HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-04-14The 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, April 14, 2015
6:15 p.m.
AGENDA
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any
member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the
Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters
personal to particular employees – Town Administrator Annual Review.
REGULAR BUSINESS
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT HONORING JEAN WEAVER.
PROCLAMATION: “27TH ANNIVERSARY DUCK RACE DAY.”
PROCLAMATION: “ESTES CARES ABOUT BEARS MONTH.”
PROCLAMATION: PARKINSON'S AWARENESS MONTH
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
A special Town Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 15, 2015 for the
consideration of continuing the NEPA process for the Downtown Loop project. Public
comment will be taken on the topic during that meeting.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
STATE OF THE TOWN REPORT. Mayor Pinkham.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report Policy 3.3 & 3.7
NEPA Analysis & Background Information for Town Board Meeting on April 15, 2015.
Prepared 3/30/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 24, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated March 18 and March 24, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee. March 26, 2015
cancelled.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 3, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Resolution # 10-15 Surprise Sidewalk Sale May 2 & 3, 2015.
6. Upper Thompson Sanitation District Intergovernmental Agreement for Fish Creek
Lift Station.
7. Resolution #11-15 for Signatory Authority for Grants.
8. Department of Local Affairs Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Funds Grant
Application for Quantars Replacement on Prospect Mountain.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT (EVRPD) ET AL DBA THE HANGAR RESTAURANT TO EVRPD
ET AL DBA THE HANGAR RESTAURANT LICENSE, 1480 GOLF COURSE
ROAD, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #02-15 VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 1, THOMPSON’S
PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION. Planner Kleisler.
2. TOWN BOARD POLICY 106 – PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS. Administrator
Lancaster.
3. TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1.4, 1.6
AND 1.7 AND AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 101. Administrator Lancaster.
4. PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING. Superintendent Boles.
5. REQUEST FOR FUNDING BY THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDRAISING EFFORTS. Executive
Director Rorabaugh.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(d) C.R.S. – For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements
5. ADJOURN.
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
April 27, 2010
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not oc cur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, t he Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest – Section 24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S.
2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law,
rule, or regulation – Section 24-6-402(4)(c), C.R.S.
4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations –
Section 24-6-402(4)(d), C.R.S.
5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and /or instructing
negotiators – Section 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S.
6. For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non -disclosure
provision of the Colorado Open Records Act – Section 24-6-402(4)(g), C.R.S.
2
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, “all or a portion” of the discus sion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney’s opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
_ For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) – initiated
ordinances for the sale and use of Town-owned property.
_ For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
3
____ To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
_X _ For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town
Administrator Annual Review.
____ For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal
or state law, rule or regulation: under C.R.S. Section 24-
6-402(4)(c).
_ _ For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations
under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
____ For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.R.S., the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24 -72-
204(5.5) C.R.S.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
4
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It is ____Tuesday, April 14, 2014___, and the time is 6:15 p.m.__.
For the Record, I am ___Bill Pinkham _________________, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro
Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, the executive
session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(f) discussion of a personnel matter, is being
electronically recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s):__ Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig, Trustees John Ericson, Bob Holcomb, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and John
Phipps. (Also include any others who will be present for the executive session in this
announcement.)
This is an executive session for the following:
For discussion of a personnel matter, not involving any specific employees who
have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the
Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town
Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters
personal to particular employees, under 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S. – Town
Administrator Annual Review.
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor’s discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 14, 2015
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. In April of each year the Town Administrator is to report on
Policies 3.3 and 3.7.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.“
Policy 3.7 states: “The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness
Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal,
State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private
sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a
disaster. “
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal
impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal
integrity of Town government. Accordingly, the Town Administrator shall not allow
budgeting which:
3.3.1. Deviates from statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget complies with all statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. Deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among
competing budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget does not deviate materially from Board-stated
priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs I am therefore
reporting compliance.
3.3.3. Contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues
and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget does not contain inadequate information to
enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and
operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of
planning assumptions. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. Plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current budget does not plan the expenditure in any fiscal year
of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period,
or which are otherwise available. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.5. Reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that
established by the Board of Town Trustees.
REPORT: The current budget does not reduce fund balances or reserves in
any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Town Trustees. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.6. Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to
significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget does not fail to maintain a Budget Contingency
Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.3.7. Fails to provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The current budget provides for an annual audit. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.3.8. Fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the
current or future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: The current budget protects, within my ability to do so, the
integrity of the current and future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.3.9. Results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the
Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions
funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in
addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: The current budget does not include any new positions not
approved by the Board of Trustees, other than those fully funded by grants or
temporary positions for which existing budged funds are allocated. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for
coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local
governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet
basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster.
3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned
responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency
Operations Plan
REPORT: The current Emergency Operations Plan defines emergency
responsibilities for key Town staff. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan
for the Town.
REPORT: The business continuity plan is currently under development, but not
yet complete. I am therefore reporting partial compliance.
3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to
take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public
and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by
Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town
Trustees
REPORT: Fortunately, the Town has not had an emergency situation since the
flood of September 2013. I am therefore reporting compliance.
State of Our TownSPRING 2015
Peoplethe key tocommunity,recovery, and sustainabilityOrganizationsGovernmentIndividualsBusinessesProfessionals
THE 2013 FLOOD….
