HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-06-14The 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, June 14, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 24, 2016 and Town Board Study Session May 24,
2016.
2. Bills.
3. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated May 3, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
4. Platte River Power Authority Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side
Management and Distributed Energy Resource Program Partnership.
5. Light and Power Purchase of Fiber Cable.
6. Motion to set a public hearing date of July 26, 2016 on proposed rate changes for
Light and Power customers. Moved to Action Item #4.
7. Appointing Duane Hudson as Town Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (OUTSIDE ENTITIES):
1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Acting Superintendent Bobowski.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
Prepared 6/6/16
* Revised: June 10, 2016
**Revised: June 13, 2016
*
**
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION CONTINUED TO JUNE 28, 2016.
4. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY OF ESTES
PARK, INC., DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY TO BART'S LIQUOR, LLC,
DBA BART'S LIQUOR, 453 E. WONDERVIEW AVENUE #1, RETAIL LIQUOR
STORE LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
2. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM DIANE L. RAMBEAU, DBA RAMBOS
LONGHORN LIQUOR TO RAMBOS LONGHORN LIQUOR, INC., DBA RAMBOS
LONGHORN LIQUOR, 1640 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, RETAIL LIQUOR STORE.
Town Clerk Williamson.
3. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM DCALS, ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA
LONIGAN'S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL TO ESTES IRISH HUB, INC., DBA
LONIGAN'S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL, 110 W. ELKHORN AVENUE,
TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #16-16 AMENDING SECTION 17.28 FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
Interim Director Cumbo.
2. 2016 SHUTTLE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIT
ASSOCIATES, INC. Shuttle Coordinator Wells.
3. MURPHY'S RESORT/ESTES PARK RESORT WATER MAIN EXTENSION
AGREEMENT. Utilities Coordinator Rusch.
4. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 26, 2016 ON PROPOSED RATE
CHANGES FOR LIGHT AND POWER CUSTOMERS.
6. ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 24, 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 24th day of May 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATION:
City of Evans Police Chief Rick Brandt presented Chief Kufeld with a certificate and
plaque in recognition of his completion of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police
Executive Certification program.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen thanked Director Muhonen for providing a review of the
transportation issues at the recent Estes Valley Partners for Commerce meeting.
Ron Wilcocks/County citizen and downtown business owner spoke to the ongoing traffic
issues downtown as it relates to timing of the intersection at Elkhorn and Moraine. He
stated the proposed Loop project would not solve the issues and would not address the
single most important issue, parking downtown. He requested new signage at and
before the intersection at Hwy 34 and Hwy 36 to direct guest going to the Park down
Hwy 34/Fall River Entrance. The temporary signage last year worked well.
Arthur Messal/Town citizen agreed with Mr. Wilcocks that it would not be beneficial to
redevelop a roadway to move more cars toward the National Park that is already full.
He commented how difficult he has found it to engage in the government in a
meaningful way. He stated a Town official continues to lobby for the Senior Center in
the Community Center and he requested the lobbying stop. He commented the Lazy B
proposed development is in conflict with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the
Estes Valley Development Code. He stated the project should not be approved by the
Town Board.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen commented the current Community Center plan does not
represent what the citizens voted for in November. The Town has a significant financial
stake in the plan, and therefore, has influence on the direction of the final plan. She
also spoke against the Lazy B development.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Martchink stated the Park Advisory Board met and discussed the first Mountain
Festival held this year in conjunction with Arbor Day and Earth Day. The event would
be extended to include events on both Friday and Saturday next year. The Board also
Board of Trustees – May 24, 2016 – Page 2
discussed a mural project and the extension of the musical instruments from the west
side of the Riverwalk toward the Visitor Center.
Trustee Norris informed the Board the Estes Valley Planning Commission met on May
17th and voted 4 to 3 to deny the Lazy B project. The Army Corp of Engineers Silver
Jacket program completed their recent visit to Estes Park to evaluate ways the Town
and the downtown businesses can address future flooding of the downtown corridor. A
report should be forthcoming.
Trustee Walker commented Western Heritage met and are continuing their efforts to
prepare for the upcoming Rooftop Rodeo. Visit Estes Park held their monthly meeting
and discussed the need to replace Chair Scott Webermeier as his Town appointed term
would end on December 31, 2016.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Arts District met and discussed an Art Walk the
first Friday of the month to encourage visitors and residents to shop in Estes Park.
During her recent trip to Reykjavik, Iceland she learned of their need to ensure the
aging population lives a quality life. Another significant impact to the community is the
conversion of housing into vacation rentals, impacting the cost of housing and the
availability of housing. She stated she has visited two international communities which
have placed loops in their downtown corridors. The Estes Park community faces similar
problems and challenges as other communities.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Transportation Advisory Board held their monthly meeting
and continue to work on developing a list of items for the Town Board’s upcoming
strategic plan retreat.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Dry Gulch Road temporary single-wide access road
would be reopened. After further review and discussion, it was determined a half-mile
detour was safer for the residents in the area than an 8-mile detour. Several factors
were reviewed including the delay, increase use of gas, safety, etc. as reasons to
reopen the temporary access road through the completion of Phase I of the project.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 10, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
May 10, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, May 12, 2016.
1. InVision GIS Contract, $330,000, Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated April 20, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated April 15, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Policy #103 – Process for Board to Call a Question.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Martchink) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR LICENSE ITEMS:
Board of Trustees – May 24, 2016 – Page 3
1. NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR
NOTCHTOP CAFÉ, LLC, DBA NOTCHTOP BAKERY AND CAFÉ, 459 E.
WONDERVIEW AVENUE #4, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk
Williamson reviewed the application for the new liquor license, stating all
paperwork and fees have been submitted. It was noted by the applicant Nailya
Khametvalieva that she and 5 other employees attended the T.I.P.S. training on
May 24th. She stated liquor policies would be developed after attending the
training. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to approve the
Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License Application for Notchtop Café, LLC, dba
Notchtop Bakery and Café, 459 E. Wonderview Avenue #4, and it passed
unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, Staff
requested to continue the item to the June 28, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen requested the item be removed from the
Consent agenda and discussed. The item was removed and Mayor Jirsa
opened the discussion.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission
has an opinion that differs with the Estes Valley Development Code and
differs with the opinion of the Planning staff. The project developer has
spent significant funds to develop the plan. He stated concerns that other
developers may not come to Estes Park due to the expense and difficultly
receiving approval for development. He encouraged the Board to review
the plan thoroughly when it comes forward.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen commented the proposed development
contained a number of problems including the need for a hydrology study.
Several agencies were not present to discuss concerns related to wildlife
habitat, wetlands and the concerns raised by the National Park.
Art Messal/Town citizen stated the project should not be built at the expense
of the residents in the area. In his opinion the staff made an error in
recommending approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
Trustee Walker recused himself from all votes related to the Lazy B project.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Nelson) to continue the Special
Review 2016-01 – Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers to the June 28, 2016
meeting, and it passed with Trustee Walker recusing himself.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition & A Metes & Bounds
Parcel; Combine two parcels into one lot of record; Fall River Village,
LLC/Applicant. Planner Gonzales reviewed the application stating the
same application to recombine 2 illegally subdivided lots into 1 legal lot was
reviewed by the Town in 2006. The final Amended Plat was never recorded
which nullified the 2006 approval and rezoning request. The new request
would combine the 2 lots, rezone the property and dedicate new utility
easements and private access easements on the lot. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the Amended Plat, Lot 5, Sunny
Acres Addition & A Metes & Bounds Parcel to combine two parcels
into one lot of record with no conditions of approval, and it passed
unanimously.
Board of Trustees – May 24, 2016 – Page 4
B. ORDINANCE #12-16, Rezone two separately zoned adjacent lots (R-2 &
E-1) to RM-Multi-Family Residential, 260-265 Sunny Acres Court; Fall
River Village, LLC/Applicant. Planner Gonzales stated the rezoning
would properly reflect the current uses on the property. Prior to the 2000
valley-wide rezoning, the entire area was zoned RM – Multi-Family
Residential. Attorney White read Ordinance #12-16. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #12-16 to rezone two
separately zoned adjacent lots (R-2 & E-1) to RM-Multi-Family
Residential, 260-265 Sunny Acres Court with the condition of approval
that the Amended Plat, Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition & A Metes &
Bounds Parcel be recorded within 60-days, and it passed unanimously.
