTD 2016 Sales tax - YTD 2015% increase/decrease over prior YTDGen Fund$405,302 $389,979 3.93%New 1%$101,326 95,585 6.01%Total$506,628 $485,565 4.34%
People
Town Board Changing
2016 Candidates for MayorChristine Helberger Chuck LevineTodd Jirsa
2016 Candidates for TrusteeCharlie DickeyPatrick MartchinkJessica McGeeRon Norris Joseph PlacekCody WalkerPaul Fishman
Process
•Policy Governance•Leadership Team•Code of Conduct•Personnel Policies•Finance Policies•Purchasing Policies•EOC PlanFormalized Policies and Processes
Strategy Mapping•Formal Process•Engages Board & Staff•Focus on Future•Identify issues, needs and opportunities•Consensus & Direction•Establish priorities
Projects
Past Community Services OrganizationCommunity ServicesFairgrounds & Events ComplexVisitor ServicesSenior CenterMuseum
RealignmentSeparationCommunity ServicesFairgrounds & Events ComplexVisitor ServicesCultural ServicesMuseumSenior Center
Commmunity Services Department Responsibilities•Dry Gulch Road•Fish Creek Road•Scott Ponds•The LoopFairgrounds & Rentals Events Visitor Services•Bond Park•Conference Center•Event Center•Fairgrounds at Stanley Park•Fall River Hydroplant-O’connor Picnic Shelter•George Hix Riverside Plaza•Pavillion•Performance Park•Catch the Glow Parade November 25, 2016•Elk Fest- October 1-2, 2016•Jazz Fest and Art Walk- June 4-5, 2016•Movie in the Mountains- 1st & 3rd Friday, June-August 2016•Ride the Rockies- June 16-17, 2016•Rooftop Rodeo- July 6-11,2016•Santa's Workshop- November 26, 2016•Tinsel Tavern Tour- December 10, 2016•Tree Lighting Ceremony-November 19, 2016•Whiskey Warm Up- March 12, 2016•Winter Festival- January 14-15, 2017•Wool Market- June 9-12, 2016Vistor Services staff are responsible for assisting callers and walk-in customers who are seeking visitor information about the Estes Park area. The staff works in cooperation with the Destination Marketing Organization, Visit Estes Park, to promote Estes Park area events, activities and businesses.Visitor Center Staffing & Ambassadors•assist callers and walk-in customers seeking visitor information•distribute informational materials•operate the Visitor Center facility•manage approximately 60 vlunteer Ambassadors. Free Shuttle Operations
StAlittleover1,1OOridersadayusetheshuttlesinthesummer!Call 970-577-9900 for more informationOperating daily June 25 through September 11.34BrownRoute 8 a.m. -9:59 p.m.10Park-n-Ride2313Restroom5Visitor Center7111165Silver Route and StopsLake Estes834Park-n-RideNational Park2Graves Ave.367612throughouttheEstesParkarea.Shuttlestoplocationsaredining,andactivities.TheEstesParkVisitorCenteristhe11vehiclesontheroadintheEstesvalleyeachyear,Copyright C 2016Town ofEstes Park0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1TunnelRdtheRooftopRodeoinJuly&theScotfestin12113456 2016Gold,Blue, Redand Silver Routes operate 9 a.m. through 9:59 p.m.7 Fora disabled accessiblebus, call 970-586-4920or970-577-9900. 9Legend Bond Park 11Estes Park Shuttle Routes Performance ParkBlue Route and Stops 8 10 14 12Brown Route and Stops 9 34 4 4Red Route and Stops 34 15 Estes ParkVisitor Center8Gold Route and Stops Estes Park Town Hall 6 5 4 3 2 7 349 10 11 12 18Rocky Mountain National Park Shuttle Routes Barlow Plaza Events Center(Park Entrance Fees Apply) Rocky Mountain 17 7 36Hiker Shuttle Express 15 Prospect Ave.Park Shuttle Stops 65Brodie Ave.13167 5148 15 266ParkyourcarandrideaFREEshuttletoanyofthe61stopsconvientlylocatednearlodgingproperties,shopping, Shuttleridershipequalsapproximately3O,OOOfewer hubforallfiveroutes(SOOBigThompsonAve.). resultinginreducedemissions&acleanerenvironment.
Cultural Services Responsibilities•Dry Gulch Road•Fish Creek Road•Scott Ponds•The LoopMuseumSenior ServicesThe Estes Park Museum Operates Facilities and conducts activities that define, share and respect the unique history of Estes Park.•Museum presents exhibits and programs detailing the Estes Park Area’s history from the Ice Age to today.•Historic Fall River Hydroplant InterprativeCenter•Knoll-Willows Open Space and Structural RuinsThe mission of the Estes Park Senior Services Division is to involve and inform Estes Park area seniors and enrich their lives by providing a comprehensive range of programs and opportunitiesOver 600 membersThe destination of choice for seniors interested on camaraderie, nutritiousmeals, education, outreach services, entertainment and adventure.•Educational Offerings•Fitness Programs•Travel
Public Works Department Responsibilities•Dry Gulch Road•Fish Creek Road•Scott Ponds•The LoopParks Facilities Streets Fleet EngineeringMaintenance, Renovation & Management of Town Owned Park Land•53 Flower Beds•10 Acres of Turf•32 Irrigation Systems•7 Bronze Statues•Estes Park Museum Property•Stanley Fairgrounds Property•Light & Power Grounds•Open Space & Downtown Area•Town Event Trash Removal & RecyclingMaintenance & Services•Town Hall•Police Department•Conference Center•Event CenterComplex•Fairgrounds/Rodeo Grounds•Estes Area Historical Museum•Senior Center•Visitors Center•Public Restrooms•Fleet/Street Shop•Parks Department Shop•Employee Housing•Storage BuildingsResponsible for 59 miles of Estes Park Town Roadway•Snow Removal•Trash Removal•Street & Traffic Signs•Street Maintenance•Patching•Painting & Striping•Crack Seal•Drainage•Shouldering•Dump Site CleaningMaintains & Repairs•Police Equipment•Fire Equipment•Light & Power•Aerial Bucket Devices•Line Equipment•Trailers•Snow Removal Equipment•Street Sweepers•Loaders•Backhoes•Turf EquipmentOversight of Street Improvement Program & Public Works Projects•Right of Way Permits•Compliance Review•Development Review•Drainage Pllanning& Review•Transportation Engineering•Long Range TransprtationPlanning
Public Works Projects•Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project•Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure•Fall River Trail Extension•Flood Damage Repair Projects•Bond Park Redevelopment•Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modifications•Downtown Estes Loop•Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project
Street Improvement Plan
Utilities Department Responsibilities•Dry Gulch Road•Fish Creek Road•Scott Ponds•The LoopLight and Power Drinking WaterInformationTechnologyLight & Power provides reliable, high-qualityelectric service to over 10,000 customers•300 square mile service area from Glen Haven to Allenspark •Installation, repair and maintenance of:•Power lines•Power poles•Transformers and other equipment•All electric and water meters•Town-owned street lights•Holiday decorations and lights•Electric Vehicle Charging Stations•Energy efficiency audit program•Tree trimming for electric system reliability•Renewable energy program•On-call 24/7 every day of the yearThe Town provides drinking water to over 5,000 customer accounts in the Estes Valley.•Operations of two treatment plants•Water quality testing •Regulatory reporting•Raw water resource management•Maintenance and repair of over 100 miles of distribution pipes•700 fire hydrants•Support and supply to private drinking water systems•On-call 24/7 every day of the yearIT supports all aspects of computer network infrastructure and cyber security•Emergency operations centers•Provides servers supporting all Town activities•Network connecting Townbuildings•Computer-aided emergency dispatch services•Connections to Larimer County and Colorado Bureau of Investigations•Water system automation•165 computers and 428 peripherals•Internal phone system•Support for the community broadband initiative•On-call 24/7 every day of the year
Light & Power Projects•Replace overhead power lines with underground lines in the Marys Lake, Baldpate and Lily Lake areas •Replace overhead power lines from Cheley Camp to Highway 7 with hgh voltage overhead tree cable.•Smart Meters•Little Valley-line rebuild•Homer Rouse Trail underground•Smart Grid integration with SCADA•CR43 flood recovery•Broadband expansion feasibility study.
Water Department Projects•Water Utility Master Plan implementation•Source Water Assessment Program•Cross-Connection and Backflow Control Program.•Concept design for backup raw water supply for treatment plants•Fish Creek water main extension with Upper Thompson Sanitation District•Dry Gulch pre•Supporting private drinking systems in the Valley:•Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company•Prospect Mountain Water Company•Hondius Water Users Group
PrognosticationManaging Our Future
Workforce HousingFALCON RIDGE
Major Private Investment Projects•Aspire Wellness Center at the Stanley•Horror Film Museum and Theater
Major Private Investment Projects•Performance Plaza & Boutique Hotel•Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center
The National ParkNational TreasureInternational AttractionSense of PlaceWilderness AccessibilityVisitor CentersScenic DrivesHikingFishingCampgroundsClimbingMountaineeringBikingPicnickingWildlife ViewingWinter activitiesRanger-led ProgramsWeddingsHorseback RidingBackcountry CampingThe TownEssential services•Education•Medical•Education•Fire suppressionAccommodationsRestaurantsRetailGroceriesEventsChurchesTheaterAmusementsBankingGasHiking/Camping SuppliesWildlife ViewingWeddingsCollaborationWilderness supportEmergency CommunicationEmergency MedicalLaw EnforcementPublic TransportationFire SuppressionVolunteersRecyclingMutually Beneficial Relationship
ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR VISITORSPartnersEmbracing the Future
Sister City: Monteverde, Costa RicaUN ACUERDO PARA RENOVAR Y CONTINUAR LA RELACIÓN DE CIUDADES HERMANASENTREESTES PARK, COLORADO, ESTADOS UNIDOSYMONTEVERDE, COSTA RICAAN AGREEMENT FOR REFRESHING AND CONTINUINGTHE SISTER CITIES RELATIONSHIP BETWEENESTES PARK COLORADO, USAANDMONTEVERDE, COSTA RICA
Colorado State DemographerNorthern Front Range Ripe For Growth
1960 -2040Source: Dr. David Theobald, CSUESTES PARK
Leadership & Continuous ImprovementTownEDCPartners for CommerceDowntown Business AssociationRestaurant GroupEstes Area Lodging AssociationWedding Association
In Closing…
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 8, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 8th day of March 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
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: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATION.
Finance Officer McFarland presented the CAFR Award to Mayor Pinkham.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Joe Holtzman/Town citizen thanked Mayor Pinkham for his years of services. He
questioned the wisdom of installing SMART electric meters in Estes Park because of
the potential radio frequency (rf) exposure and associated corrosion and heat that could
lead to a fire, and the lack of UL approval. He requested the Town document the
administrative rules for the program to opt out of changing the meter to a SMART meter.
Susan Wolf/County citizen commented the presentation presented at the study session
prior to the Town Board meeting lacked details on the health risks and safety concerns.
She requested the Utilities department provide a balanced review of the SMART meters
in order to aid in the decision making process of the citizens to opt out of the program.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris reminded the citizens that April is the month of “Care about Bears”. The
Town continues to install wildlife resistant trash cans in the downtown corridor. A flood
mitigation meeting was held last week to bring awareness of the serious concerns
related to flooding and the development of a new floodplain map and insurance rates.
Additional meetings would be held to inform the public on the associated issues.
Trustee Phipps commented the Estes Valley Planning Commission would discuss
vacation rental regulations with an occupancy of 8 and under at their March 15th
meeting. A Task Force continues to be developed by Larimer County to address
vacation homes with occupancy of 9 or more guests.
Trustee Nelson commented the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board awarded
the Estes Park Community Garden a community grant of $1,800 for irrigation.
Trustee Ericson reminded the citizens of the Transportation Advisory Board meeting on
March 16th at noon. The TAB has assigned individuals to each of the detailed parking
strategies presented to the Town Board with the end goal of providing a detailed budget
for consideration and inclusion in the 2017 budget. The TAB would discuss the Trails
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2016 – Page 2
Master Plan as it relates to connectivity with sidewalks and trails. Other discussions
would include restriping of bike lanes and wayfinding signage.
Mayor Pinkham informed the citizens the Town signed a Sister Cities agreement in
2004 with Monteverde, Costa Rica. The Town and Monteverde have agreed to renew
the expired agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and a contingency from Estes Park are
in Monteverde to sign the new agreement.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 23, 2016 and Town Board Study
Session February 23, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, February
25, 2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated February 2, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Park Board of Appeals dated November 11, 2015 and January 14,
2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County
Elections Office for Assistance during the 2016 Municipal Election.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. APPROVAL OF NEW BOND PARK EVENT – HANDMADE IN COLORADO.
Director Hinkle presented a request to hold the 3rd annual “Handmade in
Colorado Expo” in Bond Park on August 27-28, 2016. The event was moved
from Bond Park to the Event Center in 2015. Colorado Events, a non-profit
organization has requested the event move back to Bond Park as an outdoor
event. The location would draw more visitors and be more visible. It was noted
the Event Center was difficult for attendees to find. All merchandise displayed
at the juried show is handmade in Colorado and sold direct by the artist or
crafter. The artists are selected to participate through a jurying process, with
criteria focused on craftsmanship, originality, diversity and artistic
professionalism.
Trustee Ericson stated concerns were raised regarding the quality of the event
and the art at the first event, and since then the event and the quality of the art
have improved.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen commented an event is moving from the Event
Center to Bond Park to be profitable. This indicates a need to consider
appropriate events for the center and improved signage to the Event Center.
He raised economic concerns for the downtown businesses impacted by
moving the event downtown.
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2016 – Page 3
Trustee Holcomb recused himself. It was moved and seconded
(Ericson/Phipps) to approve Handmade in Colorado Expo in Bond Park
August 27-28, 2016, and it passed with Trustee Holcomb abstaining.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG-DR GRANT CLOSE OUT ITEMS.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the Fall River Hydroplant and
Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project (D5DR 1-40-EP5). Planner
Kurtz provided a review of the project and the grant funds that supported the
design-build project for stream bank stabilization and channel restoration.
Hearing no comment Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the FHWA Cost Share for
Community Drive (M405-018-2074, R1-40-EP2). Engineering Manager Ash
provided a review of the project and the grant funds that supported the Town’s
cost share for FHWA funds to repair the road and access to the schools
damaged during the flood recovery efforts. Hearing no comment Mayor
Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the FEMA Cost Share for
Various Road Sites (FEMA PW#69, R1-60-EP1.2). Engineering Manager Ash
provided a review of the 13 project sites and the grant funds that supported the
Town’s cost share of 12.5% for Fall River Court, Fall River Drive, Pedestrian
Trail off Fall River Road, Pedestrian Trail off West Elkhorn, Spruce Drive
Bridge, Cherokee Road, Heinz Parkway, Grey Fox Drive, Lexington Lane and
Grand Estates. Hearing no comment Mayor Pinkham closed the public
hearing.
3. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD - DRY GULCH ROAD
REHABILITATION. Engineering Manager Ash & Director Muhonen provided
an overview of the project that would reconstruct one mile of roadway, add an
8-foot pedestrian walk/trail on the west side of the road, realign the intersection
of Dry Gulch and Hwy 34 and add a trail connection along Hwy 34 and the Lake
Estes Trail. The project was originally advertised in June 2015 with no
submittals. The project bid documents were updated and readvertised
February 2016 with one bid received from SEMA Construction for a project cost
of $3.9 million, $1 million over the projected cost. Staff reviewed the bid with
SEMA and after careful analysis was not able to bring the project within budget
even with the removal of the Hwy 34 Trail connection. A matrix including 4
project options and 19 criteria was developed: Option 1 - full project at a cost of
$3.9 million; Option 2 - project without Hwy 34 Trail connection at a cost of $3.4
million; Option 3 - roadwork only with no trail, gutter, realignment, etc. at a cost
of $900,000; and Option 4 - do nothing and use the funds to improve other
roads in the system. Staff recommended Option 1 as it meets the strategic
plan of the Town. The additional cost of the project would be funded through
the use of 1A Trails Expansion funds of $673,000 and Open Space funds of
$430,000 for approximately $1.8 million in trail work. Street funds would be
used for the balance of the project; however, funding would be available to
complete crack sealing, sealcoating and overlay/patching in 2016. Staff would
manage the construction of the project.
Board comments were heard and summarized: the approval of the project
would not impact the design of the Fall River Trail; need to address safety for
pedestrians; need to coordinate other utility improvements in the area to avoid
road cuts for future utility improvements in the area; and analysis of the project
and thorough review of options was appreciated.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen questioned if conduit would be included in the
project. He stated concern that 1A Street funds being used to complete the
trail portion of the project. Director Muhonen stated the Town does not have a
policy or funding mechanism to include the conduit; however, conduit could be
placed in the right-of-way in the future.
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2016 – Page 4
Todd Plummer/Town citizen and Heidi Tryon/Town citizen stated support for
the project that includes the extension of the trail system in the valley as well as
connectivity.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen spoke in favor of the project but questioned the
sales tax assumptions used to determine available funding and how business
interruption would be addressed. Director Muhonen commented a flat
collection rate was used in determining available funding. The current
intersection would be used while the new intersection is built to facilitate traffic
flow in the area during construction.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve a construction
contract with SEMA Construction for the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation
project in the amount of $3,931,800 with a 5% contingency of $196,590,
and it passed unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION #05-16 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE
STREET IMPROVEMENT, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS EXPANSION FUNDS.
Finance Officer McFarland stated with the approval of the Dry Gulch
Rehabilitation project, the 2016 budget requires appropriation of funds to the
Open Space, Trails Extension and Street Improvement funds to meet the
contract obligations for the project. It was moved and seconded
(Ericson/Nelson) to approve Resolution #05-16, and it passed unanimously.
5. ORDINANCE #06-16 VACATING A PORTION OF DRY GULCH ROAD.
Director Muhonen stated the Ordinance would vacate a portion of Town right-
of-way in exchange for 14 easements from Sombrero Stables needed to realign
the intersection of Dry Gulch Road at Hwy 34 and install storm drainage and
sanitary sewer improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed road
and trail construction. The vacated right-of-way would result in ownership of
land reverting to the adjacent property owner, Sombrero Stables. A blanket
utility easement would be retained to accommodate the existing and future
utilities in this vacated area.
Cody Walker/Sombrero Stables representative stated he would be in favor of
the Ordinance and would request the fencing on the property be repaired upon
completion of the project.
Attorney White read Ordinance #06-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Ericson) to approve Ordinance #06-16 and authorize the Mayor to
sign the Ordinance and the related easement documents, and it passed
unanimously.
6. PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY OPERATIONS AGREEMENT.
The Town has been providing bulk water to the Prospect Mountain Water
Company (PMWC), a privately owned Colorado water utility providing water to
130 dwelling units that reside outside the boundaries of the Town. In August
2012, the Town and the PMWC entered into an Agreement for the Town to
provide bulk treated water and in April 2015 the company filed for bankruptcy.
Since the filing of bankruptcy, the Town has entered into discussion and
negotiations with the Trustee for the continued provision to supply treated bulk
water and the need for the Trustee to contract with a third party to operate the
water system. The Agreement outlines the terms that include the Town
providing bulk water; upon approval of the Agreement the Town would become
the operator of the water system; immediate capital improvements to the water
system; address the need to design and install a booster pump station; Trustee
to continue to perform meter readings and provide the information to the Town;
the Town to bill customers and collect payments; and the Town shall retain
revenues to pay for bulk water, reimburse all costs incurred in the operation
and maintenance, costs incurred for utility billing and reimburse other
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2016 – Page 5
maintenance and repair costs. Bankruptcy funds would be used to pay of the
cost of improvements needed to deliver water to the customers.
David Britton/PMWC customer thanked the Town for their work and
cooperation in developing the Agreement to provided clean, safe water to the
PMWC customers.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the agreement to
operate the water system between the Town of Estes Park and the
Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc., and it passed unanimously.
7. ORDINANCE #07-16 - PUBLIC HEARING - WATER TAP FEE INCREASE.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. Director Bergsten stated the water
tap fees were last increased in 2010. A water tap fee and water rights fee
study was completed by HDR in February. The study recommended a $1,870
increase in water rights fee and a system development fee decrease of $69
resulting in an increase from $10,713 to $12,514. The recommended increase
in water rights fee was supported by the reduction in supply from 60% to 50%
yield by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The 2015 master
plan projected a smaller future demand at build out than the previous study
thereby reducing the system development fee. The mandates for water
efficient fixtures and appliances further reduced the water demands. Attorney
As there were no comments the public hearing was closed. White read
Ordinance #07-16. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve
Ordinance #07-16 to increase water tap fees effective June 1, 2016, and it
passed unanimously.
8. POLICY 205 – NAMING OF TOWN FACILITIES. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek reviewed a policy outlining the processes and criteria
for naming and renaming Town-owned parks, open spaces and facilities. It
was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve Policy 205 –
Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces and Facilities, and it passed
unanimously.
9. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. The interview
committee consisting of Trustees Ericson and Holcomb and TAB Chair
Campbell, interviewed five applicants. The committee noted the quality of the
applicants and thanked all that applied. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Ericson) to approve the reappointment of Amy Hamrick and the
appointment of Tom Street and Ken Zornes for three-year terms expiring
on March 31, 2019, and it passed unanimously.
3. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. PRELIMINARY 2015 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer
McFarland presented the year-end report stating sales tax revenues were up
5%, the Event Center revenues significantly lagged budget projects, and the
Town received $1.36 million in grant revenues and expended $1.39 million in
expenses. The Community Reinvestment fund saw a decrease in fund balance
of $3.1 million with the completion of projects, including the Conference Center
roof repair, Visitor Center restroom remodel, and Elm Road landfill mitigation.
There were over $1 million in rollovers to the 2016 budget. The Utility Funds
(Enterprise Funds) saw revenues track budget and expenses under due to
capital/flood project trailing budget. Flood/grant reimbursements from FEMA
were $1.25 million in 2015. The Town has experienced project scope changes
requiring approval before reimbursement can occur. Other projects have been
delayed due to the selection of consultants or contractors. Fish Creek Road
reconstruction would begin in 2016 with the Town’s cost share at approximately
$100,000. Town investments are being held mostly in money market funds.
The Town’s increased sales tax placed it 8th out of 27 CAST communities;
however, state wide the Town only ranked 20 out of 27.
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2016 – Page 6
Charley Dickey/Town citizen questioned if the Town has expended funds in the
new 1A funds. Finance Officer McFarland stated funds had been expended
from the Emergency fund and the Town would be expending funds from both
the Trail and Street Improvement funds with the improvements of and along Dry
Gulch Road.
2. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ADOPTION UPDATE. Chief
Building Official Birchfield provided a brief review of the process used to adopt
the new building codes, including the use of the Board of Appeals to address
and recommend local amendments to the2015 International Building Codes.
The local amendments are in line with those adopted by Larimer County
whenever possible to ensure uniform code enforcement throughout the valley.
Significant changes were reviewed and summarized: 10% of the submittals
would be sent out for peer review to ensure consistency with submittals and the
application of the codes; an increase in snow loads for residential decks;
increase in loads for hot tubs; snow loads to increase and be consistent with
Larimer County; eliminating the need for a second handicap restroom for a
small tenant finish; no appliances in the crawl spaces; require a zero clearance
for commercial hoods; eliminate compensating hoods as they do not allow
certain appliances; Plenums are prohibited for supply, return, exhaust, relief
and ventilation air systems in commercial buildings; require a drain pan under
water heater upon replacement; reduce the maximum length of tempered water
piping from 100 feet to 50 feet; require life safety inspection for all short term
rentals of 30 days or less; remodeling of public building would require an
additional 20% be included in the budget to address accessibility issues; the
Residential Code contains two issues needing further discussion on the
requirement to sprinkle vacation homes and one or two family dwelling units,
and all vacation homes with an occupancy over the maximum set by Town
codes would be built or remodeled under the Building Code rather than the
Residential Code.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to continue the meeting to
complete the agenda items, and it passed unanimously.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated concern with the impact some of the
building codes might have on affordable housing and businesses. Questioned
the difference in how vacation homes may be classified as commercial rather
than residential under the codes.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Holcomb) to enter 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. Community Center per CRS 24-6-402(4)(e), and it passed
unanimously.
Where upon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:12 p.m.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 11:30 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 8, 2016
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of March, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris
and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Bergsten, Finance
Officer McFarland and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
SMART METERING PRESENTATION.
A presentation on advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and stakeholder engagement
by the consulting firm Excergy was presented to the Board. The Town’s decision to
move to Smart meters would improve service reliability and quality as the current
meters are reaching their useful life span and require staff to drive by the meter to read
each meter. The project would be phased with Phase I – Pilot announced September
28, 2015, Phase II – Limited AMI deployment, and Phase III – Scheduled replacement
to take place over the next decade. The Pilot project included 24 residential meters
installed by utility staff and tested for billing accuracy. Phase II would include the
deployment of the AMI meters in the Estes valley by the fourth quarter of 2016,
Allenspark by the second quarter 2017, Pole Hill/Hwy 36 by the fourth quarter 2017,
Hwy 34 by the first quarter of 2018 and CR43/Glen Haven and Retreat by the fourth
quarter of 2018. Stakeholder engagement would include consistent messaging of the
benefits to the Town and the utility as it relates to enhanced services with shorter
outages and better customer service, improve the environment through decreased
emissions and tapping into the technology. The Town would allow individuals to opt out
of the installation of a Smart meter to address concerns citizens may have regarding the
units. Concerns have been raised on the privacy, safety and health impact of the units.
The meters would only transmit usage and not specific types of usage. Meter fires can
occur with a particular vendor design not being used by the Town. Health concerns
have been raised as it relates to radio frequency of the units; however, the units use a
significantly lower RF than FCC limit or other common household devices such as cell
phones.
Town Board comments were heard and summarized: questioned what happens to the
old meters; individuals can opt out for privacy or health issues and opt in at a later date;
the Town would save on staff time driving to read meters; and a report on the health
and safety related to RF was requested for review by the PUP Committee to address
the concerns of the constituents. Staff responded to the Board concerns stating the old
meters would be recycled as scrap metal; if large areas opt out a repeater would be
placed in the area to collect data from the current meters; and the utility would save on
costs in the next 4 to 5 years.
CODE CHANGES FOR VACATION RENTALS OF EIGHT OR LESS UPDATE.
Planner Kleisler was present to provide an overview of the proposed regulations for
vacation homes of 8 or less occupancy reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning
Town Board Study Session – March 8, 2016 – Page 2
Commission during their February 2016 meeting. The EVPC continued their discussion
to the March meeting because 2 of their members were absent. It was determined the
full Commission should forward recommendations to the County Commissioners and
the Town Board for consideration at their March 30th meeting. The following items were
discussed with the Commission:
Annual Operating Permit Limit – The Planning Commission opted not to
recommend any limit on the number of permits valley-wide.
Neighborhood Communication – The Commission generally agreed with the
communication strategies included in the Ordinance with minor edits not affecting
the overall policy.
Annual Permit Review – During the February 2nd joint meeting of the County
Commissioners, Town Board and EVPC an annual notices to neighbors during
the renewal process was discussed. After further review by staff, it was
determined there were various constraints that would make such a notice difficult
to administer. Staff proposed limiting the annual notices to properties with
violations in the give year. The Community Development Director would have
the option to withhold a vacation home permit during the annual renewal process
until the violation was corrected or resolved in court. There would not be a mass
mailing to all neighbors for all vacation homes. This approach would address
vacation homes with confirmed violations. The Planning Commission was
supportive of the revised concept.
Enforcement Procedures – Discussions are still ongoing between the County and
the Town on a possible intergovernmental agreement to enforce the regulations
throughout the valley. An amendment to the current codes would address the
need for 15-day notice to the property owner to cure a non-emergent situation.
The code currently states the Code Enforcement Officer shall provide a 15-day
notice and would be changed to may in order to address violations that occur
during a short stay and allow the notice to be delivered to the local contact rather
than the property owner as an alternate contact.
Neighborhood Communication – To address better communication to the
neighbors and to the guests renting the unit the following would be implemented:
1) require internal posting at each vacation home with property manager/owner
contact information, number of guests, quiet hours, number of vehicles, shut off
locations, etc.; 2) require property license number with all online listings; and 3)
require written notice be mailed to nearby neighbors upon the issuance of a new
license or when the contact information has been updated to provide the name
and contact information for the property manager and/or owner.
A-Accommodation Zoning District – The A-Accommodation zoning district does
not allow vacation homes as a use by right in the current Development Code.
The code would be amended to allow it as a use by right because similar uses,
single family homes and cabins, are permitted in the zoning district.
Town Board comments have been summarized: has the Larimer County Sheriff been
contacted to work on the enforcement issue in the unincorporated areas; the Board
requested information on the number of code enforcement violations that have been
addressed by the staff and the number of properties involved; the Town should develop
regulations with a balance between the vacation rentals and the neighborhoods;
consistent enforcement of the regulations is required; require the property owners to
make property boundaries clear to the renters/guests and the use of outside fires should
be addressed on the internal notice to renters; questioned how a violation would be
addressed; i.e. a fine or Municipal Court; and the proposed Ordinance if adopted should
be reviewed in a year to determine if further changes are needed.
MAYOR AND TRUSTEE COMPENSATION.
Town Clerk Williamson presented the Board with a review of the monthly salaries for the
communities reviewed in 2012 and 2014, and found the average monthly salary for the
Mayor had increased to an average of $900/month. The average salaries for the Mayor
Pro Tem and Trustees increased to $590/month and $580/month respectively. The
Town Board Study Session – March 8, 2016 – Page 3
Town ranks at the bottom of the pay scale as it relates to the Mayor in relation to its
peer cites and just above midpoint and midpoint for the Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee
positions. Staff reviewed the salaries versus health insurance premiums for 2015 and
2016 and found the premiums are well within the bi-weekly salaries provided to the
Board members. Staff would recommend the Board consider raising the Mayor salary
to $9,000/year from the current $7,500/year. Staff would only recommend raising the
Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee salaries by $500/year or $7,000 and $6,000.
Board consensus was not to increase the salaries of the Board at this time; however,
the Board requested the item be brought forward for consideration at the March 22nd
meeting.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Town does not have an annexation strategy or
philosophy. The philosophy would outline when, why and how properties would be
identified for annexation. What would be the benefits for the Town and the property
owner. Establish a policy outlining what a subdivision would have to do before the
Town would consider annexation, i.e. improve infrastructure such as roadways. The
philosophy may outline incentives to encourage a property owner to annex. Annexation
of businesses increases the sales tax base, while the annexation of residential property
usually costs the Town money.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The discussion on a hydrology study and implications would be removed from the
March 22nd meeting. The April 12th meeting would include a status on the Events
complex.
Trustee Nelson requested dates be scheduled for the housing needs and response,
impact fees and other funding options to support housing goals, and the broadband
issues. Administrator Lancaster stated the Town would present an application to the
Energy Impact Board for consideration of funding the broadband project. An update on
the broadband issue would be scheduled in early May.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 10, 2016
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
10th day of March, 2016.
Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Attending: Chair Norris and Trustee Nelson
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten and Muhonen,
and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
PATROL CAR REPLACEMENT.
Chief Kufeld stated that the replacement of two Dodge Chargers was inadvertently
excluded from the vehicle replacement schedule for the Police Department for 2016.
The vehicles are 2008 and 2009 models with high mileage. Chief Kufeld proposed that
two new vehicles be purchased using fund balance currently in the Vehicle
Replacement Fund. The Police Department will borrow $32,000 to place the order for
the vehicles and in turn will repay the monies to the Vehicle Replacement Fund utilizing
the Police Department existing budget. The vehicles would subsequently be included in
the normal replacement and budget schedule. The Committee recommended
approval of the purchase of two vehicles at a cost of $32,000 from the Vehicle
Replacement Fund, unbudgeted, as a consent agenda item at the Town Board
meeting scheduled for March 22, 2016.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates –
o Chief Kufeld reported that the Police Department annual awards banquet
was held on Friday, March 4, 2016, and was well attended.
UTILITIES.
LIGHT & POWER DERRICK TRUCK REPLACEMENT.
Light & Power requests approval of the purchase of a 2016 Terex Derrick truck to
replace a 2005 International L&P bucket truck. The truck falls within the specified
replacement parameters. Staff contacted two companies that could meet the
specialized needs of the department and is recommending the purchase of a 2016
Terex Derrick truck at a cost of $237,408. Supt. Lockhart noted that staff was allowed
to test drive the City of Loveland’s Terex derrick truck and found it to be a well-built
vehicle and received positive feedback from City of Loveland staff. The Committee
recommended approval of the purchase of a 2016 Terex Derrick truck at a cost of
$237,048 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund, 635-7000-435-34-42 budgeted, as a
consent agenda item at the Town Board meeting scheduled for March 22, 2106.
The Committee requested that a photo of the vehicle be included in the Town Board
packet materials.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 10, 2016 – Page 2
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL L&P AND WATER PERSONNEL.
Director Bergsten stated that over the past five years the Utilities Department has seen
a growing backlog of work. He stated in order to address the situation, the department
has improved its organizational structure and work processes, and created a more
efficient environment. He said despite the improvements made, additional staff is
required to address the existing volume of work. Director Bergsten is requesting six
additional staff members: a crew chief, a line equipment specialist, and a ground
worker for L&P; and two plant/distribution operators, and a part-time administrative
assistant for Water. He stated that the money for these six positions is included in the
2016 budget so approval of the additions will not have budgetary impact this year. He
noted that the personnel allocation tables would need to be revised to accurately reflect
current job titles and numbers. The Committee concurred that in light of the volume of
work and the increased scope of work related to new developments, additional
personnel is needed. The Committee recommended approval of three positions for
L&P and three positions for Water as a consent agenda item at the Town Board
meeting scheduled for March 22, 2016.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates –
o Supt. Lockhart showed the Committee an example of the informational
signs being used to inform the community of when and where L&P crews
are, or will be, working.
PUBLIC WORKS.
2016 STREET MAINTENANCE: CRACK SEALING CONTRACT.
A construction contract for the repair and filling of cracks throughout the Estes Park
roadway system was put out to bid on the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System on
February 16, 2016. Five bids were received and are summarized below:
Company Name Company Location Bid Amount
Superior Asphalt, LLC Magna, Utah $151,580
A-1 Chipseal Denver, Colorado $159,780
Goltz Asphalt Company Loveland, Colorado $178,500
Foothills Paving and Maintenance Wheat Ridge, Colorado $192,451
Straight Line Sawcutting Denver, Colorado $232,900
Engineer Stallworth stated that it is difficult to judge the amount of material that will be
required for this project however, based on research, it is expected that the project will
take approximately 80,000 pounds of material which is half the amount of material that
was required in 2012. Staff recommended entering into a contract with Superior
Asphalt, LLC in the amount of $151,580, and requested spending authority up to
$200,000 to cover material overruns that may occur. He reported that Superior
Asphalt, LLC routinely works in Colorado and that good reviews were received from
previous clients. The Committee recommended approval of the contract with
Superior Asphalt, LLC in the amount of $151,580, and a not to exceed cost of
$200,000 from account #260-2000-420-25-20 budgeted, as a consent agenda item
at the Town Board meeting scheduled for March 22, 2016.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Snow Removal Costs to Date for 2015-2016 – Supervisor Kearney presented a
report on snow plow operations to date for the 2015-2016 winter season. Staff
has been tracking costs for fuel, blades, vehicle wear and tear, maintenance, as
well as employee hours and miles of road plowed since November 11, 2015. As
of February 23, 2016, the total cost of snow plow operations is $93,899.85.
Town Administrator Lancaster noted that the Town of Estes Park provides a very
high level of snow removal service, with all in-Town streets being cleared. The
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 10, 2016 – Page 3
Committee requested that a news release summarizing the Town’s snow plow
operations be prepared and distributed at the end of the snow removal season.
2. Verbal Updates –
o Scott Ponds – This project will be going out to bid on April 4, 2016.
o Elm Road – This large drainage project around the former landfill site is
90% complete. The drainage pipe continues across Moraine Avenue to
connect with a FEMA project on the south side of the road.
o Brook Court – The final phase of this project will be put out to bid with
construction proposed for May 2016. The three to four week project
includes paving of sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
o Dry Gulch Road – The construction contract for this project was approved
by the Town Board at their March 8, 2016, meeting. The contractor is
expected to begin work on March 28, 2016. Engineer Ash noted that this
is an expensive project with easements contributing significantly to the
cost.
o Visitors Center Restrooms – The remodel and addition of restrooms at the
Visitors Center is expected to be completed by the end of the week of
March 14, 2016. A grand opening will be scheduled.
o Barnes Dance – A letter has been sent to the Colorado Department of
Transportation from the Town of Estes Park requesting that the Barnes
Dance style pedestrian crossing be reinstated in downtown Estes Park.
The Committee requested that a news release on this topic be prepared
and distributed.
o Parking Structure – Concerns that were cited in the Bureau of
Reclamation environmental assessment are being addressed by staff.
The project has been delayed by approximately eight months due to
issues being discussed between the federal agencies involved. The
Committee requested that a press release on the project, the reasons for
the delays, and an updated time schedule be produced once all issues are
resolved.
o The Downtown Loop – The environmental assessment is expected to be
completed in late April or early May.
o Storm Water Master Plan – A $300,000 grant to hire a consultant to
prepare a storm water master plan has been approved. Preparation of the
plan will take approximately 18 months to complete and will identify storm
water infrastructure projects.
o Fish Creek – Right-of-Way negotiations are underway with property
owners along Fish Creek. Construction work will go out to bid this
summer to begin in late fall 2016, with an anticipated completion by
summer 2017.
o FLAP Funds – Central Federal Lands Highway Division has additional
funding available for award in 2016. Deadline to identify an appropriate
project and apply for funding is May 21, 2016. When asked by the
Committee for examples of projects that may qualify for this type of
funding, Director Muhonen cited a transportation hub, a parking structure,
and trail construction as possibilities.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:59 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
UTILITIES Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Light & Power Line Superintendent Lockhart
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Light & Power Derrick Truck Replacement, Terex
This cover page was requested during the PUP Committee meeting to provide a visual
representation of a derrick truck:
UTILITIES Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Light & Power Line Superintendent Lockhart
Water Superintendent Boles
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Additional L&P & Water Personnel
This cover page was requested during the PUP Committee meeting in order to highlight
the following points of the discussion:
1. The approved 2016 budget includes the dollars representing these positions.
There is no change needed to the 2016 budget.
2. Adding these positions will allow us to use our skilled staff instead of contractors.
This will improve the reliability and quality of our capital projects and improve
staff efficiency through the division of labor.
3. The labor allocation tables in the budget book will be revised to accurately reflect
the up-to-date job titles and their quantity.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 17th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of February, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Bryon Holmes
Gregg Rounds
Gordon Slack
Thom Widawski
Ann Finley
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Samantha Phillips, Recording Secretary
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Hamrick/Finley) to approve the January meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
Trustee Ericson gave a brief update. The application period for seats that are to be
vacated on March 31st had expired with a total of 5 applicants. On February 23rd, the
Town Board would be discussing the vacation rental task force that the Town is
participating in with the county. Trustee Ericson disclosed that the Town Board voted 5-
1 on the Barnes Dance proposal. The letter to CDOT had been sent and the Town awaits
the result.
PROJECT UPDATES
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation was out to bid and Engineering Manager Kevin Ash
informed the Board that the bid opening would take place on February 25th. The Public
Works department had begun advertising bid proposals and quotes on Rocky Mountain
E-Purchasing. Public Works would bring the proposed schedule and contract to Town
Board for approval on March 8th with construction to begin at the end of March.
The Public Works department would be presenting their recommendation analysis of
the street inventory to the Town Board Study Session on February 23rd for the 2024 STIP
project. Their goal is to meet a 70 PCI at the end of the program.
Transportation Advisory Board – February 17th, 2016 – Page 2
There were high attendance levels at the Fall River Trail public meeting. The Town was
at 30% design level and would be looking at easement potentials with property owners.
Public Works would be exploring the option of saving financially by avoiding the
intersection of Fish Hatchery and Fall River Rd and would be further examining grant
opportunities for this project. Options that were discussed included easements and
signage involving a Shuttle Committee pull-off onto the Fall River Trail. Gordon Slack
requested that a representative from Loris and Associates, the design consultants for
Fall River Trail Extension (FRTE), be present during a future Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB) meeting so that the Board could put their input in for the FRTE. Chair
Campbell would like to see a possible trail standard with the EVRPD where indicators
would alert visitors if bicycles were allowed on trails or not.
The Transportation Advisory Committee would meet at the end of February to continue
examining the Loop project while Central Federal Lands would be meeting individually
with property owners whose parcels would be affected by this project.
The Bureau of Reclamation had finalized the Environmental Assessment regarding the
Transit Hub Parking Structure. An environmental specialist had submitted the
documents to the regional director for signature.
TAB INITIATIVES
Co-Chair Morris discussed the Highway 7 re-striping. The Board debated on the logistics
of road width and the possibilities within the 66 feet limit. Ultimately, it was decided to
not remove any lanes from the Highway 7 strip nearing the shopping mall. CDOT would
be bringing a proposed striping plan for input from the TAB. The Board was receptive to
sharrow lanes but not to cutting any current vehicular lanes.
Public Works to begin attending the Recreation District trail meetings for the Trails
Master Plan. The TAB would like to keep the trails earthy and natural looking since it
appeals greater to the Estes Park mountain community.
OTHER BUSINESS
Gordon Slack gave a presentation on the traffic count for Rocky Mountain National Park
where he showed an 18% traffic growth from 2014 to 2015.
The TAB would begin to sketch out the 2017 agenda items for Town Board.
Transportation Advisory Board – February 17th, 2016 – Page 3
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:48 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 19th, 2016
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 19th day of February, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (conference call)
Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Ronna Boles
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Papineau) to approve the January meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
ARBOR DAY DISCUSSION
Chair Lebeau and Carlie Bangs had been working on a plan to combine Arbor Day with
Earth Day by creating festival events that included booths. Participating groups would
include the Community Garden, ELSA, Garden Club, YMCA, Estes Park Sanitation,
Recreation Department, among others. The celebration will take place on May 6th, 2016.
The Board ideally would want to see middle school and high school students participate.
With the celebration as a great educational opportunity for students to realize the local
groups that are involved in “green” activities throughout the year and in the community.
The Board discussed the possibility of a tree planting demonstration where up to two
trees would be planted per grade level. Trustee Holcomb requested that this be brought
before the Board in March. Director Muhonen would like to see the schedule be set out
backwards starting from when the festival is set to start to when the agenda will be sent
out.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
The Parks division would begin work on wrapping utility boxes this spring to test if the
material is capable of withstanding the winter weather. Tonya Ziegler, Parks
Department, would work on a proposal to send to CDOT for tunnel lighting
Parks Advisory Board – February 19th, 2016 – Page 2
consideration by the Riverwalk. A Request-For-Proposal for the musical walkway had
been placed on Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing to solicit quotes for the musical wee
notes and would be closing on March 10th. The Library was able to secure a small grant
to put towards a piece of art or structure inside the small reading garden. Before this is
implemented or approved, the Library will come before the Parks Advisory Board and
the Town Board for selection approval. Earlier in February, The Parks division was
awarded a grant to put towards the placement of identification posts for trees in the
downtown landscape to help residents and guests in identifying specific trees. The
Parks Division received their first piece of artificial turf that would be put down at
Tregent Park by the boot pump statue. Co-Chair Moore brought up safety concerns
citing that certain similar products are made with recycled tires which have led to health
concerns among users. Parks Supervisor Berg assured that he would research the
components of the turf before placing it for public usage. Keri Kelly, Parks Department,
would be working on updates for the community profile regarding Estes in Bloom.
20 Wildlife Resistant Bear cans arrived mid-February and the other 61 would be arriving
within a few weeks. The Parks department has hopes to install them by April 1st, per the
new Town Ordinance #12-15.
OTHER BUSINESS
The informational plaque for the Green Apples Statue would be placed on the Town
Board consent agenda.
Involving the Community Development plant selection list, Director Muhonen would like
to see if there would be value in including plants that should not be planted for elk
consumption or plants that are “wildlife resistant”. Co-Chair Moore felt that it created a
false expectation.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:56
pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, and Klink
Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Planner
Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael
Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Hills and Schneider
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 40 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
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, December 9, 2015 Special Planning Commission meeting.
B. Approval of minutes, December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) AND ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE (EPMC) RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS (VHR)
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commissioners, Town Trustees, and
County Commissioners have had long conversations about vacation rentals in the Estes Valley
Development Code Area. He gave a brief overview of the various Board/Commission meetings
and public forums. The County Commissioners held their own public forums to gain additional
public comment. A recent joint work session with all three boards gave some direction to move
forward; however, a proposed new use of vacation homes to parties greater than 8 will be
worked through via a task force facilitated by the county. The Chief Building Official, Will
Birchfield, spoke at two Town Board Study Sessions regarding the relationship between local
building codes and vacation homes. The Town Board recently adopted a local amendment to the
building code which will require a life safety inspection of vacation home rentals within the town
limits. The county will be updating their building codes within the next few months, and will
probably be addressing this topic at the county level. Another joint work session is planned for
March 30, 2016. The proposed code amendment was discussed during the study session, and
Planner Kleisler would be reviewing the highlights of that discussion. The Planning Commission
could choose to vote on the proposed amendment or continue it to the March 15, 2016 meeting.