$20 million public infrastructure damage in the Estes ValleyUnincorporated Estes ValleyResidential: 105 damaged, 4 destroyedCommercial: 23 damaged, 2 destroyedIncorporated Estes ParkResidential2,383 affected by water, mud, sewer outage, road access34 damaged1 destroyedCommercial183 affected by water, mud, sewer outage, road access68 damaged1 destroyed
2014 RECOVERY
Fish Creek Repairs
Fish Creek Repairs
Flood Plain and Commercial DistrictState and Federal agencies tour downtown to understand flood mitigation needs
2014 Sales Tax = Revenue up 14.45% over 2013
ESTES PARK SALES TAX - GENERAL FUND2014 vs. 20130.00%5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,00020132014% change
Investing in the Future
Estes Park votes for economic wellness•Sale of Lot 4 for Wellness Center•1% Sales Tax for Roads, Community Center, Trails and Emergency Communications/Response
Estes Park Events ComplexInvestment in the Future
CDOT RAMP program = $4.2 million
Downtown Loop Project --answer to traffic congestion
Visitor Center Parking GarageOption #2: South Side
Significant IssuesYear Round EconomyDemographics & AffordabilityHousing availabilityCommunity Services
Seasonality Impacts Businesses$0$500,000$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$2,500,000$3,000,000JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC2014 Monthly RevenueEstes ParkWinter ParkSteamboat
Population Demographics Skewed0100200300400500600700Under5 yrs5 - 9yrs10 - 14yrs15 - 19yrs20 - 24yrs25-29yrs30 -34yrs35 -39yrs40 -44yrs45 - 49yrs50 - 54yrs55 - 59yrs60 - 64yrs65 - 69yrs70 - 74yrs75 - 79yrs80 - 84yrs85 +yrsChart TitleSeries 1Column1Column2Column3
Median age among oldest in Colorado19%9%14%15%19%14%8%4%27%14%21%15%12%6%3%1%00.050.10.150.20.250.30%5%10%15%20%25%Estes ParkColoradoMedian age: Estes Park = 51.5 Colorado = 36.1
HousingWorkforce affordability a growing issue.
Growing Shortage of Workforce HousingFalcon Ridge•Widening wealth gap.•Wages not keeping pace with cost of housing.•Front Range Rentals Scarce•98% occupancy•Costs skyrocketing…•$600 $1400/month
Implications■Estes Valley affordability an issue for service providers, but a bargain for boomers■Young families migrating to Front Range urban areas. ■Community balance threatened■Need to attract and retain young families for a healthy community.
Managing Our Future
Estes Park… Past ------- Present -------FutureJoel Estes1859HuntingPioneersStage/TourismFO Stanley1903National Park2015Pioneering Mountaineering TourismResort for affluent traveler National Vacation Destination Day Trippers2025WW IDepressionFront Range Growth Explosion------>WW IIRadioMagazinesTVColor TVInternetHome ComputerNewspaperCell Phone9/11 Iraq WarEnergy CrisisBaby Boomers bornLocal Economy-----Regional Economy ------------------National Economy --------------------------Global EconomyHorse----------Auto---------Plane------------Interstate----Commercial Jet ------?????Cheap Energy----------------Energy Costs Growing---Affluent Tourists------Family destination & Day TrippersDisposable income Growing------ShrinkingWhat Lies Ahead?
Time for Celebration!!!2015– Rocky Mountain National Park2016– National Park Service2017–Estes Park
…Estes Park Economy at RiskReliance on tourism and disposable incomeReal estate values driven by retirees and second home ownersWorkforce struggles to live here. Difficulty attracting and retaining professionals and young families.Front Range less expensive, more amenities and lifestyle options.Housing authority serves limited segment of workforce needs.Shortage of childcare for working families.Retirees have bigger voice in the community than young familiesEstes Park 5-Year Outlook Issues
Investment in Community Resources NeededCommunity CenterSenior CenterMuseumChild Care
…Estes Park AdvantagesGateway to RMNP – 3 million visitors, Wilderness statusScenic viewscapesWildlife viewingEcotourism growth Accessibility vs. other western national parksProximity to DIAProximity to Front Range - 3,750,000 people. I-70 advantageShuttles – Car-less VacationFamily histories, repeat visitors – Cheley Camp, YMCA, CampgroundsQuality of lifeLess congestion than Front RangeBetter air quality than Front Range5-Year Outlook Positives
Our island of tranquility….
Colorado State DemographerNorthern Front Range Ripe For Growth
1960 -2040Source: Dr. David Theobald, CSUESTES PARK
Potential GrowthIn HousingCommercial & IndustrialPotential GrowthIn ESTES PARK
The Bottom Line…Challenges aheadNeed to address issues and opportunitiesBuild on strengthsThink long term
Trend is Not DestinyWe need to work together as a communityto ensure our sustainability
QUESTIONS???
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 24, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 24th day of March 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: John Ericson
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed the month of April as the Month of the Young Child.
GRADUATION CEREMONY: 2015 CITIZENS INFORMATION ACADEMY (CIA).
Mayor Pinkham, Town Administrator Lancaster and Public Information Officer Rusch
presented participation certificates to class members and thanked them for their
participation.
Robert Brunson
Chris Carey
David Ciani
Wendy Corcoran
James Cozzie
Denali Davidson
Elizabeth Fogarty
Phil Frank
Phil Kleisler
Patricia Krause
Tina Kurtz
Richard Life
Sandra Life
Kim McEachern
Jessica McGee
Catherine Moon
Michael Moon
Greg Muhonen
Jeanne Nydegger
Joyce Paxton
Emily Pugh
Wes Reichardt
Adam Shake
Suzanna Simpson
Julie Skelton
Susan Stalfort
David White
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Joanna Darden/Town citizen read a prepared statement related to the name change of
the Wellness Center from the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center to EPMC/Aspire
Wellness Center.
Cory LaBianca/Town citizen read a prepared statement encouraging the Board to take
into consideration all views and aspects of the community for upcoming projects, not
just the economic aspects.
Matthew Heiser/Town citizen questioned the expedited review process being afforded to
the Stanley project while the other two applications heard at the recent Planning
Commission would be heard at the second Town Board meeting in April.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Park Advisory Board reviewed the Arts in Public Places
policy at their March 20th meeting and would bring the policy forward to the Town Board
in April. He thanked everyone involved in the melodramas over the years stating the
shows have raised over $55,000 for charities in Estes Park.
Board of Trustees – March 24, 2015 – Page 2
Trustee Norris commented Chief Kufeld met with the Bear Task Force to discuss
options for a wildlife ordinance. He reminded the community that April is Estes Cares
About Bears month.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Quarterly Report:
Reported overall compliance with Policies 3.1 through 3.11 with a few exceptions.
o 3.5.2 – Reported facilities maintenance and procedures need review and
revision. The Facilities Maintenance position would be filled in 2015 to begin
addressing the issues.
o 3.10.4 – Reported non-compliance. The capital asset management plan has
not been worked on since the departure of the Deputy Town Administrator and
the flood. The item has been reassigned to Finance Director McFarland and a
new plan would be forthcoming by the end of the year.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 10, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated March 10, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, March 12, 2015.