C. ORDINANCE #13-16, Rezone CO-Commercial Outlying to R-2-Two-
Family Residential; 475 Fall River Lane; Dennis and Donna "Katie"
Lovell/Applicants. Senior Planner Chilcott presented the application to
rezone the property to R-2 Two-Family Residential to bring it into
compliance with the current use. The two-story residence was built with a
three-bedroom home upstairs and business in the lower level. In 2004, the
lower level was converted to a second dwelling unit. The current owner has
requested the rezoning to bring the property into compliance with the
current zoning code. The request would eliminate a non-conforming use.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval
at their April 19th meeting with the condition the property complies with all
Building Code requirements to ensure the converted commercial space
would be safe as a separate dwelling unit.
Donna Lovell/Property owner stated she has been working with staff since
December 2015 to make the necessary improvements to the property to
legally convert it to a duplex.
Attorney White read Ordinance #13-16. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #13-16 to rezone from CO-
Commercial Outlying to R-2-Two-Family Residential, 475 Fall River
Lane with the Planning Commission recommended conditions of
approval, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ADDITION OF A PART-TIME UTILITIES PROJECT MANAGER.
Director Bergsten presented a request to add a part-time Utilities Project
Manager currently funded through a flood recovery Department of Local Affairs
(DOLA) grant. The grant limits the position to work related to flood recovery
only and would expire December 31, 2016. Utilities proposes to move the
position to a 50/50 cost sharing arrangement with the support of DOLA. This
would allow the position to continue to work on flood recovery effort part-time
through 2017 and begin working on other Utility projects such as the Allenspark
capital improvement project, DOLA Broadband grant, and Smart Meter/Smart
Grid project. The proposal would reduce the grant revenues the Town would
receive from DOLA, therefore, requiring additional funding form the Utilities
fund. If approved, Utilities would come forward during the 2017 budget to
discuss the merit of adding the position permanently. It was moved and
seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve the addition of a part-time Utilities
Project Manager in the Utilities department for 2016, and it passed with
Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting “No”.
2. ORDINANCE #14-16 VERIZON WIRELESS LAND LEASE AGREEMENT.
Manager Landkamer stated Verizon’s temporary lease on another building is
expiring. They have been working with the Town to identify a site downtown on
a Town owned property or building. The location of an antenna and cell phone
communication equipment in the Moraine/Wiest parking lot was selected after
the Town Hall roof location could not be accomplished. The lease would
Board of Trustees – May 24, 2016 – Page 5
generate $18,000 per year in lease payments with not associated cost to the
Town. The location of the tower would improve service in the downtown to the
Town, guests and businesses. Attorney White read Ordinance #14-16. It was
moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #14-16, and
it passed unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE #15-16 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.06 NOISE.
At the direction of the Town Board, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Attorney White,
Administrator Lancaster and Chief Kufeld reviewed the Noise Ordinance
adopted in 2004 to make it less complex, easier to enforce, understandable to
the citizens, and develop realistic regulations. The significant changes include
a shorter and less complex regulation, an increase in decibel level to 80 dBA,
standardization of quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., simplify the
technical requirements of enforcement, deletes the reference to motor vehicles
using the public right-of-way, update the variance procedure to a temporary
permit process, and aid in addressing issues the Police department routinely
deal with in Town limits.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested the Board review the proposed
Ordinance further before taking action, stating the decibel level should be
reconsidered. The proposed Ordinance would allow too much noise.
After further discussion, Attorney White read Ordinance #15-16. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #15-16, and it
passed unanimously.
4. AUTHORIZE PASS-THROUGH FUNDS FOR DESIGN OF COLLECTIONS
FACILITY. Director Fortini presented a request to spend up to $100,000 in
pass-through funds from the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, Inc.
(EPMFF) for the design of a Collections and Research Facility for the Museum.
The EPMFF has committed to fundraise the full amount of the facility project at
an estimated cost of $1.7 million. The public kick-off event has been scheduled
for September 18th and a conceptual design is essential to the effort. If
approved, a Request of Quotation would be released within 2 weeks with a
completed design by the end of August. The project would be managed by
Director Fortini and Facilities Manager Landkamer. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the acceptance of up to $100,000 in
pass-through funds from the Estes Park Museum Friends and
Foundation, Inc. to be used by the Town towards the design of the
Museum’s Collection and Research Facility, and it passed unanimously.
5. CARRIAGE HILLS (SCOTT PONDS) DAM REHABILITATION
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD. Manager Ash stated with the Town
was able to secure Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management
grant funding in the amount of $983,000 for the repairs to the Carriage Hills
dam, an RFP was advertised on April 11th. The Town received 4 bids which
include the base bid and 2 add alternate items for a total bid amount from each
company as follows: American West - $972,300, Dietzler - $1,0011,825, ESCO
- $1,109,432, and Zak Dirt - $1,174,309. After review of the bids and
references, staff recommends the Town contract with American West
Construction, LLC to bring the dam into compliance with the State Engineers
Office mandate by completing the base bid work at a cost of $698,414 and
provide spending authority of the total grant funds of $780,000. This represents
an 11.7% contingency. If the contingency is not needed the funds would be
used to complete add alternate 2 in the amount of $34,475 to excavate
additional material from the lower pond and increase the volume of the
impounded water. Remaining funds have been allocated to construction
management by Cornerstone Engineering in the amount of $70,000, $25,000
for Water Rights Augmentation Plan, and $108,000 to purchase water rights
once the Augmentation Plan has been completed. The improvements would
implement resilient and compliant flood control measures and rehabilitate a
Board of Trustees – May 24, 2016 – Page 6
public natural recreation area and fishable pond. The construction activity
would impact the open space and wildlife in the area during the 60-day
construction period. It would also require the closure of the pedestrian trail.
Discussion ensued on the Town’s current junior water rights and the need to
upgrade the water rights. Attorney White would review the water rights and
provide a legal opinion on the Town’s position.
Those speaking in favor of the contract including Joe Holtman/Town citizen,
Johanna Darden/Town citizen, and Roger Galloway/Town citizen. They
thanked the staff for their efforts on the project and supported the restoration of
the area.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to
authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract for the Scott Ponds
Natural Area Dam Modification: Carriage Hills Dam #1 rehabilitation and
Carriage Hills Dam #2 rehabilitation with American West Construction,
LLC in the amount of $698,414. Public Works is authorized to send up to
$780,000 for the Alternate 2 work and/or potential unanticipated changes
encountered during construction, and it passed unanimously.
6. 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CHIP SEAL CONTRACT
AWARD. Director Muhonen stated a Request for Bids for the 2016 Chip Seal
contract was issued on April 22nd for multiple streets within Town limits,
including Arapahoe Lane, Pawne Drive, Prospect Estates Drive, Ute Lane,
University Drive, Cherokee Drive, Bristlecone Court, Solomon Drive, Morgan
Street, Cherokee Court, Indian Trail, Steele Court and Bailey Lane. The Town
received two bids as follows: A-1 Chip Seal Co. - $189,855 and Foothills
Paving & Maintenance, Inc. - $161,680. Staff recommends contracting with
Foothills Paving & Maintenance and requested the authority to spend up to the
budgeted amount of $200,000 to complete additional chip seal projects to be
identified by staff. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to
authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract with Foothills Paving
& Maintenance, Inc. for the 2016 Chip Seal Program in the amount of
$161,680.00. Public Works staff is authorized to spend up to $200,000.00
for additional chip seal work on additional Town streets, and it passed
unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado May 24, 2016
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of May, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Bergsten, and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
ELECTRIC RATE STUDY OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Shawn Koorn/HDR Engineering provided an overview of the 2016 electric rate study
which reviewed revenue requirements, cost of service and rate design. The revenue
requirement compares the utility’s revenues to expenses to determine the level of
funding needed to support operations and capital needs. The cost of service analysis
should equitably allocate the revenue requirements to the various customer classes of
service without any class subsidizing another. The rate design reflects the findings of
the revenue requirements and the cost of service analysis. The assumptions used in
the study include the projected expenses over a 5-year period; based on current capital
improvement plan; allocate 2016 revenue requirement through functionalized costs,
classify costs into the appropriate components (energy, demand, customer), and
allocate costs to customer classes; and the current rate structure would be maintained
for all customers. The study has determined a need to adjust revenues to meet annual
O&M expenses, capital improvement to maintain the system, maintain annual debt
service and fund taxes and transfers. The proposed rate adjustments for present rate
structure would by 6.7% in 2016 and 5.5% for 2017-2019. The study confirmed the
current rate structure reflects how the customer classes impact the system, and
therefore, no changes would be recommended. An increase to the fixed customer
charge would better reflect the fixed costs on the system. The next steps would include
the finalization of the rate study, set a rate hearing meeting per state statutes, and
implement the proposed rates by September 1, 2016.