The components of the proposed amendment include the following key issues:
Annual Operating Permit Limit. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board and County Commission
requested the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation as to
whether or not to pursue a limit on operating permits issued. There has been an increase in the
number of vacation home rentals within the past five years. 2010 had 206 vacation home
licenses, with the current number being 339. Code compliance for vacation home rentals started
to become a priority in 2014, with the hiring of a full‐time code compliance officer. One option to
consider is to place a valley‐wide cap on the number of vacation home rental operating permits
issued. Planner Kleisler stated 4.7% (339) of total housing units (7,087) in the Estes Valley are
permitted vacation home rentals. If a cap was to be considered, other percentages could be 5%
(364 VHRs), 7% (510 VHRs), 10% (729 VHRs) or 25% (1822 VHRs). The statistics presented do not
account for any unlicensed units. Planner Kleisler showed a graph of other mountain towns and
the percentages of VHRs to total housing. Of approximately ten communities reviewed, only
Durango, Colorado has a limit placed on the number of VHRs in their community. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioners want to hear public comment prior to making a decision on placing a limit on the
number of VHRs in the Estes Valley.
Neighborhood Communication. Planner Kleisler stated section D of the proposed code
amendment would require property owners to post a notice of current regulations on the site of
each VHR. Included in this posting would be items such as contact information, maximum number
of occupants and vehicles allowed, safety information, quiet hours, information about the town’s
local leash law, refuse disposal and wildlife protection standards. Staff sees this as a way to
positively communicate between property owners and renters. Planner Kleisler stated the
proposed amendment would require property owners/managers to post the operating permit
number on the VHRs advertising web page and on printed advertising. Staff would provide a
basic form for owners/managers to complete and post on site. This form could look different,
depending on whether the property was within the town limits or in unincorporated Larimer
County. Planner Kleisler stated neighbor notification is being proposed, which would require a
written notice to neighbors within 100 feet, providing owner and local contact name, contact
information, and other information pertinent to the VHR. Proof of mailing would be required.
Any updates to the previously mentioned information would constitute a new mailing.
Parking. Planner Kleisler stated the current allowance under the VHR ordinance is no more than
three vehicles. Public comment has expressed a desire to revert the current restrictions back to
what is allowed for a non‐VHR in a single‐family residential zone, which would allow more
vehicles on larger lots. If the Planning Commissioners choose to allow this portion of the proposed
amendment, some VHRs would be allowed additional vehicles if the driveway and other off‐street
designated parking areas are large enough. Staff recommends to retain the current prohibition of
on‐street parking for VHRs. There is also a limitation in this chapter concerning the placement and
storage of recreation vehicles on the site, as well as the occupants of the principal structure
needing to belong to the occupants. In other words, people not staying at the VHR could not park
their car there for an extended period of time.
Planner Kleisler stated Larimer County staff held two public forums in Estes Park, and from those
forums came various recommendations from County staff relating to the annual renewal
processes. They recommended an annual mass mailing during the renewal period; a comment
period for adjacent neighbors, and if comments brought forth related to legitimate land use
issues, some sort of review process would be triggered (conditional use permit or something
similar). Planner Kleisler stated the Town Clerk’s office would most likely be responsible for those
mailings. Currently, the Town does not have the staff to operate this process, and staff has
contacted County staff to further discuss the issue. Perhaps properties that receive a confirmed
violation could trigger a reevaluation of the property during the renewal process. Meetings with
the property owner/manager/local contact could occur with Town staff, with the Community
Development Director then providing direction moving forward (conditions of approval,
revocation, etc.). The property owner would have the right to appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission. Staff sees this process as a cleaner approach to the issue rather than an annual mass
mailing.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to:
If properties that receive citations are confirmed, why wait until the annual renewal period to
evaluate the property. Addressing the issues immediately would make more sense, and
waiting until the year is up is not the normal way to address violations.
It is very important in residential zoning that VHRs match what the full‐time residents can do.
The number of renters and number of vehicles should be the same as the full‐time property
owners/long‐term renters.
Parking issue seems unworkable, unless enforcement took place. The biggest issue would be
to retain the prohibition of on‐street parking for VHRs.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Chair Hull stated that because the Planning Commission is limiting the proposed code
amendment to VHRs for eight or fewer occupants, no public comment will be taken regarding
VHRs for nine or more occupants.
Bettye Harrison/town resident is a member of the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. She
requested the Commission not move forward with the requirement for neighbor notices, as this
could be used as a method for unfounded complaints. The initial intent was a best‐practice and
common courtesy for neighboring property owners to know who to contact about problems
before contact the local authorities. If required, the notification should only be used for
notification, not an outlet for comments. The Association was concerned that the annual licensing
process would become part of the complaint process, placing undue burden on staff, police, and
the court system. She stated onerous rules and regulations would damage the tourist industry in
the Estes Valley if a license was revoked mid‐year after reservations were already confirmed.
Guests to the area make reservations (VHR, flights, car rentals, etc.) far in advance and Estes Park
would feel negative consequences to its tourism industry. The Association believes if neighbors
are allowed to comment prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the property owner is
essentially guilty before proven innocent. The Association encouraged focusing on an enforceable
noise ordinance. They do not support a limit on the number of units allowed. NOTE: Planner
Kleisler stated the proposed neighbor notification is intended to be a courtesy notification, with
no comment period allowed as part of this process. Complaints would not be accepted as part of
this process.
Heidi Welsch/out of state vacation home owner stated the proposed amendment is a balanced
solution. She wanted to go on record stating such in case the County Staff/Commissioners did not
agree. If the neighbor notification could generate objections to the VHR, a major backlash could
occur. She related requiring this type of neighbor notification to being stricter than having a
registered sex offender in the neighborhood. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify
the neighbors that they are living in the neighborhood. She saw this as potentially being very
damaging for neighborhood relationships. She was opposed to limiting the number of VHRs.
When she purchased her home, she had the legal right to use it as a VHR, and her property rights
would be violated if the rules changed. She was concerned about deed restrictions being placed
on homes regarding the right to use them as VHRs. She stated she was confused about the
complaint process, and whether or not one violation could result in the revocation of a license.
NOTE: Commissioner Klink reminded the audience the Planning Commission is the recommending
body, and public comments should also be addressed at the upcoming Town Board and County
Commission meetings.
Eric Blackhurst/local realtor agreed with Ms. Welsch regarding the notification process allowing
comment. He questioned whether or not staff or the Commission has given question to covenant
controlled areas. There are a number of developments in the Estes Valley that were built
specifically to be VHRs. He stated the vacation rental business began in the 1870s. In 1998 a 1%
growth cap was proposed and defeated. Second‐home owners make up about 42% of the Estes
Valley population. He was concerned about code enforcement not being effective unless the
officers were working nights, weekends, and holidays. Mr. Blackhurst questioned the criteria for
complaints and hearings; would an operating permit run with the property via a deed restriction,
and if so, who would be monitoring the deeds; if inspections are required, who will be conducting
the inspections and will they take place in a timely manner so the property owners can be issued
their operating permit. Using your property as a VHR is currently a use by right and not subject to
review. He suggested that before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board
and County Commission, they consider the unintended consequences. There are people in the
Estes Valley that make their living selling and/or managing property and are very familiar with
how it all works. It is not an easy process that can be controlled by a part‐time code compliance
officer. VHRs are important to the economic fabric of our community and for those that have
invested in property in the Estes Valley.
Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association representative stated this group supports the
comments made by the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Durango Steele/local property owner agreed with Mr. Blackhurst’s comments. She is a realtor and
understands the importance of property rights. She stated the majority of VHR owners have never
had a complaint on their property. She was concerned that special regulations were being
considered for VHRs that were a use by right, considering it discrimination. Estes Park has
historically been a vacation destination. She cautioned the Commission about placing a cap on the
number of VHRs allowed, since it could become a legal issue.
Mick Scapella/out‐of‐town vacation home owner stated as a VHR owner, he has been made to
feel like a criminal. The property rights of neighbors seem to supersede his rights since he has a
vacation rental. If a property is being managed properly and consistently, there shouldn’t be any
problems. He stated it would be a burden on him to have to notify neighbors, as he already
knows them and doesn’t have any problems with them, nor they with him. He cares about this
community but would be willing to sell and find a community that wants him.
Seth Smith/local business owner, property manager, and realtor stated putting cap on the
number of VHRs allowed would drastically change the supply and demand, and the unintended
consequences would be huge. He stated what should be considered is a response to violations,
e.g. enforcement. VHRs are a part of Estes Park neighborhoods and property management plays a
big part. He was supportive of the proposed information sheet.
Mike Richardson/president of the Estes Park Board of Realtors (EPBOR) stated most of the 54
members of this board have lived in the area for quite some time. They work hard to protect
home ownership and property investment. He stated the problem is not the lack of code
regulations, but lack of enforcement. Placing more restrictions on VHRs is not the answer. The
common denominator with those both for and against VHRs has been code enforcement, or lack
thereof. No one wants to live next to an out‐of‐control VHR, but knowing what the actual number
of complaints received is to help assess the effectiveness of code enforcement. Estes Park has
always been a tourist town. If we cannot accommodate our guests, they will not come. Mr.
Richardson stated there are two different types of overnight guests; some prefer hotels and
others prefer VHRs. The EPBOR is opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. The Board would be
willing to share their knowledge regarding VHRs. He reiterated the need for more code
enforcement, not more code regulations.
Warren Clinton/local accommodations facility owner stated there is a need for VHRs. His motel
has 31 units and can accommodate 138 people. He consistently received inquiries from potential
guests wanting accommodations for large groups. He stated he feels comfortable hosting groups
up to 20 people, but any larger than that is not beneficial to his facility as a whole. Last summer
he requested his front desk staff to track how many calls they received requesting group
accommodations. From the beginning of May to the middle of June, over 70 inquiries were from
people inquiring about group accommodations (25‐60 guests). Many visitors to the Estes Park
area want a home‐like atmosphere that VHRs provide.
Neil Standard/local resident stated he moved to Estes Park from the Blackhawk/Central City area.
He lived in that area when gaming was approved, and many property owners began building VHRs
to rent on weekends. He stated his subdivision increased their dues to hire an attorney, placed a
cap on the number of VHRs in the subdivision, signed an agreement with the local Sheriff’s office
regarding complaints, etc. The ordinances being proposed are to protect VHR owners, and needs
to be presented as such.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments from Commissioners were as follows:
Commissioner Klink was opposed to placing a cap on the number of VHRs. He was concerned
about the unintended consequences to placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes
Valley. Although having a VHR is a use by right, there are still restrictions for properties in
designated zone districts.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner White stated use by right does not mean rights are open ended. She stated it
would be very difficult to put a cap on the number of VHRs because we really don’t know how
many are out there. We know how many licensed VHRs there are, but do not know how many
unlicensed homes are in the Estes Valley. A cap would be something to reconsider after we
have more information as to how many VHRs are in the Estes Valley. She would consider
placing a cap if we reach a tipping point. Information regarding enforcement is limited
because the process of submitting a complaint and the follow‐up/resolution process is unclear
and lacking.
Commissioner Moon would support a valley‐wide cap. He does not see it as violating property
rights, and the idea of limiting a certain level of use is not different than zoning. He was
opposed to seeing a high number of VHRs in the community. If a cap were placed on VHRs, it
could be revisited on an annual basis, but would allow some control over how large the VHR
business becomes.
Commissioner Murphree was concerned about how you could tell some property owners
something was allowed, but telling others it wasn’t allowed. America is the land of the free,
and placing a cap on VHRs is not a viable decision.
Chair Hull was opposed to placing a cap on VHRs. All property owners pay property tax and
have property rights. Of all other communities researched, only one has a cap. She stated
VHRs have become an international issue, and are not specific to Estes Park. Good
enforcement is the key.
NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the number of complaints to police for noise or nuisance from
vacation rentals is low.
Planner Kleisler stated the next steps would be to finish drafting the code revisions, including
changes to the notification process, and route the revised code amendment to the affected
agencies/departments. If the Commission chooses to continue this item to the March meeting,
the staff report and ordinance would be available approximately one week prior to the March 15th
meeting. With the joint work session scheduled for March 30th, there would be time for the Town
Board and County Commission to review the draft prior to their next meetings. He stated this
joint meeting is separate from the task force the county is facilitating.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to continue the proposed code amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code relating to vacation home
rentals to the next regular meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the motion
passed unanimously with two absent.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) RELATING TO
EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS.
Town Administrator Frank Lancaster addressed the Planning Commission, stating this is a project
that has been in the works for quite a while. Although it is a minor code revision, it is important to
help alleviate seasonal housing needs. The current code allows an employer to house their
employees on their property, but they have to be their employees, employed at that location.
Staff is requesting to remove that restriction. There are currently three businesses wanting to add
employee housing, but may not need all of the housing units and would be willing to lease them
to other businesses for their seasonal employees. Some businesses need seasonal housing for
their employees but do not have the facilities capable of providing it. Mr. Lancaster stated this
proposed code revision is a way to look at the bigger picture of the critical need for employee
housing, and provides a good opportunity for business owners that have the space for employee
housing and also helps those that don’t, by allowing other businesses employees to rent from
them.
Staff and Commission Discussion
All comments from the Commissioners were in favor of the proposed code amendment. There
was general consensus among the Commission that making small moves to address immediate
housing needs is beneficial.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Rita Kurelja/Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority stated she supports the
amendment. There is a very large number of housing units that are needed each summer, in
addition to the ever‐present need for full‐time affordable housing. It is having a major impact on
our community, and creates businesses that are short‐staffed. Businesses would have a better
rate of returning staff each year if they could be assured of finding housing. She stated it is
important to maintain development code provisions to build and provide housing for the local
workforce.
Eric Blackhurst/Chair of the Estes Park Housing Authority was supportive of the proposed code
amendment. It is not a big change, but it is a start. He suggested offering density bonuses in other
code amendments. The recent housing study reflected there were approximately 700 unfilled
jobs in the Estes Valley in November, which is one of the slower months. Most of these positions
were due to lack of housing. The proposed code amendment is an opportunity to begin making a
different in the housing issue.
Steve Lane/local architect was supportive of the proposed amendment. One of his clients is a
business owner wanting to use his property for employee housing. He asked for and received
clarification that the density calculation in the CO‐Commercial Outlying zone district would be
removed and replaced to be strictly determined by Floor Area Ratio calculations.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was staff discussion regarding the required deed restriction that will be a part of this code
amendment. Town Attorney White stated there is a legal rule that states you cannot tie up
property for more than 20 years. The purpose of the deed restriction with this proposed code
amendment is to not allow property owners to turn the employee housing units into short‐term
rentals and/or rentals to the general public. Commissioner Klink suggested making the deed
restriction thirty years instead of twenty.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval of the code amendment
to EVDC Section 5.2.C.2.a and Section 13.3 (definition of Employee Housing) the Town Board
and County Commissioners, increasing the deed restriction requirement in Section 5.2.C.2.a.(4)
to thirty years instead of the current twenty year restriction and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
5. REPORTS
A. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment will hold a special meeting on Monday,
February 22, 2016. An 8 a.m. study session will precede the meeting at 9 a.m.
B. Planner Kleisler reported there was no Planning Commission meeting in January.
C. Planner Kleisler reported the Town Board acted on the following applications/projects:
1. Amended Plat of lots in the Little Prospect Mountain Addition ‐ Approved
2. Estes Park Medical Center Wellness Training Center Special Review ‐ Approved
3. Stonebridge Supplemental Condominium Map #9 ‐ Approved
4. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Special Review and Amended Plat ‐ Approved
5. Riverview Pines Preliminary Subdivision Plat ‐ Approved
6. New fee structure for building permit fees and development review fees ‐ Approved
D. Planner Kleisler reported the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners acted on the
following:
1. Mountain Meadow Preliminary Subdivision Pat – Approved
2. Centennial Hills Amended Plat – Approved
3. Voeks Legal Lot Appeal ‐ Continued to March, 2016 (Note: This appeal will likely be
continued to a later date due to the non‐receipt of the necessary paperwork)
E. Planner Kleisler reported Aaron Tulley began work last February 8, 2016 as a Flood Recovery
Planning Technician. This is a one year grant‐funded position.
F. Planner Kleisler reported there will be a Trails Master Plan meeting in the Town Board Room
on Thursday, February 18, 2016. This plan may be recommended to be incorporated into
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by reference.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 16, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
G. Planner Kleisler reported the first meeting of the Downtown Plan Steering Committee will be
held Friday February 29, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in Town Hall, Rooms 202 and 203. This is a public
meeting, but no public comment will be taken.
H. Commissioner Murphree conveyed his thanks to Mr. Blackhurst and Mrs. Kurelja for the
great work being done with the Housing Authority. He is thankful they are providing a need
in the community.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude
Traufield, Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips,
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson, Fire Marshall Marc Robinson
Absent: Member Darling
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the
chronological sequence. There were four people in attendance.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Each Board member introduced
himself and provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from November 11, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
Minutes from January 14, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve of the November 11, 2015
minutes as presented meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Klein) to approve of the January 14, 2016
minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES
Chair Spooner stated this has been a tremendous amount of effort on staff’s part to get
these local amendments on paper. The BOA has been meeting for over a year working
on these codes, and we are coming to the end of the process.
Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield stated he would first address the significant
changes. As time allows, he would then review all the proposed local amendments.
Non‐significant changes are either local amendments we are already using, a
downgrade from current adopted code, or we are adding an amendment to return the
code to where it is now.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Chair Spooner stated if members of the public want to comment, he would prefer if
they speak up at the time of the discussion. CBO Birchfield requested that the board do
the same in taking a position on each item, stating if they disagree or support it.
On the website, www.estes.org/icodes, are the proposed local amendments and
information on the code adoption process. None of the documents are final until
approved and adopted by the Town Board. The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday,
March 22, 2016 at the regular Town Board meeting. This will be when the Town Board
may make the final decision to approve, not to approve, approve with changes or to
table the issue of adopting these codes as presented. Following tonight’s meeting,
there will be another public meeting on March 10, 2016, to allow any other public
comments. Documents are subject to change depending on feedback from the Board of
Appeals and/or the public. It is important that CBO Birchfield keep the Town Board
informed of staff, Board of Appeals, and stakeholder positions on these issues. These
documents will be updated on the web every Monday, and a revision date will be
posted, until they are finalized. Chair Spooner explained how the final document will
read once adopted. The published document lists the exact verbiage of the local
amendments being made to the code. The significant change document picks out those
amendments which are of controversy or of significant differences and will have the
exact verbiage of the change to the code and commentary to explain the reasoning
behind the significant change. CBO Birchfield states that as time goes on, there will be
an additional document added with commentary for every proposed local amendment,
not just the significant changes.
CBO Birchfield states that there are two primary codes in the International Codes, the
International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC). The IBC
addresses everything the IRC does not. The IRC addresses one‐ and two‐family
dwellings and townhouses and their accessory structures. Everything else is under the
IBC. In the IBC, seven other codes are adopted by reference – the International Fuel Gas
Code (IFGC), the International Mechanical Code (IMC), the International Plumbing Code
(IPC), the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), the International Fire Code
(IFC), the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and the International Existing
Building Code (IEBC). The IRC does not adopt these codes by reference, it takes specific
provisions from those codes and moves them into the IRC. Significant changes to the
IBC and the seven adopted codes also become changes to the IRC, as applicable. He
would like to move quickly through the issues that the board agrees on, to allow more
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
time to focus on the items that we do not have absolute resolution on. There are a lot
of proposed local amendments, but most are not significant.
2015 International Building Code
101.2 Scope: Add a statement.
“All buildings and structures in Accommodation zone districts shall be regulated by this
code.”
It is a significant change because this is the first time some one‐ and two‐family
dwelling units used as short term rentals (vacation rentals) will be regulated by
provisions other than those contained in the IRC. It is also the first time the IPMC will be
adopted by the Town of Estes Park. It also requires all new buildings in accommodation
zone districts to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. It is a commercial zone,
we are going to regulate them as commercial properties due to the increased risk such
zones and uses incur. There was general consensus among the board in support of this
amendment.
101.2 Scope: Add an exception to the scope.
“Exception:
1. Detached one‐ and two‐family dwellings and multiple single‐family
dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in
height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not
more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with the
International Residential Code. In addition to complying with the
provisions of the International Residential Code, individual dwelling units
rented or leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the 2015
International Property Maintenance Code, as amended. Individual dwelling
units shall be limited to the number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park
Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations.
CBO Birchfield stated this proposed amendment is a significant change because this is
the first time individual dwelling units used as short term rentals may be regulated by
provisions other than those contained in the International Residential Code (IRC). It is
also the first time the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) may be
adopted by the Town of Estes Park.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
This has to do with the issue of vacation rentals that is currently a hot topic. We are still
regulating one‐ and two‐family homes in residential zone districts by the IRC, but in
addition to the IRC there are some provisions in the IPMC that will apply to those
buildings.
Public Comment: Ed Elingson was curious if there is a grandfather clause for existing
buildings. CBO Birchfield stated that existing buildings will be regulated by the IPMC if
this code is adopted as presented. However, typically codes are not retroactive and
there are very few exceptions, this is one of them.
There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment.
101.4.4 Property Maintenance: States that we will adopt the 2015 IPMC as amended.
CBO Birchfield will go more in depth when the board discusses that code.
107.1 Submittal Documents (General): This amendment exists in the code now. There
are only two things that are being changed. One is that we are going to require all
structures to be engineered, including decks, garages, additions, alterations, repairs,
etc. because of our wind speeds. There are no prescriptive requirements in the code
regarding wind speed for our structures. Everything will have to be stamped by an
architect or an engineer if it requires a permit. CBO Birchfield is open to local
professional designers/engineers coming up with local pre‐engineered prescriptive
requirements or designs that could be used after approval by the CBO. This is to
prevent staff from having to design by default when plans come in that are not
stamped.
Chair Spooner asked if this amendment applies the IRC. CBO Birchfield states that the
same amendment is in the IRC.
There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment.
109.2 Fees: This amendment has already been approved by the Town Board and is
being presented for informational purposes only. The fee structure has been changed.
All projects will be based on valuations of the job. Square foot formulas will no longer
play a role with fee calculations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Since all structural plans will be stamped, staff does not have to do as detailed of a plan
review. All staff has to look for is proper design criteria and completeness of the plans.