1. Contract with Kinley Built to remodel water laboratory on Elm Road,
$79,250 – Budgeted.
2. Sherman Reilly four-drum wire puller - $140,895 – Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated February 18, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated February 19, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
7. Amendment to Administrator Lancaster’s contract of April 4, 2015 to extend
the contract to June 30, 2015.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - THE BARREL, LLC, 112-120 E. ELKHORN
AVENUE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the
application for a new Tavern liquor license by The Barrel, LLC. All necessary
paperwork and fees were submitted and TIPS training has been scheduled.
The application was filed as a concurrent review with the Town and the
Department of Revenue. Louis and Ingrid Bush/applicants were present and
provided an overview of their new business located on the pad of the old Park
Theater mall site. The applicant has proposed the installation of two pre-
fabricated structures on the site housing the tavern and portable restroom
facility. The structures would be permanently attached to the slab with outdoor
seating. The applicant received a variance from the Board of Adjustment to the
containment requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code which
requires all activity to be wholly contained within the interior of a building or
Board of Trustees – March 24, 2015 – Page 3
permanent structure. The business will be seasonal with anticipated operation
hours to be May through November pending weather.
Those speaking in favor of the license included Adam Shake/Town citizen and
Estes Performance Inc. member, Charley Dickey/Town citizen and business
owner, Ken Smith/Town citizen and business owner, and Judy Schreiber/Town
citizen. Comments included full support for a business at the location rather
than an empty slab in the middle of downtown, the business would bring people
to Estes Park and provide a new experience, the business would benefit the
retail businesses downtown, a new product downtown would be beneficial, fits
the recent changes made to the Development Code to allow micro-breweries in
town, and would provide a place for family members to rest while others shop
downtown.
Those speaking against the issuance of a new license included Steve
Nagl/Wheel Bar, Scott Jandrain/Caramel Crisp, Dave Callahan/Lonigans, Ty
Nagl/Wheel Bar, and Tony Paglia/Locals. Needs and desires of the
neighborhood have been met by the current 29 outlets, therefore, a new license
should not be approved. The applicants have not proven the need and would
create undue competition for the current licenses. Concern was heard over the
variance approved by the Board of Adjustment, safety and security of the open
business, food concession, sanitation of the portable restrooms, and the
temporary nature of the business. The new business will dilute the tax base
and not increase it overall.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Nelson) to
approve The Barrel LLC dba The Barrel, 112-120 E. Elkhorn Avenue for a
Tavern Liquor license, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEM:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP, Park River West
Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XXVII, Lot 2,
Park River West Subdivision; Condominiumize Units 600 & 602 Park River
Place; Rich Willie Trust/Applicant. Planner Kleisler.
B. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Marys Lake Subdivision
Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Marys Meadow Development/Applicant.
Applicant requested continuance to the April 28, 2015.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the Consent
Agenda with the Estes Valley Planning Commission
recommendations, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW - ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE
STANLEY - AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #2014-01B, Stanley Historic
District Subdivision, TBD Steamer Drive; Greg Rosener/Applicant.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the application stating the development plan
approved in 2014 proposed the construction of a Wellness Center and
Accommodations-1 building first, with the Accommodations-2 building only
labeled as a future phase. Through the development of the Wellness
Center programming it was determined the original design was not
optimal; therefore, the applicant has redesigned the buildings to combine
the structure into one. The applicant would request the original phasing
plan be reversed to allow construction of the Accommodation-2 building
first and proposed several amendments to the approved development
Board of Trustees – March 24, 2015 – Page 4
plan: move Accommodation-2 footprint, reconfigure the driveway and
parking lot, revise the storm drainage plan, review the architectural
elevations, authorization of a height exceeding 30 feet, revisions to the
note/conditions of the development plan to reflect the reversed phasing,
and authorization of staff to administratively approve final details and
minor revisions. The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend conditional approval of the Special Review at
their March 17, 2015 meeting. Public comment at the meeting requested
the applicant move the building further south and have the parking near
the road. The Development Code suggests screening the parking with the
building would be the preferred design.
Lucia Liley/Grand Heritage Applicant Representative reviewed the project
and stated the Planning Commission was presented an alternate option to
reduce the height to meet the 30 foot height limit. The option to move
forward with the current phase is due to the delay with phase I and the
identified need to adjoin the wellness center and accommodation building.
She reiterated it is considered best practice to have a building screen a
parking lot. Storm drainage has been altered to address upstream basins
and take storm drainage into one basin on Lot 4. Offsite parking would be
accommodated at the Stanley Hotel with transportation provided between
the sites. Extensive review of the established view corridor has been
completed to ensure the building would not impact the views. She stated
the project name has changed to the Aspire Wellness Center and affirmed
the relationships have not changed in the past 16 months. The Estes
Park Medical Center (EMPC) has enter into a contract with the University
of Colorado for the licensing and use of the Anschutz program.
Brian Herwig/CEO EPMC stated the Hospital Foundation would be
responsible for raising the funds to build the center. The hospital
continues to work with the university to build the program in Estes Park.
The Anshutz family has requested that the name be removed as the family
has not provided any funding for the project. The hospital has signed a
licensing agreement with CU for the programming.
Jill Anderson/Executive Director of the Estes Park Medical Center
Foundation stated the information has been assembled to begin seeking
public and private donors. No funds have been raised to date with $8
million needed to build the center.
Mayor Pinkham called a 10 minute break at 9:35 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at
9:45 p.m.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to extend the meeting to
no later than 11:00 p.m., and it was passed unanimously.
John Cullens/Stanley Hotel owner stated the Wellness Center would be
attached to the Accommodation-1 building to make the facility a year
round operation. He anticipates the Accommodation-2 building would be
completed within a year and final design and start of construction on the
Wellness Center within a year. The job creation would not change with
the reverse phasing and may increase. He stated Aspire is a Grand
Heritage brand; however the name of the center may change with
fundraising efforts.
