HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-04-12The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION. “28TH ANNIVERSARY DUCK RACE DAY”
PROCLAMATION. “MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD”
PROCLAMATION. “PARKS PRESCRIPTION DAY - APRIL 24, 2016”
PROCLAMATION. “PARKINSON’S AWARENESS MONTH”
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
- Policy Governance Report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 22, 2016 and Town Board Study Session March
22, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, March 24, 2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 16, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #09-16 “Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days – May 7-8, 2016”.
Prepared 4/2/16
* Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
6. Appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as independent hearing officer – personnel matter.
7. Approval of Representation Agreement with Kissinger and Feldman P.C. for legal
services – Fiber and Broadband.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL LICENSE – GALEX LLC., DBA CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT,
145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE.
Town Clerk Williamson.
2. RENEWAL LICENSE – SHAMBALA, INC., DBA FAMOUS EASTSIDE
GROCERIES, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% OFF PREMISES LIQUOR
LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE - LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC
DBA LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, 1665 CO HIGHWAY 66. Town Clerk
Williamson.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #05-16 – PUBLIC HEARING – 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
CODES ADOPTION & LOCAL AMENDMENTS. Chief Building Official Birchfield.
2. RESOLUTION #08-16 – 2016 BUDGET RESTATEMENT. Finance Officer
McFarland.
3. ORDINANCE #11-16 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL & ACCOMMODATION DENSITY CALCULATIONS.
Planner Chilcott.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG-DR GRANT CLOSE OUT ITEMS.
Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project.
FHWA Cost Share for Community Drive.
FEMA Cost Share for Various Road Sites.
5. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ELM ROAD LANDFILL
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Engineer Ash.
6. 2016 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION &
CONSULTANT SERVICES AWARD. Town Administrator Lancaster.
5. ADJOURN.
*
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 12, 2016
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. In April of each year the Town Administrator is to report on
Policies 3.3 and 3.7.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.“
Policy 3.7 states: “The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness
Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal,
State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private
sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a
disaster. “
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
With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal
impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal
integrity of Town government. Accordingly, the Town Administrator shall not allow
budgeting which:
3.3.1. Deviates from statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget complies with all statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. Deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among
competing budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget does not deviate materially from Board-stated
priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs I am therefore
reporting compliance.
3.3.3. Contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues
and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget does not contain inadequate information to
enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and
operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of
planning assumptions. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. Plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current budget does not plan the expenditure in any fiscal year
of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period,
or which are otherwise available and approved by the Board of Trustees. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.5. Reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that
established by the Board of Town Trustees.
REPORT: The current budget does not reduce fund balances or reserves in
any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Town Trustees. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.6. Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to
significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget does not fail to maintain a Budget Contingency
Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.7. Fails to provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The current budget provides for an annual audit. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.3.8. Fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the
current or future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: The current budget protects, within my ability to do so, the
integrity of the current and future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.3.9. Results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the
Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions
funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in
addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: The current budget does not include any new positions not
approved by the Board of Trustees, other than those fully funded by grants or
temporary positions for which existing budged funds are allocated. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for
coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local
governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet
basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster.
3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned
responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency
Operations Plan
REPORT: The current Emergency Operations Plan defines emergency
responsibilities for key Town staff. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan
for the Town.
REPORT: The draft business continuity plan has been completed is currently
under review, but not yet finalized. I am therefore reporting partial
compliance.
3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to
take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public
and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by
Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town
Trustees
REPORT: During the past year we experienced one emergency situation with
the loss of the fiber connections on March 24th. Staff took immediate and
appropriate action to respond to this emergency. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 22, 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 22nd day of March 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. to consider entering into
Executive Session.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to enter Executive Session for
discussion of a personnel matter per 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, and it passed unanimously.
The Board entered Executive Session at 6:10 p.m. and concluded at 6:55 p.m.
Mayor Pinkham called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do
so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION: Mayor Pinkham declared the month of April as “Estes Cares About
Bears”.
PRESENTATION: Nick Molle/Sister Cities Committee Chair and Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig presented the Town with a new Sister Cities Agreement between Monteverde,
Costa Rica and the Town of Estes Park. A contingency of Town representatives,
including Nick Molle, Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Koenig, Christine Hall and Chuck Scott
traveled to Monteverde to renew the agreement. A plaque and a key to Monteverde
were presented to Mayor Pinkham in honor of the renewal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Nicholas/Economic Development Corporation Executive Director introduced Adam
Shake as the newest member of the EDC staff.
John Meissner/Town citizen stated 100 years ago Charles Evans Hughes/Presidential
candidate came to town during a break from campaigning. Members of his family have
plans to visit Estes Park during the last week of August as well as the Larimer County
fair.
Board of Trustees – March 22, 2016 – Page 2
Charley Dickey/Town citizen commented the statement the Town has $100 million in
deferred maintenance has come up during the Municipal Election forums. He would
suggest deferred maintenance be defined and the $100 million be outlined if possible.
Greg Rosener/Town citizen and Downtown Plan Committee member stated the group
would like to hear from the community and encouraged the citizens to visit
www.estesdowntownplan.com to take the current survey and to sign up for an interview
with the consultants to provide feedback on the Downtown Plan.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris announced Morgan Mulch had been approved by the County
Commissioners as a member of the Local Marketing District Board. He reminded the
community the bears are coming out of hibernation and to be aware.
Trustee Holcomb reviewed the process used by the Town Board to fill open position on
Town appointed Committees and Boards.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Sister Cities Committee would meet on March 23rd at
8:00 a.m. The Western Heritage Committee has contacted the Denver Broncos to
attend this year’s Rooftop Rodeo parade.
Trustee Ericson commented the Community Development/Community Services
Committee would meet on March 24th at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. January sales
tax was up 4% as well as visitation to the Park up 20% for January and February. The
Transportation Advisory Board held their regular meeting and discussed the parking
strategies, focusing time on paid parking. Recommendations would be presented to the
new Board in May.
Trustee Nelson stated he would attend the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board
meeting on March 24th to discuss potential purchases. A media day would be held at
Malchow Farm southwest of Berthoud, a recent acquisition.
Trustee Phipps informed the public of the upcoming joint meeting between the Town
Board and County Commissioners on March 30, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss a draft
ordinance on vacation home regulations.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Estes Park Housing Authority completed its recent housing study which contained
11 recommendations to address the housing issues in Estes Park effecting the
economy of the Town. Key players in the community, including the EPHA Board and
Town would meet to develop a strategy to address the issues related to housing.
The Economic Development Corporation met recently to adopt its 2016 Operating Plan
which contain key objectives and goals.
The Parks Division has installed 79 wildlife resistant trash cans throughout the
downtown in conjunction with the Wildlife Ordinance which goes into effect on April 1st.
Luis Benitez/Director of Colorado Outdoor Industry Office would visit Estes Park to
discuss how the office can aid the Town as it relates to outdoor tourism.
Policy Governance Quarterly Report:
Reported overall compliance with Policies 3.1 through 3.11 with one exception.
o 3.10.4 – Reported non-compliance. The capital asset management plan has
not been worked on since the departure of the Deputy Town Administrator and
the flood. The item has been reassigned to Finance Director McFarland and
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek and a new plan would be forthcoming.
STATE OF THE TOWN
Mayor Pinkham provided a summary of 2015 that focused on progress, projects,
people, process and prognostication. Highlights included:
Sales tax collection increased in 2015 and 2016 continues to grow in January.
Board of Trustees – March 22, 2016 – Page 3
The Town Board would see a significant change in 2016 with Mayor Bill Pinkham
and Trustee John Ericson term limited. Trustee Phipps would not seek a second
term. Trustee Norris would run for reelection.
Town Administrator Lancaster continues to lead the staff with teamwork, motivation,
inspiration, leadership, vision and innovation.
The Town has developed strong policies and processes, including Policy
Governance, Strategic Plan, Code of Conduct, personnel policies, finance policies,
purchasing policies and EOC Plan.
Reorganization of the Community Services Department occurred with the creation of
a new department Cultural Services which includes the Museum and Senior
Services divisions.
Staff has begun to use the 1A sales tax funds to improve roadways, trails, and
emergency operations.
2013 flood recovery efforts continue with the repair of roadways, Scott pond dam
repair and modification, and Fish Creek public infrastructure projects.
Utilities continues to make improvements to the electric and water systems,
implementation of Smart meters and a feasibility study for Broadband expansion.
Continuation of cooperative support with the Estes Park Housing Authority, Rocky
Mountain National Park, and renewal of Sister Cities agreement with Monteverde,
Costa Rica.
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.
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.
Trustee Ericson requested the removal of Consent Agenda Item 8. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1-7 and 9,
and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – March 22, 2016 – Page 4
Consent Item 8 – Estes Park Housing Authority Reappointment of Eric
Blackhurst for a 5 –year term expiring April 25, 2021: Trustee Ericson requested
the appointment to the Estes Park Housing Authority be postponed and addressed
by the new Board at the April 26, 2016 meeting. It was moved by Trustee Ericson
to delay the appointment to the April 26, 2016 meeting, and the motion failed due
to a lack of a second. Trustee Ericson stated he would support term limits for the
Board appointed Commissions and Board.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve Consent Agenda Item
#8, and it passed with Trustee Ericson voting “No”.
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.
The proposed Ordinance would amend the Estes Valley Development Code
as it relates to employee housing regulations. The revisions would remove
the requirement of an employee to work on the site and increase the
allowed density in the CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district to encourage
development of second story employee housing for businesses in the Estes
Valley.
Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corporation Executive Director stated
there continues to be a tremendous need for employee housing. He would
encourage deed restrictions be indefinite rather than for a term because of
the ongoing need for employee housing.
Greg Rosener/Town citizen thanked staff and the Board for addressing the
workforce housing issue.
Attorney White read Ordinance #08-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #08-16, and it passed
unanimously.
2. REPORT ITEMS:
A. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL & ACCOMMODATION DENSITY
CALCULATIONS. Planner Kleisler provided an overview of the proposed
amendment that would modify the regulations requiring all fractions related
to density calculations to be rounded down. The proposed regulations
would allow fractions of one-half or more to be rounded up. This would
result in a slight increase in development and redevelopment potential. The
amendment would be brought forward to the Town Board meeting on April
12, 2016.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #05-16 - PUBLIC HEARING - 2015 INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING CODES ADOPTION & LOCAL AMENDMENTS. Chief Building
Official Birchfield stated the Estes Park Board of Appeals has met monthly for
the past 16 months to review the 2015 International Codes and discuss local
amendments. The Board recommends the adoption of the 2015 International
Building Code (IBC) as amended, including the secondary Codes adopted by
reference: International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code,
International Plumbing Code, International Property Maintenance Code,
International Energy Conservation Code, International Existing Building Code
Board of Trustees – March 22, 2016 – Page 5
and the National Electrical Code. The International Fire Code has been
adopted and administered by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. The
International Residential Code (IRC) would also be adopted and does not adopt
the other Codes by reference; however, it includes specific portions of the
Codes.