Instead of charging 65% of the building permit fee for plan review, we will reduce it to
50%. In addition, if they submit a good set of plans that is approved the first time
submitted, they will get a 50% discount on the plan review fee. A checklist will be
provided to advise the applicant of what is required on those plans. If you submit an
incomplete set of plans, the fee will be $100/hour for every review after the second
review.
CBO Birchfield stated fees for demolition permits were increased, and are now broken
into 3 categories. At $50, you can do a small demo in a building for a remodel. At $100,
you can demo an entire structure that requires review from additional departments. If
there are utility connections, the demolition permit costs $200.
Certificates of Occupancy are increasing from $50 to $100 each.
A Dwelling Life Safety Survey will cost $200. This is part of the IPMC for vacation rental
units.
“20% of standard permit fees and plan review fees shall be collected as general
administrative and overhead costs. These fees are separate from and in addition to fees
paid to outside consultants when such services are required by the applicant. These
administrative fees are not assessed when consultant services are not required by the
applicant but are facilitated by staff.”
What this means is that if you come in wanting to use an outside consultant instead of
the building department, you will pay the consultant’s fee and the building department
20% to cover overhead costs. If the building department contracts out the review due
to work load, they will not charge that 20%. There are times the department chooses to
contract out plan review to meet customer service goals. Other times, the applicant
desires an expedited review, and is willing to pay the cost for a third party to conduct
the review.
Chair Spooner asked if the $200 for the life safety survey was a one shot deal.
CBO Birchfield states that the fee for the survey would be charged with the initial
application. The Dwelling Life Safety Survey portion is not completed yet, nor has it
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 6
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
been adopted. It was added by the suggestion of the elected officials. If adopted, staff
will send a letter to every property licensed vacation home owner explaining the new
requirements. CBO Birchfield will explain in more depth when he gets to the IPMC.
CBO Birchfield stated the Town Board has serious concerns about public safety in
vacation rentals and the building department is trying to address those concerns.
Grading fees remain the same.
The major change in the fee schedule is how we calculate fees for new construction. It
will be based entirely on valuation, whereas before it was mainly calculated on square
footage. The building official has the authority to set the final valuation and request
additional information from the application if he thinks the valuation is too low or too
high. The amendment also gives the building official the authority to audit the project
after completion to ensure the valuation was accurate.
All of the fee schedule amendments have been approved by the Town Board and will go
into effect May 1, regardless as to whether we adopt the new codes or not.
903.2 Automatic Sprinkler Systems: This is a current amendment and is presented as a
significant issue, not a significant change. It has been in place since July 1, 2011 and it
has never been used. The provision of this code states if a building is leveled in the
downtown district and a new building is constructed, or if they do a substantial
improvement of that building (exceeding 50% of the valuation of the structure in the
improvement), sprinklers will be required. The goal end goal is to eventually get the
downtown sprinkled. It is relevant now because there is a permit currently under
review that may be affected.
1505.1 Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures/Fire Classification (General): Add an
exception stating that in all Wildfire Hazard areas and in the CD‐Commercial Downtown
zone district, all new and replacement roof coverings shall be Class A or a component of
a minimum, one‐hour roof assembly. CBO Birchfield states that in the current
downtown area it may be impossible to install a Class A roof due to the convoluted
nature of the roofs with zero lot lines because it would be impossible to mesh them in.
The code allows for partial roof replacements on a case‐by‐case basis if the building
official determines that this requirement is not feasible.
There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 7
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Chair Spooner stated that he wanted the audience to understand that most of what is
being discussed tonight had been previously discussed at other monthly meetings.
1607.1 Minimum Uniformed Distributed Life Loads and Minimum Concentrated Live
Load (Table): Adjust the table with new numbers for residential deck loads based on
local conditions. CBO Birchfield stated he is proposing to set the live load for a
residential deck at 20 lb. greater than the current live snow load and the load for a
residential deck with a hot tub at 150 pounds per square foot (psf). The change for the
deck with a hot tub was because 100 psf. seemed too small for the larger tubs.
Chair Spooner had a question on whether the hot tub on a deck should be treated as a
live load or a dead load. He has always treated hot tubs as a dead load because it just
sits there. But what does he do about people? A deck live load is 60 psf. which is one
person every 3 square feet. That is not feasible with a hot tub present. He has been
confused as to what he should be using. Spooner would be happy with 150 psf.
combined load.
Member Calvin stated that he is okay with that assessment.
CBO Birchfield proposed that the board wait to decide until they discuss the next
amendment.
1068.2 Snow Loads (Table): Replace table.
The Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (SEAC) did a snow load study May,
2015. The proposed table is out of Larimer County’s proposed amendment, matching
what Larimer County is proposing to do. The table covers minimum design ground snow
loads. If your elevation does not exceed 7,000 ft, your ground snow load is 60 psf, at
8,000 the ground snow load is 70 psf, and so forth. You can linearly interpolate loads
between values so at 7,500 ft the ground snow load is 65 psf. This is 20 lb more than
what we are doing now. This is a significant increase. CBO Birchfield is doing research
with truss manufacturing companies to determine what the financial impact of the
change will be, but does not have the data yet. Any time there is a significant increase
to requirements there is a negative impact to the costs of construction.
Chair Spooner stated that he feels the snow load study was a good report approved by
a reputable organization (SEAC). He would have trouble ignoring the study and using
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 8
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
lower calculations. This is ground snow load, when you go through all the
computations, the snow load for the roof is quite a bit less.
CBO Birchfield wanted feedback on whether the final design roof snow load should be
less than a uniformly distributed load of 30 psf which is Larimer County’s number.
There was discussion about how to calculate this and how much to require, as 30 psf
seemed too low for our snow loads and 50 psf was potentially too high. This is
important because some designers use the ground snow load to calculate what the roof
load should be, and this would prevent them from crossing below a certain number.
Chair Spooner agreed to do some calculations for the uniform snow loads and get back
to the board and CBO Birchfield. Chair Spooner felt it should be more like 40 psf.
CBO Birchfield pointed out that at 10,000 ft the ground snow load is 140 psf, double
what it is for 8,000 ft. There are no structures in the Town of Estes Park at 10,000 ft.
The table matches Larimer County’s proposed amendment, starts at 7,000 feet, and
continues up in case something at a higher elevation is annexed in at a later date.
Going back to the previous amendment on deck live loads, CBO Birchfield suggested
that instead of calculating what the snow load for the deck should be, they could go
with the ground snow load which should cover the snow, some firewood on the deck,
and people. The ground snow load will be higher than what the typical live deck load
would be, which should account for anything that deck would have to support.
Public Comment: Kent Smith asked if the SEAC study factored in the amount of
moisture we have in our snow. He had seen reports that were way out there because
they do not have the same kind of snow we do.
Chair Spooner stated that it was a very thorough report.
Kent Smith would like that noted somewhere so that moving forward the snow load
study can be referenced.
CBO Birchfield commented that SEAC’s wind study is available online and will be
available in the reference material for the code adoption process. Their snow study has
been ordered and will be available at the library as a physical reference document. It
cannot be made available on the web because it is proprietary.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 9
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
The board supports using the ground snow load for the deck live load and 150 psf
combined load for decks with hot tubs.
1609.3 Wind Loads
The code is changing the way it talks about wind. It is like talking about mph vs. kph.
The numbers are different but the speed is not. We are no longer talking about basic
wind speed, but ultimate design wind speed.
Chair Spooner suggested that a better way of stating it is that the old numbers, the 140
mph was a 50‐year return period wind load with a multiplier to boost the pressures.
Now the wind loading is more of an ultimate, it is more like a 700 year return period,
but with no multiplier. If you calculate the numbers, the end result is very nearly the
same. We haven’t changed the loads on the buildings much, we’ve changed the
notation.
It is not really a significant change, only the method of calculation has changed.
High‐risk buildings (critical facilities like hospitals, fire departments, etc) would be
required to build to 195 mph ultimate design wind speed.
The proposed amendment adopts the new maps and the new study the maps are
based on to develop these ultimate design wind speeds. The maps are separated into
the risk category for the structure. Category 1 covers barns and agricultural buildings, 2
covers homes built under the IRC, 3 covers buildings with high occupant loads of more
than 300 people, and 4 covers essential facilities. For risk category 1, the map says Estes
Park’s ultimate wind speed is 165 mph. Risk category 2 is 175 mph. Risk category 3 and
4 is 190 mph. Chair Spooner suggested just using the numbers in the code as opposed
to the maps.
CBO Birchfield asked if for the IRC, if he should add the alternate method of using the
wood frame construction manual for 160 mph.
Chair Spooner suggested adding a sentence to the IBC as well, that it is possible to
reduce the wind speeds to sea level speeds with no additional reductions. He stated
that there are some good documents that are helpful when designing for wind, which
are written for sea level. You overdesign if you use 175 mph because the documents
were designed for pressures at sea level, which should be 160 mph.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 10
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment: Ed Elingson was confused. Basically we are making corrections to
density for the altitude and he’s seeing wind speed corrections.
Chair Spooner clarified. Ultimately, there is a pressure acting on the building. That
pressure is equal to some density times the velocity squared of the wind. That is the
basic fluid mechanics equation with some correction factors. We are at an altitude
where the density is much less than at sea level. To get to sea level we can do one of
two things. We can change the density in the equation. If we do that it reduces the
pressure down to 8/10ths of what it would be at sea level. Or we can keep the density
at sea level and change the velocity of the wind to get the same number.
This will apply to both the IBC and the IRC. There was general consensus among the
board in support of this amendment.
2902.2 Plumbing Systems/Minimum Plumbing Facilities (Separate Facilities): Add an
exception. This has to do with the number of plumbing fixtures that are required. The
way the plumbing code works is that the rules are always changing. The use drives the
requirements of the code. We have a lot of small tenant spaces in the Downtown
district and other places like Stanley Village. He frequently sees projects withdrawn due
to the requirement for a second handicap bathroom, which costs an average of $30,000
per bathroom. The amendment proposes that separate facilities (men/women) shall
not be required for buildings or tenant spaces containing a primary service that is carry‐
out foods and/or carry‐out drink with seating for less than 15 people and the total
occupant load does not exceed 49. This removes the requirement for a second
handicap bathroom in such places. Plumbing facilities are not life safety issues and it is
not a good fit for our small spaces.
There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment.
Chapter 36 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Add to chapter. There are no wildfire hazard
regulations in the IBC. If we want them we have to add them by amendment. CBO
Birchfield proposed that we adopt what Larimer County is doing for wildfire hazard
mitigation, with the following exceptions: (1) all new and replacement roof coverings
will be Class A; (2)whenever there is an addition or major alteration to an existing
building, defensible spaces will be created and maintained, per regional standards;
(3)automatic sprinkler systems shall be required for new and substantially improved
buildings that do not have adequate access or adequate water supply as required by
the IFC or exceeds 5,000 feet in floor area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 11
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated Larimer County has a wildfire inspector, Tony Simonds, that will
inspect properties for compliance with the standards.
Fire Marshall Robinson stated that Larimer County has their requirements for looking at
defensible spaces. There is a national standard that rises from the National Fire
Protection Agency, which is the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Firewise is a
recognized standard that the fire department will inspect to.
CBO Birchfield stated wildfire hazard areas are generally steeper wooded lots and not
the entire town. The wildfire hazard map, located at www.estes.org/mapsis interactive
to make it easier to determine if your lot is in the wildfire hazard area. The Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) has provisions that says if you are in a wildfire hazard area,
the wildfire inspector will come and assess the area.
There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment.
2015 International Fuel Gas Code
The IFGC regulates only those appliances run on gas or propane. It does not apply to
wood burning stoves, pellet stoves, electric appliances, etc. Some of these things will
also show up in the mechanical code because they regulate different equipment run by
different energy sources. It needs to be in both codes.
303.3 General Regulations/Appliance Location: Add to prohibited locations ‐
Appliances shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
This has to do with eliminating the necessity of shutting down an appliance if the
condensate pump fails. The 2015 code states that if the pump fails the appliance should
be turned off. But we have unoccupied winter homes with the heat on just enough to
keep the water lines from freezing. If the pump fails and the heat is turned off, the
pipes will freeze causing a greater deal of damage than what would have been caused
by the excess condensate. It is not a good fit for our community. This only applies to
new construction.
The other factor is that in the 2015 code it is now required to drywall the bottom of the
floor joists in crawl spaces if equipment is stored down there. If we eliminate putting
the appliances in these crawl spaces then both these issues go away.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 12
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
307.6 Condensate Disposal/Condensate Pumps. Revise a sentence. Condensate pumps
shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces. If
appliances cannot be installed in those spaces it removes the need to have a
condensate pump in those locations.
623.3.1 Residential Fuel‐Gas Fired Cooking Appliances: Add subsection. If you install a
gas stove, you will now be required to put in an exhaust duct. This applies to both
existing buildings and new construction. CBO Birchfield wanted to confirm that the
building official can have flexibility in determining if a vent is necessary when creating a
vent is unfeasible. Member Klein was okay with that.
There was general consensus among the board for this amendment.
CBO Birchfield stated some of these issues are going to appear in the mechanical code
as well.
2015 International Mechanical Code
307.3 Condensate Pumps. No condensate pumps or appliances in uninhabitable spaces
as per the IFGC.
507.2.6 Clearances for Type 1 Hoods: These hoods are used in commercial kitchens
using grease. In the downtown district, the buildings are constructed from wood with
zero lot lines. The amendment states that if you are going to replace your hood, it shall
be a zero clearance hood and shall not attach directly to or contact combustible
materials other than 5/8 Type X gypsum board or similar limited combustible materials.
CBO Birchfield stated a lot of fires in commercial kitchens are from type 1 hoods.
There was general consensus among the board for this amendment.
508.2 Compensating Hoods. Compensating hoods will be prohibited. This type of hood
puts air into the hood and air space. Charbroilers are not allowed. Member Schiaffo
explained new owners add new equipment (e.g. charbroiler) into an existing
commercial kitchen with a compensating hood and unintentionally create a fire hazard.
If we don’t allow compensating hoods then we remove that potential fire hazard from
occurring.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 13
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
There was general consensus among the board for this amendment.
602.1 Plenums: CBO Birchfield stated a plenums is a space for moving air that is not
ducted. It could be in a drop ceiling or a crawl space. Combustible materials are not
allowed in plenums. In many of our commercial structures there is a plethora of
combustible material in these spaces. This proposed amendment states no plenums will
be allowed in structures regulated by the IBC. You will be required to use ductwork for
everything.
There was general consensus among the board for this amendment
2015 International Plumbing Code
CBO Birchfield stated most of these amendments are to line the building codes with the
Water Department, sanitation districts, or the county health department so that we are
all operating under the same rules.
314.1 Condensate Disposal/Fuel‐Burning Appliances: CBO Birchfield stated the
proposed local amendment would not allow condensate pumps in uninhabitable spaces
in new construction as per other codes. Condensate pumps cannot discharge into
street, ally or other areas so as to cause a nuisance. The exception that will be added to
all of these code sections regarding condensate pumps is that if the appliance is being
replaced, it can go back to its former location if the pump discharges to an approved
location in habitable space and the pump is connected to an alarm. In other words,
replacements can go back to where they were as long as the condensate drips where
people can see it and are able to hear the alarm if the pump should fail.
502.1/502.1.1 Water Heaters: CBO Birchfield stated water heaters must have a pan
connected to a drain which drains to an approved location. CBO Birchfield explained
this is a policy change rather than a code change, requiring permits for the replacement
of all water heaters, not just gas water heaters.
504.7.2 Safety Devices/Pan Drain Termination: A pan drain shall be required even if it
was not previously installed for a replacement water heater installation. The only
exception is if it is determined that such a drain would be unfeasible by the building
official due to current conditions. This is an improvement to what is currently in the
code.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 14
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
607.2 Hot Water Supply System/Hot or Tempered Water Supply to Fixtures: CBO
Birchfield stated this is not an amendment but rather a significant change to the code.
A length of hot or tempered water piping shall not extend from the source of hot water
more than 50 ft to a fixture or end cap. This is reduced from the 100 ft that it was in the
currently adopted code.
CBO Birchfield stated there is one issue that is still under discussion, which is frozen
sewer lines caused by condensate. CBO Birchfield will discuss this with the board after
the code adoption process to determine if they can arrive at a solution and amend the
code.
Member Calvin wondered if the piping material mattered when it came to the distance
from the water heater. Certain materials are more efficient, but the energy code will
require that all of that pipe to be insulated.
2015 International Property Maintenance Code
CBO Birchfield removed all references to premises (things outside the building) and
single‐family homes. However the Town Board wanted provisions for vacation home
rentals. The IPMC only regulates structures (no weeds, cars, etc.), but could include
fences, retaining walls, building, etc. We currently do not use a property maintenance
code so the entire code is a significant change. There are other codes we could use, but
CBO Birchfield recommends the IPMC so that we are in the same family of codes.
CBO Birchfield explained recommendations by the board were that the IPMC covers no
premises issues, no structures regulated by the IRC and inspections would be initiated
by complaints. CBO Birchfield recommended no premises issues, no structures
regulated by the IRC and no structured property inspection program. By the direction of
the Town Board, there will be a structured inspection program of single‐family homes
used for vacation home rentals if these codes are adopted as proposed. The Town
Board wanted some type of public safety regulation for vacation rentals. It is a
maintenance issue, thus covered by the IPMC.
The potential applicability of these codes could be vacation rentals, wildfire defensible
space, and downtown. There are a lot of safety issues in some of the buildings that are
downtown. There is only a structured program for vacation rentals. We are still talking
about a complaint driven system. If we adopt these codes, if a building official has a
legal reason to be in the building for an inspection, those property maintenance issues
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 15
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
will be addressed with the property owner. He will be legally and ethically obligated to
deal with these issues.
101.1/101.2 Scope and Application: CBO Birchfield stated this will be one of the codes
proposed to be adopted by the Town of Estes Park. In this code, references to
residential structures shall not include structures regulated by the IRC, except those
used as short‐term rentals. It is clearly spelled out in the code that the IPMC will not
apply to single‐family homes except for those used as vacation rentals. All references to
premises and exterior property will be removed as long as it does not relate to
structures or grading/drainage issues. If you go through the code, much of it has been
revised to abide by the Board’s recommendation.
104.2 Inspections: The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or
shall accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of
inspections shall be in writing and certified by the responsible individual. The building
official is authorized to engage expert opinion as is necessary to report unusual
technical issues as they arise, subject to the approval of the Town Board. All dwelling
units used as short‐term rentals (less than 30 days) shall be subject to an initial life
safety survey and subsequent surveys as determined by the building official. The code
has a list of what that survey must include at minimum but may cover additional
concerns. CBO Birchfield explained the IRC does not talk about bedrooms, but rather
rooms used for sleeping purposes. If you use the living room as a sleeping area it has to
have egress to the outside, a smoke alarm and a CO detector within 15 feet. If they use
gas‐fired appliances, you cannot go through a bedroom or a bathroom to get to that
gas‐fired appliance unless you meet very specific conditions. Gas‐fired appliances
cannot be in unapproved locations (like a pantry with stuff stacked around it). He stated
this will not be a destructive inspection. They will inspect what they can see. Some of
the inspection items may be retroactive. To date, none of this has been approved by
the Town Board. As CBO Birchfield understands, this inspection must occur and be
approved prior to the issuance of a vacation home rental license for 2017. If the
inspection reveals any non‐compliant issues, the property owner will have to pull a
permit and address those issues, otherwise their business license will not be approved.
This is very significant. CBO Birchfield stated he won’t address exterior drainage at
vacation home rentals unless it is a big issue. This is an initial inspection. It will only be
performed again when it is deemed necessary based on complaints.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 16
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated all of this will go before the Town Board for approval. There will
be a public hearing before the Town Board on March 22, which will be the final
opportunity to speak your mind and position.
CBO Birchfield stated that Building Inspector Traufield felt that he would be able to
handle the vacation rental inspections. It is only 200 more inspections a year and the
Town already does 5,000 inspections a year. Building Inspector Traufield feels that such
an inspection would take a maximum of 45 minutes for a big house if they haven’t been
doing unpermitted work. With travel time it should only take an hour. If there has been
unpermitted work on the property, the property owner will need to get the appropriate
which will take additional staff time.
Member Schiaffo asked if the inspections were restricted only to one‐ and two‐family
dwellings used for vacation rentals and not places like hotels or other commercial
structures. CBO Birchfield stated that this inspection is only for houses in residential
districts used as vacation rentals. This is the $200 fee discussed earlier. There is an hour
for the inspector in the field and there is some paper work to do back in the office. It
will take 2 hours and their rate is $100/hour. If you own multiple vacation rentals, each
property will be charged separately. This inspection fee is in addition to the business
license fee. Additional fees may be incurred if the property owner is required to obtain
building permits for unpermitted work.
CBO Birchfield stated that vacation home owners will have most of 2016 to get their
inspections completed. The code, if adopted, will go into effect May 1. They have 8
months to get the inspection approved so they can get their business license for 2017.
If they know there is unpermitted work on the property, the owner will need to get in
the queue early so they can address any issues revealed before the end of the year. If
they wait to the end of the year and it is revealed that they (for example) finished their
basement without a permit, then CBO Birchfield will not approve their business license.
They will have to go before this Board of Appeals or the Town Board to attempt to get
their business license.
The code is very specific. How the code is to be enforced is something still to be
decided. Once this code is approved, CBO Birchfield and the Town Clerk will get
together and form a game plan before appearing before the Town Board to ask for
their support.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 17
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield explained once your vacation rental is inspected and approved, unless
there are complaints against it there will be no more additional inspection fees. Unless
there are reports of unpermitted work. It is determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
CBO Birchfield stated the Estes Valley Fire District does not have anything to do with
this code. This is a strictly a property maintenance code that is part of the building
division. The only thing the fire department addresses on a single‐family home is fire
department access and water supply.
Public Comment: Mike Richardson, attending on behalf of the Board of Realtors. He is
wondering why short‐term rentals in single‐family homes are being singled out for
additional safety regulations when under the fire code they are treated as residential
homes.
CBO Birchfield stated that these additional regulations are coming out of the direction
of the Town Board. There are two major interpretations with the issues. CBO Birchfield
is the most conservative on this issue. Some people believe that if you use a single‐
family home as a bed and breakfast or other short‐term rental, it is no longer a home
and should be regulated by the IBC. CBO Birchfield checked with other community’s
building officials dealing with vacation rentals and discovered a 50/50 split on how this
is viewed. CBO Birchfield stated that he believes this is a land use issue, which regulates
what they can do with their home. He would choose to regulate them by the IRC.
However, the Town Board says they are concerned about public safety and wants it
addressed by the building division. Right now CBO Birchfield’s plan is to do an initial
inspection, and then base additional inspections on what he sees, finds, or hears. In the
future the Town Board may direct him otherwise (such as wanting inspections to occur
on some cycle).