Those speaking against the item included Edward Hayek/Town citizen and
Stanley Views HOA President, Judy Shreiber/Town citizen, Marlen
Hayek/Town citizen, Tom Shamburg/Town citizen, Doug Warner/Town
citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, Christine Smith/Town citizen, Barb
Gebhardt/Town citizen, Barb and Jennifer Davis/Town citizen, and Dana
Small/Town citizen. Comments have been summarized: the 18 properties
in the HOA objected to the project and the placement of the building at the
Board of Trustees – March 24, 2015 – Page 5
highest point on the property instead of other options to mitigate
obstruction of the view corridors such as placing the parking lot next to the
road; the Wellness Center should be built first as was proposed in the
approve development plan voted on by the citizens; there has been no
significant effort by the developer to limit the effect on the adjacent
property owners; the contract to sell the property to the Stanley was not
legal and therefore the Town does not have the authority to take action on
the proposed application; property values in the area would be negatively
affected by the development; questioned the name change of the facility
from the original name outlined in the ballot question; and voters voted for
the Anshutz Wellness Center.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen questioned the 30 foot limit and the reason
for the limit. He stated it is unfortunate the revised option is the only
option being considered.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb)
to approve the Special Review #2014-01B, with the finding and
conditions of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to extend the meeting to complete the
agenda items not moved to the April 14, 2015 meeting, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #02-15 VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 1,
THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION. Item continued to the
April 14, 2015 meeting.
2. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN REVISION
ALTERNATIVE SELECTION. Director Muhonen stated staff launched the
feasibility investigation of the south lot as directed by the Town Board in
December 2014 meeting with the primary project funder Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) who owns most of
the south parking lot. BoR was supportive and the FTA was reluctant to
support the south lot proposal. FTA directed staff to explore alternative design
options for the north parking lot per the terms of the original grant application.
Several new placement options for the north lot were discussed. Staff
presented a screening matrix and conceptual sketches for 13 parking structure
options (11 on the north site and 2 on the south site) to FTA and the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). All evaluated options would exceed the
existing budgeted funds. On March 6, 2015, FTA sent conditional support of
relocating the parking structure to the south lot. Adding additional parking at
the Visitor Center will compound an existing shortage of restrooms at this
location. This issue should be addressed as part of the project. Staff
recommends the Town redesign and build a two level parking structure on the
south parking lot utilizing existing funds. The location remains the preferred
site due to highway access, cost per stall and no impact to existing utilities,
private property, or buildings that would occur on the north side. The south
location would create 96 new spaces for an estimated increased cost of
$750,000. Staff would request an additional $200,000 to expand the current
restroom facilities at the Visitor Center. Staff requests authorization to pursue
FTA and BoR approval of a parking structure to the south of the Visitor Center
that can be built for the revised remaining budget amount not to exceed
$5,024,671. If unsuccessful in obtaining approval, staff would redesign and bid
a smaller parking garage on the north parking lot.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen thanked staff for the forethought to investigate the
parking structure on the south parking lot.
Board of Trustees – March 24, 2015 – Page 6
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve staff
recommendation to redesign and bid a new parking structure on the
south Visitor Center parking lot as approved by FTA and the BoR and
earmark an additional $750,000 for the parking garage and $200,000 for
additional restroom facilities at the Visitor Center, and it passed
unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #09-15 SUPPORT FOR THE FISH CREEK PLAN FOR
RESILIENCY (MASTER) PLAN. Planner Kurtz presented a resolution of
support for the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency, which no longer includes the
Scott Ponds Natural Area project. Formal Board support of the plan would
significantly strengthen the ability of the Town and the Estes Valley Watershed
Coalition to obtain grant funds to implement river restoration and resiliency
projects.
Tony Schetszle/Town citizen congratulated the Town for developing a working
solution to address the Scott Pond Natural area.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve Resolution #09-15,
and it passed unanimously.
4. SUPPORT FOR THE ESTES VALLEY WATERSHED COALITION
WATERSHED RESILIENCY PILOT PROGRAM FOR PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION GRANT APPLICATION. Item continued to the April 14,
2015 meeting.
5. TOWN BOARD POLICY 106 – PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS. Item
continued to the April 14, 2015 meeting.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. WATER RATE PRESENTATION. Utilities Director Bergsten and Cil
Pierce/HDR Senior Project Manager & Financial Analyst provided a review of
the water rate study presented to the Town Board at the study session on
March 10, 2015. The Water financial plan estimates the rate adjustments
needed to meet the funding outlined in the study would be 9.9% for each year
2015-2017 and 8% for 2018. A customer’s individual bill would increase
based on their customer class, size of the service meter and the amount of
water used. The fixed charges would be covered by the fixed cost and those
that do not use water would see a higher percentage cost as they do not have
a volumetric cost to dilute the fixed cost increases. Those with larger
meters/larger service lines would see a larger increase such as the Park R-3
School District with an approximate increase of 34% in 2015, 28% in 2016 and
22% in 2017. The average residential customer bill would increase
$3.75/month per year, commercial bill would increase by $6.40/month per
year, pump flow customer class would increase $4.05, bulk water increase by
$83.90 per year, and low-income residential monthly increase of $3.10 per
year. Final consideration of the water rate increases would be presented at
the Town Board meeting on April 28, 2015.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 18, 2015
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of March, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
NEPA STUDY – DRAFT FINDING OF THE LOOP PROJECT.
Tony Galardi/Central Federal Lands provided an overview of the Downtown Estes Loop
project, the funding and the NEPA process, including the screening process. Multiple
meetings have been held to date for the NEPA process starting in September 2014,
launch of a project website, hotline and email address, open house on October 8, 2014
and small group meetings on December 10 and 11, 2014. Common concerns held at
the meetings: lack of parking downtown, need a solution to congestion, bring back the
barnes dance, preserve Riverside natural environment, improve pedestrian safety and
movements/crossing opportunities, preserve transit service and stops and add bike
lanes/bike facilities. The purpose of the project is to improve access to the Park through
reduced travel time and congestion. The current level of service at the key intersections
downtown (Elkhorn/Riverside and Elkhorn/Moraine) have an E and F level of service 40
days of the year and by 2040 both intersections would have F level of service for 147
days of the year. The data supports the need for improving transportation in the
downtown core.