Board comments were heard and summarized: concern was raised on how the new
rates may impact those living on a budget and in affordable housing; the increases may
impact the rental rates for the Housing Authority; questioned if the proposed rates are
conservative; and would support consumption costs versus fixed costs because the
consumption costs would increase conservation levels.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Attorney White provided a history of the lease agreement and operation of the golf
course by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD). The original lease
was executed in 1957 and was dissolved in 1990 when the District failed to renew the
lease. In 1990, the District entered into an agreement with the Town to make
improvements to the golf course through Certificates of Participation (COPs) through
the Building Authority. An operating agreement was executed to pay the Town back
and outline the operations of the golf course. In 1998, the COPs were refunded (i.e.
refinanced) and the ground lease and operating agreement were amended. The ground
Town Board Study Session – May 24, 2016 – Page 2
lease was terminated in 2009 with the repayment of the loan; however, the operating
agreement remained and renews every 2 years in October of each even year. The
Town would need to provide the District with 180-day notice in order to review the terms
of the agreement in the future or to terminate the agreement.
Discussion ensued on the EVRPD letter received by Administrator Lancaster dated May
24, 2016 regarding the use of the 1A sales tax funds for the community center project.
The Board requested a press lease be produced to outline the project is the
responsibility of the EVRPD and not the Town. The Town may need to consider
removing the Center from the project in order to build a facility to meet the needs and
activities of the Senior Center outlined in the Master Plan. Administrator Lancaster
stated the project continues to be in flux and a discussion may not be feasible at this
time. The Board stated a response should be drafted to outline Attorney White’s
previous opinion that the Town controls the dispersal and use of the 1A funds.
There continues to be confusion on what the current regulations are for vacation homes
and what the Town and County are enforcing. PIO Rusch stated a press release was
issued after the March meeting of the Town Board and County Commissioners to define
the current regulations. Staff was directed not to enforce the 8 individual limitation for
larger homes until the Task Force has completed their recommendations.
Trustee Martchink requested a Task Force be developed to determine the needs of
young families. The Board discussed the formation and recommended the item be
discussed at the strategic planning retreat in June.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster reviewed the upcoming study session agenda items. The
storm drainage study would not be completed until the end of 2017; therefore, the item
would not be brought forward until the study has been completed. A follow-up on
Broadband would not occur until after the engineering design has been completed.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
May 3 , 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith,
Jeff Moreau, and John Lynch
Attending: Chair Darling, Members Newsom, Smith, and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Interim Community
Development Director Karen Cumbo, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Lynch
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated April 5, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Member Moreau recused himself from the review of the Townsend Residence
Variance item.
3. LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2ND FILING; 1545 Hummingbird Drive; Townsend
Residence
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated this item was continued from
the April 5, 2016 meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information
regarding the variance request. The applicant desired a front yard setback of 22
feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE–Rural Estate zone district. The
subject property is a legal nonconforming lot at approximately 2.13 acres in a zone
district where 2.5 acres is the minimum lot size. A portion of the lot is very steep
and unbuildable. The applicant desires to construct a proposed detached garage.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
May 3, 2016
Planner Gonzales stated per the Board’s request, the applicant has provided
elevations and a detailed drawing for the proposed garage.
Planner Gonzales stated the required legal and neighbor notices were distributed
prior to the first hearing on this item in April, and the application was routed to all
affected agencies. Two written public comments in opposition to the variance were
received in the Community Development Department.
Staff Findings (see the full version in the April Board of Adjustment minutes)
1. Special circumstances exist…
Staff found the lot size does not meet the 2.5 acre minimum requirement, where
50-foot setbacks apply. The subdivision was platted in 1968, prior to the
adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Because of such
steep slopes, platting subdivisions and lots today would require much larger lots
to account for the slope. There are steep slopes on the subject property,
reducing the buildable area.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”…
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use…without the variance
Staff found the existing single-family use can continue but any addition to
the home or additional building on the site will be determined by the
setbacks.
b. Whether the variance is substantial
Staff found the variance is substantial. The proposed garage would be
almost entirely within the 50-foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot
setback. The applicant was granted approval from the Little Valley HOA
(December, 2015) to place the garage at this location.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered…
Staff found the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered. Staff conducted several site visits and found several buildings in the
neighborhood built within 75 feet of the front property lines, with some even
closer.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public
services…
Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff found the applicant purchased the property in 2014, after the EVDC
was adopted. Zone district setbacks were in effect at the time of purchase.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
May 3, 2016
Staff found a code compliant detached garage could be built on the site at a
different location; however, the steep slopes make other location options
impractical.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief.
Staff found the proposed location of the garage has little effect on the neighbors
and the variance would be a practical decision in the placement of the proposed
garage.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will…
Staff found a setback and height certificate would be required during the
building permit process; therefore, no condition of approval would be required
for the variance approval.
Planner Gonzales stated staff was recommending approval of the variance
request.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated the home was built as a nonconforming structure. Staff
was unable to locate any previous variance requests, and was unable to determine
what the HOA controlled setbacks were at the time the house was built.
Comments from the Board included, but were not limited to: the proposed location
is the most practical for this project; during the April meeting, the applicant stated
the position of the proposed garage was being shifted to allow for steps to the
house; the Board requested clarification on some of the specifics of the application
due to the shifting of the proposed location, unknown height, and neighbor
opposition; the Board appreciates the additional information answering the
questions that arose during last month’s meeting; the applicant did a good job of
providing the requested information; there are many lots in Little Valley that are
extremely impractical when it comes to adding any improvements.
Public comment
The property owner and builder, Don Townsend and Mike Aldrich, respectively,
were in attendance but had no comment.
Member Discussion
Member Darling was supportive of setback and height certificates as part of the
building permit process.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request
with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously
with one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
May 3, 2016
Member Smith thanked the applicant for clarifying the application.
Member Moreau returned to the dais for the next agenda item.
4. PORTION OF MYERS ADDITION, 800 MacGregor Avenue, Black Canyon Inn
Variance
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Jim Sloan, has requested
a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.b, which requires parking lots to be set back
at least 50-feet horizontally from river corridors. The request is to accommodate
the installation of an “overflow” parking lot within the 50-soot stream corridor
setback.
In 2009, the Black Canyon Inn Development Plan was approved for a mix of multi-
family, duplex, single-family and accommodation units. The lower portion of the
property is built with a mix of residential, accommodations, a restaurant, employee
housing units, swimming pool, outdoor pavilion, and an office. In March, 2016 the
Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) recommended approval of an
amendment to the applicant’s 2009 Development Plan (2009-03B) to convert a
portion of the property to a townhome subdivision (decreasing the density from 19
to 17 units), as well as to construct an overflow employee lot on the lower portion
of the site. The EVPC was the decision-making body on the amended development
plan, and it was approved with conditions. The Town Board was the decision-
making body for a minor subdivision and preliminary townhome subdivision plat,
which was approved on April 26, 2016. The minor subdivision consisted of
separating one parcel into separate parcels for the townhomes and condominiums.
The townhome subdivision will accommodate the proposed 17 units.
Planner McCool reviewed the variance review criteria, as follows:
.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist.
Staff found the property is heavily wooded with a steep slope and rock
outcroppings that present design challenges. The applicant searched out other
portions of the site for the overflow parking area and determined there would be
a substantial amount of grading and tree removal at any other location. This
project in its entirety advances several adopted Community-Wide goals and
policies related to land use, community design, scenic and environmental
quality and economics, and recommended in the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan.