The 2015 IBC and IRC would require all new buildings containing residential
uses to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. The Town’s current
regulations exempt all one and two-family dwelling units from sprinkler
requirements. The safety of vacation homes has been an issue discussed by
the Town Board, and staff has recommended a limited life-safety inspection
and automatic sprinkler systems for vacation homes in response to the Board’s
concerns. The Board of Appeals has recommended the postponement of the
sprinkler requirements and the life-safety surveys until after the Vacation Home
Task Force has presented their recommendations. Larimer County has
adopted the 2015 International Codes without the sprinkler requirement for one
and two-family dwelling units effective May 1, 2016. Chief Building Official
Birchfield would not recommend waiving the sprinkler requirements for one and
two-family dwelling units indefinitely; however, he would recommend the Board
postpone a decision on the issue until further discussion can be held with the
stakeholders.
Public comment was heard and summarized: Charley Dickey/Town citizen
questioned how the new codes would impact commercial buildings with an
upstairs apartment; Frank Theis/Local developer recommended adopting the
2015 International Codes with the current sprinkler exemption for one and two-
family dwelling units because the code can be amended at a later date; Greg
Rosener/Town citizen and Grand Heritage Group representative stated concern
with the sprinkler requirements and the impact on workforce housing and
vacation homes due to an increase in cost; John Spooner/Board of Appeals
Chair recommended adoption of the Codes with the proposed amendments;
Scott Dorman/Fire Chief stated three deaths have occurred and two could have
been saved if sprinkler systems had been in place; Lindsay
Lamson/Accommodations owner stated the exemption for sprinklers should be
included for all zoning districts, including accommodations, and stated the risk
factors for vacation homes are not significantly increased; and Ed
Peterson/Town citizen requested the Board postpone adoption of the 2015
International Codes until further information has been obtained.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to extend the meeting past
10:00 p.m. to complete the agenda, and it passed with Trustee Ericson voting
“No”.
Attorney White read Ordinance #05-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #05-16 adopting the 2015
International Building Codes with local amendments and the
recommendations of the Estes Park Board of Appeals regarding
sprinkling of one and two-family dwelling units and postponing life-safety
surveys for vacation homes. A substitute motion was presented.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to continue Ordinance #05-16
to the April 12, 2016 meeting to develop the language associated with the
Estes Park Board of Appeals recommendations for the Board’s
consideration, and the motion passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #07-16 AUTHORIZATION OF THE FIRE CODE ADOPTED BY
THE FIRE DISTRICT. Chief Dorman commented the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District adopted the 2015 International Fire Code including the
Appendixes and Amendments as adopted by Resolution 2015-02. He
requested the Town Board approve Resolution #07-16 authorizing the use of
the 2015 International Fire Code as adopted by the District effective May 1,
Board of Trustees – March 22, 2016 – Page 6
2016. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve Resolution
#07-16 authorizing the 2015 International Fire Code adopted by the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #08-16 - 2016 BUDGET RESTATEMENT.
The item was moved to the April 12, 2016 Town Board meeting.
4. PERSONNEL POLICIES. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek presented
personnel policies 303 Compensation, 305 Benefits and 306 Leave for the
Board’s review and consideration as each includes budgetary impacts. All
other personnel policies would be adopted administratively. Staff began a
comprehensive review of the personnel policies in May 2015 as the current
policies are significantly outdated and incomplete. The formalization and
standardization of on-call compensation would result in a moderate budget
increase. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve
Personnel Policy 303 Compensation, Policy 305 Benefits, and Policy 306
Leave, and it passed unanimously.
5. ORDINANCE #09-16 AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20 MAYOR
AND TRUSTEES COMPENSATION. Town Clerk Williamson stated salaries
for the Board of Trustees are reviewed during each Municipal Election prior to
the election and only affect the incoming Board members. 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 $10,800/year. The average salaries for the
Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees had increased slightly. Estes Park ranked at the
bottom third for compensation for the Mayor and the top third for Mayor Pro
Tem and Trustees in relation to their peer communities. Staff recommended
the salary for the Mayor be increased to $9,000, Mayor Pro Tem to $7,000 and
Trustee to $6,000.
Board discussion was heard on the need to fund employee salaries and
institute a merit increase before considering increases to the Board’s salary.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated approval of the message the Board is
sending to the employees and the community.
Attorney White read Ordinance #09-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Ericson) to deny Ordinance 09-16, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 22, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of
March, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION.
Kathy Asche, President of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) Board,
introduced Ken Czarnowski and Dave Kiser of the EVRPD Board, Tom Carosello, EVRPD
Executive Director, and Chuck Jordan project manager for the Community Center.
Additionally, she thanked the members of the design advisory group including Jon
Landkamer and Lori Mitchell from the Town of Estes Park; Jill Schladweiler from the
Aquatic Center; Dave Coleson from the Estes Park School District; and community
member David Batey. Mr. Jordan presented the Trustees with the most recent version of
the site and floor plan for the Community Center. He stated that the design phase is
approximately 1/3 complete and indicated that it is a work in progress and that revisions
will be made as the design process continues. He noted that efforts have been made to
reduce the size of the center due to budgetary constraints, but still accommodate all the
programs originally included. The site plan has been adjusted to better fit the grade,
elevation, and drainage of the lot and to provide more efficient and safer access to and
from the school campuses and the community center as well as to minimize excavation
on the site. He pointed out that the entrance to the senior center would be from the lower
level of the building and the upper entry would provide access to the recreation portion of
the structure. The Trustees voiced concern over the reduction in size of the Senior
Center. The original plan included a 15000 square foot space that has now been reduced
to 10000 square feet which is only approximately 3500 square feet larger than the existing
senior center facility. The Trustees also questioned how the area for licensed childcare
would be configured. EVRPD staff said that, although there has been some interest
expressed by daycare providers, nothing is definite as the daycare facility must make
financial sense and said that the design of the floor space cannot be appropriately
captured until a viable provider is found. EVRPD staff also stated that it is not the intention
of the Recreation District to be in the childcare business and noted that they are working
with Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) on this matter. Additionally,
the Board voiced concern that the plan, as presented, contained only one gymnasium
when two were originally planned for the facility.
Discussion continued related to the budget required for construction of the facility. Mr.
Carosello noted that in addition to escalating construction costs, the dollar amount stated
in the ballot language did not include design costs, utility costs, nor expenses related to
furnishing the building. He stated that it is EVRPD’s intent to provide all programs
originally presented to the voters but in a smaller space, and stated that the pool area
and the proposed addition of a golf simulator, which would be funded by the Junior Golf
Program, would generate revenue for the center.
Additional discussion is summarized: total square footage with redesigned plan is
approximately 79000 square feet, down from the original of 85000 square feet; it appears
the square footage is being subtracted from the senior center; concerns about inadequate
Town Board Study Session – March 22, 2016 – Page 2
space in the senior center; 25% of sales tax initiative funds, which is estimated at
approximately $6.1 million, were intended for construction of the senior center; 1A funds
were not intended to pay down EVRPD loan; serious concerns about what the EVRPD
Board and staff are doing; experiencing a cash flow issue; EVRPD staff stated 25% of 1A
funds were intended for the construction of the community center including senior
services, not only the senior center; senior center will have use of additional adjacent
community center space and shared and flexed space of approximately 3600 square feet;
two gymnasiums within the facility are cost prohibitive; a second gymnasium is needed in
order to bring tournaments to the facility; there is no budget for expansion; questions
arose about whether the other entities involved are satisfied with the space allocated to
their programs; some entities are re-evaluating their financial contributions; high
percentage of square footage is devoted to water activities because aquatic areas
generate revenue; and an IGA with EVRPD must be finalized.
Executive Director Carosello stated that EVRPD must look out for itself and provide a
good balance of activities to encourage use of the community center facility. There need
to be enough amenities offered to make residents want to join and utilize the center as
well as activities to attract visitors. Pre-application, development plan meetings, and
interviews for a general contractor are scheduled with the project tentatively coming
forward to Town Board in July.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:15 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 5:35 p.m.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROCESS UPDATE.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek reported on the benefits of capital planning. He
stated that a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) will assist in maintaining the Town’s assets,
managing major capital projects, and long-term planning. He said, for purposes of the
CIP, capital is defined as over $50,000 and a useful life of more than one year. He
proposed adopting the CIP annually at the same time the budget is adopted. The
Assistant Town Administrator and the Chief Financial Officer will request input from staff
to be used in developing the plan and the process will be repeated each year to adjust
for changing conditions and needs. He added that projects will be categorized and
prioritized from low to high and noted that priorities can change overnight when faced with
catastrophic events. The CIP will also be tied directly to the Town Board’s strategic plan
key outcome areas, goals and objectives.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Agenda items include:
Update on the NEPA study for the Downtown Loop tentative for May 24, 2016, or
June 14, 2016.
Electric Rate and Hydrology Study – Tentative for June 14, 2016, or May 24, 2016,
depending on availability of Downtown Loop NEPA study.
Three projects related to a new FLAP grant application will be brought before the Board
for consideration on April 12th. The Board would consider the option of making application
or not, and what project to select.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 24, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
24th day of March, 2016.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Attending: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Director Hinkle, Coordinator Jacobson, Manager
Lynch, Director Fortini, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Chair Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
Town Administrator Lancaster started the meeting by explaining that a major
communications outage had occurred on Wednesday, March 23rd as a result of the
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) fiber optic line being damaged in the recent snow
storm. All cell phone, internet, cable television service, and telephone service outside of
the Estes Valley was affected. The area of the breach had been identified and crews
were working to restore communications, with an anticipated repair completion timeline
of Thursday evening or Friday morning.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Paul Fishman, Town resident, thanked Trustees Ericson and Phipps for their serviced to
the Town of Estes Park.
CULTURAL SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
2016 Senior Services Quarterly Report – Coordinator Headley touched on Senior
Services highlights during the first quarter of 2016 which included: increased
numbers in the Meals on Wheels program; full class attendance at the American
Civil War class taught by Jeff Arnold; and successful partnerships with the Park
School District, CSU Extension office, and Families and Seniors Together (FAST) to
offer outreach classes and programs. Senior Services staff also met with Assistant
Town Administrator Machalek to work on vision and mission statements for the
division.
Verbal Updates –
o Community Center Update – Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
(EVRPD) is moving forward with determining how to build the facility with
the funds that are available and still meet the needs of the community.
Senior Services staff is comfortable with the allocated dedicated space
and the shared space. These areas will meet current identified needs and
allow some additional capacity for future needs. The IGA with EVRPD is
still forthcoming. Chair Ericson suggested to Administration staff that it
could be beneficial to the newly seated Town Board to have liaisons with
the various local special districts.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Special Events Report – Coordinator Jacobson reported that Whiskey Warm-Up
continues to grow steadily; various non-profit organizations will be hosting events at
Performance Park this summer; and signage will be placed in Bond Park to direct
visitors to events being held at Performance Park. Director Hinkle noted that he is
Community Development / Community Services – March 24, 2016 – Page 2
researching how other municipalities handle buskers and street performers to see if
this could be a viable proposal in the downtown district during the summer season.
In regard to staffing, Director Hinkle noted that it is his goal to be fully staffed by May
1, 2016.