The NEPA process requires an alternative screening process to evaluate and develop a
range of alternatives including the do nothing alternative. The process develops
screening criteria, conducts a primary, Level 1, and a detailed secondary , Level 2,
comparative screening. Level 1 screening criteria: traffic operations/capacity, safety,
impact to community resources and funding. The following alternatives were reviewed:
Alternative 1 - One-Way Couplet
Alternative 1A - One-Way Couplet Counter Clockwise
Alternative 2 - Four-Lane Riverside, 2-Way Elkhorn & Moraine
Alternative 2A – Four-Lane Riverside with Pedestrian Mall on Elkhorn
Alternative 3 - One-Way Couplet, Clockwise Direction
Alternative 4 - Three Lane Riverside-Elkhorn and Moraine 2-Way
Alternative 5 - Reversible One-Way on Riverside, Elkhorn/Moraine Two-Way
Alternative 6 - One-Way Couplet Counter-Clockwise and Four lane Riverside
Alternative 7 - One-Way Couplet Counter Clockwise Using Rockwell
Alternative 8 - Town-Way, Two-Lane Riverside, One-Way Elkhorn (West) and One-Way
Moraine (South)
Alternative 9 - Traffic Diversion around Downtown through Signage and Intersection
Modifications.
After screening all alternatives, those carried forward to Level 2 included No Action,
Alternative 1, Alternative 1A, Alternative 2, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6.
Town Board Study Session – March 18, 2015 – Page 2
Level 2 comparative screening criteria includes congestion and delay measured by level
of service, access and parking, alternative mode accommodation (bike, transit, etc.),
number of conflict points, economics, right-of-way impact, environmental (parks, cultural
resources), and within available funding.
Each alternative was reviewed for level of service at Elkhorn/Riverside, Elkhorn/Moraine
and Moraine/Riverside/Crags intersections
Alternative 1
Level of Services D, E, C Childrens Park – 2% decrease
Days of congestion decrease to 25-30 Baldwin Park – 17% decrease
On-street bike lane ROW – 6 Commercial & 1 Residential
Loss of 35 parking spaces
Alternative 1A
Not moved forward due to poor traffic operations.
Alternative 4
Level of Services F,F,D Childrens Park – 19% decrease
Days of congestion decrease to 75-85 Baldwin Park – 34% decrease
On-street bike lane ROW – 7 Commercial & 8 Residential
Loss of 51 parking spaces
Alternative 2
Level of Services F, F, C Childrens Park – 20% decrease
Days of congestion decrease to 40-50 Baldwin Park – 42% decrease
On-street bike lane, No bike lane on
Riverside
ROW – 8 Commercial & 10 Residential
Loss of 55 parking spaces
Alternative 6
Level of Services C, D, C Childrens Park – 20% decrease
Days of congestion decrease to 4-6 Baldwin Park – 42% decrease
On-street bike lane, No bike lane on
Riverside
ROW – 8 Commercial & 10 Residential
Loss of 60 parking spaces
Other Alternative Considerations
- Alternatives 4 and 6 would likely require a signalized intersection at Rockwell.
- Alternative 1 reduces traffic downtown slightly compared to Alternatives 2, 4 and 6
which reduces the business visibility significantly.
- Alternative 6 and Alternative 1 reduce level of service.
- Alternative 1 maintains parking with the loss of only 35 spaces compared to 60
spaces with Alternative 6
- Alternative 1 minimizes impact to the parks.
- Alternative 1 requires the fewest acquisitions.
- Alternative 1 is within current funding while Alternatives 2, 4 and 6 would require
additional funding from $2.5 – 8 million in additional funding.
The No Action and Alternative 1 are recommended to move forward to complete the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for analysis of design alternative. Next steps include a
public meeting during the summer of 2015, publish a draft EA, public decision
document, and respond to public comment on the draft EA.
The Board questioned if Alternative 1 would address current and future traffic concerns
or would the Town need Alternative 6 ultimately; questioned if going along the south
Town Board Study Session – March 18, 2015 – Page 3
side of the river from Baldwin Park was reviewed as an option; and would feasible
alternatives work with a downtown parking garage in the future.
Mr. Galardi stated Alternative 1 would provide the Town with improved traffic conditions
for the next 25 years. Alternative 6 would address traffic conditions into the long term
future. Alternative 1 would not limit future expansion and all alternatives would work
with a future parking garage with Alternative 1 being the best for access. The next
steps are a public meeting on March 25, 2015 at the Event Center to outline the
alternatives.
Kellye Bolton/CDOT discussed the process for acquiring properties needed for right-of-
way with condemnation as a last resort, relocation of businesses, temporary
construction easements, and relocation study to assist residential and commercial
property owners in finding replacement housing or new business location.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 24, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION 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
March, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Trustee Ericson
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris reported that approximately 70 people attended the Destination Product
meeting which included representatives of the Town of Estes Park, the Economic
Development Corporation (EDC), and Visit Estes Park.
In response to a question by Trustee Holcomb regarding codes, Town Administrator
Lancaster reported that the EDC has a study group reviewing Town codes that may be
inhibiting growth and development. Senior Planner Shirk is an ex officio member of the
study group.
Town Administrator Lancaster reported that approximately 55 applications were
received for the position of Facilities Manager. Interviews are scheduled to take place
on Thursday, March 26, 2015.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The discussion about the possibility of joining RTD scheduled to be held on Tuesday,
April 14, 2015, will be postponed and replaced with a discussion about downtown
improvement districts and/or downtown development authorities. The RTD discussion
will be rescheduled. The discussion of the Fish Hatchery property will be held on
Tuesday, April 28, 2015, and will include an update on the Elkhorn Lodge property.