Mike Richardson states that the Board of Realtors is supportive of safety, but is
concerned about the timing and over‐regulating.
CBO Birchfield stated that these are all about life safety issues, outside of the drainage,
and as a home owner he would want to know about any life safety issue present in his
home, so it isn’t a bad thing. But he understands it is an additional layer of bureaucracy.
This is only in draft form and is coming straight from the elected officials. It could still
change.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 18
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
There was general consensus among the board to support this proposed code.
CBO Birchfield stated egress windows in vacation rentals are still under discussion.
When he does these inspections he is going to find non‐complying egress windows. He
would like to figure out a policy for addressing this issue and others that is decided
upon by the community.
2015 International Fire Code
CBO Birchfield stated every amendment in the IFC comes straight from the IBC. Chapter
9 and 10 in the IBC is also in the IFC. This code will be administered by the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District (EVFPD). It is primarily a code for systems also required in the
IBC. The requirements for fire safety would still be in the code if the IFC was not
adopted, we just wouldn’t have the EVFPD helping to inspect and permit them. There
are no significant changes to the IFC other than what was discussed in the IBC.
There was general consensus among the board to support this proposed code.
2015 International Energy Conservation Code
CBO Birchfield stated this code is really tough. If we adopt a building code (not the IRC),
Colorado Revised Statutes requires increased R values, decreased U factors, decreased
allowable air changes (how much the building leaks), and blower door tests for new
single‐family dwellings. CBO Birchfield recommended doing as much training for staff as
they can find, phasing the compliance to the code including phasing in performance
test results, no electrical calculations with changes of use in smaller buildings such as in
the downtown district, prescriptive R values for additions and remodels allowing for
improvements to portions of buildings before having to bring the entire building up to
code. It is about doing what you can to make your insulation better based on the
conditions without getting into an all or nothing situation.
C101.5.2 and R101.5.2 Compliance Modifications and/or Phasing: CBO Birchfield
recommends adding to the listed subsections code which allows for the building official
to allow phasing of the energy code or to modify it. Its phrasing allows for the building
official to make adjustments as new issues are discovered with this code in our
community.
2015 International Existing Building Code
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 19
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated there are no significant changes to this code, but there are two
significant issues; fire barriers and handicap accessibility.
Fire barriers are the way we build walls and floors. In the Estes Valley, there has been a
tradition of platform framing. This is not how you build fire barrier walls and floors.
Many of our existing buildings are non‐compliant with the definition of fire barriers.
The other issue is handicap accessibility. If you are adding or remodeling an area of
primary function, whatever the valuation is, you must spend an additional 20% to
address handicap accessibility until that building is fully accessible. For example, the
primary function areas in a restaurant is where the people are seated, and not the
kitchen. If you are addressing handicap accessibility in your project, you do not have to
spend an additional 20% because you are already addressing handicap accessibility
(adding an ADA compliant bathroom). If the building is fully accessible this is not an
issue. CBO Birchfield stated the town is way behind the curve in providing accessibility
in most of our buildings.
2015 International Residential Code
CBO Birchfield stated all of these codes discussed have been adopted by the IBC. They
are part of the IBC. Parts of those codes are taken and plugged into the IRC. We will
quickly move past the already addressed amendments to talk about the ones that are
just present in the IRC.
R101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield stated a proposed amendment is to add a statement
saying that in addition to complying with the IRC, individual dwelling units rented or
leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the IPMC. Individual dwelling units
shall be limited to the number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park Municipal Code
and/or applicable zoning regulations. This has already been discussed.
R108.2 Fee Schedule: CBO Birchfield clarified that what was said in the IBC relating to
fees applies to the IRC.
R301.2 Building Planning/Design Criteria (Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria): The
information about the snow load and wind speed from the IBC also applies to the IRC.
The ultimate design wind speed for buildings covered by the IRC will be 175 mph. CBO
Birchfield stated the local amendment will also include language providing an
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 20
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
alternate method to use lower sea level wind speed with no modifications or
reductions
R301.2.1.1 Wind Limitations and Wind Design Required: CBO Birchfield stated you
cannot use any of the prescriptive requirements in the IRC to build buildings because
the wind speed for our area is too high. The provision in the IRC stops at 110 mph.
Submittals shall specify the minimum sea‐level design wind speed or ultimate design
wind speed, the exposure, the elevation and the elevation‐based pressure correction
factor if used.
CBO Birchfield stated the 3‐second wind gust maps will be removed from the codes and
the local amendment will state the ultimate design wind speed is 175 mph.
Table R301.5 Minimum Uniformly Distributed Live Loads: CBO Birchfield stated the live
load for decks shall be the ground snow load and for decks with hot tubs, the provision
shall be a combined load of 150 psf as discussed in the IBC. The entire house will have a
live load of 40 psf, as opposed to changing it to a lower amount for bedrooms, which
could lead to errors in construction. This is a current code.
R302.3 Two‐Family Dwellings: CBO Birchfield stated this amendment states if an
automatic sprinkler system is not provided (it may be required under certain
conditions), dwelling units in a two‐family home shall be separated by two‐hour fire
resistance assemblies. This is changed from a one‐hour fire resistance assembly
because the home is not sprinkled.
There was general consensus among the board to support the proposed amendment.
R302.13 Fire Protection of Floors: Delete subsection. Because gas‐fueled appliances are
no longer allowed in uninhabitable spaces, we no longer have to place the ½ inch of
drywall on the floor joists allowing for the removal of this section.
R313.2 One‐ and Two‐Family Dwellings Automatic Fire Systems. Add a list of
exceptions.
CBO Birchfield stated this is the big change to the IRC. Since 2009, the code has said
that every new home must be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. When we
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 21
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
adopted the 2009 code we amended it to exempt one‐ and two‐family homes. CBO
Birchfield stated he is not proposing to do that amendment with the 2015 codes.
In the IBC, the first amendment says that all structures in an accommodation zone shall
be regulated by the IBC. This is a reversal of the current amendment, which states that
if it looks like a residential house, regardless of use, it is regulated by the IRC. Now, CBO
Birchfield is recommending if a single‐family dwelling is located in a commercial zone
district it will be built according to the IBC.
In addition, CBO Birchfield is proposing that some, not all, single‐family homes must be
protected by automatic sprinkler systems.
Automatic sprinkler systems shall not be required for one‐ and two‐family dwellings
which are located in a residential zone district and not located in a designated wildfire
hazard area. If a one‐ or two‐family home is located in a wildfire hazard area, you would
not have to sprinkle the building if you have adequate fire department access and
adequate water supply as required by the fire code, and all the buildings on the lot do
not exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area. The wildfire hazard areas are those
designated in the map discussed earlier on the website (www.estes.org/icodes).
Accommodations zone districts are not considered residential zone districts.
CBO Birchfield is proposing a local amendment stating automatic sprinkler systems will
be required for all homes constructed with the intent of being used or are used for
short‐term rentals (vacation rentals). The effective date for this provision will be
January 1, 2017. This gives the public the chance to comply or the elected officials to
make changes to this provision.
The board discussed this issue. Comments include, but are not limited to:
Member Schiaffo stated that he was concerned what this would mean for people who
were renting their homes while waiting for their home to sell to cover costs of a second
mortgage or waiting to retire in it. He believes that if something is going to be built with
the intent to use it as a hotel, it should be built as a hotel. However, he believes that
individual homeowner rights should be protected.
Chair Spooner stated that he was concerned about the language of the amendment and
what the intent is.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 22
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield explained the intent of this amendment. If someone builds a home after
January 1, 2017 with the intent of using it as a short‐term rental, they would be
required to sprinkle the building. If built after January 1, 2017 as a home, but later the
property owner decides to use it as a short‐term rental, they would be required to
sprinkle the building at that point. This proposed amendment is intended to apply to
new construction only. It will also apply to homes used for vacation rental that are not
properly licensed right now.
There was general consensus from the Board of Appeals that this is very controversial
and need a lot more discussion. They want to hear from the Board of Realtors as well.
CBO Birchfield stated all of this had been discussed before, except for the provisions
regarding the vacation rentals, which is something that the Town Board has requested
be explored.
CBO Birchfield stated that he heard from Larimer County that they are thinking if a
vacation rental is planned to accommodate parties of nine or more guests, it will fall
under the IBC, which will require sprinkling, among other things. Their amendment
would include existing structures in addition to new construction. Why are single‐family
homes used as vacation rentals being treated differently than hotels with detached
cabins? It’s the same use. Only the zoning is different. CBO Birchfield would like to
create a leveling playing field. He reminded the board that the code is saying all new
homes must be sprinkled. This amendment is lowering the bar saying that only some
homes have to be; however, we are raising the bar from where we are now. Some of
the communities around us are going to start requiring all new homes be sprinkled
(Longmont in 2019). Eventually we will line up with other communities. If we are going
to start requiring them in phases, we should require them for the homes that have the
greatest hazards, which are wildfire hazard areas and short‐term rentals (which is the
most hazardous use by the IBC). The easy answer is to sprinkle all new homes, CBO
Birchfield was just hoping to phase this in.
Member Klein stated that the Board needs to come up with a recommendation as to
how it is supporting or not supporting this issue.
Chair Spooner would like for there to be more discussion.
The board wishes to discuss this issue more before it can come to a decision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 23
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
R401.4.1 Geotechnical Evaluation: The amendment proposes that our presumed soil
load‐bearing capacity is 2,500 lbs. You can do a soils report or as an engineer/architect
show that it is better but the code will start here as an assumption if you do not want to
do a soils report.
R902.1 Roofing Covering Materials: If it is a wildfire hazard areas, the roof will be Class
A or a one‐hour rating as in the IBC.
M14114.4 Condensate Pumps: As discussed with the IBC. This code displays the
exception that was discussed in the IBC discussion, that if an appliance is being replaced
the appliance and pump can be returned to the uninhabitable spaces as long as the
pump is drained appropriately and an alarm is connected to the pump.
M1901.3 Cook Appliances: Venting of gas‐fueled stoves, as discussed with the IBC.
G2404.11 Condensate Pumps: Pumps in uninhabitable spaces, as discussed with the
IBC.
G2406.2 Prohibited Locations: As discussed with the IBC. Existing appliances can be
replaced in uninhabited spaces. Anything that says it is an unvented fuel‐gas appliance
has been deleted out of the code outside of a very specific and important list. For the
most part, you cannot install an unvented fuel‐gas appliance other than what is
approved in the 2015 IFGC 501.8, as amended.
G2447.6 Cooking Appliances: Venting of gas‐fueled stoves, as discussed with the IBC.
P2801.6.1 Pan Size and Drain: Water heater pans and drains, as discussed with the IBC.
Chapter 36 Wildfire Hazard Mitigations: Roof coverings, defensible spaces, automatic
sprinkler systems. Same thing that was discussed earlier with the IBC.
CBO Birchfield will go through and clean up the draft code language based on what was
discussed. The major issue is to go back and discuss what the Board wants to do
regarding the sprinkler provision.
CBO Birchfield stated the next meeting will be March 10th from 4‐6 p.m. The Board of
Appeals has agreed to facilitate the meeting. CBO Birchfield will contact the Board of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 24
February 25, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Realtors, Estes Lodging Association, the Downtown Business Partners and anybody else
he can think of. He will encourage them to go to the website and review the proposed
amendments and come to the meeting. This is the last public meeting before it goes to
the Town Board on March 22nd.
After we get these codes adopted, CBO Birchfield would like the Board of Appeals to
review the processes, polices, procedures and forms for the building division. We could
start with the checklist for residential plan review. We can take the summer off, and a
meet maximum of once a month. The board would provide valuable input to how the
building division operates.
All of the code amendments and the significant changes should now be online
(www.estes.org/icodes). When the process is finalized, there will be three documents
created for each code (two of which are currently available online). There will be the
published version which contains just the changes made to the code, the significant
changes document which is what CBO Birchfield went through tonight, and the entire
local amendments document which will look like the significant changes document with
the code change and comments expressing the intent of the change. CBO Birchfield
created these separate documents at the request of the Board so that architects and
engineers that are familiar with the code can get just the local amendment without
having to dig through the commentary, but the average layperson can read the
amendments with the commentary and understand the intent of the change.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:23
p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION # 06-16
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New TAVERN Liquor License, filed by
LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, LLC, 1665 CO HIGHWAY 66, Estes Park, Colorado, is
February 22, 2016.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 4.7 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this 22nd day of March, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Town Administrator Lancaster
Community Development Director Chilcott
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Ordinance #08-16 Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
Relating to Deed-Restricted Employee Housing Regulations in Non-
Residential Zoning Districts
Objective:
Review of a draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Present Situation:
There is a severe shortage of employee housing within the Estes Valley. Current Estes
Valley Development Code regulations allow employee housing in non-residential
districts with the intent of encouraging business owners to provide employee housing
on-site. However, the requirement for employees to also work on site is too restrictive to
truly encourage development of employee housing. Small businesses have approached
staff with a desire to build second floor employee housing on CO – Outlying Commercial
zoned lots for employees of the Estes Valley.
Any text amendment to the EVDC shall comply with §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review, including:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley; and
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application
were approved.
Proposal:
Amend the Estes Valley Development Code employee housing regulations to:
• Remove the requirement for employees to work on site.
• Increase the allowed density in some instances, e.g. on CO-Commercial Outlying
zoned properties.
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. There is a Valley-wide shortage of employee housing. This fairly simple
code amendment has the potential to quickly and significantly increase the
supply of employee housing in the valley.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley;
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley. A development plan is not required.
Specific comprehensive plan policies with which this code amendment is
consistent are listed below, along with staff comments.
Housing Policy 5.1
Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges.
Housing Policy 5.2
Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that
is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods.
Housing Policy 5.3
Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to
provide affordable housing.
Housing Policy 5.4
Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas.
Housing Policy 5.5
Provide for mixed use developments which integrate commercial, housing,
employment, and service needs.
Housing Policy 5.6
Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area.
Housing Policy 5.7
Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis.
Housing Policy 5.8
Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.
Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment was reviewed with affected
agencies on February 12, 2016 to confirm compliance with this requirement.
On February 16, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of this code amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and
Larimer County of Board of County Commissioners.
Advantages:
• Complies with the EVDC text amendment regulations.
• Addresses a significant and pressing community need, a comprehensive plan
priority, and a Town Board strategic plan priority.
Disadvantages:
• No program for management and enforcement of deed restrictions exists.
Action Recommended:
Review of Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the proposed employee
housing code amendment. This includes review of the draft text amendment for
compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review.
Budget:
Code Amendment Drafting and Adoption: Staff Time and Publishing Costs, estimated
to be under $5,000
Code Compliance: TBD if a Town program is developed to manage deed restrictions.
Level of Public Interest:
High – employee housing.
Low – this code amendment.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #08-16
Attachments:
1. Draft red-lined code amendment
2. Ordinance #08-16 with Exhibit A
Estes Valley Development Code
Employee Housing Code Amendment Red-Lined
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A. General Standards.
1. Permitted principal uses and approved special review principal uses shall be deemed
to include the accessory uses, structures and activities as set forth in this Section,
unless specifically prohibited.
2. See also §13.2, “Use Classifications,” wherein incidental or accessory uses are
sometimes included in the description of a specific principal use. When a use
classification or specific use type definition in §13.2 does include permitted accessory
or incidental uses, such accessory or incidental uses shall be subject to the general
standards set forth in this Section, as well as any use-specific standards set forth in
§5.1 or this Section.
3. All accessory uses, structures and activities shall be subject to the general,
dimensional, operational and use-specific regulations set forth in this Section, in
addition to the same regulations that apply to principal uses in each district. In the
case of any conflict between the accessory use/structure standards of this Section and
any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control.
4. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; and
b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same
zoning lot as the principal use; and
c. There shall be unity of ownership between the principal use and the accessory
use.
C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Nonresidential Zoning District
“Yes” = Permitted “No” = Not Permitted
Additional Conditions A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Employee Housing
(Including Caretaker
Quarters)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.C.2.a (Ord 18-01 #19)
Estes Valley Development Code
Employee Housing Code Amendment Red-Lined
2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses in the Nonresidential Zoning
Districts.
a. Employee Housing.
(1) Defined. Accessory dwelling unit(s) for an owner, operator or employee of
the principal use or business located on the site (shall include “caretakers
quarters”).
(2) Standards. Employee housing shall be subject to the following development
and operational standards:
(a) Dwelling units used for employee housing shall comply with all
applicable provisions of this Code.
(b) Only one (1) unit of employee housing per principal use shall be allowed
for the purpose of providing caretaker quarters.
(c) Individual dwelling units used for employee housing shall not exceed
eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area.
(d) A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each
unit of employee housing, in addition to the required parking for the
principal use or business.
(e) Employee housing shall be occupied only by the owner, operator,
caretaker or an employee of the principal use, plus his or her immediate
family.
(f) Employee housing shall not be occupied or rented for a term of tenancy
less than thirty (30) days.
(g) Employee housing shall not be rented to the general public
(nonemployees) for accommodation or residential purposes, except that
where employee housing has been provided for a seasonal summer
work force, such housing may be used for residential purposes only (not
accommodations) during the off-season with approval of Staff.
(3) Formula for the Provision of Employee Housing. The amount of employee
housing shall be allowed as follows:
(a) Commercial/Retail/Industrial/Recreation Uses: One (1) unit of employee
housing per two thousand two hundred fifty (2,250) square feet of gross
floor area of the principal use(s).
(b) Accommodation Uses: One (1) unit of employee housing per seven (7)
guest rooms or units.
(c) In no case, however, may the total actual density or intensity of the
project, including the employee housing, exceed one hundred twenty-
five percent (125%) of the maximum density or commercial intensity
(FAR) permitted by the zoning district regulations.
(4) Restrictive CovenantDeed-Restriction Required.
(a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed-
restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure
the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of
the principal business use. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of
Estes Valley Development Code
Employee Housing Code Amendment Red-Lined
short-term rentals (less than thirty [30] days) and/or rentals to the
general public of the unit(s) except as otherwise allowed by this Section.
(b) Removal of the deed restriction shall require approval of the applicable
Board and shall require a finding of exceptional practical difficulties or
undue hardship if the restrictions are not removed.
(c) The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town
or County Attorney.
§13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS, AND PHRASES
44. Caretaker Quarters. See “Employee Housing” below.
99. Employee Housing shall mean an accessory dwelling unit(s) for an owner, operator, or
employee of the principal use or business located on a site occupied by a person
employeed within the Estes Valley and that employee’s household members. Employee
housing includes a dwelling unit occupied by an owner, operator or employee acting as
caretaker, custodian or security personnel for the principal use or business on a property
(the latter is sometimes referred to as “caretaker quarters
ORDINANCE NO. 08-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
DEED-RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS
IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 “Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and
Accessory Structures” and Section 13.3 “Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases”; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit
“A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the
best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2
“Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures” and Section 13.3
“Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases”; set forth on Exhibit “A” and recommended for approval
by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth
on Exhibit “A”.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of
, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Ordinance #08-16
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 2
Ordinance #08-16
Exhibit A
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Nonresidential Zoning District
“Yes” = Permitted “No” = Not Permitted
Additional Conditions A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Employee Housing
(Including Caretaker
Quarters)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.C.2.a (Ord 18-01 #19)
2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Employee Housing.
(1) Standards. Employee housing shall be subject to the following development and
operational standards:
(a) Dwelling units used for employee housing shall comply with all applicable
provisions of this Code.
(b) Individual dwelling units used for employee housing shall not exceed eight
hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area.
(c) Employee housing shall not be occupied or rented for a term of tenancy less
than thirty (30) days.
(2) Formula for the Provision of Employee Housing. The amount of employee housing
shall be allowed as follows:
(a) Accommodation Uses: One (1) unit of employee housing per seven (7) guest
rooms or units.
(b) In no case, however, may the total actual density or intensity of the project,
including the employee housing, exceed one hundred twenty-five percent
(125%) of the maximum density or commercial intensity (FAR) permitted by the
zoning district regulations.
(3) Deed-Restriction Required.
(a) Employee housing units shall be deed-restricted for a period of time no less
than twenty (20) years. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term
rentals (less than thirty [30] days) and/or rentals to the general public of the
unit(s).
(b) Removal of the deed restriction shall require approval of the applicable Board
and shall require a finding of exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship
if the restrictions are not removed.
(c) The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or
County Attorney.
Ordinance #08-16
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
Ordinance #08-16
Exhibit A
§13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS, AND PHRASES
99. Employee Housing shall mean a dwelling unit(s) occupied by a person employed within the Estes
Valley and that employee’s household members.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Relating to
Residential & Accommodations Density Calculation
Objective:
Report on proposed text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Development Code establishes density regulations that apply to
residential and non-residential zone districts. Density refers to the number of residential
dwellings and accommodation units an individual may build on a given property. Current
regulations require that all fractions as a result of a density calculation be rounded
down.
The proposed regulations will allow fractions of one-half (1/2) or more to be rounded up.
If approved by the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners, this amendment would result in a slight increase in development and
redevelopment potential.
Recently a few property owners/developers have expressed concern that the current
density calculation unfairly and/or unnecessarily restricts development potential and that
this amendment is needed for re-development projects to move forward. If this
amendment is approved, each of these projects may contain one additional unit.
Any text amendment to the EVDC shall comply with §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review, including:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley; and
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application
were approved.
On March 15, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of this code amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and
Larimer County of Board of County Commissioners.
Proposal:
Amend the EVDC density calculation to allow fractions of one-half (½ ) or more to be
rounded up.
EVDC Section 1.9.C.3
When applying a density standard to a parcel’s net land area, all resulting
fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number any
fraction of less than one-half (1/2) shall be rounded down to the next lower
whole number and any fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall be rounded
up to the next higher whole number.
Staff Findings:
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. Over the past year or so, the number of redevelopment projects
proposed and underway has increased significantly. While this amendment
applies to both new development and re-development, the amendment is
particularly necessary for re-development.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley;
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley. A development plan is not required.
Specific comprehensive plan policies with which this code amendment is
consistent are listed below.
Growth Management Policy 3.1
Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to
stabilize residential neighborhoods.
Housing Policy 5.4
Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.
Staff Finding: Town, County and other relevant service providers have the
ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required.
Advantages:
• Complies with the EVDC text amendment regulations, including supporting the
above listed comprehensive plan policies.