Sales Report – Manager Lynch reported 12 signed contracts and $16,250 in rental
fees for 1st quarter 2016. Seven contracts at the Event Center, three at the
Conference Center, and two at the Grandstands. She provided a further break down
noting that the events include expos, trade shows, equestrian, sporting, religious,
corporate events, and a class reunion. She said that these events will bring
additional revenue to the community by way of the ripple effect in overnight stays
and restaurant food and beverage purchases. Manager Lynch recently attended a
planning/networking event that provided contacts and noted that referrals are also
occasionally received from the staff at the Ranch when they are unable to
accommodate specific events.
Verbal Updates –
o 2016 Rooftop Rodeo Update – The rodeo will be held July 6-11, 2016.
The parade will be held on Wednesday, July 6th. Tickets go on sale on
April 24th. The Saturday night performance will be broadcast live on the
Wrangler Network.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Community Development Report – Director Chilcott and Community Development
Staff presented the annual report for the department looking at activities that have
occurred or are scheduled to occur during the calendar year 2016. They reported on
the seven core services provided by Community Development which are Building
Safety; Addressing; Floodplain Management; Signage; Long-Range Planning;
Current Planning/Development Review; and Code Compliance. Highlights included:
involving the Board of Appeals in an active role in vetting and recommending local
amendments to the Codes; preparing for the adoption of the 2015 International
Building Codes which required over 1000 hours of staff time; an audit of plan review
and inspection services; revision of floodplain regulations; completion of first phase
of Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Stabilization Project; completion of a
Hydrology Study; Sign Code revisions; Vacation home regulation compliance
procedures; continuation of efforts to modernize the Comprehensive Plan, and long-
range master planning through a Downtown Plan.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
March 16, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Members Pete Smith, Wayne Newsom, John Lynch,
and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Darling, Members Smith, and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Carrie McCool, Interim Community Development Director Karen
Cumbo, Town Attorney Greg White, Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Members Newsom and Lynch
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately six
people in attendance. There were two members absent, but a quorum was present. He
introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes of Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Special Meeting, February 22, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. LOT 52 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 51, 52 & 53, BLOCK 10,
CARRIAGE HILLS 4th; 1117 Whispering Pines Drive
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The variance requested is from Estes Valley
Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a(1) which requires all buildings and accessory
structures to be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual
high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of
the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be
measured from the thread of the stream. The applicant request is to allow a deck that was
destroyed in the 2013 flood be rebuilt entirely in the setback.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
March 16, 2016
Director Chilcott stated the standards for review are in EVDC Section 3.6.C. The existing
house on the lot and the decks were located within the 30-foot river setback prior to the
2013 flood. As a result of the flood, the Fish Creek channel migrated to be approximately
five feet closer to the house. During the flood, the Kane residence was significantly
undermined by the water, making the foundation unstable, and a large portion of the deck
was destroyed. Soon after the flood, the foundation was stabilized with fill material and
the main structure, including most of the deck, was repaired. The Kane’s are now seeking
to repair the remaining portion of the deck with a few modifications to the design.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances exist…:
Staff found the home on-site is classified as a legal non-conforming structure as
a large portion of it is located within the 30-foot stream corridor setback. The
previous deck was also considered part of the non-conforming structure. Any
building addition on the Southeast, East or Northeast portion of the home will
be contained entirely within the 30-foot setback. Strict compliance with Code
standards would prevent the remainder of the destroyed deck from being
rebuilt. Post-flood, the annual high-water mark has shifted westward roughly
five feet, further restricting future development of the site.
2. Practical difficulty…:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found the home, as it stands today, does not have the corner section of
decking attached. The development proposal will include concrete
sidewalks/patio and new decking along the Southeast, East and Northeast
sides of the home. The single-family home use on the site may continue without
a variance being granted. The new additions do not affect the use of the site or
access to the home.
b. Whether the variance is substantial:
Staff found the variance is substantial in that it would allow deck support piers
to be located downslope of the streambank upper edge. The farthest piers
would be located on the post-flood fill material. Granting this variance involves
risks from floodwaters and geologic hazards to both the property owner and
neighbors up- and downstream. There is great streambank erosion potential at
this site.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered
or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of
the variance;
Staff found the single-family character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with this proposal. In the occurrence that another flood
arises on Fish Cree, neighboring properties may be impacted. Debris from
damaged structures may potentially fall into the river channel and dam up or
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
March 16, 2016
alter water flows and/or cause damage to neighboring properties. The
development proposal includes a gas firepit on the deck area. If a flood
damages or destroys the deck, including the firepit, the gas line servicing the
firepit would be severed, thereby posing a significant fire hazard. Flood hazard
mitigation efforts can be taken to lessen the risk of future damage or destruction
which include: (1) maximizing streambank stabilization using bioengineering
methods to restore natural stream and ecological functions while protecting
existing and potential future structures from further streambank erosion; (2)
removing the firepit from the proposed deck area to mitigate potential fire
hazards.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
Staff found the approval would not have any effect on public services such as
water and sewer.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff found the EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available
to the public. The applicant built the home in 2002. Stream setback
requirements were in effect at the time. The building permit for the home was
approved which created a legal non-conforming structure.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance;
Staff found no deck expansions or sidewalk/patio construction may occur at this
specific location of the site without a variance.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
Staff found a variance for this proposal is the only option to achieve the desired
outcome.
4. In granting such variances, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions that
will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff is not recommending approval or disapproval of this variance request. If it
is approved, staff recommends removing the gas firepit from the deck design.
Also, staff encourages the Board of Adjustment to take into account the
comments made by Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner III. The memo
addresses future risk potential at this site and potential mitigation efforts.
Board and Staff Discussion
Ms. Chilcott stated staff does not have a recommendation of approval of denial of this
application. If the Kanes had applied for a building permit and began construction within a
year of the 2013 flood, staff would have had the ability to approve the building permit and a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
March 16, 2016
variance would not have been required. At that time, staff would have given approval of the
plan review to rebuild the piers in the setback. Because of the time lapse, staff no longer has
the ability to approve the rebuilding of the deck and the Board of Adjustment is now the
decision-making body.
Ms. Chilcott stated there have been numerous discussions with administrators of both the
Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, as well as planning staff from both jurisdictions.
The proposed deck is larger than what was originally there. The County Planning staff stated
they would have approved the proposed deck at staff level, if presented to them within the
one-year period following the 2013 flood, even with the modifications. Ms. Chilcott stated
what staff determined from the review is the home was built out of compliance with the
setback criteria. It was not identified by the property owner, builder, or staff that the structure
would be in the setback after construction. This home is considered by planning staff to be a
nonconforming property.
Public Comment
Bruce Kane/applicant stated their home was not substantially damaged during the 2013
flood, so they were able to rebuild with assistance from FEMA. First, they stabilized the
foundation by the end of September. The permanent foundation repair was completed in
December, 2013. A small portion of the deck was rebuilt in early 2014, which is what they
have now. They started the process of rebuilding the home before the one year time lapse.
He interpreted to code as they would have three years to complete the rebuild. He did not
understand a permit was required. Mr. Kane stated the stream bank consists of an armored
rock area on top of a membrane. In November 2014, a temporary sewer line was installed,
and replaced with the permanent line in the spring of 2015. He stated the creek could not be
moved back to the original location within the one year period. The discussions revolving
around this issue have been ongoing since October 2015.
Thomas Beck/applicant’s architect stated the only part of the deck that is larger is the
addition of the stairs on the north side. The stairs were added and the upper right corner has
been redesigned to be further from the creek. Mr. Kane added that before the flood, the river
was at least 15 feet further away from the house than it is today; however, he disagrees the
home was built in the setback.
Regarding the gas firepit, Mr. Beck stated he would recommend a type of hookup that has a
quick disconnect next to the house. In case the deck was destroyed again, the flow of gas
would be shut off at the house.
Member Darling was concerned about the negative impact on neighbors during a future flood
event. Mr. Kane stated he thinks there is enough armoring along the bank that any future
flooding would be directed to the east side of the bank rather than the west side near his
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
March 16, 2016
home. He noted the Larimer County Floodplain Manager, Eric Tracy, has given his approval
to rebuild.
Joe Coop/Van Horn Engineering stated the geo-fabric that was installed on the stream bank
would make erosion a slower process during a future flood event, and he thought the same
geo-fabric would be installed on the east side of the streambank during the restoration
projects.
Mr. Beck stated Larimer County extended their post-flood rebuild period to three years, while
the town kept its standard of one year. There have been many agencies involved in post-
flood recovery in the immediate area of the Kane property, which has delayed the project.
The Kane’s have been diligently rebuilding since the flood.
Merle Moore/county resident stated he is a neighbor that was very aware of what happened
at the Kane residence during the 2013 flood. He was actually in the Kane house when the
deck was torn off by floodwater. He stated the main cause of damage to the Kane property
was the failure of the culvert at Whispering Pines Drive. This failure caused the excess water
to flow down Fish Creek Road. There was a very heavy willow cover on the edges of the
creek, which he thinks washout because the plugged culvert redirected the water to the west
side. Another culvert failed upstream at Rambling Drive. He thinks there would not have
been any water issues at the Kane residence if the culverts would have contained the flows.
Conditions of Approval Recommended by the Board
1. A quick breakaway gas line connection to the firepit shall be required.
2. Following construction, an As-Built survey shall be completed by a registered land
surveyor and submitted to the Community Development Department.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Darling) to approve the variance request with the
findings recommended by staff and two conditions of approval recommended by the
Board and the Department and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
REPORTS
1. Director Chilcott reported Planner Phil Kleisler has accepted a position with the City of
Loveland. His last day will be March 31, 2016. He will be greatly missed, and we wish him
well in his new endeavor.
2. Director Chilcott reported a new brochure regarding the Town’s flood mitigation efforts is
now available. Copies will be provided to all members of the Town’s Boards and
Commissions.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
March 16, 2016
____________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
____________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Reuben Bergsten, Director of Utilities
Date: April 7, 2016
RE: Representation Agreement - Legal Services
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, approve the Representation Agreement between the Town
of Estes Park and Kissinger and Feldman, P.C. to act as special legal counsel for legal
services regarding fiber network, ongoing broadband review, and other matters that
may be authorized by the Town from time to time.
Present Situation:
The Town is currently, through its Light and Power Enterprise, involved in the review of
the provision of broadband services within its Light and Power service area and
installation of redundant fiber optic networks from the Estes Valley to the Front Range.
These issues involve the need for specific legal services to advise the Town’s Light and
Power Enterprise with regard to these projects. The law firm of Kissinger and Feldman
P.C. specializes in providing legal services for government telecommunications and
utilities. Retention of this firm will enable the Light and Power Enterprise to continue its
review of broadband services and providing redundant fiber optic networks to its service
area.
Proposal:
The Representation Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions for legal services by
Kissinger and Feldman P.C. to the Town’s Light and Power Enterprise.
Advantages:
The retention of Kissinger and Feldman P.C. for legal services enhances the review of
all options related to broadband services and redundant fiber optic networks to the
Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approve the Representation Agreement with Kissinger and Feldman P.C.
Budget:
The Town’s Light and Power Enterprise Utility budget contains sufficient funds for any
expenses incurred pursuant to the Representation Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
High. The provision of broadband services to the Estes Valley and redundant fiber optic
networks have high priority to the Town, its citizens, and the surrounding areas of the
Estes Valley.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Representation Agreement between the Town of Estes
Park and Kissinger and Feldman P.C.
KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PTARMIGAN PLACE, SUITE 900
3773 CHERRY CREEK NORTH DRIVE
DENVER, COLORADO 80209
RICHARD P. KISSINGER TELEPHONE: (303) 320-6100
KENNETH S. FELLMAN TOLL FREE: 1-877-342-3677
JONATHAN M. ABRAMSON FAX: (303) 327-8601
BOBBY G. RILEY www.kandf.com
JORDAN C. LUBECK
BRANDON DITTMAN
PAUL D. GODEC, SPECIAL COUNSEL
REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ("Client"), hereby employs the law firm of Kissinger &
Fellman, P.C., ("the Firm") to act as legal counsel regarding (i) the preparation of a legal opinion
regarding a fiber network; (ii) ongoing broadband deployment issues; and (iii) other matters that may be
authorized by Client in writing from time to time. Legal fees and costs will be billed in accordance with
the Billing Policies of the Firm set forth on this Representation Agreement which are part of this
agreement. It is understood and agreed that the firm's hourly rates may increase in the future.
The Firm's policy is to require from time to time an advance fee deposit/retainer for services and
fees from each client prior to beginning any new or additional work on the client's matters. In this
particular situation, an initial fee deposit/retainer of $.00 has been agreed upon.
BILLING POLICIES
Our regular hourly charges for professional services of each attorney in the firm are as follows:
Jonathan M. Abramson $300 per hour
Kenneth S. Fellman $250 per hour*
Brandon M. Dittman $160 per hour
Paul D. Godec $290 per hour
Jordan C. Lubeck $180 per hour
Richard P. Kissinger $400 per hour
Bobby G. Riley $225 per hour
Paralegal/Law Clerk $ 85 per hour
*reduced local government rate
Adjustments in the Firm's rates and charges do occur from time to time, and we endeavor to
notify all our then active clients of any changes at the time they are to take place. Nonetheless we still
encourage all client inquiries concerning the rates in effect at the beginning of each proje ct and will
provide an updated copy of these Billing Policies upon every request.
If there are services which can be performed by our law clerks or paralegals, this time will be
charged at $85 per hour. Billing will reflect all time expended on clients' matters, such as: office
conferences, legal research, telephone calls, correspondence, travel time, drafting, court or hearing
preparation and appearances, etc. Direct costs or expenses relating to clients' work (i.e., photocopies,
postage, long distance telephone calls, mileage, parking, etc.) will be billed in addition to our hourly
charges for professional services rendered.
Billing will normally be between the 20th and the last day of the month covering the services and
expenses incurred prior to the 20th of the current month. On matters which are not ongoing, a final
billing may be made at the conclusion of the matter.
Our terms are payment in full within 30 days of the date of billing. If payment is not received
timely, services and expense advances may be discontinued by the firm until satisfactory arrangements
can be made to reinstate any past due account. Interest shall accrue at the rate of 1.5% per month on all
amounts overdue and unpaid. If collection efforts become necessary on any unpaid amounts, the client
shall be responsible for costs and legal fees related thereto.
KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C. 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 900, Denver, CO 80209 (303) 320-6100 FAX: (303) 327-8601
DOCUMENT/FILE RETENTION POLICY
When our engagement in this matter ends, at your written request, all materials/property you
provided to us during the course of the representation will be returned to you. You agree that we have the
right to make copies of all documents generated or received by us from any source during the course of
our representation of you. When you request information from your file, the cost of tra nsmitting original
documents to you and/or the cost of providing you with copies of other documents will be charged to you.
It is your responsibility to secure the return of any documents or property in the file. Following the
conclusion of the matter, the client file may, at any time, be converted to electronic form. If arrangements
are not made for the return of any documents in your file within seven (7) years following the conclusion
of your matter, and there is otherwise no action on the file, the file may be destroyed. During the course
of the representation, we may generate certain documents related to the matter that will be retained by us
(as opposed to being sent to you) or destroyed. These documents include, for example, firm
administrative records, time and expense reports, personnel and staffing materials, credit and account
records, and internal lawyers’ work product (such as drafts, notes, internal memoranda, legal research,
and factual research, including investigative reports prepared by or for the internal use of lawyers on the
case or in the firm). For various reasons, including the minimization of unnecessary storage expenses, we
reserve the right to destroy or otherwise dispose of any documents or other materials that belong to the
law firm within a reasonable time after our final bill for the matter is sent to you.
KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Attorneys at Law
By: By:
Brandon M. Dittman, Associate Title:
Date:
Address: Administration Office
Town Hall Room 150
170 MacGregor Avenue; Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Telephone: 970-577-3700
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Renewal License – Galex, LLC dba CHELITOS MEXICAN
RESTAURANT, 145 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor
License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at Chelitos Mexican Restaurant on
September 14, 2015.
Present Situation:
On September 14, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the
State’s Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) and the Estes Park Police Department.
During this compliance check, an employee of Chelitos Mexican Restaurant sold/served
an alcohol beverage to an underage person. Identification was not requested by the
employee, however, he proceeded to serve the underage customer.
The Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held by Galex, LLC was originally issued in
June of 2009. This is the second “Sale to a Minor” violation at this establishment; the
first violation occurred in 2012. The Clerk’s office has requested that the licensee
provide a copy of the establishment’s alcohol sales policy as well as a listing of
permanent employees including their TIPS training status for review. As of Friday, April
8, 2016, these items have not been received, however all necessary renewal paperwork
and fees have been submitted.
The Liquor Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue handled the
administrative process related to this violation. The penalty for this type of violation,
which is considered a first offense due to the time elapsed between events, may include
a written warning, up to a 10-day suspension, or entering into a stipulation and
agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an actual suspension with a
portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of time, typically one year
from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within a year of the date of
the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the suspension held in
abeyance.
Per the State Liquor Enforcement Division, the licensee elected to pay a fine in lieu of
suspension. Payment was due to the state no later than Friday, February 19, 2016.
Proposal:
The LED administered this violation, therefore, no administrative action was taken by
the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State has determined the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and will ensure that the penalty is fulfilled.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Hotel and
Restaurant liquor license held by Galex, LLC dba Chelitos Mexican Restaurant. The
Board has the option to move to approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant
liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held
by Galex, LLC, dba Chelitos Mexican Restaurant.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Renewal License – Shambala, Inc., dba FAMOUS EASTSIDE
GROCERIES, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue, 3.2% Beer Liquor License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at Famous Eastside Groceries on
August 24, 2015.
Present Situation:
On August 24, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the State’s
Liquor Enforcement Division (LED). During this compliance check, an employee of
Famous Eastside Groceries sold/served an alcohol beverage to an underage person.
Identification was not requested by the employee, however, he proceeded to serve the
underage customer.
The 3.2% Beer License held by Shambala, Inc., was originally issued in July of 2015.
This is the first violation at this establishment under the current management. The
Clerk’s office has requested that the licensee provide a copy of the establishment’s
alcohol sales policy as well as a listing of permanent employees including their TIPS
training status for review, as well as the renewal paperwork and payments. As of
Friday, April 8, 2016, these items have not been received.
The Liquor Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue handled the
administrative process related to this violation. The penalty for this type of violation,
which is a first offense, may include a written warning, up to a 10-day suspension, or
entering into a stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an
actual suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of
time, typically one year from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within
a year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the
suspension held in abeyance.
Per the State Liquor Enforcement Division, the licensee elected to serve a five day
active suspension with five days held in abeyance. The suspension was served from
12:01 a.m. on December 27, 2015 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2015.
Proposal:
The LED administered this violation, therefore, no administrative action was taken by
the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State has determined the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and will ensure that the penalty is fulfilled.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the 3.2% Beer license
held by Shambala, Inc., dba Famous Eastside Groceries. The Board has the option to
move to approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a 3.2% Beer license is $503.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the 3.2% Beer License held by Shambala, Inc.,
dba Famous Eastside Groceries.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Tavern Liquor License Application for Lazy B
Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers, 1665 Highway
66, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a new Tavern liquor license located at 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park,
Colorado. Application filed by Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Tavern liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s office
on February 22, 2016. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted; please see
the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for additional
information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for Intervention
Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has not yet completed the training.
The liquor license application has been sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue
Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) for a concurrent review as requested by the
applicant. This allows the LED to review the application simultaneously with the Town
and expedites the issuance of the new liquor license.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application for a new Tavern liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a
liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons of the
chuckwagon dinner and performance.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a new Tavern liquor license.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Tavern Liquor license is $1319. The
fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background
checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual renewal fee payable to the
Town of Estes Park for a Tavern Liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon
these findings, I move that the application for a new Tavern Liquor license filed by Lazy
B Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers be approved/denied.
Attachments:
1. Procedure for Hearing
1
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Lazy B
Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS for a new Tavern
Liquor License located at 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed February 22, 2016.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 22, 2016, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2016.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 4.7 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company.
The property is zoned A-Accommodations which allows this type of
business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on April 1, 2016 .
The premises was posted on March 24, 2016 .
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Resolution #08-16 Supplemental Budget Appropriation to the General,
Community Reinvestment, and Open Space Funds.
Objective:
This memo requests approval of the 2016 Supplemental Budget Appropriation of the
General and Community Reinvestment (CRF) Funds.
Present Situation:
The 2016 Budgets for the General and Community Reinvestment Funds no longer
accurately portray anticipated 2016 activity.
Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF)
As has been noted in the past, the Town chooses to report/budget projects that span
multiple years into the current year. The Town acknowledges that the amounts reported
are overstatements for the current year, but they allow full disclosure to the reader in
regards to total project cost. The flip side is that these multi-year projects must be
restated annually as the project matures. This strategy probably affects the CRF more
than any other Fund, as the CRF is the Town’s primary capital fund.
The CRF has been restated to take into account:
$1,000,865 in (orange) line items that were rolled over (Resolution #03-16) from 2015 to
2016. These were items that had begun and had identified vendors working on the
projects. These include remaining MPEC vendors, Parking Structure consultants, VC
restroom remodel, Conference Center interior repair, and Elm Road landfill mitigation.
$4,243,059 in (green) line items from projects that are continuing into 2016 that do not
have specific vendors attached yet, or are projects were not started in 2015. 99% of this
total is for the construction portion of the Parking Structure, but other small projects include
$40,000 worth of electric work and snow guards for the roof of MPEC.
The blue line items ($650,000 in revenues; $63,000 in expenditures) are items that were
partially funded in 2016 and are being revised. The revenue reflects the additional
$325,000 paid by the Stanley for Lot 4; the expenditure reflects change orders for the Elm
Road Landfill Mitigation effort.
The remaining $3,128,754 in (yellow) line items are retained from the original 2016
Budget.
CRF is now forecasted to end the year with a fund balance of $283,060. Bear in mind that
some projects, most prominently the parking structure, will likely not be completed by the
end of 2016.
General Fund
The General Fund budget has been subject to the same issues as the CRF, only with the
General Fund, the primary areas of restatement involve grants and flood-related projects.