URBAN LAND INSTITUTE REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster summarized the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Flood
Resiliency Report and Recommendations. The report was funded by the Town of Estes
Park, the City of Loveland, the City of Fort Collins, the Kresge Foundation, and the
Northern Colorado Community Foundation. The ULI Northern Colorado Advisory Panel
focused on long-term recovery and community resiliency after an event, not on initial
emergency responses. The recommendations in the report are general and include, but
are not limited to, aggressive flood plain management, designing with nature, resilient
water infrastructure, and financing infrastructure, as well as topics such as affordable
housing, regional economic development, and financial tools. A staff level meeting of
the three partner communities is scheduled for Thursday, April 2, 2015, to discuss the
recommendations and follow-up efforts.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. for a dinner break. The meeting
resumed at 5:40 p.m.
Town Board Study Session – March 24, 2015 – Page 2
COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANTS.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig provided the Board with background on the Community
Services Grants (CSG). She stated that initially the areas of focus were Arts and
Education, Human Services, and youth; and the funding was based on a percentage of
the Town’s tax revenue. In 2013, the amount budgeted for grants was lowered due to
the flood and the CSGs have been funded at a flat amount for the last several years.
She noted that over the years, the categories have expanded and the requests for funds
have increased. She said the grants were not intended to be the sole source of funds
for organizations, but rather a starting point and a means for organizations to become
independent and find other funding sources. She added that there is no clear selection
criteria or policy to follow in reviewing the requests. She proposed the Board engage in
a policy discussion related to the grants in general, whether tax monies should be spent
in this manner, whether the CSGs categories should support the Boards goals and
outcomes, funding levels, and a basis and criteria for making grants. Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig noted that a timely discussion is necessary so that organizations can be notified
of changes to the program that may be proposed and/or considered by the Board.
A philosophical discussion on the CSGs will be scheduled for an upcoming study
session. Based on the outcome of that discussion, a subcommittee may be formed to
research whether other communities and organizations have similar programs and how
they are structured.
PRIDE AWARDS.
The Estes Park High School Student Pride Scholarship will be awarded this year to a
graduating high school senior at the high school’s Scholarship Award Ceremony in May.
The selection criteria for the scholarship is based on community service. Trustee
Phipps initiated a discussion with the Board related to the remaining Pride Awards
which are the Teacher of the Year, Business Person of the Year, Volunteer of the Year,
and Volunteer Group of the Year. These awards are given based on nominations
received from the community. Over the past years, interest in the program has
diminished and few nominations were received. In 2014, the program was suspended
and Estes Park Pride Award recognition was given to the entire community for its
contributions and efforts focused on recovery from the 2013 flood. The Board’s
discussion is summarized: interest in the program is low; limited number of nominations
results in same people receiving recognition; consider giving the program a rest and
award every three or four years, or re-defining the program; other organizations in town
are now handling these types of awards; this is a duplication of effort; the Non-Profit
Resource Center hosts Philanthropy Day each year; continue to provide an event for
Town volunteers; and revisit the various awards again next year. It was determined that
only the Student Pride Scholarship will be awarded in 2015, however, an event to
recognize and thank all Town volunteers will continue to be held. The Town will support
the Non-Profit Resource Center in their recognition efforts by helping to promote the
Philanthropy Day event.
AMENDING POLICY GOVERNANCE 1.4, 1.6 & POLICY 101.
Town Administrator Lancaster said proposed changes to the policy are being made to
clarify the procedure and policies surrounding Town Board members serving on outside
committees, either as official representatives of the Board or as individuals.
Section 1.4.7.2 Special Assignments – was accepted as presented except that the word
“full” will be removed when referring to the Board of Trustees.
Section 1.6. Board Committee Principles – Section 1.6.1.1 refers specifically to
appointments by the Board of Trustees to Town boards or committees and defines the
role of a trustee as liaison only; 1.6.2 Outside Committees is all new and contains an
introduction and a breakdown addressing official representation and individual
representation. The Trustees voiced concern with legislating and limiting the roles
trustees can hold on committees; trustees have the right to participate as individuals as
they see fit; propose keeping “shall not chair” but remove “leadership position”; propose
removing 1.6.2.2 c. Town Administrator will make changes per the discussion. All
Town Board Study Session – March 24, 2015 – Page 3
references to the “full” Board, the “majority” of the Board, or “regular” meeting of the
Board will be removed for consistency throughout the document. In addition, changes
to Policy 101 will be made so that consistency exists throughout the policy as it relates
to the revisions to Policy Governance Sections 1.4 and 1.6. The revised document will
be presented at the next Town Board meeting for approval.
MISCELLANEOUS.
A policy related to public art will be placed on the Public Safety/Utilities/Public
Works (PUP) Committee April meeting agenda.
Staff from the Town of Buena Vista have requested a meeting with Town of
Estes Park staff to discuss policy governance. The meeting will be held on either
April 16th or April 23rd. The Trustees are welcome to attend if they are available.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:15
p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
March 3, 2015 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom,
John Lynch, and Don Darling
Attending: Chair Smith, Members Moreau, Lynch, Newsom and Darling
Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, Recording
Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 30
people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes from the February 2, 2015 meeting
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 4, DIVISION 6, HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS, 1418 Narcissus Drive
Chair Smith stated this project was continued from the February meeting. Design changes
have been made. The request is for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which
requires 10-foot side setbacks in the E-Estate zone district. The applicant desires to
encroach approximately five (5) feet into the side setback to allow construction of a
proposed attached garage.
Member Moreau recused himself and left the dais. Town Attorney White stated Member
Moreau will be speaking on behalf of a colleague on this project. After discussion with
staff and Member Moreau, Attorney White approved the process for Member Moreau’s
participation at the meeting.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
March 3, 2015
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the site is located in the High Drive
area. The initial application was a request from both the side and front setbacks.