Disadvantages:
• None
Action Recommended:
This is a report only. Action will be requested at the April 12, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Budget:
Code Amendment – Staff Time and Publishing Costs, estimated to be under $5,000
Level of Public Interest:
High – Redevelopment
Low – Code amendment
Attachments:
None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Ordinance #05-16 – Public Hearing - 2015 International Building Codes
Adoption with Local Amendments
Objective:
Adoption of 2015 International Building Codes with Local Amendments
Present Situation:
The Estes Park Board of Appeals has met on a monthly basis for approximately 16
months to review the 2015 I-Codes. Productive discussion has occurred among the Board
and Staff. Attendance at these public meetings was publicized through press releases
and email distribution lists, and up until the last meeting, attendance was very low (five
persons or less).
Proposal:
The Board of Appeals recommends adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes
with amendments, with the effective date of May 1, 2016. As amended, the International
Building Code includes, by reference, the following codes in their entirety: International
Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code,
International Property Maintenance Code, International Fire Code, International Energy
Conservation Code, International Existing Building Code, and the National Electrical
Code. The International Fire Code is adopted by and administered by the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District; the National Electrical Code is adopted by and administered by
the State of Colorado. The International Residential Code does not adopt the above
mentioned codes by reference; it includes specific portions of the codes within its
text. For consideration to amend and adopt the 2015 International Building Codes, staff
presents the following options to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park.
Advantages:
Adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes will:
Keep the Town current with industry standards, new technologies and materials,
recent studies and other jurisdictions, including Larimer County.
Provide safeguards, establishing minimum safety standards for all aspects of
building construction – fire, structural, plumbing electrical, gas and mechanical.
Disadvantages:
There will be a learning curve for contractors and designers to adjust to the new and/or
revised regulations. As the Town typically adopts new building codes every six years, this
process is well-known and understood by most stakeholders in the industry.
Action Recommended:
Option one: Previous Direction from Board of Trustees to include provisions for
Vacation Rentals
Approve adoption of the 2015 International Building Code and the 2015
International Residential Code with the amendments presented at the town board
meeting on March 22, 2016.
NOTE: The amendments requiring limited life-safety inspections and automatic
sprinkler systems for vacation rentals are recommended in response to direction
given to the Building Official by the Board of Trustees. The direction was to propose
options to enhance public safety in vacation rentals without regulating them by all
the provisions of the International Building Code. Staff was directed to propose a
compromise between the requirements of the International Residential Code and
the International Building Code. The proposal for life safety surveys of vacation
rentals is more restrictive than requirements for dwellings in the International
Residential Code, but far less restrictive than requirements in the International
Building Code for hotels (nightly rentals). Because a current local amendment
exempts all one- and two-family dwellings from sprinkler requirements, the
proposed sprinkler requirements for vacation rentals are more restrictive than
current requirements. While being more restrictive than current requirements, not
requiring sprinkler systems in all one one-and two-family dwellings is less
restrictive than requirements in the International Residential Code and less
restrictive than requirements in the International Building Code. The International
Building Code requires ALL new buildings containing residential uses to be
protected with automatic sprinkler systems; and the International Residential Code
requires ALL new dwellings to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. The
specific type of sprinkler system required is determined by the number of dwelling
units or sleeping units in the building. As proposed, sprinkler requirements in the
amendment to the 2015 international residential code, section 313.2, have an
effective date of January 01, 2017.
Option two: Recommendations of Estes Park Board of Appeals
The Board of Appeals recommends approval of the proposed amendments and
adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes as presented in option one, with
the following recommendations:
1. Postpone sprinkler requirements for one- and two-family dwellings until after
the task force on vacation rentals presents its recommendations and the Board
of Appeals has an opportunity to review them and make recommendations
to the Town Board.
2. Maintain the current local amendment exempting all one- and two-family
dwellings from sprinkler requirements.
3. Postpone life safety surveys for vacation rentals until after the task force
on vacation rentals presents its recommendations and the Board of
Appeals has an opportunity to review them and make recommendations to the
Town Board.
Option three: Recommendations of Building Official
The building official recommends approval of the proposed amendments and
adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes as presented in option two, with
the following additional recommendations:
1. Postpone the sprinkler requirements for one- or two-family dwellings as
recommended by the Board of Appeals, but have a specific date when
sprinkler requirements will be effective unless an alternate proposed
amendment is presented to and is approved by the Town Board.
2. Approve the following revised amendment exempting all one- and two-family
dwellings from sprinkler requirements.
An automatic fire sprinkler system shall not be required in detached one-and
two-family dwellings or in detached buildings containing not more than two
sleeping units.
NOTE: If requirements for automatic sprinkler systems are to be effective at
some future date, this amendment should reference that date.
3. If the proposed life safety surveys for vacation rentals are to be amended into
the codes, whether postponed or not, direct the building official and the town
clerk to propose an implementation plan to present to the Town Board for
approval. Additionally, direct the building official to revise the proposed
amendment for life safety surveys to include provisions which address
concerns raised by stakeholders at the Board of Appeals meeting on March 10,
2016, and to bring the revisions back to the Board of Trustees as a revised
proposed amendment to the codes.
Option Four: Possible Alternative as the Legislative Authority
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park may postpone adoption of the
2015 International Codes or direct staff to delete or revise any portions of the
codes.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
General Local Amendments: Low
Significant Changes: Medium
Sprinklers and Vacation Rental Amendments: Very High
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the 2015 International Building Codes as presented in
Option X.
Attachments: Ordinance with Exhibits
1
ORDINANCE NO. 05-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,
COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO
BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE
ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL
CODES, 2015 EDITIONS, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February, 2016, this Ordinance was introduced to
the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park which set a public hearing on the
consideration of this Ordinance for March 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-
203, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, as stated in the published notice, certified copies of the International
Building and Residential Codes, 2015 Editions, certified copies of all secondary codes
referenced in the International Codes, and all amendments thereto, were on file in the
office of the Town Clerk and available for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: Chapter 14.12 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
International Codes
14.12.010 International Building Code, 2015—Adopted. The International
Building Code, 2015 Edition, issued by the International Code Council, 4051 W.
Flossmoor Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795, except the sections or parts of
sections thereof which are amended as set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, referred to in this title as the International Building
Code is enacted and adopted by reference.
14.12.020 International Residential Code, 2015—Adopted. The International
Residential Code, 2015 Edition, issued by the International Code Council, 4051 W.
Flossmoor Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795, except the sections or parts of
sections thereof which are amended as set forth on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, referred to in this title as the International
Residential Code is enacted and adopted by reference.
Section 2: Sections 14.04.040 and Section 14.04.050 of the Municipal Code shall be
amended to read as follows:
2
14.04.040 Violation.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions of the
International Building Code and International Residential Code.
(b) Every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the International
Building Code and International Residential Code shall be punished as set forth in
Section 1.20.020 of this Code.
(c) The Town shall have the option of instituting an appropriate action in any
court having jurisdiction to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of the
International Building Code and International Residential Code to prevent any illegal act
or use in or on such premises as a result of any violation of the International Building
Code and International Residential Code.
14.04.050 Damages. Neither the Building Official, Town Engineer, any other
employee or agent of the Town, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town, shall be
liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and
the enforcement of the provisions of the International Building Code and International
Residential Code.
Section 3: These amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code shall be effective
May 1, 2016.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
View the 2015 International Building Code Significant Changes
and Proposed Local Amendments at
www.estes.org/ICodes
Resolution #07-16 Authorization of the Fire Code Adopted by the Fire District
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 18, 2016
RE: Resolution #07-16 Authorization of the Fire Code Adopted by the Fire
District
Objective:
To authorize the 2015 International Fire Code including its Appendixes and Amendments as
adopted by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park is considering the adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes at
their March 22, 2016 meeting. One of the secondary codes is the Fire Code. The Fire Code is
adopted by the Estes Valley Fire District and would be followed by the Division of Building Safety
as it pertains to the building code.
Proposal:
To adopt Resolution #07-16 authorizing the use of the Fire Code as adopted by the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District. The effective date would be May 1, 2016 to be in line with the other
Building codes if adopted by the Town Board at their March 22, 2016 meeting.
Advantages:
To utilize the code with amendments adopted by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
To approve Resolution #07-16.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #07-16.
RESOLUTION # 07-16
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District has adopted the 2015
International Fire Code including Appendices and Amendments (the “Fire Code”) for the
regulation and governance of conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or
explosion and providing for certain permitting of such uses and operations; and
WHEREAS, Section 32-1-1002 (1)(d) C.R.S. provides that the Fire Code adopted by
the Estes Valley Fire Protection District shall not apply within the corporate limits of the
Town of Estes Park unless the Board of Trustees of the Town adopts a resolution
stating that the Fire Code shall apply within the boundaries of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of the
Town to adopt a resolution stating that the Fire Code as adopted by the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-02 of the Fire District shall
apply within the corporate limits of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The 2015 International Fire Code including Appendixes and Amendments as
more fully set forth in Resolution No. 2015-02 of the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District shall apply within the corporate limits of the Town of Estes Park.
2. This Resolution shall take affect and be in force on and after May 1, 2016.
Dated this___________________________, 2016.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
Page 1 of 3
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: March 22, 2016
RE: Board-Approved Personnel Policies
Objective:
To obtain Board approval for personnel policies 303 (Compensation), 305 (Benefits),
and 306 (Leave).
Policies Requiring Board Approval:
Personnel policies 303, 305, and 306 require Board approval because they pertain
directly to compensation. All other personnel policies are adopted administratively and
will be sent to the Board after adoption for information purposes.
Present Situation:
The Town’s existing personnel policies are incomplete and significantly outdated.
Recognizing this, the Town began a comprehensive review and update of these policies
in May of 2015. The process consisted of reviewing peer policies in neighboring
communities, incorporating best practices recommended by Mountain States Employers
Council and the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA), and
reviewing the Town’s compliance with state and federal laws.
Significant Changes from First Draft of Policies Seen by the Board:
• Policy 303
o Travel time section was simplified based on employee feedback that it
was confusing
o Minimum call-out compensation increased from one (1) hour to two (2)
hours (this is current practice in the organization outside of public works)
• Policy 305
o Employee Homeownership Program boundaries changed from Light and
Power Service Area to the Park R-3 School District (includes more
affordable housing and still maintains connection to the town of Estes Park
through schools, shopping, etc.)
o Added textbooks to the reimbursable expenses under the Town’s
educational assistance program
• Policy 306
Page 2 of 3
o Added verbiage to “Continuation of Health Insurance for Military Leave” to
include dental and vision insurance as well
o Wording was added to clarify that the Town pro-rates vacation, holiday,
and sick leave accrual for part-time employees
Significant Changes in Policy 303 (Compensation):
• Added section enabling teleworking when approved by supervisor
• Removed section referring to the use of a housing differential factor when making
market comparisons (not current practice)
• Removed references to Cost of Living Adjustments (we have moved to market-
based pay)
• Limits on the accrual of compensatory time have been established (80 hours at
any given time)
• On-call compensation has been formalized and standardized based on market
comparisons
o For all employees other than sworn police personnel: two (2) hours of
straight time pay for every day spent on-call
o For sworn police personnel: 11 hours of straight pay for every seven (7)
days spent on call
Significant Changes in Policy 305 (Benefits):
• 90% coverage for employees with benefits (changed after loss of spousal
coverage)
• Formalized and added structure to Tuition Assistance Program
• Formalized and added structure to Employee Home Ownership Program
o Eligibility changed to 175% of Larimer County AMI
For a single person in 2015: $95,375
For a couple in 2015: $109,025
o Option to take a program hiatus for up to one year added
o Accelerated program added (3 years instead of standard 5)
Significant Changes in Policy 306 (Leave):
• Vacation Leave earned by the 0-3 Years of Service group increased from 7 hours
per month to 8 hours per month (moved to align with market and because having
accumulation at less than a full day of work per month does not make sense)
• At-will employees (Department Directors) now have an accelerated vacation
leave accrual schedule (to aid in recruitment for senior-level positions)
• Use of sick leave expanded to include weather closure time and personal or
family member medical appointments
• Donation of sick leave removed (CIRSA recommendation)
• Added section on Administrative Leave
• Emergency leave replaced by bereavement leave
• Added option for leave without pay
Advantages:
• Provides a complete and modernized set of personnel policies
Page 3 of 3
Disadvantages:
• The formalization and standardization of on-call compensation will result in a
moderate budget increase for impacted departments.
Budget:
The on-call formalization and standardization is projected to have the following budget
impacts:
• $60,000 increase in Police Budget (General Fund)
• $6,638 increase in Public Works Budget (General Fund)
• $5,238 increase in Fleet Budget (Internal Service Fund)
• $13,000 increase in Information Technology Budget (internal Service Fund)
• $7,488 increase in Light and Power Budget (Enterprise Fund)
• $3,808 increase in Water Budget (Enterprise Fund)
• $650 increase in Public Information Budget ($250 in General Fund and $400 in
Enterprise Funds)
Level of Public Interest:
Staff expects a moderate level of public interest in this issue from the general
community.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/disapprove Policy 303 (Compensation), Policy 305 (Benefits), and
Policy 306 (Leave) and authorize the Mayor to sign.
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 1 of 7
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: 06/01/2016
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.2, 3.8
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
303
Compensation
1. PURPOSE
To describe how the Town of Estes Park compensates its employees.
2. POLICY
It is in the best interest of the community, the Town of Estes Park, and its employees to
appropriately compensate its workforce for the value of the work provided.
The Town follows a market compensation philosophy. The Town will annually compare
its compensation levels to market data in an effort to maintain a competitive
compensation structure.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Market Comparisons
For details on the Town’s market comparison compensation philosophy please see
the Market Compensation Policy.
b. Working Hours
i. Work Week
The Town’s standard work week for payroll purposes begins at 12:01 a.m.
Sunday and ends at 12:00 midnight the following Saturday. Work schedules for
employees are established within this framework. A normal working schedule for
employees is an 8-hour day from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
with a one-hour unpaid meal period per day (variations to this schedule are
acceptable, but must be approved by the Department Director.
ii. Establishment of Employees’ Working Schedules
Various factors, such as workloads, service hours, operational efficiency, and
staffing needs may require variations in an employee’s work schedule. Each
supervisor will establish employees’ working schedules. Employees may be
required to work overtime or hours other than those normally scheduled when
necessary.
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 2 of 7
iii. Flexible Schedules
The Town generally allows the use of flexible schedules where such schedules
reasonably coincide with the needs of the department and the public. However,
managers have the discretion to grant or deny any subordinate employee’s
request to work an alternative schedule. If such a request is granted, the
flexible/alternative work schedule arrangement can be terminated and a new
schedule required at any time upon 15 days notice to the employee.
iv. Travel Time
Commuting to and from work each day is not considered time worked. Other
travel time should be treated as follows:
1) When a non-exempt employee travels for non-mandated training:
a. Time will be paid to the extent that the travel time overlaps with the
employee’s normal work day.
2) When a non-exempt employee travels for mandated training:
a. Time spent traveling to and from mandated training will be considered
work time and will be compensated as such.
3) Exempt employees are not paid in excess of their normal work schedule
for travel time and are expected to use the mode of transportation which
would require the least amount of time and cost.
v. Meal and Break Periods
1) Meal periods for most employees are not compensated, and those
employees may not perform work during their meal periods unless
specifically authorized to do so by their supervisors. Employees who work
during meal periods must record such time as working time on their time
sheets.
2) The Town follows FLSA standards for break periods. Employees must
schedule break periods with their supervisors. Unless specifically
authorized by their supervisors, employees may not combine breaks with
the meal periods or use breaks as make-up time for late arrival or early
departure from work. Break time does not accrue.
vi. Temporary Closure for Severe Weather or Disaster
Compensation when Town facilities are closed for severe weather or a disaster
will be made in accordance with Policy 204 (Emergency Closures).
c. Teleworking
Teleworking is when employees do Town work at home or other location instead of
driving to their regular worksite. Employees interested in exploring the opportunity
for Teleworking must discuss this with, and receive approval from, their department
head. Not all positions are appropriate for teleworking and teleworking is available to
an employee at the discretion of the Town. Teleworking employees remain obligated
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 3 of 7
to comply with all Town policies, department policies, procedures, rules, regulations,
and supervisory discretion.
i. Selection Process
Employees that would like to request a teleworking arrangement must submit a
Town-approved application which will aid the employee’s supervisor and
department head in determining the teleworking suitability of the job, the
employee, and the supervisor. The supervisor and department head will consider
the following factors in determining whether or not to permit an employee to
telework:
1) The need for face-to-face interaction between the employee and
customers, other employees, and third parties;
2) The ability to measure the employee’s performance;
3) The support needs of the employee;
4) The supervision needs of the Town;
5) The cost and availability of necessary equipment;
6) Impact upon the workload of co-workers;
7) Any other business needs or concerns.
ii. Teleworking Conditions
If the employee’s supervisor and department head approve of a teleworking
arrangement, the terms and conditions of the arrangement shall be set forth in a
teleworking agreement. Unless otherwise approved by the Department Head and
Human Resources, the teleworking arrangement shall include the following
conditions which shall be included in the teleworking agreement:
1) The teleworking arrangement is terminable at any time by either the
supervisor or the employee;
2) The teleworker will have scheduled work hours agreed upon with the
supervisor, including specific core hours when each can be reached by
phone. The weekly and daily work schedule will be specified. The amount
of time the employee is expected to work per day or per pay period will not
change due to teleworking;
3) While teleworking the employee will conform to the Town computer
security standards as adopted by the Town Administrator and maintained
by the Information Technology division (Policies 980-988). The employee
will back up local computer files on a daily basis;
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 4 of 7
4) Non-exempt employees teleworking must not work more than 40 hours
per week (160 hours per month for Police personnel) without the
advanced approval of the supervisor;
5) Employees who are injured while teleworking, however slightly, must
immediately report the injury to their supervisor and Human Resources,
and shall comply with the Town’s workers’ compensation program;
6) In order to limit liability, ensure the safety of Town equipment, and ensure
satisfactory job performance, the supervisor or Human Resources may
conduct a site inspection of the teleworking site at any time that the
teleworking is occurring;
7) The employee will use good safety practices while teleworking;
8) The Town will not be responsible for injury to family members, visitors, or
others at the telework site;
9) The employee will be responsible for any damage to, or loss of, Town
equipment caused by the intentional acts or negligence of the employee or
the employee’s family. The employee authorizes the Town to withhold
from the employee’s pay the repair cost or replacement value of such
damaged or lost equipment;
10) Employees who are teleworking must be engaged in work on behalf of the
Town. Non-job related activities are not permissible telework activities.
11) Teleworking is not a substitute for the employee’s use of sick leave or
dependent care leave, but may be used by a sick employee on a limited
basis when approved by the employee’s Department Director;
12) Compensation and benefits are not affected by the telework arrangement;
13) Employees must continue to abide by the Town’s personnel policies and
procedures while teleworking;
14) Unless the employee is participating in the Town’s cell phone stipend
program, the employee’s department will reimburse the employee for all
business long distance telephone calls upon presentation by the employee
of an itemized copy of the telephone bill. The Town will not reimburse for
local calls or for the cost of phone service at the telework site.
d. Overtime Pay and Compensatory Time Off
The Town provides overtime compensation in the form of either wages or time off,
known as “compensatory time”. Only non-exempt employees are eligible to earn
overtime pay or earn or use compensatory time off. Exempt employees are ineligible
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 5 of 7
to earn overtime pay or compensatory time off, but may informally flex their time
within a two-week period.
i. How Overtime Pay or Compensatory Time is Earned
1) Non-exempt employees are normally scheduled to work 40 or fewer hours in
a workweek. Non-exempt employees are eligible to receive overtime
compensation at one and one-half (1.5) times their regular hourly rates if the
employee works in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
2) The use of compensatory time is not combined with hours worked to
determine the employee’s eligibility for overtime pay.
3) In lieu of overtime pay, non-exempt employees may request to accrue
compensatory time, and supervisors have the discretion to grant or deny such
requests. One and one-half hours of compensatory time is earned for each
hour of overtime worked.
4) Non-exempt, part-time employees who work more than their scheduled hours
in a workweek, but not more than 40 hours in a workweek, shall be paid at
their regular hourly rate for those excess hours worked. Non-exempt, part-
time employees shall be eligible for overtime pay or compensatory time for
those hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week as provided for
above.
5) Police patrol personnel are paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 160
hours in a month as provided for above.
ii. Overtime Work Must be Pre-Approved
All overtime work by a non-exempt employee must be approved in advance by
the supervisor, except in extraordinary situations where the work is essential and
a supervisor cannot be contacted prior to commencing overtime work.
iii. Daily Overtime
The Town does not recognize or pay for daily overtime. Overtime is only paid for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week inclusive of sick, vacation, and
holiday time (160 hours in a month for police patrol personnel).
iv. Limits on Amount of Compensatory Time
Non-exempt employees shall not accrue more than eighty (80) hours of
compensatory time at any given time. Compensatory time balances shall be paid
out when an employee is transferred to an exempt position, when an employee
transfers to another department, when authorized by the Department Director, at
the last full pay period of a year, or at the time of an employee’s termination of
employment.
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 6 of 7
v. Using Compensatory Time
Non-exempt employees wishing to use compensatory time off must make
requests to schedule the use of such time with their supervisors in the same
manner as requests to use vacation or other non-emergency leave time.
Supervisors have the discretion to approve or deny such requests based on
scheduling needs.
e. Informal Flex Time for Exempt Employees
Exempt employees are frequently expected to work hours well in excess of regular
business hours, yet they are ineligible to earn overtime pay or compensatory time
off. In acknowledgement of their additional work time, supervisors have the
discretion to allow exempt employees to flex their time informally within a two week
period.
f. Paydays
The Town pays its employees on a bi-weekly basis, every other Friday. Payment will
be made by direct deposit or check. If the payday falls on a holiday observed by
banks or the Town, employees will be paid on the preceding Thursday. Each
payment covers work performed through the previous two workweeks. Any question
about deductions from pay should be directed to Human Resources or the payroll
representative in the Finance Department.
g. On Call and Call-Out Pay
i. On-Call Duty
On-Call duty is an assignment made by a supervisor to an employee wherein the
employee is required to be within a certain response time of the work site (as
specified in the employee’s job description) and must comply with Policy 313
(Alcohol and Substance Abuse) during any period specified as on-call. An
employee on standby must be available for call out and capable of performing
assigned duties. An employee who is unavailable or incapable of performing
assigned duties may be subject to disciplinary action. Conditions for placing
employees on-call shall be at the discretion of departmental policy.
ii. On-Call Compensation
Employees (other than sworn police personnel) assigned to be on on-call duty
will be eligible to receive two (2) hours of straight pay for each day the employee
is on on-call duty (e.g. an employee earning $10 per hour would earn $20 per
day of on-call duty). Sworn police personnel assigned to on-call duty will receive
11 hours of straight pay for every seven (7) days on-call. On-call time does not
count towards, or qualify for, overtime. On-call time may be taken as
compensatory time on a one-for-one basis (i.e. two hours of on-call time converts
to two hours of compensatory time).
iii. On-Call Compensation during Declared Emergencies
On-call compensation will remain at two (2) hours per day straight pay for any
declared emergencies.