2. In determining practical difficulty:
a. Beneficial use of the property without the variance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
May 3, 2016
Staff found no other portion of the site is available to accommodate the
employee overflow parking lot without significant grading and tree removal.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
The variance request includes a parking lot that will only be utilized during
the summer season as needed for accommodating employees working
events such as weddings. The proposed parking surface would be a
compacted base course rather than asphalt in order to minimize potential
flood debris during a future flood event. It will also minimize potential surface
runoff and sediment transfer into the stream. Given the sporadic use and
the type of parking surface, staff found the variance not substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered….
Due to the seasonal and sporadic use of this overflow parking lot, staff
found adjoining properties would not be negatively affected by this
development. Creation of this parking lot may reduce the incidence of event-
relating parking occurring on neighboring properties. The setback from the
road, surrounding topography, and vegetation in the area will minimize the
view of the parking area from neighboring property and from MacGregor
Avenue.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public
services…
Staff found the requested variance would not adversely affect public service
delivery.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the
setback requirement…
Staff found the previously approved and permitted uses in the area, such as
the Black Canyon Inn and the Twin Owls Steakhouse, are permitted within
the Accommodations zone district. These uses have generated occasional
overflow parking needs above and beyond what can be accommodated
given the constraints of the site’s topography. The applicant is attempting to
accommodate a parking need that was not foreseen by Town staff nor the
property owner.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff found the applicant’s proposal cannot be accommodated through any
other method except a variance. The proposed solution has the least impact
to the site.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances
affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to
make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such
conditions or situations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
May 3, 2016
Staff found the request for the variance is due to the existing approved use of
the subject property and the unique topographical challenges created by the
rock outcropppings and cliffs on the property. The circumstances are unique to
the applicant’s proposal, and are not of so general a nature to make it
reasonable for the regulation to be changed.
4. No Variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing
or proposed subdivision….
Staff found the variance request will not result in a reduction in the size of lots
contained in an existing or proposed subdivision.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief.
Staff found the applicant has demonstrated the proposed parking area cannot
be located elsewhere without extensive site disturbance nor further from the
stream due to the location at the bottom of a large rock formation. The variance
request represents the least deviation from the river setback that will afford
relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited…
Staff found the variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not
expressly permitted in the Accommodations zone district.
7. In granting such variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff does not have any recommended conditions of approval for the Board’s
consideration; however, the Board is welcome to provide conditions of approval
to address any concerns that arise during the public hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner McCool stated the parking lot will be constructed out of road base. A
grading permit will be required. It should be noted there are no retaining walls
planned for this parking area.
Member Newsom stated this is the most practical location for the site, and
providing employee parking would be beneficial. In the event of a flood, water will
be allowed to spread out and slow down here, which will be a benefit for those
downstream.
Public Comment
Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated the proposal is strictly for seasonal
overflow parking, and will not be used year-round. The material being used will not
create dust. No negative neighbor issues are foreseen. There will be minimal site
disturbance at this location. Asphalt is not being used to minimize the amount of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
May 3, 2016
runoff. The proposed base will also reduce the amount of urban heat being
released into the atmosphere.
Member Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance
request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
5. REPORTS
A. Interim Director Cumbo reported the process for hiring a new Community
Development Director continues. Of the two applicants interviewed, one was offered
the position but declined the offer. The job posting has been activated again and
closes May 9, 2016. The job posting for the vacant Planner position, closed May 2,
2016. Nationwide, there are a lot of Planner positions available, so competition is tight.
B. Interim Director Cumbo reported the 2015 International Buildings Codes and Local
Amendments were adopted by the Town Board on April 12, 2016, to become effective
June 1, 2016. New fee schedules for building permits and development review will
also become effective June 1, 2016. Will Birchfield and County CBO Fried held a
meeting to review the new codes last week, with more than 50 people attending.
C. On Monday, May 9, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. there will be a public meeting to introduce the
Army Corps of Engineers Silver Jackets Team, who will be in Estes Park all next week
gathering information to conduct a floodproofing study of the downtown area. This
study is free to the town, and should provide valuable information regarding how
business owners can further protect their buildings from future flood damage through
floodproofing techniques. The information to be provided will be recommendations to
property owners, and nothing will be required by the property owners.
D. Member Newsom reported that most of the variance applications the Board gets are
for setbacks and height. The BOA is not the building department, and to request plans
is not in the purview of the board. It is his opinion the only important factor is the
setback requested, and we may have lost sight of that at last month’s meeting, in
requesting all the additional information.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 a.m.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
May 3, 2016
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Light and Power Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: PRPA IGA Approval
Objective:
To obtain approval to enter into the IGA for Demand Side Management (DSM) and
Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Program Partnership.
Present Situation:
Our existing IGA only addresses DSM programs. The Town of Estes Park’s participation
in consolidation of DER programs will lower the overall cost of DER programs which
benefits our customers. Attorney White has reviewed the IGA and has no concerns with
its content.
Proposal:
The proposed IGA consolidates DSM and DER programs under PRPA.
Advantages:
This agreement allows our communities to work collaboratively and reduce the cost of
offering DSM and DER programs.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the IGA be approved.
Budget:
Not applicable.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the PRPA DSM and DER IGA.
Attachments:
1. PRPA presentation on Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side Management and
Distributed Energy Resources Program Partnership
2. Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side Management and Distributed Energy
Resources Program Partnership
Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side Management
and Distributed Energy Resources Program Partnership
Estes Park Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee
June 9, 2016
Overview
•Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between four municipalities
and Platte River
•Replaces existing Demand Side Management (DSM) IGA (2014)
•Expands collaboration from DSM to also include distributed
energy resources (DER)
•DER examples: solar, wind, combined heat & power, electric
storage
•Scope
•DSM and DER procured by Platte River on behalf of the municipalities
•Does not apply to DSM or DER procured by the municipalities or their
customers on their own (e.g., customer-owned solar, municipally-
owned generation, etc.)
•IGA substance (more detail on subsequent slides)
•Funding of programs by Platte River and municipalities
•Wholesale billing adjustment for DER
•DER system benefits: determination and allocation
•Data sharing with third-party program contractors
•Project Team –Platte River & municipality staff sort out the
details
Why Now?
•To facilitate future DER collaboration
•Examples:
•Four-municipality community solar project –discussions
underway)
•DER grant opportunities
•May target integrating DER at generation,
transmission, and distribution levels
•Nothing planned for now –want to be prepared for
short-notice opportunities
•More to come…
DSM & DER Program Funding
•Platte River funding for DSM & DER programs
•Subject to annual appropriation and Platte River board approval
•Funding is to be spent equitably among the municipalities
•Municipalities’ interest in providing DSM/DER funding to
Platte River
•The original driver for the DSM IGA
•New IGA expands scope to include DER
•IGA provides mechanism for municipality funding
•“Supplemental Funding” is money a muni provides to expand
budget of existing Platte River programs within the muni
•“Directive Funding” is money a muni provides for a program not
already offered by Platte River
Wholesale Billing Adjustment for DER
•System benefits of DER do not necessarily equal
wholesale rate
•DER that reduces a host municipality’s metered
wholesale energy will be added back to wholesale
energy & demand purchases
•DER is not intended to alter the host municipality’s
purchases from Platte River
•DER is intended to provide system benefits
•System benefits (and costs) of DER will be tracked,
allocated & credited separately…
DER System Benefits (and Costs)
•Example/potential DER benefits
•Surplus sales revenue
•Fuel savings (coal or gas)
•Variable O&M savings
•Power purchase savings
•Avoided/delayed generation & transmission costs
•Avoided transmission losses
•Avoided emissions/GHG costs
•Avoided ancillary services costs
•Distribution benefits –muni staff
•Potential for DER costs (same list as above)
•Project Team to make program-by-program decisions
•How DER benefits (costs) are determined, allocated
among munis, and credited (to munis and participating
customers, if applicable)
Customer Data Sharing
•DSM & DER program administration may be outsourced
to third-party contractors
•Administration often requires access to limited confidential
customer information
•IGA allows for sharing confidential customer information
with program contractor provided that
•Contractor enters into confidentiality agreement
•Municipality staff approves in writing
•Data is limited to that necessary for the contractor’s scope
of work associated with DSM/DER program
IGA Status
•Staff review and approval completed (technical,
managerial, and legal)
•Governing body reviews (& approvals if required)
•May 26: Platte River Board of Directors approved a
resolution adopting the IGA in substantially the form
presented
•June 2: Fort Collins Energy Board
•June 9: Estes Park Utilities Committee
•June 28: Longmont City Council
•Other bodies TBD…
Questions & Discussion
1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT AND
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCE PROGRAM PARTNERSHIP
This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this _________ day of
__________, 2016 by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal
corporation (“Estes Park”), the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado municipal corporation
(“Fort Collins”), the CITY OF LONGMONT, a Colorado municipal corporation (“Longmont”),
the CITY OF LOVELAND, a Colorado municipal corporation (“Loveland”), and PLATTE
RIVER POWER AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (“Platte River”),
collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” When specificity is not required, the municipal
corporations which are parties hereto will hereinafter be individually referred to as
“Municipality,” and collectively as “Municipalities.”