The changes are recorded throughout the General Fund budget, but are primarily located
in the Streets Department. As has been the Town’s practice in the past, projects that
span multiple years are reported in their entirety in the current year. There are roughly
$1,200,000 in additions to the 2016 Budget from restatements and continuations from
2015 (flood, grant) projects. There are also nearly $2,500,000 in estimations for projects
extending beyond 2016. By far the largest of these projects involves the Fish Creek
corridor restoration, with related line items totaling over $3,300,000 in 2016-17. Other
large items include multiple road site repairs ($75,000 in 2016-17), and the Stormwater
Master Plan ($300,000 - pending).
The vast majority of these expenditures will be entirely offset by grant or
FEMA/FHWA/CDGB-DR reimbursement. There is ~$65,000 in unreimbursed costs
forecasted. However, there are also ~$45,000 in reimbursements from 2015 and before
that are expected to be received in 2016.
While this is very good news, the real challenge will be to manage the expenditure –
reimbursement process so that the General Fund’s fund balance doesn’t get
overextended.
Open Space Fund
The Open Space Fund was restated with Resolution #05-16, which provided for the Dry
Gulch Restoration project. Staff recommends adding the Trails portions of the Fish Creek
restoration project, as well as a $150,000 Hydroplant Phase II grant. The total changes
are ~$1,600,000.
Proposal:
Staff requests approval of the 2016 Budget amendments to the named Funds so that
work may continue in the restated areas.
Advantages:
Said Funds will be updated with more accurate 2016 Budget forecasts than existed during
the initial 2016 Budget process in November 2015. Further, with budget updates, the
Town can now enter into contracts can be executed following amendments to said
Budgets.
Disadvantages:
Projects cannot move forward in present form without these Budget amendments.
Action Recommended:
Staff requests approval of the 2016 Supplemental Budget appropriation for the General
(#101) and Community Reinvestment (#204) Funds.
Budget:
The General (#101) and Community Reinvestment (#204) Funds are being amended for
2016.
Level of Public Interest
There is likely to be at least a moderate level of interest in some of the Town’s large
capital, grant and flood repair projects.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #08-16, which supplementally appropriates
2016 Budget revisions for the General and Community Reinvestment Funds.
Attachments:
Resolution #08-16
Community Reinvestment Fund Budget Revision 2016
Open Space Fund Budget Revision 2016
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 08-16
A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS
TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES
IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS
SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE
FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2016, AND
ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the
annual 2016 budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on
December 8th, 2015; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016, the
estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to more accurately
represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate the government;
and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the
revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to
impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of
each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
AB2016 Budget2016 Revised Budget4/12/2016(2016 Approved Budget)101 General 15,357,27418,938,497204 Community Reinvestment 2,885,8506,395,723220 Larimer Cty Open Space 635,0003,136,986 Total 18,878,12428,471,206includes all sources of money inflow: revenues, proceeds from debt, transfers inABCDEOriginal 2016 Budget supplemental supplemental supplemental 2016 Revised Budgetappropriation appropriation appropriation 4/12/2016(Res #03‐16, 02/09/16)(Res #05‐16, 03/08/16)(Res #08‐16, 04/12/16)(Rollovers)101 General 16,036,065 170,756 0 3,697,895 19,904,716204 Community Reinvestment 3,128,754 1,000,865 0 4,306,058 8,435,677220 Larimer Cty Open Space 261,440 55,983 1,611,440 1,321,230 3,250,093 Totals 19,426,259 1,227,604 1,611,440 9,325,183 31,590,486includes all sources of money outflow: expenditures, deb service, transfers outINFORMATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION (RESOLUTION #08‐16) TO 2016 BUDGETREVENUES/TRANSFER INEXPENDITURES/TRANSFERS OUT
Revised Revised
Actual Budget Est actual Budget Budget
2014 2015 2015 2016 2016
Beginning Fund balance $4,825,995 $3,431,962 $3,431,962 $310,099 $2,323,014
Transfer from General Fund 800,000 830,000 830,000 520,000 520,000
Grant income
Fall River Trail moved
Parking Structure (RMNP)
Flood reimbursements 49,709 49,709
Transportation Enhancement 236,120
Transit Hub/Parking Structure (3,738,500 total) 589,636 3,148,864 13,700 3,135,164
CMAQ ‐ DMS Signs on US36 (25k match)30,850 30,850
CDGB‐DR ‐ Moraine Ave bridge 2,000,000 2,000,000
Other income (insurance for flood) 12,717
Investment income 13,615 16,438 11,260 10,000 10,000
Sale of assets (Lot 4) 1,000,000 325,000 650,000
Total inflows 2,652,088 4,045,011 854,960 2,885,850 6,395,723
Personnel
Legal/engineering/other 5,143 7,844 5,602 5,000 5,000
2013 Projects
Transportation Enhancement Grant
Elm Road mitigation (835,000 total) 89,935 695,870 287,691 406,970
Not spent in 2015, not rolled over 1,209
Change orders: 2016 63,000
Transit Hub/Parking structure (5,410,625 total) 369,292 4,813,230 285,420 343,065
Not spent in 2015, not rolled over 4,184,745
MPEC/Stall Barn project
Construction (7,150,000 total) 2,708,544 709,583 712,883 22,705
COPS note payment 519,128 520,138 520,144 520,904 520,904
Selective coord eval ‐ (electric) 5,500 5,500
Transportation Hub irrigation 17,551
STIP monies xferred to Street Fund 336,528
2014 Projects
Fall River Trail (NEPA) 17.2% match moved to Trails
2015 Projects
FLAP Grant Project moved to Streets
Conference Center Roof Repair 130,000 130,092
Conf Ctr Interior Repairs (pd by ins) 49,709 39,805
Not spent in 2015, not rolled over (9,904)2,000
Performance Park Overlay postponed
CVB restroom upgrades 200,000 22,076 188,320
Additional costs to project 14,604
2016 Projects
EC ‐ Sound Dampening Boards/etc 22,000 22,000
EC ‐ roof snowguards 35,000 35,000
CMAQ ‐ DMS Signs on US36 (25k match)55,850 55,850
Moraine Ave Bridge ‐ CDBG‐DR grant 2,000,000 2,000,000
Museum remodel/improvements 200,000 200,000
Transfer Lot 4 $$ to L&P (Falcon Ridge)325,000 325,000
Total 4,046,121 7,166,874 1,963,908 3,128,754 8,435,677
Net change (1,394,033) (3,121,863) (1,108,948) (242,904) (2,039,954)
Fund Balance $3,431,962 $310,099 $2,323,014 $67,195 $283,060
Reserved for Museum Storage facility 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0
Available Fund Balance $3,231,962 $110,099 $2,123,014 $67,195 $283,060
updated 325,000
from 2015 4,243,059
rollovers 1,000,865
2016 Budget 3,128,754
Community Reinvestment Fund
Special Revenue Fund, #204
Town of Estes Park ‐ 2016 Budget
* The Community Reinvestment Fund provides funds for General Fund, Special Revenue Fund and Internal Service Fund capital projects.
Funding comes from the General Fund, Grants and TABOR excesses (voter approval in 2000) when applicable.
Purpose:
*
Original Budget Revised Budget Ending Budget
2014 2015 2015 2015 2016
Revenues
Federal Grant 13 0 237,619 122,118 398,501
Scott Ponds Grant moved to 2016 0 850,000 0 850,000
Flood/grant Reimbursements added Resolution 08‐16 1,536,485
State Government Grant 00000
County Shared Revenues 343,180 290,000 350,000 367,428 350,000
Interest Earnings 459 500 2,000 1,526 2,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 130 03838 0
Total Revenues $343,782 $290,500 $1,439,657 $491,110 $3,136,986
Expenses
Personnel Services
Salaries 31,028 27,608 28,460 27,685 19,828
Benefits 11,794 12,497 11,761 11,219 8,257
42,822 40,105 40,221 38,904 28,085
Operations & Maintenance 360 355 561,330 477,668 233,355
Additional O&M 000070,000
Flood/Reimbursements added Resolution 08‐16 1,582,670
Total Current Expenses 43,182 40,460 601,551 516,572 1,914,110
Capital 0 500,000 850,000 25,000 1,280,000
Total Expenses 43,182 540,460 1,451,551 541,572 3,194,110
Rollovers (approved 02/16/16 Board m 000055,983
Excess (deficiency) of revenues 300,600 (249,960) (11,894) (50,463) (113,107)
over expenditures
Beginning Fund balance 112,233 412,833 412,833 412,833 362,370
Ending Fund balance $412,833 $162,873 $400,939 $362,370 $249,263
REVENUES
Federal Grant 1,087,619 122,118 2,784,986
CDBG‐DR Scott Ponds (moved to 2016) 850,000 850,000
CDBG‐DR Hydroplant River Restoration 150,000
CDBG‐DR Offset to Water Augmentation Scott Ponds 133,000
Reimb on PW195 Trails (HDR/LaCo) 237,619 122,118 115,501
Fish Creek Trail Cost Share CDBG‐DR ('16: $42,400, '17: $127,275, town cost share = $46,185) 123,490
Fish Creek Trail FEMA ('16: $429,390, '17: $833,605) 1,262,995
Hydroplant Phase II CWCB 150,000
EXPENSES
O&M ‐ Engineering 535,649 477,038 1,885,670
Scott ponds contract modification ‐ 02/09/16 Board meeting 20,000
Scott Ponds contract modification ‐ 5/12/15 Board meeting 204,494 207,238 133,000
PW195 HDR/LaCo 237,619 226,272
Hydroplant Riverbank Stabilization 38,752 38,744 100,000
Hydroplant Riverbank Stabilization grant not used in 2015 50,000 50,000
Fish Creek Trail Cost Share CDBG‐DR ('16: 42,400, '17: 127,275) 169,675
Fish Creek Trail FEMA ('16: 429,390, '17: 833,605) 1,262,995
Hydroplant Phase II CWCB 150,000
Capital 850,000 0 1,280,000
Scott Ponds (moved to 2016) 850,000 850,000
Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project 430,000
Resolution #05‐16: appropriations to include Dry Gulch Road rehabilitation, restating '15 into '16
Resolution #08‐16: appropriations to include flood/grant related items.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
In 1996, Larimer County voters approved a one‐quarter of one percent sales tax increase to be used for trails and open
space purchases through 2018. This fund accounts for the Town's portion of the tax.
OPEN SPACE FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Ordinance #11-16 Amending the Estes Valley Development Code
Relating to Residential & Accommodations Density Calculations
Objective:
Objectives include:
• Conducting a public hearing for a proposed Estes Valley Development Code text
amendment regarding residential and accommodations density calculations; and
• Reviewing the 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. This amendment was presented to
Town Board on March 22, 2016 in a report format. If approved by Town Board, the
amendment is scheduled for review by the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners on April 18, 2016.
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:
Vote to approve or deny Ordinance #11-16.
Budget:
Code Amendment – Staff Time and Publishing Costs, estimated to be under $5,000
Level of Public Interest:
High – Redevelopment
Low – Code amendment
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #11-16.
Attachments:
Ordinance #11-16 with Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. 11-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL AND ACCOMODATION
DENSITY CALCULATIONS, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT
TO ROUND DOWN WHEN THE
NET DENSITY CALCULATION RESULTS IN A FRACTION
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016 the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 1.9.C
“Density Calculation”, found that the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development
Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, and recommended approval of the text
amendment;and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment
complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 1.9.C “Density Calculation”; set forth on Exhibit “A” and recommended
for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved.