Document Title Policy 303 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 7 of 7
iv. Call-Out Compensation
Non-exempt employees who are called out to a job site or asked to return to work
from home or another non-work location must record a minimum of two hours of
work time on their time sheets, even if they do not work two hours. If the work
extends beyond the two-hour minimum, then non-exempt employees must record
all time actually worked. Working time begins when the work begins and does not
include travel time to the work site (unless the employee is traveling to a work
site in a Town vehicle). Additional call-outs received while an employee is at a
work site or traveling to or from a work site are considered a continuation of the
initial call-out. Only after an employee has returned home or to some other non-
work location will a subsequent call-out qualify for the automatic two-hour
minimum. At no point may an employee be compensated for more than 24 hours
of work in a 24 hour period.
v. Holiday On-Call Pay
The on-call compensation for employees who are on-call over a Town-observed
holiday will be the same as the compensation set forth in Policy 303.3.g.ii.
vi. Exception
This policy on call-out time does not apply to police officers who are not called by
the Police Department but engage in enforcement activities during off-duty hours.
h. Employee Volunteers
Any non-exempt employee who volunteers for a Town-run event in any capacity
must be compensated for the time spent volunteering. Accordingly, supervisors must
approve all instances of non-exempt employees volunteering for the Town.
Additional compensation for volunteering does not apply to exempt employees.
i. Holiday Pay Provisions
Holiday pay will be handled in accordance with the provisions set forth in Policy 306,
Section 3.c.
Approved:
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 1 of 9
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: 06/01/2016
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.2, 3.8
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
305
Benefits
1. PURPOSE
To provide information for all employees regarding the Town of Estes Park’s employee
benefits.
2. POLICY
It is the policy of the Town of Estes Park to provide its employees with a benefits
package and competitive compensation package that is annually reviewed and updated.
Any recommended funding changes to either the compensation or benefits package,
based on annual studies, audits or reviews, is dependent on available funding and final
approval by the Town Board of Trustees. The benefits package offered by the Town of
Estes Park includes medical, dental, vision, group life and dismemberment insurance,
optional additional life insurance, tuition assistance, training, an employee assistance
program, discounted health club memberships, flexible spending plans, an employee
home ownership program, and a retirement plan.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Medical, Dental, and Vision Coverage
i. Regular Full-Time Employees (30 or more hours per week)
The Town provides full medical, dental, and vision insurance to all full-time
employees. Ninety percent (90%) of employee-only and employee with
dependents coverage is paid by the Town. Dental and vision insurance is
available to employees, their spouses and their children (The Town covers 90%
of the premium for employee-only dental and vision coverage and 75% of the
premium of employee plus spouse and/or their children dental and vision
coverage).
ii. Regular Part-Time Employees (24-29 hours per week)
Part-time employees who work 24-29 hours per week may participate in the
plans, but must pay the entire premium.
iii. Contracted Employees
Benefits are determined through, and bound by, a contractual employment
agreement.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 2 of 9
iv. Elected Officials
The Town provides full medical, dental, and vision insurance to members of the
Town Board of Trustees. Ninety percent (90%) of Trustee-only coverage and
Trustee with dependents coverage is paid by the Town.
v. Temporary Employees
Temporary employees are ineligible for benefit coverage with exception of those
benefits mandated by law or a specific benefit provider.
b. Continuance of Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance
The Town’s policy for continuance of medical, dental, and vision insurance is
consistent with the requirements of the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act
(COBRA).
i. 18-Month Continuance
The Town offers employees and/or their dependents the option to continue their
medical, dental, and vision coverage for an 18-month period under the following
qualifying events:
1) Employees who are terminated for reasons other than misconduct; or
2) Employees whose working hours have been reduced.
ii. 29-Month Continuance
The Town offers employees and/or their dependents the option to continue their
medical, dental, and vision coverage for a 29-month period under the following
qualifying events:
1) Employees who are disabled at the time of termination;
2) Employees who are disabled and whose working hours have been
reduced;
3) Disabled dependents of a terminated employee; or
4) Disabled dependents of an employee whose hours have been reduced.
iii. 36-Month Continuance
The Town offers employees and/or their dependents the option to continue their
medical, dental, and vision coverage for a 36-month period under the following
qualifying events:
1) Death of employee (eligible beneficiary can continue insurance);
2) Employees who become eligible for Medicare coverage; or
3) Dependent child losing “dependent” status under the requirements of the
plan.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 3 of 9
iv. Cost of Continuance
For continuation of coverage, the employee and/or dependent will be required to
pay one-hundred and two percent (102%) of the total insurance premium. The
added two percent (2%) covers administrative costs. It is the responsibility of the
employee to notify the Town of changes in status which will affect dependent
coverage. This notification must take place within 60 days after change of status
has occurred.
v. Evidence of Insurability
No evidence of insurability need be provided for continuation to occur. The
continuation coverage must be identical to the coverage offered to other Town
employees presently enrolled in the plan.
vi. Pre-Mature End of Continuance of Coverage
Coverage under these provisions will end earlier than stipulated if:
1) The Town ceases to provide a group medical plan to its employees;
2) Premium payments are not met by the insured; or
3) The insured is re-employed and is covered under another group plan or
becomes eligible for Medicare.
c. Medical Insurance for Retirees
Employees hired prior to June 1, 2016 who have at least 15 years of service and are
at least 60 years of age at the time of retirement are eligible to continue medical
coverage under the Town’s medical coverage until reaching age 65. The Town will
pay the Town’s portion of the premium under the same terms covered for qualifying
full-time and part-time employees. Dependent coverage must be paid by the retired
employee.
d. Group Life and Dismemberment Insurance
1) Employees are insured up to one times the employee’s annual salary (up to a
$50,000 maximum).
2) Additional Life Insurance coverage is available for employees at their own
expense.
e. Retirement Plans
i. Types of Retirement Plans
The Town of Estes Park provides two types of retirement plans; a Defined
Benefit Plan (Public Employees Retirement Association) and a Defined
Contribution Plan (International City Management Association Retirement
Corporation).
1) Benefit-eligible employees who do not fall into either the Senior
Management Category or the Sworn Police Officer category are covered
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 4 of 9
by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and Social
Security Administration as required by current state and federal law.
2) Senior Management (defined in Colorado State Statute 24-51-308 as
…”the city manager and key management staff who report directly to the
city council or city manager…”) may choose between participating in
PERA or participating in the International City Management Association
Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) program. If a member of Senior
Management chooses to participate in the ICMA-RC program, that person
must waive, in writing, PERA coverage.
3) For those members of Senior Management that elect to be exempted from
PERA, the Town of Estes Park will contribute an amount equal to the
Town’s PERA contribution into an ICMA-RC defined contribution plan on
behalf of the employee. In order to be eligible for the Town’s match,
members of Senior Management who choose this option are required to
contribute and amount equal to or greater than PERA’s required minimum
contribution into the ICMA-RC defined contribution plan.
4) Sworn Police Officers are covered by the ICMA-RC program, with the
Town of Estes Park contributing an amount equal to the Town’s PERA
contribution on behalf of the employee.
ii. Retirement Contributions
Benefit eligible employees are required to contribute to their retirement plan.
Contribution amounts by the Town of Estes Park are based on PERA’s annual
contribution requirement. The determined amount by PERA shall serve as the
baseline for retirement contributions by the Town for all employee retirement
plans.
f. Tuition Assistance
The Town of Estes Park values education and recognizes that the skills, knowledge,
and abilities of its employees are critical to the success of the organization. The
Town encourages higher education and has the discretion to offer tuition and
textbook cost reimbursement (dependent on departmental budget availability) for
relevant college coursework expenses as allowable under Section 127 of the IRS
regulations (currently $5,520). Tuition/textbook reimbursement is budget dependent
through the employee’s assigned department and is disbursed on a first come, first
served basis.
i. Reimbursement Amount
Subject to the eligibility conditions listed in 305.3.f.ii, employees will be
reimbursed at a rate of 50% of the cost of the course tuition and textbooks. The
maximum annual reimbursement level is equal to the maximum untaxable benefit
allowed by the IRS pursuant to section 127 per year (currently $5,520).
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 5 of 9
ii. Eligibility
Both full-time and part-time employees are eligible for tuition assistance under
the following conditions:
1) The employee has worked for the Town for at least one (1) calendar year.
2) The employee completes a “Tuition Assistance Agreement” each
semester, and obtains approval from the Department Director prior to
beginning the course. The “Tuition Assistance Agreement” will be
submitted to Human Resources
3) The proposed coursework is offered by an institution that is fully
accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).
4) The coursework is job-related or part of an established career plan that
benefits the Town of Estes Park and has been approved by Human
Resources.
iii. Reimbursement Process
Employees seeking reimbursement for approved courses will use the following
process:
1) The employee will submit a transcript displaying final grade for the course
and a “Request for Reimbursement Form” to Human Resources.
Undergraduate courses must be completed with a grade of “C” or better,
graduate courses with a grade of “B” or better, and pass/fail courses with
a grade of “Pass”. The Town will not reimburse any employee for any
course where the required grade level is not accomplished.
2) Upon receipt of the transcript and “Request for Reimbursement Form”,
Human Resources will verify that the grade required for reimbursement
was achieved. If the grade meets the requirements, Human Resources will
forward the “Request for Reimbursement Form” to Finance for processing.
3) Human Resources will process the “Request for Reimbursement” within
thirty (30) days of the receipt of complete documentation.
4) The employee agrees to reimburse the Town for the cost of the education
paid by the Town if the employee terminates their employment within one
year after completing a course. The Town has the right to withhold the
appropriate retroactive amount from the employee’s final separation
check.
iv. Use of Work Time for Coursework
Whenever possible, employees are to pursue classes on their own time. When
necessary, and upon approval of the employee’s supervisor, an employee may
flex time to attend classes.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 6 of 9
g. Training and Professional Development
i. Required Training
All costs for training programs or classes, including tuition and books, which are
required to improve the employee’s performance of job assignments and duties
shall be paid by the Town of Estes Park with appropriate approval (approval
authority shall be commiserate with purchasing authority limits). Requests and
suggestions for approved, required training may be initiated by the employee or
the employee’s supervisor. However, all requests must be approved in advance
by the appropriate authority (again, approval authority is commiserate with
purchasing authority limits).
ii. Certification/License Retention
All associated expenses for training required to maintain an employee’s
certification or license for their job will be paid for by the Town. Advanced
certification or license training expenses will be paid for by the Town based on
organization need of that particular skill level. Expenses associated with retesting
due to failing a test shall be reimbursed at the discretion of the Department
Director.
iii. Career Advancement Training
In an effort to support succession planning, the Town of Estes Park will pay for
training specific to developing an employee’s skills for promotion and
advancement within the organization. These trainings will require Department
Director approval.
h. Employee Assistance Program
The Town participates in an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for all full-time
and part-time employees. This program provides help for employees that are facing
personal problems. The EAP provides confidential assessment, referral, and
focused therapy for employees and household members. The program also assists
employees in obtaining the most effective treatment, while ensuring quality of
service. The Town does not receive any personal identifying information regarding
the usage of the EAP.
i. Health Club
Health club memberships may be available from local health clubs at a group or
reduced rate. All fees are the employee’s responsibility. Monthly memberships may
be deducted from participating employee’s paychecks.
j. Social Security Benefits
The Town abides by all applicable federal requirements for Social Security
contributions.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 7 of 9
k. Flexible Spending Plan
The Town offers employees the option of participating in a Section 125 Flexible
Spending Account. This benefit includes pre-tax options for premiums, child care,
and medical expenses.
l. Voluntary Plans
The following are voluntary plans offered to Town employees. The Town does not
contribute to any of these plans.
1) Voluntary 401K
2) Voluntary 457/Roth
3) Long-Term Disability
4) Accident Insurance through AFLAC
5) Disability coverage through AFLAC
m. Employee Home Ownership Program
i. Purpose
The purpose of this program is to provide employees an opportunity to purchase
homes in the Estes Park area. Town benefits from this program include
employee retention and improvement in the quality of services provided by
employees who are also residents. The Town reserves the right to alter this
program at any time, and may impose a cap on the number of participants if
deemed necessary by the Town Administrator.
ii. Eligibility
Any permanent, full-time employee with an annual household income less than
or equal to 175% of the Larimer County Median Income for the most current year
is eligible for this program. The employee must be a first-time home buyer in
Estes Park. The Estes Park Housing Authority will evaluate eligibility for all
participants. Only one Town savings account may be used to purchase a home
(i.e. two employees may not use this benefit to purchase a single home).
iii. Program Responsibilities of Town
The Town of Estes Park shall establish an internal account that is funded through
the budget process. The Town offers a 3-year and a 5-year program. For the 3-
year program, the Town of Estes Park shall credit the account $417 per month
for each participating employee. For the 5-year program, the Town of Estes Park
shall credit the account $250 per month for each participating employee. This
monthly amount will serve as a fund to be used as part of a down payment on the
purchase of a home by the employee in the Estes Park area (defined as the Park
R-3 School District). In the event that an employee withdraws from the program,
this money remains the property of the Town.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 8 of 9
iv. Program Responsibilities of Employee
The employee shall establish a savings account that shall only be used for the
Home Ownership Savings Program (separate from the aforementioned Town
account). The employee is required to establish an electronic transfer funded by
a deduction from the employee’s paycheck (deposits shall be made to the
account each payday). The minimum amount of the deposit for the 3-year
program shall be $159 per pay period ($4,134 annually).The minimum amount of
the deposit for the 5-year program shall be $95 per pay period ($2,470 annually).
v. Withdrawals from Employee Account
Withdrawals from this account are not allowed, and will be considered an
automatic disqualification from the program. These funds may not be withdrawn
prior to the issuance of the Town funds unless the employee provides
documentation supporting the necessity of the prior use of the funds.
vi. Payment Request
At the end of the five years, or sooner, the employee may request payment of the
funds for a qualified purchase (Town funds may not be used for earnest money).
At that time of the payment request, Human Resources must have on file a
statement for every month the employee participated in the program. Again, the
employee will be disqualified from the program if any unauthorized withdraws
have been made. Human Resources shall issue the funds payable to the title
company handling the purchase closing. The employee must provide
documentation of the use of the funds such as a copy of a signed contract to
Human Resources. Town funds will be taxed at the supplemental tax rate. The
Town will hold funds for a period of up to two (2) years after an employee
completes his or her chosen program.
vii. Program Hiatus
A participating employee may take up to a one (1) year hiatus from contributing
to the Home Ownership Savings Program Account. During that time, the
employee may not make any withdrawals from their account. The Town will not
contribute to the account during the hiatus. A hiatus must be taken in one
continuous period (i.e. if an employee only takes a three-month hiatus, said
employee cannot take another nine-month hiatus at a later time).
n. Effective Date of Benefits
If a benefit-eligible employee is hired on or after the 2nd day of the month, benefits
will be effective the 1st of the following month. If the hire date is the 1st of the month,
the benefits will be effective immediately.
o. Changes to Provided Benefits
The Town reserves the right, at any time, to:
1) Amend or modify, in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of a benefit
program, including provisions concerning who is eligible for coverage and the
coverage provided.
Document Title Policy 305 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 9 of 9
2) Discontinue, terminate, or add a benefit program.
3) Change the amount or nature of the required contribution to be made by the
participant or beneficiary of a benefit program.
Approved:
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 1 of 15
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: 06/01/2016
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.2, 3.8
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
306
Leave
1. PURPOSE
The Town recognizes and respects its employees’ need for leave time away from work.
Such leave time is important in allowing employees to renew their physical and mental
capabilities and remain productive. To this end, the Town strives to create and maintain
a balanced work schedule for its employees by promoting quality of life through leave
time.
2. POLICY
In accordance with state and federal laws, the Town provides leave time to eligible
employees as set forth in the following procedure. Leave accountability is the
responsibility of the employee and the supervisor.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Reporting Absences and Tardiness
i. Expectations
Employees are expected to report to their place of work every day as scheduled,
unless on approved leave. Time off of any kind must be taken in accordance with
this policy and other applicable Town policies.
ii. Absent or Tardy Notifications
Employees who will be absent or late to work must notify their immediate
supervisor (or the supervisor’s designee) as soon as they learn of the need to be
absent or late. Failure to provide prompt notice of an absence or tardiness is an
unapproved absence and may result in disciplinary action.
iii. Process for Reporting Absences or Tardiness
Unless otherwise directed in written departmental work rules, employees must
notify their immediate supervisor no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the start
of the employee’s work shift if they will be absent or late. When notifying the
supervisor of the need to be absent or late, the employee must report:
1) The reason for the absence (or tardiness).
2) The date (or time) when the employee expects to return to work.
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 2 of 15
iv. Exceptional Circumstances
The Town recognizes that under exceptional circumstances, neither the
employee nor someone on his or her behalf may reasonably be able to call within
the time required. In such a case, the employee or representative must contact
the employee’s supervisor as soon as possible after the beginning of the shift. If
the supervisor, at his or her discretion, believes the employee had a compelling
reason which prevented the employee from obtaining prior approval for the
absence, or from calling in on time, the supervisor may approve pay for the
period of absence or tardiness.
b. Vacation Leave
i. Eligibility
Vacation leave is accrued by all full-time and part-time employees. Vacation
leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time
employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees).
ii. Amount of Hours Earned
Vacation accrual begins upon initial date of hire and hours are earned for the first
two pay periods of each month according to the schedule below. The date of
initial hire does not change with changes in employment within the Town
organization (i.e. promotions and transfers). However, if an employee leaves
employment with the Town, the initial date of hire will change for the purposes of
vacation accrual should the employee return to work for the Town. The amount of
hours earned per pay period is pro-rated for eligible part-time employees. The
maximum vacation leave carry over allowed is equal to double the amount of
hours that can be earned in a year. An employee moves through the “Years of
Service” brackets at the completion of the final year in the bracket. For example,
an employee would move from the “0 through 3” bracket into the “4 through 7”
bracket at the completion of the employee’s third year of service.
Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over
0 through 3 8.00 192 Hours
4 through 7 10.00 240 Hours
8 through 15 12.00 288 Hours
16 or more 14.00 336 Hours
iii. Amount of Hours Earned by At-Will Employees
Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over
0 through 3 10.00 240 Hours
4 through 7 12.00 288 Hours
8 through 15 14.00 336 Hours
16 or more 16.00 384 Hours
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 3 of 15
iv. Authorization of Vacation Leave
1) Vacation leave shall be requested in advance and is granted at the
discretion of each employee’s supervisor (the Town Administrator for all
Department Directors and the Public Information Officer).
2) Requests for vacation leave may be deferred based upon workload.
Supervisors and Department Directors shall ensure that every effort is
made for the employee to use vacation leave requests previously
cancelled due to department work load.
v. Forfeiting of Vacation Leave
On their anniversary date (date of hire), employees will forfeit any accrued
vacation leave exceeding the maximum carry over articulated in Section 3.b.ii
and 3.b.iii of this policy. If an employee’s vacation leave denial was unavoidable,
the employee will be allowed to carry over that amount of leave for a period of
time determined by the employee’s supervisor.
vi. Use of Vacation Leave
Vacation leave shall be taken in no less than one (1) hour increments. At no time
may any employee have a negative vacation leave balance.
vii. Separation of Employment Payout
Upon separation of employment, employees receive payment for all accrued
vacation leave. The payment for accrued vacation will be based on the
employee’s pay rate at the time of separation. This payment is taxed at the
supplemental earnings rate
c. Holiday Leave
i. Eligibility
Holiday leave is granted to all full-time and part-time employees. Holiday leave is
pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75%
for 30-39 hour part-time employees).
ii. Holidays Observed
Holiday leave is observed and granted for the following holidays:
Nominal Date Holiday
January 1st New Year’s Day
May (Last Monday) Memorial Day
July 4th Independence Day
September (First Monday) Labor Day
November (Fourth Thursday) Thanksgiving Day
December 24th Christmas Eve Day
December 25th Christmas
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 4 of 15
Holidays that occur on a Saturday will be observed on the preceding Friday, and
those that occur on a Sunday will be observed on the following Monday.
If an employee is not normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-
observed holiday lands (i.e. a Friday for an employee working a 4/10 schedule),
then such employee shall receive one additional eight (8) hour segment of
holiday pay to be used when the employee desires, with supervisor approval.
If an employee is normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-observed
holiday lands, and does not work the holiday, such employee receives eight (8)
hours of holiday pay.
iii. Use of Holiday Leave
Holiday leave granted by the Town shall be used in the following manner:
1) Holidays must be taken unless the employee is scheduled to work by the
employee’s supervisor.
2) Holidays which occur during an employee’s absence due to vacation or
sickness shall not be counted as vacation or sick leave.
3) Employees, other than Department Directors and Police Department
personnel, who are required to work on a holiday will receive pay for the
hours worked as well as holiday pay.
iv. Use of Holiday Leave – Police Department
As the Police Department is required to be staffed on a 24/7/365 basis, Town-
observed holidays will be handled by the Police Department as described below:
1) Non-exempt patrol personnel and non-exempt dispatch personnel will
receive eight (8) hours of straight holiday pay for every holiday, regardless
of whether the day is worked or not. These hours will not count towards
overtime.
2) Non-exempt police personnel on an administrative schedule will receive
eight (8) hours of holiday pay for each Town-observed holiday. These
hours will count towards overtime.
v. Floating Holidays
In addition to the Town-observed holidays above, employees are allotted three
(3) floating holidays to be taken at their discretion, with supervisor approval.
Floating holidays must be used during the year accrued or they will be forfeited
on December 31st. Floating holidays are pro-rated for new employees. Floating
holidays are pro-rated for part-time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time
employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees).
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 5 of 15
d. Sick Leave
i. Eligibility
Sick leave is accrued by all full-time and part-time employees. Sick leave is pro-
rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for
30-39 hour part-time employees).
ii. Amount of Hours Accrued
Sick leave will be accrued at the rate of four (4) hours for the first two bi-weekly
pay periods of each month (pro-rated for eligible part-time employees). Sick
leave accumulation is capped at 480 hours. When any employee accumulates
more than 480 hours of sick leave, all excess sick leave will be converted to
vacation leave (on a two-for-one basis) on that employee’s anniversary date.
iii. Use of Sick Leave
Sick leave shall be used in the following manner:
1) Sick leave may only be used for:
a. A non-occupational personal illness that renders an employee unable
to perform their job.
b. Non-occupational, necessary medical, optical, and dental health
examinations and treatments, including reasonable travel time, when
such appointments cannot be scheduled outside of regularly scheduled
work hours.
c. When an employee’s family member has a medical appointment or is
ill and requires the care of the employee. For the purposes of this
policy, “family member” is defined as an employee’s child, spouse,
sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild, including natural, step, in-
law, and foster relatives, regardless of whether or not said relative is
living within the employee’s home.
d. For a single day, weather-related closure of Town facilities as
determined by the Town Administrator.