Narcissus Road is in the High Drive area, near the burn area from a few years ago. This
particular property was not involved in the Woodland Heights fire. There were concerns
with the driveway depth, and potential impact on view to the adjoining property to the
north. The initial plan called for a two-story structure. The design has been revised to
comply with the front yard setback; however, the applicant is still requesting a five foot
encroachment into the side setback along the north property line. Another design change
is reducing the structure from two stories to one story, which should alleviate any impact
on the view from the property to the north. The proposed structure would be only a few
feet higher than the existing retaining walls, and under the 30 foot height limit. Planner
Shirk stated the revisions in the variance requests were significant, and staff
recommended approval, with the findings and conditions listed below.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. The Larimer County Engineering Department expressed concerns
about the drainage: the potential impact on stormwater runoff, and potential impact on the
travelled way of Narcissus Road. The road is an unmaintained county road, approximately
twelve feet wide. There were some safety concerns regarding the depth of the driveway,
and whether a vehicle would be able to clear the travelled way when parked in the
driveway. One adjacent property owner provided written comment in opposition to the
request.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the lot is undersized (.27 acre) for the E–Estate zone district, where the
minimum lot size is one-half acre. The existing dwelling was built in 1939, and is
located approximately six feet from the north property line. The home was built before
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) was adopted, and also before the County
Building Department was established.
2. Practical difficulty:
a. Staff found the existing residential use may continue without the addition.
b. Whether the variance is substantial: Staff found the variance request would
reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet; a 50% reduction. The Board
should consider if this request is out of character for the neighborhood.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment:
Staff found approval of the variance would result in a side yard setback that is
out of character for the neighborhood. The reduction of the building from two-
story to one will minimize the overall impact on the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services:
Staff found the revised plans will comply with the required front yard setback.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
March 3, 2015
Care should be taken with the construction of the garage to ensure no impact
on stormwater drainage.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement: Staff found the owner purchased the property in 2007, with the
current setback standards in place. Prior to the EVDC, the setback
requirements were 50-feet from all property lines.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some other
method: Staff found other options exist. These include (1) building the garage
in a different location, which would result in additional site disturbance, and (2)
building a narrower garage that would not encroach into the side yard setback.
g. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief: Staff found the Board should consider if the garage could
be relocated further away from the property line. It may be possible to locate
the addition two to three feet further away from the property line.
3. The Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as will, in its independent
judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified:
If the Board approves the variance, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificate be
required to confirm compliance, and include a detailed grading plan to ensure no
impact on drainage. Staff recommends window openings in the north wall to provide
visual relief to the long, flat blank wall. This recommendation is based on a
development code standard that prohibits more than twenty-two feet of blank garage
wall from facing a front property line, and on Community Wide Policy 2.7, which states
“façades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to
provide visual relief.”
Staff and Member Discussion
Member Newsom stated the distance from the garage to the edge of the pavement seems
short. He was concerned about the amount of space needed to park a vehicle in the
driveway. Planner Shirk stated the plans comply with the front yard setback requirements.
Public Comment
Jeff Moreau/representing the applicant’s agent, Steve Lane, stated the distance from
garage to the edge of road is right at 20 feet. Details are still being worked out to resolve
the drainage issue. One option is to raise the floor height of the proposed garage and
create a swale to the front of the building. The building height will be approximately 17
feet. Member Lynch was concerned about the proposed addition being harmonious with
the existing dwellings in the neighborhood, and the close proximity to the adjacent
dwelling. He expressed concern about supporting the project.
Ruth Routten/County resident lives to the north of the subject property. She was
concerned about the amount of space between her home and the proposed structure and
how that may come into play during a wildfire. She also had concerns about improper
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
March 3, 2015
drainage eroding her property. She encouraged the Board to vote against the variance
request.
Staff and Member Discussion
Chair Smith stated the proposed 1092 square foot structure was quite large, in proportion
to the home, and wondered if the size could be reduced. He was also concerned about
drainage.
Member Darling was sympathetic to the owner’s desire to add a garage. He stated
grading could resolve the drainage issue. He stated there could be other ways to turn the
garage so it aligns with the house, and would also create additional parking area.
There was discussion between staff and the Board concerning options to reduce the size
of the garage. Topography was an issue regarding location. Mr. Moreau returned to the
podium, and stated the property owner desired an attached garage, and had several
vehicles he wanted to get under cover. He agreed something needed to be done with the
long blank wall. The architect was waiting on the decision of the Board before moving
forward with additional design work.
Planner Shirk stated staff took the approach that the impact on the neighborhood could be
mitigated with conditions of approval, if the variance is approved.
Mr. Moreau stated the proposed plan was the least intrusive. A driveway further to the
south may be too steep. If the property owner is required to build outside of the setbacks,
a two-story structure would most likely be constructed.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
1. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted with the building permit application.
2. A Surveyor Certificate shall be required to verify compliance with the approved site
plan.
3. The garage design shall be modified to comply with Community-Wide Policy 2.7 which
requires façades to be broken up with windows, doors, or other architectural features.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to DISAPPROVE the requested
variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion
passed 3-1, with Members Lynch, Smith, and Newsom voting in favor, Member
Darling voting against. Member Moreau was not at the dais and did not vote.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
March 3, 2015
Member Lynch commented the lot is small, the driveway is short, and the 50%
encroachment into the setback is excessive for the neighborhood. To allow the variance
would not maintain harmony for the neighborhood.
Member Moreau returned to the dais.
4. LOT 1A, DIVISION 8, HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS, 660 Larkspur Road
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request was for a variance from EVDC
Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet in the E–Estate
zone district. The applicant desires a 50-foot lot width to accommodate having the existing
single-family dwelling and its water well on the same parcel.
Planner Kleisler provided a brief overview of the project thus far. An amended plat for the
two subject properties was approved by the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners on February 17, 2015. This involved shifting the internal lot line between
Lot 1A and Lot 2A so the existing dwelling and well would be entirely on Lot 2A. As the
existing dwelling was built in 1961 on the former interior lot line, and the amended plat
remedied that problem. In order to incorporate the well on Lot 2A, the lot width needs to
be reduced by 25 feet. The applicant owns both lots involved in the application. Lot 1A is
undeveloped, but will have access to public utilities through the dedication of access and
utility easements across a neighboring property. Planner Kleisler stated the amended plat
also include the vacation of dedicated Larimer County right-of-way for the travelled way
on Larkspur along the northwestern property line.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. No significant comments were received by affected agencies. Staff
received one letter from a nearby property owner opposed to the variance request.