WHEREAS, the Municipalities contracted with one another to establish Platte River as a
separate legal entity and multi-purpose intergovernmental authority to provide the electric
power and energy requirements of the Municipalities and to engage in related business
activities including demand side management (“DSM”) and renewable energy resources; and
WHEREAS, periodically Platte River develops Integrated Resource Plans that detail
Platte River’s plans and programs in the areas of generation and transmission, renewable
energy, and energy efficiency, including DSM; and
WHEREAS, Platte River desires to provide distributed energy resources (“DER”) to the
Municipalities as an additional related business activity which may include, but is not limited
to, renewable energy resources; and
WHEREAS, Platte River’s combined DSM and DER programs will include those offered
to the utility customers of the Municipalities, which programs are contracted for and funded by
Platte River; and
WHEREAS, Platte River seeks to maintain an equitable distribution of DSM and DER
funds among the Municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to expand the scope of Platte River’s programs to include
DER programs and desire to define certain terms and conditions related to program
management as set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-203, to cooperate or
contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to
each.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
“Common Programs” shall mean DSM and DER programs and related services which
are developed by, contracted for, and funded by Platte River. Common Programs are
offered by Platte River to the utility customers of the Municipalities, up to an amount
equal to each Municipality’s Equity Share of Platte River’s DSM and DER budgets.
“Directive Funding” shall mean funding that is provided by a Municipality to Platte
River to procure DSM or DER services that fall outside of the Common Programs.
“Demand Side Management” shall mean energy efficiency, conservation, load
management, and demand response programs or any combination of these programs.
“Distributed Energy Resource” shall mean an energy resource located within or adjacent
to Platte River’s owner municipalities’ electric system and interconnected on the
municipal utility’s side of the wholesale utility meter. Energy resources may include
renewable generation from sources such as wind and solar; non-renewable generation
from sources such as reciprocating internal combustion engines, micro-turbines, fuel
cells, cogeneration and combined heat and power facilities; energy storage systems such
as batteries, pumped hydro-storage, flywheels, and compressed air energy storage
facilities; or any combination of these energy resources.
“Equity Share” shall mean the pro rata share that each Municipality would receive of
Platte River’s assets upon dissolution as provided in Section 2.8 of the Platte River
Power Authority Organic Contract.
“Fiscal Year” shall mean with reference to any Municipality, the applicable fiscal year
for such Municipality, in accordance with its individual budget and accounting
practices.
“Supplemental Funding” shall mean funding that is provided by a Municipality to
procure Common Programs services in excess of those provided by Platte River based
upon the Municipality’s Equity Share.
2. Supplemental Funding. During any calendar year demand for Common Program
services within a Municipality may result in the full commitment of its Equity Share of
Platte River’s DSM or DER budget. Upon the request of a Municipality whose Equity
3
Share of the DSM or DER budget has been fully committed, Platte River shall continue
to offer Common Programs within that Municipality; provided, however, that before
Platte River commits such additional funding, the Municipality must issue a purchase
order authorizing Supplemental Funding in the necessary amount. Supplemental
Funding shall be from funds that have been appropriated and are available in the
Municipality’s budget. Platte River shall invoice the Municipality under such purchase
order when expenditures have exceeded its Equity Share of Platte River’s DSM or DER
budget. The Municipality shall pay Platte River within thirty days of invoice.
3. Directive Funding. Platte River or a Municipality may identify additional DSM and
DER programs or services not contemplated within the scope of the Common Programs.
Platte River and the interested Municipality may decide to collaborate in offering these
programs or services when they determine that such collaboration would result in the
effective delivery of the programs or services to the Municipality’s utility customers. In
these cases, Platte River will work closely with the Municipality’s designated staff to
establish a scope of work for the program or service as well as a budget containing
sufficient funding to complete the scope of work. Prior to Platte River undertaking any
Directive Funding activity, the Municipality must issue a purchase order authorizing an
amount of expenditure from funds that have been appropriated and are available in the
Municipality’s budget. Platte River shall invoice the Municipality on a monthly basis, or
at another agreed upon interval. The Municipality shall pay Platte River within thirty
days of invoice.
4. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement shall apply only to DSM and DER that is
procured by Platte River for the benefit of the Municipalities in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
5. Project Team. Representatives of Platte River and the Municipalities will meet on an
annual basis, and more often if necessary, to discuss and resolve any issues associated
with implementation of this Agreement and to manage any programs undertaken
through this Agreement. The nucleus of the Project Team will include a senior manager
from the customer service departments of each party. Subject matter experts from each
of the parties’ organizations will also attend as appropriate.
6. DER Tariff—Schedule 1: Firm Resale Power Service Adjustments. The parties agree
that DER installed under Common Programs or as a result of Directive Funding outside
of Common Programs are not intended to alter the quantity of Tariff—Schedule 1: Firm
Resale Power Service (“Tariff 1”) furnished to a Municipality. Therefore, energy and
power delivered by DER within a Municipality’s distribution system, which has reduced
the Municipality’s purchases of Firm Resale Power (as defined in the Tariff), will be
metered and added back into the Municipality’s energy and demand, with appropriate
4
adjustment for distribution system losses, before computing Tariff 1 charges. Similarly,
in the case of DER that consumes rather than provides energy or power, such as may
occur due to electric storage losses or due to station service in excess of generation
output from an idle generator, such energy or consumption will be metered and
deducted from the Municipality’s energy and demand, with adjustment for distribution
system losses, before computing Tariff 1 charges. Platte River will work closely with
designated Municipality staff to develop procedures for implementing the Tariff 1
adjustment for each DER program.
7. DER Credits. DER may provide benefits to Platte River’s system, and may in some
cases result in additional costs. Benefits may include increased surplus sales revenue,
reduced market purchases, reduced fuel costs, avoided generation and transmission
costs, avoided ancillary service costs, and avoided greenhouse gas or other emission
costs. Costs may include reduced surplus sales, increased market purchases, increased
fuel costs, increased ancillary services costs, and increased greenhouse gas or other
emission costs. Platte River will work with Municipality staff to develop methods for
tracking these costs and benefits. Costs and benefits may also include Host Utility
Distribution System Costs and Benefits as defined below. The resulting net benefit (or
net cost) will be allocated to each Municipality in proportion to its share of the DER
providing the net benefit (or net cost). Platte River will work closely with designated
Municipality staff to develop procedures for measuring DER benefits and costs, as well
as for determining the allocation of benefits and costs among the Municipalities.
8. Host Utility Distribution System Costs and Benefits. DER installed under this
Agreement may result in costs and benefits to the Municipality that hosts the DER
(“Host Utility Distribution System Costs and Benefits”). Costs may include, but are not
limited to, those associated with planning, design, permitting, procurement, and
construction of distribution and communication system upgrades necessary for the
installation and operation of the DER. Benefits may include, but are not limited to,
deferred distribution costs, deferred maintenance costs, or improved reliability or
resiliency.
9. Term. This Agreement will be effective upon execution by the Parties and will remain
in effect until terminated.
10. Termination. A Municipality or Platte River may terminate its participation in this
Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Parties; provided, however,
that any work commenced by Platte River under a purchase order issued by a
Municipality prior to receipt of the written notice of termination will be completed by
Platte River and reimbursed by the Municipality.