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
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 No. 11-16
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
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.
Finance Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Christy Crosser, Grant Specialist, Finance Department
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Public Hearing – Close Out for 3 CDBG-DR Projects
Please note: This is a second public hearing as requested from the State to ensure all
grant requirements have been met and reflect final costs.
Objective:
To conduct a public hearing as required by the grant agreements for HUD Community
Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funded projects:
1. Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project
(D5DR 1-40-EP5)
2. FHWA cost share for Community Drive (M405-018-20074, R1-40-EP2)
3. FEMA cost share for various road sites (FEMA PW#69, R1-60-EP1 .2)
The purpose of this hearing is to allow citizens to review and comment on the
performance of these three projects. Written comments are also welcomed and must be
received by Thursday, April 14, 2016, at Town of Estes Park, P.O. Box 1200, Estes
Park, CO 80517.
For information concerning the public hearing, contact the following Town
representatives: Town Clerks Office, townclerk@estes.org; subject line: "CDBG-DR
Project Close out Public Hearing" and specify which project.
Present Situation:
The reach of Fall River between the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary through
550 feet downstream of the Fish Hatchery Road bridge was severely damaged during
the 2013 flood. This damage included streambank erosion and channel degradation.
CDBG-DR funds supported a design-build project for stream bank stabilization and
channel restoration.
Community Drive was heavily used during the 2013 flood emergency response and
recovery with trucks running road base material to and from the fairgrounds stockpile.
As a result, this critical road with access to the schools was severely damaged requiring
road repair and restoration. CDBG-DR funds support the Town’s cost share for FHWA,
8.605%.
FEMA Project Worksheet #69 includes 13 sites, each was damaged during the 2013
flood. CDBG-DR funds have been requested to support the Town’s cost share, 12.5%.
The sites are located along Fall River (Fall River Court, Fall River Drive, Pedestrian
Trail off Fall River Road, Pedestrian Bridge off West Elkhorn, Spruce Drive Bridge,
Cherokee Road, Heinz Parkway, Grey Fox Drive, Lexington Lane and Grand Estates).
Proposal:
A public hearing is required for CDBG-DR funded projects when projects are complete
or nearly complete.
Advantages:
This public hearing offers the citizens an opportunity to comment on these projects.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
No Board action required.
Budget:
Hydroplant: $150,000; design-build project
FHWA Community Drive CDBG-DR cost share: $39,931.63
FEMA PW#69 cost share: $46,540.83
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
Not applicable
Attachments:
None
General Information:
A public hearing will be opened for these three projects; however, comments will be
taken in order of the projects listed in this memo. The Mayor will close each project
following public comments and then request comments on the next project.
This public hearing is being conducted at the Town Hall which is a handicapped
accessible building. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids
and services) are asked to contract the Town Clerk's office at least five (5) business
days prior to this public hearing to request special accommodations. Hearing devices
are available for this public meeting upon request. Those with limited English proficiency
planning to attend this public hearing are asked to contact the Town Clerk's office at
least five (5) business days prior to this meeting and accommodations will be made
available upon requests. The Town Clerk's office contact information:
TownClerk@estes.org; 970-577-4777; 170 MacGregor Avenue, PO Box 1200, Estes
Park, Colorado 80517.
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Elm Road Landfill Drainage Improvements Project:
C&H Excavation Final Budget Increase
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval to increase the project budget for the Elm Road Landfill
Drainage Improvement Project. This budget increase would offset the final requested
change orders from C&H Excavation.
Present Situation:
In December 2015, the Town Board authorized a construction contract with C&H
Excavation to install drainage improvements in and around the Elm Road Landfill.
Public Works issued a Notice to Proceed with construction on December 14th. The work
has proceeded through the winter season and the project was substantially complete on
March 15, 2016. Presently there are 4 items yet to be completed due to weather and
the need for warmer temperatures:
1. Asphalt patches across Moraine Avenue and the Waste Management drive.
2. Final grading at the south end of the landfill with bentonite cap.
3. Reseeding of the entire disturbed area.
4. Final As-Builts of the completed project.
Contractually the project is scheduled to be complete by May 1, 2016. The final punch-
list items are scheduled to be complete by that date. The weather outlook is favorable
this month.
Proposal:
Throughout the project, Public Works received change orders from C&H Excavation that
exceeded the project budget and included the following:
1. Extensive granite rock lenses were encountered that required rock breaking
equipment and increased rental costs for 6 weeks totaling $52,744.19. Rental
receipts and field verification of the equipment were provided by C&H.
2. Multiple pockets of refuse were encountered that required proper sampling,
disposal methods and field modifications to the design. Field modifications were
directed by CDPHE staff and per CDPHE standards. Costs for adequate refuse
design and mitigation totaled $62,769.74.
Stewart Environmental provided full-time inspection of the work. When field issues
were identified, Stewart was in direct contact with CDPHE to confirm proper mitigation
methods were used. Stewart coordinated several change order credits in addition to
keep overruns on this project to a minimum. Public Works met with C&H Excavation
and Stewart Environmental multiple times to discuss the cost overruns and alternatives
to items identified on the change order requests. We feel construction options were
thoroughly evaluated and the additional costs are equitable.
A total contract increase of $115,513.93 has been determined. This increases the
contract amount from $517,583.99 to $633,097.92 and represents an 18% adjustment.
This final dollar amount is still below the other contractor bid of $637,235.40 for this
project when it came out in October 2015.
Advantages:
Approval of the budget increase will allow processing of the final change orders
and will allow uninterrupted construction progress to complete the final punch-list
items by May.
Completion of the final construction items will meet the CDPHE drainage
improvement requirements placed upon the Town.
Disadvantages:
The project did come in over the Board approved budget. Additional funds are
requested to keep the project on schedule and to keep the contractor financially
whole.
Action Recommended:
Staff was given authorization to approve change orders up to $570,000. To finalize
construction of the Elm Road Landfill Drainage Improvements Project and meet goals of
a final project completion date of May 1, 2016, Staff recommends approval of a
requested budget increase up to $633,097.92.
Budget:
Construction services for this project were previously funded from the Community
Reinvestment Fund. Public Works proposes an additional $63,097.92 for change
orders come out of the Capital line item within that fund. This increases the project
budget to $633,097.92.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project has been low. This project directly impacts Town property
and the impact to the general public is minimal.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of a budget increase to the construction services contract
with C&H Excavation for the Elm Road Landfill Drainage Project for a total cost not to
exceed $633,097.92.
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application & Consultant Services
Contract Award
Objective:
Public Works staff seeks direction from the Town Board regarding the selection of an
eligible project for inclusion in the current Federal Lands Access Program grant
application, and allocation of funds to award a professional services contract for the
preparation of this application.
Present Situation:
The Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Programming Decisions Committee
(PDC) announced grant applications will be accepted through May 21, 2016 for projects
that improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are
located within Federal lands. Over $17m is available annually for projects to be built in
2019 thru 2022. Details are provided in the attached program brochure.
On March 10, 2016 three candidate projects were presented to the Public Safety,
Utilities, & Public Works (PUP) Committee which recommended this request be referred
to the full Town Board for consideration.
Working in collaboration with the citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), five
project ideas were discussed at TAB meetings on March 16 and April 4. The five
project options are:
1. Construction of the Fall River Trail extension to Rocky Mountain National Park,
2. Replacement of the downtown bridges at Riverside Drive and Rockwell Street for
flood mitigation and river channel widening downstream to US 36 (contingent on
Downtown Estes Loop construction),
3. Design and construction of a downtown parking structure/transit facility at the
Post Office parking lot,
4. Construct two additional levels at the proposed Estes Park Transit Facility
Parking Structure (Estes Park Visitor Center south parking lot),
5. Design and construct roadway and multi-modal improvements to Moraine
Avenue from Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road, including a multi-use trail near
Big Thompson River and a full rebuild of the intersection of Moraine Avenue and
Marys Lake Road.
These citizens voted unanimously to recommend the Town Board submit an application
for the Moraine Avenue improvements (Option 5). See the attached memo from the
TAB Chair, Kimberly Campbell.
The engineering consultant firm of Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig (FHU) was contacted by
Public Works staff to provide fee proposals for the preparation and submittal of a grant
application for either Option 1 (Fall River Trail Extension) or Option 5 (Moraine Avenue
Improvements). Copies of these proposals are attached.
Proposal:
A sole-source professional services agreement with FHU to prepare a Federal Lands
Access Program grant application on behalf of the Town of Estes Park is proposed due
to their immediate availability and familiarity/experience with this funding program and
the Town of Estes Park.
Advantages:
The advantages and disadvantages listed below pertain to the Staff and TAB
recommendation to submit a grant application for Option 5 (Moraine Avenue
Improvements). Additional comparative information of all the options is provided on the
attached Project Options Screening Summary.
The advantages of submitting an application to fund improvements to Moraine Avenue
and construct a new multi-use trail along the Big Thompson River include:
• The Town has an established cash flow of trail funds (Larimer County Open
Space funds and 1A Sales Tax Trails Expansion funds) from which the 17.21%
local funding match could be obtained.
• This grant funding opportunity exists now and the proposed improvements are
fully eligible for funding under this program, as they provide access to, and are
adjacent to, the federal lands of Rocky Mountain National Park.
• The street and intersection improvement components are particularly attractive to
the Colorado PDC when evaluating projects eligible for this funding.
• The funding could rebuild the existing intersection of Moraine Avenue and Marys
Lake Road which is antiquated and operates poorly, particularly during periods of
heavy vehicular congestion entering or exiting Rocky Mountain National Park.
• This project could provide drainage improvements (curb and gutter) and a center
left turn lane to improve safety for motorists accessing adjacent businesses and
streets from Moraine Avenue.
• Highly needed pedestrian sidewalk and on-street bike lanes can be added to this
dangerous section of roadway.
• A multi-use path could be designed and built within numerous easements that
have been acquired along the Big Thompson River by the Town over the past
decades.
• Completion of this project advances the 2016 Town Board Objectives to 1)
provide safe user access to trails, 2) develop trail connectivity, and 3) include
bike lanes and pedestrian walks with new street improvements.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantages of submitting an application to fund improvements to Moraine
Avenue and construct a new multi-use trail along the Big Thompson River include:
• Approximately nine additional easements would be needed from owners of
private property along the Big Thompson River for the proposed trail. (This
component of the project could be deleted if the impacted property owners are
not supportive of granting easements. No condemnation is contemplated for this
project.)
• Widening of Moraine Avenue will require cuts into rocky hillsides or expanded
embankment fills adjacent to short sections of the Big Thompson River.
• Committing future trails revenue is likely to limit spending options on other trail
project opportunities for several years in the future.
• Roadway construction is disruptive to visitors traveling to Estes Park and Rocky
Mountain National Park.
Action Recommended:
The PW staff and TAB members propose the Town Board appropriate $36,000 to pay
FHU for the preparation and submittal of a Federal Lands Access Program grant
application for the proposed roadway, intersection, pedestrian, bike, and multi-use trail
improvements to Moraine Avenue from Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road.