2) Sick leave may not be used during a scheduled vacation or compensatory
time off.
3) Employees who are eligible for holiday time and who are on sick leave
during a designated holiday must record holiday time for that day and not
sick leave. An employee who is scheduled to work on a holiday and
becomes sick must record holiday time only for the day.
4) During paid sick leave under the terms of this policy, all benefits will
continue as though the employee were at work.
5) Sick leave shall be taken in no less than one (1) hour increments.
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 6 of 15
6) At no time may any employee have a negative sick leave balance.
7) A Department Director may require an employee to take sick leave for any
of the reasons specified in 306.3.d(iii)(1).
8) Employees are prohibited from using sick leave except under the
circumstances described above. Employees who, in the Town’s judgment,
misuse sick leave are subject to disciplinary action. When there appears
to be a possibility that sick leave is being misused, the Department
Director or supervisor may:
a. Make further inquiry of the employee about past or ongoing use of the
leave time.
b. Require the employee to provide the type of information or submit to
medical examinations as provided in the “Medical Certification” section
of this policy (3.c.vi).
c. Require the employee to provide written medical verification or be seen
by the Town’s designated physician in order to use any further sick
leave.
iv. Notice of Brief Absence (3 days or less)
This portion of the leave policy applies to non-occupational absences for brief
illnesses, injuries, and minor medical procedures where the employee
reasonably expects to be absent three (3) days or less, even if the absence ends
up being longer.
1) Employees who need to use sick leave for an unexpected, brief illness or
injury must contact their supervisor within 15 minutes after the beginning
of the shift each day of the absence, or within a time frame set by the
employees’ Department Director.
2) Employees who need to be absent for a scheduled medical procedure or
short-term treatment must notify their supervisor as soon as the need for
the absence is scheduled with the health care provider.
v. Notice of Prolonged Absence (More than 3 Days) or Intermittent Leave
This portion of the leave policy applies to employees who need to be absent for
non-occupational illnesses or medical procedures for more than three days, or
who need to use sick leave intermittently. Employees seeking job protection
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) should refer to Policy 311.
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 7 of 15
vi. Medical Certification
1) The Town reserves the right to require employees to substantiate and/or
document their need for sick leave, whether it is based on their own
physical condition or the condition of an immediate family member.
2) The Town reserves the right to evaluate requests for, and extensions of,
sick leave by consulting with the physician of the employee, or with the
Town’s own medical consultants, and retains the right to request that the
employee seek a second opinion of the illness/disability from a physician
of the Town’s choice. Employees who request sick leave, or who have
used sick leave, may be required by their supervisor (in consultation with
Human Resources) to provide written verification of the following from the
physician or other health care provider treating the employee:
a. Date on which the condition commenced;
b. Nature and extent of illness or injury, but only as is necessary to
determine the employee’s ability to perform job functions;
c. Probable duration of illness or injury;
d. Confirmation that the employee is unable to perform essential job
functions;
e. Anticipated date on which the employee may return to work; and/or
f. Release stating that the employee is able to return and perform his
or her duties without endangering the health and safety of
himself/herself or others, and describing restrictions on the
employee’s work activities.
3) Any illness or injury of an employee or an employee’s immediate family
member requiring an employee to miss more than three (3) regularly
scheduled work days may, at the discretion of the Department Director,
require a physician’s statement verifying the condition of the person under
the physician’s care.
4) At the end of any sick leave, the Town may require a physician’s
statement verifying the employee’s fitness to return to work.
vii. Payment upon separation
A terminating employee that has completed 20 years of continuous service shall
be compensated for fifty percent (50%) of their accumulated sick leave hours.
Said compensation will be computed at the employee’s rate of pay at time of
termination. This payment is taxed at the supplemental earnings rate.
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 8 of 15
e. Family and Medical Leave Act
The Town of Estes Park complies with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as
amended. The Town posts the mandatory FMLA Notice and, upon hire, provides all
new employees with notices required by the United States Department of Labor
(DOL) on Employee Rights and Responsibility under the Family and Medical Leave
Act. For more details on the Town’s compliance with FMLA, please see Policy 311.
f. Jury Duty and Witness Appearance Leave
The Town recognizes jury duty as an important civic obligation. If called to report to
jury duty or required to serve on a jury, an employee will be granted the necessary
time required and will be compensated at his or her regular pay rate.
i. Notification
If an employee is served with a summons to jury duty, the employee must inform
his or her supervisor by the next regular work day and provide a copy of their
summons (in electronic format or otherwise).
ii. Exempt Employee Compensation
Exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled work
hours for jury duty.
iii. Non-Exempt Employee Compensation
Non-exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled
work hours during each of the first three days of jury duty served during regular
work hours. Thereafter, any pay they receive for jury duty is paid by the
governmental entity requesting the employee to participate in the jury service.
iv. Compensation Requirements
The Town has no obligation to pay wages for time spent on jury duty until and
unless the employee’s supervisor verifies on the Court website that the employee
was on jury duty during that period.
v. Return to Work
Employees are expected to return to work on any day or portion of a day they are
released from jury duty as reasonable.
vi. Witness Appearance Leave
1) Exempt employees will be paid during time they are subpoenaed or
otherwise required by law to appear as a witness in any personal matter
that overlaps with scheduled work time up to a maximum of two working
days in any 12-month period. To receive this pay, the employee must pay
to the Town any witness pay received by the employee, excluding mileage
reimbursement. Any further time that an employee is required to appear
as a witness is unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use
accrued paid leave time. A matter is considered personal if, in the
discretion of the supervisor, it is not directly related to the employee’s
essential job functions. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 9 of 15
personal matters is considered regular working time and will be
compensated accordingly.
2) Non-exempt employees will be granted all necessary time off when
required to appear as a witness in personal matters, but such time is
unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use accrued paid
leave time. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-personal
matters is considered regular working time and will be compensated
accordingly.
g. Voting Leave
i. Eligibility
To qualify for voting leave, employees must:
1) Be a registered, eligible elector entitled to vote at an election.
2) Advise their manager of the leave of absence prior to the day of the election.
3) Have less than three (3) hours between the time the polls open and the time
the polls close during which they are not required to be on the job for the
Town.
ii. Benefit
Eligible employees shall be entitled to up to two hours off, with pay, for the
purpose of voting on the day of the election during the time the polls are open.
The Town may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent.
h. Workers’ Compensation
The Town complies with all applicable federal and state laws pertaining to Workers’
Compensation. Employees who are injured on the job may be eligible for leave time
and other benefits. Any employee who suffers an occupational injury must report the
injury to Human Resources and follow the incident reporting policy. Questions about
workers’ compensation should be directed to Human Resources.
i. Military Leave
i. Eligibility
All Town employees, regardless of employment category, are eligible to take
military leave for active duty or active or inactive duty training if they are
members of the reserves or enlisted in any branch of the United States Armed
Forces, or are members of the National Guard of any state in the United States.
Employees must present official documentation of the military duty prior to the
leave and upon returning from leave.
ii. Length of Paid Military Leave
1) Employees are provided with paid leave for a maximum of 15 working
days (120 hours for full-time employees, pro-rated for less than full-time
employees) per calendar year for active duty or active or inactive duty
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 10 of 15
training with the National Guard or any branch of the United States Armed
Forces. If the intermittent schedule of a part-time employee makes it
difficult to determine the number of hours the employee would have
worked during the leave period for proration purposes, the number of
hours the employee actually worked during the 21 calendar day
immediately preceding the leave shall be used to calculate the maximum
length of the paid military leave.
2) After exhausting the 15 days of paid military leave, an employee may
choose to use accrued vacation time, compensatory time, accrued but
unused holiday time, and/or take leave without pay for active duty or
active or inactive duty training with the National Guard or any branch of
the United States Armed Forces. If an employee chooses to use the
above described accrued paid leave, such use must be at the rate of 40
hours per week (prorated for part-time employees based on their FTE)
and can only be used during the initial portion of the leave. Once the leave
becomes unpaid, and employee cannot begin using accrued paid leave.
An employee may not use any other type of paid leave during military
leave, including, but not limited to, sick leave or injury leave.
iii. Continuation of Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance
1) After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active
military service, the Town-sponsored medical, dental, and vision insurance
for the employee and covered dependents will terminate. After coverage
terminates, the employee may elect to continue coverage at his or her
own expense, and will be provided with detailed notice of the right to
continue coverage.
2) Employees who are reinstated after completing active duty or active or
inactive duty training will be eligible for immediate coverage under any
applicable medical insurance plans existing at the time without a waiting
period.
iv. Retirement Plans
Employees who are participants in any Town-sponsored retirement plan will
continue to accrue service credits during military leave, and such leave will not
constitute a break in service, so long as the employee complies with
requirements for reinstatement after completing active duty or active or inactive
duty training.
v. Life and Disability Insurance
After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active military
service, coverage under the life and disability insurance plans sponsored by the
Town will terminate. These plans may contain limitations on coverage for death
and disabilities which occur during a declared or undeclared war. For more
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 11 of 15
information about the policy provisions of these plans, contact Human Resources
for a copy of the summary plan descriptions or policies.
vi. Reinstatement
When all of the following conditions for reinstatement are met, employees will be
reinstated to the same position they had at the time the military leave
commenced, or to a position of like status and pay, provided that:
1) The cumulative period of military service was no longer than five years,
unless a longer period is required by federal or state law.
2) The individual employee must return to work, or apply in writing, for
reinstatement in a timely manner as defined by federal and state law.
While these laws contain exceptions which could extend the time an
employee has to return to work, they generally define timely manner as
follows:
a. Military service time of less than 31 days: reporting for work the
next regularly scheduled work day following safe travel time plus
eight (8) hours.
b. Military service time of more than 30 days but less than 181 days:
submitting an application for reinstatement within 14 days after
release from military service.
c. Military service time of more than 180 days: submitting an
application or reinstatement within 90 days after release from
military service.
3) The employee must provide documentation from the National Guard or United
States Armed Forces that he or she honorably completed military service or
active or inactive duty training, such as discharge papers.
4) An employee has the same right to reinstatement as if he or she had been
continuously employed during the leave period. For example, the employee is
not eligible for reinstatement if the job for which he or she was hired was for a
specific time period which expired, or for a project which was completed
during the absence, or if the position has been eliminated.
5) The employee is qualified to perform the duties of the pre-service position. If
the employee is no longer qualified because of a disability, he or she will be
re-employed in another existing job that he or she is capable of performing.
j. Administrative Leave
i. Imposition of Administrative Leave
1) All Town employees, regardless of employment category, may be placed
on administrative leave at any time, with or without cause or notice, at the
sole discretion of the Town Administrator. Placement on administrative
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 12 of 15
leave is not disciplinary in nature. Circumstances under which such a
leave may occur include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. To make inquiries into or investigate a work-related matter;
b. To remove the employee from the workplace pending a
determination of job action;
c. To protect the employee;
d. To protect the public;
e. To protect other employees or property in the workplace; or
f. To further any other work-related or business-related purpose.
2) Unless it would harm an administrative or criminal investigation, and after
consultation with Human Resources, the supervisor or manager shall place
an employee on administrative leave as soon reasonably practical upon
determination that such leave is appropriate under Section 306.j.ii of this
policy.
ii. Paid and Unpaid Administrative Leave
1) Administrative leave shall be with pay except under that following
circumstances, in which case administrative leave may be without pay:
a. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a felony or
misdemeanor and:
i. The employee occupies a position of public trust and public
visibility; or
ii. The felony or misdemeanor relates to the performance of the
employee’s official duties
b. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a crime of
theft, a sex offense, or an offense that involves minors.
2) Before an employee is placed on unpaid administrative leave, the
employee must be provided with a pre-determination hearing pursuant to
Policy 308 for the purpose of providing the employee with the opportunity
to be heard and present information concerning whether or not there are
reasonable grounds to support the placement on unpaid administrative
leave.
3) During paid administrative leave, employees will continue to receive their
regular, straight-time wages and benefits based on their position’s
designated FTE. Employees who are eligible for holiday time and who are
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 13 of 15
on paid administrative leave during a designated holiday will receive
holiday pay for that day in lieu of pay for administrative leave.
iii. Employee Required to Remain Available
Employees on paid or unpaid administrative leave must remain available so that
they can be contacted during their regular working hours, and so that they can
return to work within one (1) day if requested to do so. This means that an
employee on administrative leave may not consider the leave time as vacation or
personal time. The employee must provide his or her supervisor with telephone
numbers where he or she can be reached during regular working hours and must
promptly return calls from the supervisor or Human Resources. In addition, the
employee must obtain the prior permission of the supervisor and use accrued
vacation time, compensatory time, or other leave time in order to be out of
contact with his or her supervisor for longer than a single workday.
iv. Employee Restrictions during Administrative Leave
During administrative leave, an employee may not contact other employees or be
at the work site unless directed to do so by their supervisor.
k. Bereavement Leave
i. Eligibility
In the event of a death in an employee’s immediate family (defined in Section iii
below), the Department Director may authorize paid leave of up to 40 hours for
full-time employees to manage family affairs and attend the funeral. Part-time
employees may be granted leave without pay by their Department Director.
ii. Requesting Bereavement Leave
In order to request bereavement leave, an employee shall submit a written
request to his or her Department Director, who shall approve, deny, or reduce of
leave requested by the employee. In authorizing any requests for bereavement
leave, consideration shall be given to the distance to be travelled and personal
demands placed on the employee.
iii. Immediate Family
For the purposes of bereavement leave, the Town defines “Immediate Family” to
include a spouse, a child, a parent, a parent in-law, a sibling, a brother or sister
in-law, a grandparent, a grandchild, a stepparent, a stepchild, a stepbrother, a
stepsister, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the employee shares a
household with in a personal relationship.
l. Domestic Violence Leave
The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 as it relates to leave for victims of
domestic violence. Any employee eligible for leave under C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 will
receive up to three (3) working days of unpaid leave from work in any twelve-month
period.
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 14 of 15
m. Emergency Volunteer Service Leave
The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-33.5-801 through C.R.S. 24-33.5-828 as it
pertains to emergency volunteer service leave for employees.
n. Volunteer Firefighter Leave
The Town complies with C.R.S. 31-30-1131 as it pertains to the employment of
volunteer firefighters.
o. Education Leave
Eligible employees, when necessary, and upon approval of the Department Director,
may be granted a maximum of four hours per week of paid educational leave to
attend classes (see Policy 305.f for more information). For the purposes of this
policy, Town-sponsored and/or mandatory training is not considered education
leave.
p. Leave without Pay
i. Eligibility
Any full-time or part-time employee in good standing is eligible for leave without
pay.
ii. Benefit
When in the best interests of the Town and the employee, the Town
Administrator may grant a leave without pay to any eligible employee for a period
of up to three (3) months. Such leave shall not constitute a break in employment,
and the employee shall return to his or her position at the expiration of the leave
period. Temporary help may be obtained during the employee’s absence.
Department Directors may grant up to two (2) days in a one-month period of
unpaid leave to an employee.
iii. Interaction with other Benefits
Annual and sick leave shall not accrue while the employee is on leave without
pay. Failure to return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence shall be
considered a resignation. If applicable, leave without pay may run concurrently
with FMLA leave subject to required medical certification. The employee will be
responsible for all insurance premiums, and must pay these in advance of leave.
iv. Requesting Leave without Pay
In order to request a leave without pay, an employee shall submit a written
request to his or her Department Director. Requests for leave without pay will be
considered in the following manner:
1) If the request is for two (2) days or less, and will not exceed the two (2)
days per month limitation, the Department Director may approve, deny, or
change the requested leave.
2) If the request is for three (3) or more days, or if the two (2) days per month
limitation is to be exceeded, the Department Director shall forward this
request to Human Resources and the Town Administrator along with a
Document Title Policy 306 3/21/16
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administrative Services Page 15 of 15
recommendation to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of
leave. In this case, the Town Administrator makes the final determination
on whether to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of leave
without pay.
Approved:
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
Town Clerk Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 18, 2016
RE: Town Board Compensation
Objective:
Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be
adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal election on April 5, 2016.
Present Situation:
An extensive review of Board compensation was completed by Interim Town
Administrator Richardson in 2012. After careful consideration, the Town Board
approved an increase in March 2012 for newly elected Board members in April 2012:
Mayor - $7,500, Mayor Pro Tem - $6,500 and Trustee - $5,500. The Board members
elected in April 2014 received the new salaries.
Staff reviewed the monthly salaries for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees for the
communities reviewed in 2012 and 2014, and found the average monthly salary for the
Mayor had increased to $900 of $10,800 a year. The average salaries for the Mayor
Pro Tem and Trustees has increased to $590 and $580 respectively. A number of the
communities do not differentiate the Mayor Pro Tem from the Trustee positions, and
therefore, the average salaries are similar. Estes Park ranks towards the bottom of the
scale on how the Mayor is compensated in relation to its peer cities. The information is
being provided for Board discussion at the study session.
In the past the Board has requested staff review the possibility of providing an
incremental increase over a four-year period, and to determine if the current salaries
would be sufficient to cover the cost of health care premiums.
Proposal:
Town Attorney White reviewed state statute Section 31-4-405 C.R.S. which provides, in
part, as follows: “The emoluments of any member of the governing body, including the
mayor, trustees, and councilmen shall not be increased or diminished during the term
for which he has been elected or appointed…”
The term emoluments are defined to mean the returns arising from office or
employment, usually in the form of compensation or prerequisites. His opinion was the
Section does not allow for any increase of a Trustee’s compensation during the
individual’s four-year term in office.
Staff reviewed the Board salaries versus health insurance premiums for 2015 and 2016
and found the premiums are well within the bi-weekly salary ranges if a Board member
were to select full coverage options.
2015 Bi‐Weekly Rate 2016 Bi‐Weekly Rate
Medical Employee 37.91 40.95
Medical Employee/Children 71.93 77.68
Dental Family 6.02 6.02
Vision Family 1.14 1.14
Total Benefits w/ Emp Only 45.07 48.11
Total Benefit w/ Emp+Child 79.09 84.84
Trustees Bi‐Weekly Salary 211.54 211.54
Pro Tem Bi‐Weekly Salary 250.00 250.00
Mayor Bi‐Weekly Salary 288.46 288.46
Raising the Mayor salary to $9,000 from $7,500 would place it in the average pay range
for peer communities. However, raising the Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee position by
$500 each to $6,000 and $7,000 would keep the positions in their current range among
peer communities.
Advantages: N/A
Disadvantages: N/A
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the salary for the Mayor be increased to $9,000, Mayor Pro Tem to
$7,000 and Trustee to $6,000.
Budget:
An increase in compensation would require an update to the Legislative personnel line
items.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance 09-16.
Attachment
Comparison Compensation Chart
Ordinance 09-16
Compensation Comparison for Selected Municipal Boards
City Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Benefits
Gunnison $600/month $500/month $500/month N/A
Breckenridge $1200/month $800/month $800/month Access to Town's Medical Coverage at Employee rate of premium/ $500 voucher for recreation
Steamboat Springs $800/month $700/month $600/month Yearly increases by the percentage increase in the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index
Vail $1000/month $625/month $625/month ?
Telluride $1500/month $800/month $800/month ?
Dillion $900/month $300/month $300/month ?
Durango $750/month $500/month $500/month ?
Crested Butte $800/month $400/month $400/month ?
Gunnison $600/month $500/month $500/month ?
Frisco $750/month $300/month $300/month If the Mayor Pro Tem serves as Mayor for more than 4 consecutive weeks, an additional $100 would be paid for time se
Blackhawk $650/month $650/month $650/month Entitled to all insurance and retirement benefits offered to full time Town employees or the cash equivalent
Winter Park $400 per meeti $200 per meeting $200 per meeting
Glenwood Springs $1200/year $1000/year $1000/year family pass to the community center; access to the city's health insurance plans
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Mayor
Glenwood Springs $1,200
Gunnison $7,200
Estes Park $7,500
Blackhawk $7,800
Durango $9,000
Frisco $9,000
Gunnison $9,600
Steamboat Springs $9,600
Crested Butte $9,600
Winter Park $9,600
Dillion $10,800
Vail $12,000
Breckenridge $14,400
Telluride $18,000
Median:$9,600
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Mayor Pro Tem
Glenwood Springs $1,000
Dillion $3,600
Frisco $3,600
Crested Butte $4,800
Winter Park $4,800
Gunnison $6,000
Durango $6,000
Gunnison $6,000
Estes Park $6,500
Vail $7,500
Blackhawk $7,800
Steamboat Springs $8,400
Breckenridge $9,600
Telluride $9,600
Median:$6,000
Annualized Salary ‐ Low to High
City Trustee
Glenwood Springs $1,000
Dillion $3,600
Frisco $3,600
Crested Butte $4,800
Winter Park $4,800
Estes Park $5,500
Gunnison $6,000
Durango $6,000
Gunnison $6,000
Steamboat Springs $7,200
Vail $7,500
Blackhawk $7,800
Breckenridge $9,600
Telluride $9,600
Median $6,000
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Mayor
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Mayor Pro Tem
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Annualized Salary ‐Low to High Trustee
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.20.010
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-4-301 (4) C.R.S. the Mayor
and members of the Board of Trustees shall receive such compensation as fixed by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides for compensation
of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code does not provide any
process for when and how the Board of Trustees shall review future changes to the
compensation of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is determined that it is necessary to amend
Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor, the
Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee, and also to provide the method and timing of future
review of said compensation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
2.20.010 Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees
“In recognition of services rendered as Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem or member of the
Board of Trustees, the elected officials of the Town of Estes Park shall receive
compensation as set forth in this Section. During the budget process for each
even numbered year, the Board of Trustees shall consider adjustment of the
amount of compensation set forth in this Section. As part of this review, the
Board of Trustees shall review compensation for elected officials provided by
comparable Colorado municipalities using appropriate sources including, but not
limited to, the Colorado Municipal League. Any adjustment of compensation shall
be by ordinance.”
1) The Mayor shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of
nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) per year during each year of his or her
term, payable in equal monthly payments.
2
2) The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive as compensation for his or her services the
sum of seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) per year during each year of his or
her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
3) Each Town Trustee shall receive as compensation for his or her services the
sum of five thousand five hundred dollars ($6,000.00) per year during each
year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado this_______day of______________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the_____day of__________, 2016 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the________day of____________, 2016.
_____________________________
Town Clerk