5
11. Appropriation Required. The financial obligations of the Municipalities under this
Agreement are from year to year only and shall not constitute a multiple-fiscal year debt
or other financial obligation or fiscal obligation of any kind payable in any Fiscal Year
beyond the Fiscal Year for which funds are so appropriated for the payment of current
expenditures.
12. Designated Representatives. The designated representatives for each of the Parties are
as follows:
Platte River: Paul Davis, Customer Services Manager
Platte River Power Authority
2000 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-229-5370
Davisp@prpa.org
Estes Park: Reuben Bergsten, Utility Director
Estes Park Light & Power
Estes Park Municipal Building
P.O. Box 1200
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Fort Collins: John Phelan, Resource Conservation Manager
Fort Collins Utilities
700 Wood St
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Longmont: Anne Lutz, Energy Services Manager
Longmont Power & Communications
1100 S. Sherman St.
Longmont, CO 80501
303-651-8727
Anne.Lutz@ci.longmont.co.us
Loveland: Gretchen Stanford, Customer Relations Manager
Loveland Water & Power
200 North Wilson Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
970-962-3550
Gretchen.Stanford@cityofloveland.org
6
A Municipality or Platte River must notify the other Parties in writing of any subsequent
changes in appointed representative.
13. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that a
Municipality or Platte River is required to give shall be in writing and either served
personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, or by fax or email, to the
designated representative of the recipient at the address designated as set forth above, or
as subsequently provided in writing.
14. Confidential Customer Information. To the extent required by Platte River (as an agent
of the Municipalities) to perform the work required under this Agreement, a
Municipality may provide Platte River with confidential utility customer information.
Use of confidential customer information shall be limited to that necessary for
implementation of DSM or DER programs. Platte River agrees to keep such information
confidential and shall not disclose such information, including to the other
Municipalities, except as required by law. Platte River shall notify the Municipality
prior to any such disclosure so that the Municipality may have an opportunity to take
such legal action as it deems necessary to prevent the disclosure.
15. Third Party Agreements. Platte River and designated Municipality staff may determine
that DSM and DER programs may in some cases benefit from the use of vendors or
contractors tasked with implementing portions of the programs. When this is the case,
Platte River shall be responsible for engaging with vendors and contractors and
ensuring agreements are fulfilled. The Parties hereto agree that Confidential Customer
Data may be shared with the vendor or contractors provided that the third party enters
into a form agreement with Platte River to maintain customer confidentiality; provided
that the Municipalities’ designated representative referenced above approves in writing
the release of Customer Data and conditions associated therewith; and provided that use
of Confidential Customer Information shall be limited to that necessary for the vendor’s
or contractor’s scope of work associated with the DSM or DER program.
16. Liability. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to assume responsibility and liability
associated with its own acts and the acts of its employees in the performance of this
Agreement in accordance with Colorado law. By agreeing to this provision, neither
Platte River or the Municipalities waives or intends to waive, the limitations on liability
which are provided to them under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-
101 et seq., C.R.S., as amended.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or
amended except by written agreement of the Parties.
7
18. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement
is intended to only document the relative rights and obligations between the Parties to
one another, and that no third party beneficiaries are intended.
19. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
20. Authority. The Parties recognize the legal constraints imposed upon them by the
constitutions, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and of the United States,
and imposed upon the Municipalities by their Charter or Municipal Code, and, subject
to such constraints, the Parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, in
no event shall the Parties exercise any power or take any action which shall be
prohibited by applicable law. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts,
and the counterparts taken together shall constitute the whole of this Agreement.
21. Superseded Agreements. This Agreement supersedes and replaces the following
agreements which are hereby terminated:
“Intergovernmental Agreement for Demand Side Management Program Partnership”
between the Town of Estes Park, the City of Fort Collins, the City of Longmont, and the
City of Loveland, and Platte River Power Authority, dated September 10, 2014.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
above written.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ATTEST:
By:_____________________________ By:______________________
Jackie Sargent, Chief Executive Officer Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:_________________________
General Counsel
8
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ATTEST:
By:________________________________ By:______________________
Mayor Town Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ATTEST:
By:________________________________ By:______________________
City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:________________________
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO ATTEST:
By:_____________________________ By:______________________
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:_________________________
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO ATTEST:
By:_____________________________ By:______________________
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By:________________________________________
General Manager of Longmont Power & Communications
PROOFREAD: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________ ____________________
Assistant City Attorney
LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Line Superintendent Lockhart
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: L&P Purchase of Fiber Cable
Objective:
Obtain approval for the purchase of fiber cable in the amount of $172,000.
Present Situation:
Light & Power needs 24.8 miles of fiber optic cable to support smart grid. This will be
installed along our Allenspark circuit. We received quotes from three vendors as
follows:
1. Wesco $1.3090 per foot
2. Western United Electric $1.413 per foot
3. KVA Supply Company $2.17 per foot
Proposal:
We propose to accept the low bid from Wesco.
Page 2
Advantages:
The fiber cable is needed to support smart grid on our electric system from Estes Park
to Allenspark. This product is compatible with the Longmont and PRPA fiber.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended by Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the purchase of the cable from Wesco in the amount of
$172,000.
Budget:
Budget account (502-7001-580.35-66, Fiber Optic Install) contains $1,030,000 for the
project. This is a planned and budgeted purchase for this project.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the purchase of the fiber cable from Wesco.
Happy Trails Vaughn!
Welcome To Darla Sidles!
Photos of centennial events
Some reminders and updates …
Ribbon Cutting July 2, 2015
Bridges and river crossings in the backcountry
Repairs and Reroutes to Flood Damaged Trails EA•Four heavily damaged trails are included in an Environmental Assessment:1. Lawn Lake/Ypsilon Lake2. Alluvial Fan3. Aspen Brook4. Twin Sisters•Public meeting in April and comments accepted through April 25.•Reviewing comments and moving forward with decision.•To repair these trails will take several years.
New Fees As Of Last OctoberDay Use Pass$20 per vehicle$20 per motorcycle$10 per person7 Day Pass$30 per vehicle$25 per motorcycle$15 per personhttps://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/fees.htmAnnual Pass $50Camping Fees $26
Since 1997, more than $65 million has been spent at RMNP from entrance fees.
Your Fees At Work!
Fee Free DaysAugust 25 through August 28– National Park Service BirthdaySeptember 24 – National Public Lands DayNovember 11 – Veterans Day
RIDE THE ROCKIES JUNE 16, 2016
NEW Bus SchedulePark shuttle buses will begin daily starting Saturday May 28 through Monday, October 10Bear Lake Route–Every 10 to 15 minutesMoraine Park Route –Every 30 minutesBoth from 7 am to 7:30 p.m.Hiker Shuttle Daily Service ‐June 25 to September 11
2014Record Visitation - 3,434,754Park Visitation –increase of ~ 28% since 2012Until 2015 – 4,155,916-
2015 Record Visitation Per Month Record HIGH Record LOWYear JAN FEB* MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Total2015 98,928 85,123 134,304 116,959 259,711 608,796 858,426 765,579 644,350371,558 118,398 93,7844,155,9162014 77,633 76,881 99,077 97,100 220,532 538,725 693,685 616,826 537,694 305,651 90,915 80,032 3,434,7512013 78,022 68,831 89,691 90,379 239,184 602,508 712,583 621,852 253,467 66,275 86,379 81,970 2,991,1412012 68,537 62,036 104,374 117,053 228,950 500,206 651,722 589,131 527,172 219,946 93,714 66,776 3,229,6172011 68,641 50,540 73,760 77,183 163,587 500,733 743,741 620,534 483,780 264,617 68,076 61,749 3,176,9412010 64,618 44,576 70,117 69,097 180,710 441,738 668,418 574,638 461,942 245,770 67,862 66,335 2,955,821ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK VISITOR STATISTICS 1979‐present* February 1979, 85,931 visitors is the Record High
“Shoulder” season continues to increaseOctober up:21.6 % from 2014461 % from 201368.9 % from 201240.4 % from 201151.2 % from 2010September up:19.8 % from 2014154 % from 201322.2 % from 201233.2 % from 201139.5 % from 2010
In July and early August:•Hike Early or Hike Late (check forecast)Parking Lots Fill•Glacier Gorge - by 7:30•Bear Lake – by 8:30•Park & Ride – by 10:30•Wild Basin Corridor – by 10:30•Alpine Visitor Center 11- 3Busiest Times between 10 - 3September weekends are busier than July.Visitation is 50 percent less during weekdays in September!Variable messaging signs Planning and Reality …
Shuttle System:570,000 riders used the shuttles24% increase over use in 201479% increase since 1999Hiker Shuttle:42,873 riders 37% increase over 2014Sunday of Labor Day Weekend 9,112 ridersSeptember saw the biggest growth with 49% jump in ridershipRecord Setting
Why?Rocky’s Once In A Lifetime Centennial?Increased population in Northern Colorado ?Rebounding Economy?Gas Prices?Increased marketing efforts by Colorado Tourism, Visit Estes Park, Grand County Tourism?