Budget:
The local matching funds for this project would obligate anticipated revenue from the
Larimer County Open Space funds (approximately $300k per year) and from the 1A
Sales Tax Trails Expansion funds (approximately $300k per year) for 2017, 2018, and
2019 to provide $1.8m for the local funding match. This is $17.21% of a $10.5m
project. The actual estimated project cost still needs to be calculated after further
design effort is accomplished.
The funds to pay FHU $36,000 to prepare the grant application could be obtained from
the Community Reinvestment Fund. This expenditure was not included in the approved
2016 budget, and a supplemental appropriation is required.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposal is expected to be high.
Recommended Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the appropriation of $36,000 to engage FHU to
prepare and submit a Federal Lands Access Program grant application for the proposed
improvements to Moraine Avenue.
Attachments:
Project Aerial Photo
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Fact Sheet
TAB Recommendation Memo dated April 7, 2016
FHU fee proposal for Option 1 (Fall River Trail) grant application
FHU fee proposal for Option 4 (Moraine Ave Improvements) grant application
Project Options Screening Summary
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM
Colorado
FEDERAL LANDS 2016 CALL FOR PROJECTS SCHEDULE
The Federal Lands Access Program is a
competitive, discretionary program for
states, counties, tribes and local
governments.
The program provides funds for
transportation facilities that provide
access to, or are located on or adjacent
to Federal lands, with emphasis placed
on facilities that improve access to high
use recreation sites or Federal economic
generators. The Federal lands access
transportation facility must be owned or
maintained by the state, tribe or local
government.
Eligible projects include engineering,
rehabilitation, restoration, construction,
reconstruction, transportation
planning, and research of Federal
lands access transportation facilities.
CO FLAP projects that have been
selected and programmed for
funding thus far include but are not
limited to:
Roadway reconstruction
Pavement rehabilitation
Bridge repair and reconstruction
Transit facilities
Annual Allocation 1 $17.78 Million
Advertised Program / Fiscal Years 2 $53 - $66 Million / FY19 – FY22
Local Minimum Match Required3 17.21%
Upcoming Call for Projects February 15, 2016 – May 21, 2016
CO FLAP Website www.flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/co
MONTH February March April May June July August September
PROGRAM
DECISION
COMMITTEE
Call for Project Applications
PDC scores
and ranks
applications
PDC selects short-list of
applicants for development of
project agreements, scoping,
project delivery plan.
PDC final
project
selection
meeting
Funded
program
announced
APPLICANT Applications prepared and submitted Short list of applications
engaged in scoping
PROGRAM FACTS
1. Assumes a 5-7 year Program of Projects.
2. Determined by Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) based on program needs and qualifying project applications submitted
in Call for Projects.
3. Local match may include federal agency funds excluding Title 23 or Title 49 funds, with exception of the Federal Lands
Transportation Program (FLTP) and Tribal that are Transportation Program (TTP) both eligible matching federal programs.
RIVERSIDED R
D A V I S STIV YST
E E L K H O R N A V E
MOCCAS INSTR O C KWELL ST
RIVERSIDEDRMARYSLAKER
D
RANGEVIEW
R
D
HIGH DR
WELKHORN A V E
KENW O O D LN
HIGHWA Y 36OLYMPUSRD
SUNRIS E L N
WIES T D R
HIGHV
IEWCTIVYLN LOTT STOLD RA N G E R DRJUNIPERLNCLEAVE ST
WRIVERSIDEDRPROSPECT PARKDR CY TE W O R THRDNARCISS
U
S
DRVALLEY VIEW
R
DHEINZPKWYCOURTNEYLNELMRDROCKRIDGERDA U D U B O N ST
M O RAINE AVEHONDI
USCIRPI
NERI
VERL
NCRAGSD RCRAGS DRCOLU
M
B
IN
E
D
RHIGHPINESDRTURQ U O IS E T R L
RIVE
R
RO CKCIRPARK R IV E R PLL L O Y D LN
M O O NRIDGERDME
A
D
OWC IR
Big Thompson River
Fall River
B i g T h o m p s o n R i v e r
£¤36
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: April 7, 2016
RE: FLAP Grant Application Options
Introduction
On Monday, April 4, the Transportation Advisory Board held a special meeting to
discuss the current FLAP call for applications. The Board discussed six options which
had been recommended for consideration. These options were:
1. Fall River Trail Construction (Estimated cost: $6m, local match: $1m)
2. Flood mitigation projects related to the Downtown Estes Loop (Estimated cost: $18m,
local match: $3.1m)
3. Transit center and parking garage at Post Office lot (Estimated cost: $12m, local match:
$2m)
4. Expand Visitor Center parking structure to 4 levels and improve transit hub configuration
(Estimated cost: TBD, local match: TBD)
5. Roadway and intersection improvements on Moraine Ave, including bike lanes, a
sidewalk, turn lanes and a detached multi-use trail along the Big Thompson, between
the intersection of Moraine and Crags continuing through the intersection of Moraine and
Mary’s Lake Rd (Estimated cost: TBD, local match: TBD)
6. Do not apply for funding at this time
Narrowing the Options:
The flood mitigation projects (Option 2) were quickly ruled out as not fitting the grant
requirements, as these bridges are not being replaced to increase vehicle capacity
to/from RMNP, but rather to prepare for a (hopefully) infrequent flood event.
A downtown parking structure (Option 3) was also ruled out for a number of reasons.
First, when our current FLAP project hit some budgeting hurdles in 2016, the Town
wrote a letter requesting to reverse the order of our proposed FLAP project to build the
parking structure first. This was declined. In reviewing other FLAP projects that have
been funded elsewhere, it was found that few parking lots have been funded and even
fewer parking structures. And at this time, we do not have a significant expansion to our
transit operations to announce in conjunction with this project in order to fit the grant
objectives well. While we recognize the strong public sentiment toward a downtown
parking structure, with a downtown master plan in development this did not feel like the
right time to propose such a dramatic change to the downtown core.
As with the Post Office parking structure option, an expansion of the Visitor Center
parking structure (Option 4) was ruled out as not a strong fit for the grant objectives.
Construction of the Fall River Trail (Option 1) was a contender, but it was ultimately
deemed likely to be funded by other grant opportunities and not the best fit for this
grant.
Moraine Avenue improvements and multi-use trail (Option 5):
TAB members unanimously selected Option 5 as the preferred project to be included in
a FLAP grant application. We summarized the proposed project as:
Roadway and intersection improvements to Moraine Avenue, including bike
lanes, center turn lane and sidewalk as well as a detached multi-use trail along
the Big Thompson River from the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Crags
Drive continuing through the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Mary’s Lake
road.
Of the available options, TAB feels it is:
• the best fit for the grant objectives,
• is expected to be widely acceptable to the community, and
• provides options for the Town to use Open Space/1A Trails Expansion funds for
the local match (with an opportunity to request match funds from CDOT as well)
Moraine Avenue is the main thoroughfare between downtown Estes Park and Rocky
Mountain National Park. The road features lodging facilities, restaurants and retail
establishments. It also links large areas of Estes Park, including the YMCA and
neighborhoods off Highway 66 as well as the neighborhoods surrounding Mary’s Lake
Road west of Mary’s lake, to downtown Estes. It is a very heavily trafficked road. Yet
the roadway has no bike facilities, only sporadic sidewalks, and no turn lanes despite
heavy side traffic. The intersection with Mary’s Lake Road is a 5-way intersection with
confusing lane geometry. In 2015, over 637,000 vehicles entered Rocky Mountain
National Park at the Beavers Meadow entrance on Moraine Avenue (Appendix A), not
to mention the daily traffic through Town.
Furthermore, we have the opportunity to create a very special multi-use trail along the
Big Thompson river where some easements have already been granted to further
connect downtown Estes Park with the RMNP and the Moraine Avenue residences and
businesses.
These combined connectivity improvements will benefit local resident and visitor
experiences by creating improved opportunities for multi-modal movement throughout
the community, which in turn may reduce traffic congestion and its associated pollution.
Action requested:
TAB asks that the Trustees instruct Public Works to retain a consultant to prepare a
FLAP grant application requesting funding for roadway and intersection improvements
to Moraine Avenue, including bike lanes and sidewalk as well as a detached multi-use
trail along the Big Thompson River from the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Crags
Drive continuing through the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Mary’s Lake road.
APPENDIX A:
VEHICLE COUNT AT RMNP
Rocky Mountain NP
Report Date: Dec 2015
Bookmark this report: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/ROMO%20YTD%20Vehicle%20Summary
This Month Same Month Last Year % Change This Year YTD Last Year YTD % Change YTD
VEHICLES AT BEAVER MEADOWS 15,435 13,125 17.6 637,029 539,236 18.1
VEHICLES AT FALL RIVER 7,501 5,803 29.3 353,636 273,139 29.5
VEHICLES AT GRAND LAKE 2,700 1,319 104.7 245,286 184,906 32.7
VEHICLES AT LUMPY 1,706 1,589 7.4 51,274 47,570 7.8
VEHICLES AT LILY LAKE 1,128 1,244 -9.3 33,193 33,170 0.1
April 4, 2016
Re: Town of Estes Park
Proposal for Development of Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 2016
Proposed Project Application
Greg Muhonen
Director of Public Works
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mr. Muhonen:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the application for the
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 2016. The goal of this proposal is to develop
and compile information that will enable Estes Park to compete for the FLAP 2016 funds. The
proposed project included in this scope of work would be:
• Fall River Trail Construction
The following is a summary of the tasks that will be conducted on a schematic (high level) basis in
order to support the application:
1. Preparation of Application Packet –Tasks to be completed as they are outlined in the
Colorado FLAP Proposed Project application include:
a. General information – completed by FHU
b. Background data – completed by FHU with supplemental data provided from the
Town of Estes Park. This section requires traffic volumes, it is assumed that the
Town of Estes Park will provide current and 20-year projection counts, or FHU will
rely on existing data. New traffic counts are not included in the scope. Safety history
information will be provided by the Town of Estes Park or from the CDOT website (if
available).
c. Proposed Project – FHU will develop a purpose and need statement in
coordination with the Town of Estes Park. FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park
for additional information to complete this section including: right-of-way, utility
impacts. If desired, FMLA (Frank Miltenberger Landscape Architect) can provide
visual rendering services to support the discussion and description in the
application. These can be completed for an additional cost as discussed below.
d. Proposed Project Cost Estimate – It is assumed that the Town already has the
information necessary to complete the project cost estimate. The section will be
completed by FHU with information provided by the Town of Estes Park.
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 2
e. Criteria 1 – Access Mobility and Connectivity – FHU will complete drafts for this
criteria and provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town
will provide supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the
section.
f. Criteria 2 – Economic Development - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and
provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide
supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the section.
g. Criteria 3 – Preservation - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and provide to
the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide
supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the section.
h. Criteria 4 – Safety - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and provide to the
Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide supplemental
information as necessary to support completion of the section.
i. Criteria 5 – Sustainability and Environmental Quality Benefits - FHU will
complete drafts for this criteria and provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and
comment. The Town will provide supplemental information as necessary to support
completion of the section.
j. Criteria 6 – Funding and Coordination – FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park
to complete this section. It is assumed that the Town will coordinate with project
partners to obtain support letters. FHU can provide draft support letters from
previous grants as examples.
k. Project Maps (site map identifying project termini, vicinity map identifying
regional context) – FHU will prepare both of these maps and will provide for
review.
l. Project Photos – FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park for photos of the
proposed project (4 – 6 photos)
m. Link to a video tour (optional but strongly encouraged) - The Town of Estes
Park, if desired, will complete a video tour of the project area. A video is not
included in this scope of work.
n. Supplementation Alternative Transportation Worksheet – Relying on data
provided by the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park and online,
FHU will complete this worksheet for inclusion with the proposed project application.