Budget for Rocky Mountain National Park 10,500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 12,500,000 13,000,000 13,500,000200820092010201120122013201420152016
We heard (in no particular order) …Human waste is increasing in both the front country and backcountryCrime is upRoad and parking lot rage is upVisitor frustration is upDogs are increasing on trails
Other …
Visitor and Staff SafetyResource ProtectionVisitor ExperienceOperational CapacityFocus Areas
We hear a lot of great ideas!One of the ideas we hear the most, for both the short term & long term, is the need to consider more shuttles…
A Background to Shuttles-they can double, the number of people at a trailhead
If you add shuttles to your day/location you can expect to double your visitors & potentially double your issues.
A conclusion might be….•We can have more shuttles. No problem.•However, we would need to consider what we want to give up, their consequences to operations, visitor experience, etc.. and the impact to the resource we will accept.•The financial formula for $ available for shuttles is currently finite.
The purpose of Rocky Mountain National Park is to preserve the park's natural conditions and scenic beauties, its natural and historic objects and wild life, and to provide the freest recreational uses consistent with this purpose.
QUESTIONS?
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Rocky Mountain Pharmacy
of Estes Park, Inc., dba Rocky Mountain Pharmacy of Estes Park, to
Bart’s Liquor, LLC, dba Bart’s Liquor, 453 E. Wonderview Avenue, Suite 1,
Retail Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor-licensed drugstore license located at 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue to the applicant, Bart’s Liquor, LLC. The classification of the license will be
changed to a Retail Liquor Store License.
Present Situation:
A Liquor-Licensed Drugstore Liquor License is currently held at 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue by Rocky Mountain Pharmacy of Estes Park, Inc. The Colorado Liquor Code
allows for the conversion/transfer of a Liquor-Licensed Drugstore License to a Retail
Liquor Store License. Rocky Mountain Pharmacy has moved from this location,
therefore, only retail liquor and allowed merchandise sales will be conducted at this
location.
The applicant is requesting a transfer of the license and submitted a complete
application to the Town Clerk’s office on April 8, 2016. A temporary permit was issued
on April 22, 2016. The temporary permit authorizes the transferee to continue the sale
of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license while the application to
transfer ownership of the license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Bart’s Liquor, LLC dba BART’S LIQUOR.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the current Liquor-Licensed Drugstore License to Bart’s Liquor, LLC
as a Retail Liquor Store License.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Retail Liquor Store License transfer is
$1086. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the
Town for a Retail Store Liquor License is $636 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Retail Liquor Store License filed
by Bart’s Liquor, LLC, dba BART’S LIQUOR.
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed April 8, 2016 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a LLC .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Bart’s Liquor, LLC doing business as BART’S
LIQUOR for a Retail License be approved/denied.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Diane Rambeau dba
Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, to Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, Inc., dba
Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, 1640 Big Thompson Avenue, Retail Liquor
Store License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 1640 Big Thompson Avenue to the
applicant, Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, Inc.
Present Situation:
A Retail Liquor Store License is currently held at the location referenced above by
Diane Rambeau, dba RAMBO’S LONGHORN LIQUOR. The applicant is requesting a
transfer of the license and submitted a complete application to the Town Clerk’s office
on May 5, 2016. A temporary permit was issued on May 5, 2016, upon acceptance of
the completed application. The temporary permit authorizes the transferee to continue
the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license while the
application to transfer ownership of the license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, Inc., dba RAMBO’S LONGHORN LIQUOR.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Retail Liquor Store License to Rambo’s Longhorn
Liquor, Inc.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Retail Liquor Store License transfer is
$1086. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the
Town for a Retail Liquor Store License is $636 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Retail Liquor Store License filed
by Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, Inc. dba RAMBO’S LONGHORN LIQUOR.
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed May 5, 2016 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor, Inc. doing business
as RAMBO’S LONGHORN LIQUOR for a Retail License be approved/denied.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from DCALS, Enterprises, Inc.,
dba Lonigan’s Saloon Nightclub & Grill, to Estes Irish Hub, Inc., dba
Lonigan’s Saloon Nightclub & Grill, 110 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Tavern Liquor
License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 110 W. Elkhorn Avenue to the applicant,
Estes Irish Hub, Inc.
Present Situation:
A Tavern Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced above by DCALS
Enterprises, Inc., dba LONIGAN’S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL. The applicant is
requesting a transfer of the license and submitted a complete application to the Town
Clerk’s office on May 21, 2016. A temporary permit was issued on May 21, 2016, upon
acceptance of the completed application. The temporary permit authorizes the
transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent
license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is aware of the TIPS
training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Estes Irish Hub, Inc., dba LONIGAN’S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Tavern Liquor License to Estes Irish Hub, Inc.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Tavern Liquor License transfer is $1319.
The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the
Town for a Tavern Liquor License is $869 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Tavern Liquor License filed by
Estes Irish Hub, Inc., dba LONIGAN’S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL.
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed May 21, 2016 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Estes Irish Hub, Inc. doing business as
LONIGAN’S SALOON NIGHTCLUB & GRILL for a Tavern License be
approved/denied.
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Karen Cumbo, Interim Community Development Director
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Ordinance No. 16-16 – Floodplain Administrator
Objective:
Adopt Ordinance 16-16 which amends Chapters 17.28.015, 17.28.017 and 17.28.150 of
the Municipal Code – Floodplain Regulations and replaces it with the language as set
forth on Exhibit A of the Ordinance.
Present Situation:
In 1997, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park adopted Chapters 17.28.017
and 17.28.150, and in 2013, the Board adopted Chapter 17.28.015 of the Municipal
Code regarding the designation and duties of the Floodplain Administrator. The Code
currently designates the Chief Building Official as the Town Floodplain Administrator.
However, the duties of the Floodplain Administrator have significantly grown since the
2013 flood, due primarily to additional regulatory requirements related to floodplain
development permits, recovery/mitigation efforts, and relationships with state and
federal agencies and community groups. While collaboration would still be necessary
among all the parties and agencies involved in floodplain permitting, it would be more
effective to locate responsibility for floodplain planning and regulation for the Town in
the same office. The proposed Ordinance would provide flexibility to the Town
Administrator in designating which position would be the Floodplain Administrator.
Proposal:
Ordinance 16-16 adopts a new method of designating the Floodplain Administrator as
more fully set forth on Exhibit A.
Advantages:
The new Floodplain Administrator designation method has the following advantages:
Provides flexibility regarding which Town position is designated as the
Floodplain Administrator.
Provides the opportunity to streamline flood-related job duties within the Town.
Relieves the Chief Building Official of Floodplain Administrator duties allowing
him to concentrate on building safety issues.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Adopt Ordinance No. 16-16.
Budget:
There are no budget implications for the adoption and enforcement of this Ordinance.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate. Flood-related issues will continue to increase and become more publicly
visible for many years to come. The Floodplain Administrator will be the lead person
interacting with the public on floodplain issues and enforcing floodplain regulations.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 16-16.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 16-16
1
ORDINANCE NO. 16-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.28.015, 17.28.017 and 17.28.150 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN
ADMINISTRATOR.
WHEREAS, Chapters 17.28.015, 17.28.017 and 17.28.150 of the Municipal Code
provides for the designation of the Town of Estes Park Floodplain Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to amend the current Chapters
17.28.015, 17.28.017 and 17.28.150 and replace the language in those Chapters
regarding designation of the Floodplain Administrator.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapters 17.28.015, 17.28.017 and 17.28.150 of the Municipal Code are hereby
amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
2. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
2
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado,
on the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
ORDINANCE 16‐16
EXHIBIT A
17.28.015 Definitions.
Floodplain Administrator means the community official designated by the Town Administratortitle to
administer and enforce the floodplain management regulations.
17.28.017 Duties and responsibilities of the Building OfficialFloodplain Administrator.
Duties of the Building OfficialFloodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this Chapter have
been satisfied.
(2) Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained
from federal, state or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required.
(3) Review all development permits to determine if the proposed development is located in the
floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of this Chapter
are met.
(4) Review, approve, or deny all applications for Floodplain Development Permits required by this
Chapter. The Floodplain Administrator may delegate signature authority for permitting
purposes.
(Ord. 8‐90 §5, 1990; Ord. 15‐97, 1997)
17.28.150 Administration.
This Chapter shall be administered by the Floodplain AdministratorBuilding Official. It shall be the
duty of the Building OfficialFloodplain Administrator to obtain and maintain records of lowest floor
elevations and floodproofing levels for all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not
such structures contain basements. Such records shall be placed on repository for public inspection during
normal business hours at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. It shall also be the duty of the
Building OfficialFloodplain Administrator to:
(1) Notify adjacent communities and the appropriate state offices prior to the alteration or
relocation of a river or watercourse.
(2) Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said
watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished.
Copies of all such notifications shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
Building OfficialFloodplain Administrator shall use all available floodplain information and data services
to aid in the administration of this Chapter.
(Ord. 22‐86 §1 Exhibit A (part), 1986; Ord. 7‐87 §§1, 22, 1987; Ord. 8‐90 §6, 1990; Ord. 15‐97, 1997)
1 Memo: Contract for shuttle services with McDonald Transit Associates Inc. 06/16/2016
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Town Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Brian Wells, Shuttle Coordinator
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Contract for shuttle services with McDonald Transit Associates Inc.
Objective:
McDonald Transit Associates Inc. (MTA) has made a contract offer to continue
operating the buses for the 2016 Estes Park FREE Shuttle Service.
MTA will lease one vehicle from Davey Coach not to exceed the price of $4,225 for the
vehicle per month and the Town of Estes Park will reimburse vehicle lease costs.
MTA will maintain and insure the Town’s trolley under the same terms and conditions
outlined in the service contract.
The hourly service rate for 2016 will be $56.48 which includes routine maintenance,
shuttle drivers, insurance, and fuel costs up to $2.50 a gallon for the five full-service
schedule and additional services provided.
The service contract with MTA is a continuation/piggyback of the five year contract
(2016 = 4th year) between Rocky Mountain National Park with Rocky Mountain Transit
Management (McDonald Transit Associates Inc.).
Proposal:
The McDonald Transit Associates Inc. contract and bus lease proposals are attached.
Continued…
Town Board Memo
2 Memo: Contract for shuttle services with McDonald Transit Associates Inc. 06/16/2016
Advantages:
Offering continued shuttle service (ninth season) for guests and residents of Estes
Park and the surrounding community.
Reduction in the amount of private vehicles on local roads and emissions.
Disadvantages:
Reduced access to local business and services for guests, residents, and summer
workers.
Greater number of private vehicles utilizing area roads and emissions.
Action Recommended:
Acceptance of the agreement with McDonald Transit Associates Inc. to provide shuttle
services for the Town of Estes Park, as specified in the agreement.
Budget:
The 2016 Estes Park FREE Shuttles budget is attached, showing the MTA contract as a
part of the whole budget.
Transportation Fees #222-5600-456-22-60
Other (additional service) #222-5600-456-22-98
Level of Public Interest:
The Estes Park Free Shuttles served 88,288 riders in 2015 with approximately one-
third being local residents and summer workers.
Through the 2015 shuttle season, we have served 524,677 riders.
The Shuttle Committee accepts regular requests for additional shuttle stops and
service days from area businesses and potential riders.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of the agreement with McDonald Transit Associates
Inc., to provide shuttle services for the Town of Estes Park, as specified in the
agreement.
Continued…
3 Memo: Contract for shuttle services with McDonald Transit Associates Inc. 06/16/2016
Attachments:
2016 Town of Estes Park Transportation Budget
2016 Agreement with McDonald Transit Associates Inc.
2016 Trolley Lease Agreement with McDonald Transit Associates Inc.
2016 SLF Transit Bus Lease Agreement with McDonald Transit Associates Inc.
Note:
Not applicable.
WATER DIVISION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve Rusch, Utilities Coordinator
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Murphy’s Resort/Estes Park Resort Water Main Extension Agreement
Objective:
Request approval of expenditures not to exceed $200,000 for a water main extension
project.
Present Situation:
Two neighboring commercial property owners have plans for fairly large scale
development on their respective properties which would require a significant increase in
fire hydrant flow demands. One development includes the addition of workforce
housing as a portion of the design. The Water Division has run analysis on our
hydraulic model and concluded that the demand requirements exceed what our current
water distribution system can support. A looped water main extension will therefore be
required to be installed by the developer(s). Town staff has determined that it would be
extremely unlikely for any additional large scale development to occur in this area
beyond these two property owners.
Proposal:
The Town Attorney, Greg White, is in the final stages of drafting a Water Main
Extension Agreement, to be signed by each developer stating that the owner of
Murphy’s Resort will be responsible for full payment of the installation including
attorney/administration fees and the cost of engineering and construction. Murphy
Resort estimates work could potentially begin in November, 2016. Murphy’s Resort will
obtain contractor bids which will be reviewed and approved by the Water Division prior
to line installation. Upon acceptance of the installed water main, the Water Division will
pay one half of the total costs back to Mr. Murphy and a twenty (20) year contract will be
put on the capacity of the new main. At the time when the second developer, Estes
Park Resort, begins its proposed development work requiring connection to the new
line, it will then pay the Town back the one half of the total cost of the main extension
project. Both parties will be required to pay in full their own costs for all tap fees
associated with new development outside the scope of this contract.
Advantages:
• Substantial increase in the Town’s water capacity in an outlying area.
• The addition of much needed workforce housing in our community.
• Supports commercial development.
Disadvantages:
Should the Estes Park Resort not develop within the twenty-year duration of the
contract, it becomes null and void and the Town would absorb its half of the investment.
The Town would still acquire this new and improved infrastructure.
Action Recommended by Staff:
Staff recommends approval of these expenditures in an amount not to exceed
$200,000.
Budget:
This proposed development was unforeseen by staff and is, therefore, unplanned and
unbudgeted. Preliminary bids indicate the total project should be well below $200,000.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the expenditures in an amount not to exceed $200,000
for this proposed water main extension project.
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: June 14, 2016
RE: Electric Rates - Request for Public Hearing Date
Objective:
To set the public hearing on, and proposed adoption of, a new electric rate schedule.
The proposed hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the July 26, 2016 Town Board
meeting in the Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue.
Present Situation:
To ensure continued high-quality utility services and plan for future upgrades through
capital improvement projects, we periodically review the cost of providing services as
well as projected revenue – the rates paid by customers. The Town’s public electric
utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees to operate. Costs and
revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations and keep utilities in line with
ever-increasing federal standards. Rate studies also ensure equitable rates among
customer classes, so that one customer class does not subsidize another.
Colorado Revised Statues, Title 40 Article 3.5 Section 104, requires notice be made 30
to 60 days prior to the public hearing.
Proposal:
Staff requests the proposed electric rate public hearing be held during the July 26, 2016
Town Board meeting in the Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue.
The proposed electric rates will also be presented at the June 28, 2016 Town Board
meeting.
Advantages:
• Public notice will be given that each municipal utility customer shall have the right
to appear, personally or through counsel, at such hearing for the purpose of
providing testimony regarding the proposed new schedule.
• The Town will meet its legal obligations for notifications under Colorado Law.
Disadvantages:
• None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends setting the public hearing on electric rates for the July 26, 2016 Town
Board meeting to take place at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High. Every effort will be made to follow proper procedure to communicate proposed
rate changes to our customers and obtain feedback through public hearings, our Public
Information Office and Town Clerk.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of holding the public hearing on electric rates during the
July 26, 2016 Town Board Meeting.