2. Design – It is anticipated that the design necessary for the application has already been
completed to a final design level and will be provided to FHU to incorporate into the
application
3. Meetings – This scope of work assumes two meetings with the Town of Estes Park. The
first meeting will be to discuss the vision of the project and confirm expectations prior to
starting conceptual design, this meeting could include a site visit with the Town. The second
meeting will be to review the application.
This scope does not include any presentations to the Town Board or meetings with Rocky
Mountain National Park. This scope does not include any public meetings or public
presentations.
We propose conducting these services on a “time and materials” basis. Under such an agreement,
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig is compensated at hourly rates for all labor and other direct costs are
reimbursed at 1.1 times the cost. The following are our standard hourly billing rates:
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 3
Principal II $ 210.00
Principal $ 190.00
Associate $ 180.00
Sr. Engineer/Environmental Scientist $ 170.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist V $ 150.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist IV $ 135.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist III $ 115.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist II $ 100.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist I $ 90.00
Designer V $ 120.00
Designer IV $ 115.00
Designer III $ 100.00
Graphic Design $110.00
Administrative $ 80.00
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 4
At these rates, we have estimated that the above scope of services could be completed for an
estimated budget of $18,000. This amount also will serve as an upset limit beyond which no
charges could be made without your prior approval. Visual renderings from FMLA, if desired, can
be provided for an additional $4,000. Attendance at more than the two budgeted meetings in the
Estes Park area would be at your request and would be billed at the standard rates. Notice to
proceed for the tight timeframe on this application will be very important as well as regular
communication with the Town of Estes Park.
If the conditions of this proposal are acceptable to you, please sign below and on the attached
“Letter Agreement Standard Provisions”, and return one copy to serve as a letter of agreement. If
you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to call. We thank you for this
opportunity to offer our services, and we look forward to the possibility of working with you on this
assignment.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
___________________________
Accepted By: Town of Estes Park
Jessica S. Myklebust, LEED-AP
Senior Environmental Scientist
Date
April 4, 2016
Re: Town of Estes Park
Proposal for Development of Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 2016
Proposed Project Application
Greg Muhonen
Director of Public Works
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mr. Muhonen:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the application for the
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 2016. The goal of this proposal is to develop
and compile information that will enable Estes Park to compete for the FLAP 2016 funds. The
proposed project included in this scope of work would be:
• A multi-use trail that would extend from the Donut Haus intersection to the vicinity of Beaver
Point where it would connect with the trail system in Rocky Mountain National Park
(RMNP).
• Intersection improvements at the Moraine Avenue west of Crags Drive out to Mary’s Lake
Road – adding a center left turn lane, on- street bike lanes, curb and gutter, and a detached
sidewalk on the south side as well as roadway widening improvements between Crags
Drive and Mary’s Lake Road.
The following is a summary of the tasks that will be conducted on a schematic (high level) basis in
order to support the application:
1. Preparation of Application Packet –Tasks to be completed as they are outlined in the
Colorado FLAP Proposed Project application include:
a. General information – completed by FHU
b. Background data – completed by FHU with supplemental data provided from the
Town of Estes Park. This section requires traffic volumes, it is assumed that the
Town of Estes Park will provide current and 20-year projection counts, or FHU will
rely on existing data. New traffic counts are not included in the scope. Safety history
information will be provided by the Town of Estes Park or from the CDOT website (if
available).
c. Proposed Project – FHU will develop a purpose and need statement in
coordination with the Town of Estes Park. FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park
for additional information to complete this section including: right-of-way, utility
impacts. If desired, FMLA (Frank Miltenberger Landscape Architect) can provide
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 2
visual rendering services to support the discussion and description in the
application. These can be completed for an additional cost as discussed below.
d. Proposed Project Cost Estimate – FHU will complete a conceptual layout of the
proposed project to the extent that cost estimates can be created to complete this
section. FHU will work with the Town to complete this section. FHU will rely on the
Town to assist with the match requirements and project partners.
e. Criteria 1 – Access Mobility and Connectivity – FHU will complete drafts for this
criteria and provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town
will provide supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the
section.
f. Criteria 2 – Economic Development - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and
provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide
supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the section.
g. Criteria 3 – Preservation - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and provide to
the Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide
supplemental information as necessary to support completion of the section.
h. Criteria 4 – Safety - FHU will complete drafts for this criteria and provide to the
Town of Estes Park to review and comment. The Town will provide supplemental
information as necessary to support completion of the section.
i. Criteria 5 – Sustainability and Environmental Quality Benefits - FHU will
complete drafts for this criteria and provide to the Town of Estes Park to review and
comment. The Town will provide supplemental information as necessary to support
completion of the section.
j. Criteria 6 – Funding and Coordination – FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park
to complete this section. It is assumed that the Town will coordinate with project
partners to obtain support letters. FHU can provide draft support letters from
previous grants as examples.
k. Project Maps (site map identifying project termini, vicinity map identifying
regional context) – FHU will prepare both of these maps and will provide for
review.
l. Project Photos – FHU will rely on the Town of Estes Park for photos of the
proposed project (4 – 6 photos)
m. Link to a video tour (optional but strongly encouraged) - The Town of Estes
Park, if desired, will complete a video tour of the project area. A video is not
included in this scope of work.
n. Supplementation Alternative Transportation Worksheet – Relying on data
provided by the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park and online,
FHU will complete this worksheet for inclusion with the proposed project application.
2. Conceptual Design – Conceptual level designs will be developed for the proposed
intersection and trail on the basis of available aerial photography. General roadway and trail
cross sections that adhere to state standards will be drawn on the aerial base maps that
include property boundaries. Property impacts, easements and cost estimates will be
developed on the basis of general costs per linear foot and at sufficient detail to complete the
proposed project cost estimate. Street cross sections and intersection lane geometric layouts
would be completed for the full 1.5 mile so as to support the application. The conceptual
design will assume the roundabout concept.
3. Meetings – This scope of work assumes two meetings with the Town of Estes Park. The
first meeting will be to discuss the vision of the project and confirm expectations prior to
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 3
starting conceptual design, this meeting could include a site visit with the Town. The second
meeting will be to review the application.
This scope does not include any presentations to the Town Board or meetings with Rocky
Mountain National Park. This scope does not include any public meetings or public
presentations.
We propose conducting these services on a “time and materials” basis. Under such an agreement,
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig is compensated at hourly rates for all labor and other direct costs are
reimbursed at 1.1 times the cost. The following are our standard hourly billing rates:
Principal II $ 210.00
Principal $ 190.00
Associate $ 180.00
Sr. Engineer/Environmental Scientist $ 170.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist V $ 150.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist IV $ 135.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist III $ 115.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist II $ 100.00
Engineer/Environmental Scientist I $ 90.00
Designer V $ 120.00
Designer IV $ 115.00
Designer III $ 100.00
Graphic Design $110.00
Administrative $ 80.00
April 5, 2016
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Page 4
At these rates, we have estimated that the above scope of services could be completed for an
estimated budget of $36,000. This amount also will serve as an upset limit beyond which no
charges could be made without your prior approval. Visual renderings from FMLA, if desired, can
be provided for an additional $4,000. Attendance at more than the two budgeted meetings in the
Estes Park area would be at your request and would be billed at the standard rates. Notice to
proceed for the tight timeframe on this application will be very important as well as regular
communication with the Town of Estes Park.
If the conditions of this proposal are acceptable to you, please sign below and on the attached
“Letter Agreement Standard Provisions”, and return one copy to serve as a letter of agreement. If
you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to call. We thank you for this
opportunity to offer our services, and we look forward to the possibility of working with you on this
assignment.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
___________________________
Accepted By: Town of Estes Park
Jessica S. Myklebust, LEED-AP
Senior Environmental Scientist
Date
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
2016 Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application
Project Options Screening Summary (rev 04 Apr 2016)
Item No.Evaluation Criteria Option 1
Fall River Tr Const
Option 2
DE Loop Bridges
Option 3
PO Transit/Parking Garage
Option 4
Add Two Levels to VC Parking Struct
Option 5
Moraine Ave Impts W to MLk
Option 6
Do Not Apply in 2016
1 Estimated Project Construction Cost $6,000,000 $18,000,000 $12,000,000 $5,400,000 $10,500,000 $0
2 Estimated Local Match Funds $1,032,600 $3,097,800 $2,065,200 $929,340 $1,807,050 $0
3 Source of Local Match Funding Open Space & 1A Trails Exp unknown unknown unknown Open Space & 1A Trails Exp none required
4 Reduces Car trips into RMNP encourages bike trips encourages car trips encourages bus trips encourages bus trips encourages bike & car trips no change
5 Design and NEPA complete in 2016 yes no no yes no NA
6 Property Acquisition Required no yes yes no easements for river trail no
7 Reduces Flood Risk in Downtown Estes no yes no no no no
8 Reduces Vehicular Congestion Downtown no no yes yes yes no
9 Improves Ped & Cyclist Safety yes nominally no no yes no
10 Provides Parking Improvement no no yes yes no no
11 Improves Motorist Safety nominally nominally nominally nominally yes no
12 Meets Grant Eligibility Requirements nominally nominally nominally nominally yes NA
13 Addresses Existing Community Need yes yes yes yes yes no
14 Perceived Community Support yes divided yes yes yes no
1 Safe user access to trails yes no no no yes NA
2 Develop trail connectivity yes no no no yes NA
3 Include bike/ped lane w/ st impts NA NA NA NA yes NA
4 Pursue Funding for Ph 2 VC Parking Structure no no no yes no
5 PW Staff Ranking 1
6 Transportation Advisory Board Ranking 1
NOTES:
1 Option 1 provides construction funding to extend the Fall River trail to RMNP. Design and NEPA work to be completed in 2016. Construction in 2019 or later.
2 Option 2 designs & builds a 2nd phase of the DE Loop which includes replacing bridges at Rockwell and Riverside, expanding the new Ivy St bridge, and widening the Big T river channel from Riverside Dr to US36.
3 Option 3 designs and builds a transit center/parking garage in the Post Office parking lot in 2019 or later.
4 Option 4 constructs third and fourth levels at proposed Visitor Center parking structure in 2019 or later.
5 Option 5 designs & upgrades Moraine Avenue from the Donut Haus to RMNP with sidewalks, curb, gutter, bike lanes, new HMA. Upgrade Mary's Lake Road intersection. Include multi-use trail along Big T river in 2019 or later.
6 Option 6 is the Do Nothing alternative
LEGEND:Good
Tolerable/Neutral
Poor
2016 Strategic Plan Goals