Planner Kleisler stated wildfire mitigation plans do not apply to single-family dwellings
constructed prior to the adoption of the EVDC; however, if a structure was proposed for
Lot 1A, it most likely would require some fire mitigation prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the existing house was built in 1961, prior to the establishment of building
codes or the Larimer County Building Safety Division. The house was constructed on
the interior lot line. The location of the existing water well creates a unique
circumstance for the owner, who strongly desires to keep the water well on Lot 2A.
2. Practical difficulty:
a. Staff found the denial of the variance would not prevent the construction of a home
on Lot 1A.
b. Staff found the variance is not substantial.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
March 3, 2015
c. Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered with the approval of this variance. The proposed lot configuration still allows
for a suitable building site, likely a similar location as intended with the creation of
the original subdivision (1925).
d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance.
e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the home
in 1979. At the time of purchase the lot was zoned E-1–Estate, which required a
180-foot minimum lot width.
f. As stated in the applicant’s Statement of Intent, the alternative option to this
variance is to record an easement onto this lot.
Planner Kleisler stated a condition of approval for the amended plat is if the variance is
denied, the applicant could adjust the plat accordingly (interior lot line and vacation of
right of way) without returning to the Planning Commission and County Commission for
approval. With the amended plat, the existing dwelling now complies with the setback
requirements for the zone district. If the variance is denied, the applicant would shift the
current lot line to create a 75 lot width on Lot 1A, then create an easement to access the
well. Staff does not have a recommendation of approval or denial for this application.
Chair Smith summarized the amended plat issue: The front of Lot 1A is now narrower,
and the back property line is now wider than what the former lot line allowed. The existing
right-of-way was moved to align with the actual road, and the existing right-of-way
became part of the lot. Member Lynch commented if the well that provides drinking water
for the house on Lot 2A was on Lot 1A, the situation may have a negative impact for
potential buyers of Lot 1A.
Public Comment
Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the current side setbacks on Lot 1A are ten
feet. If a home was built on Lot 1A, it would have to be at least 10 feet the well. If the
variance is denied, the applicant would revise the plan to make the west property line at
least 75 feet, which puts the well on Lot 1A. Such revision would allow a home to be built
less than 10 feet from the well. A home built on Lot 1A could be built further to the west,
creating a greater visual impact to the neighbor to the north. Additionally, there is an
approximate 40 foot drop between the house to the north and Lot 1A. It was her opinion
that a home built on Lot 1A (with variance approval) would not have a visual impact on the
neighbor since the best views were more to the southwest and not directly south. She
stated the 75 foot lot width is part of the EVDC requirements. Neither staff nor the Planning
Commission had the authority to grant a variance for the amount of footage requested.
With a 50 foot lot width, there is still enough room for access to Lot 1A. The main intent
was for the well to remain on the same lot as the existing dwelling. The applicant desires to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
March 3, 2015
add an addition to the existing dwelling, and have the option to sell Lot 1A. Combining the
lots was considered, but the applicant would lose a lot of value if that option was pursued.
Planner Shirk stated lot width requirements provide staff with a tool to evaluate setbacks,
and ensure property owners can comply with setbacks when a home is built.
Steve Wilson/property owner stated he wants to keep both lots separate. There are no
intentions to build on it at this time, and he intends to combine the lots for tax purposes. He
was unaware of the right-of-way issue prior to beginning the process to add an addition to
the home on Lot 2A.
Tom Plakke/attorney representing Normie Violleque who owns the property immediately to
the north of Lot 1/A. He stated the neighbor notice was mailed to an incorrect address, and
Ms. Voilleque just recently became aware of the request. (Note: Adjacent property owner
notices are mailed to the address on file with the Larimer County Assessor) Mr. Plakke
stated Lot 1A was purchased by the applicant to protect the value of the property. The
owners have used both parcels as one for many years, and if Lot 1A is sold and a home
built, Ms. Voilleque’s view and property value would be adversely impacted. It was his
opinion this potential impact should be taken into consideration by the Board. He stated
the applicant is asking the Board to solve a problem that was in existence when they
bought the property.
Member Newsom stated Lots 1A and 2A are legal lots. Whether or not they have been
used as one is immaterial. If Lot 1A is sold, the new owner has the right to build on that lot.
Member Lynch added the primary purpose of the variance is to allow a decrease in lot
width to incorporate an existing well on Lot 2A. If the well were to remain on Lot 1A, an
easement would be required for the well, which could decrease the property value on Lot
1A, and a home could be built very near the well.
Normie Voilleque/County resident objected to the variance request. She stated the
applicant has not demonstrated special circumstances or conditions to justify the request,
and disagreed there were practical difficulties. She stated it was common in the Estes
Valley to purchase multiple lots to preserve views, create buffers, etc. She stated there is
beneficial use already occurring by the property owners. Changes to the property line
would alter the character of the neighborhood and diminish her property value. She stated
neither lot meets the minimum lot size for the zone district. An option to the variance
would be an easement for the well. She stated wells must be abandoned when lots are
connected to public utilities, so the variance would not be justified if the property owners
connected to public utilities.
Ms. Plummer stated if either Lot 1A or Lot 2A tie into Town water, the existing well must be
abandoned or an approved backflow prevention must be installed. The existing lot with the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
March 3, 2015
well is approximately 0.6 acres and, if the variance were approved, would become more
compliant with the minimum lot size for the zone district.
‘
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
None.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Darling) to approve the variance request with
the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
Chair Smith called for a short recess at 10:15 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:23 a.m
5. LOTS 17, 18, 19, BLOCK 5, ESTES PARK; THE BARREL BEER GARDEN, 116
E. Elkhorn Avenue
Chair Smith stated the request was for a variance from EVDC Section 4.4.D.1.a, which
requires all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity
shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant is The Barrel, LLC, and the owner
of the property is Park Theatre Mall, LLC. The section of the code referred to in this
request is known as the “containment provision”, and it has been in place since the 1985
zoning code. The purpose of the code is to keep streets uncluttered and ensure
pedestrian movements within the downtown area. The variance has been requested to
allow a proposed outdoor beer garden at the location of the former Park Theatre Mall.
Planner Shirk explained that taverns are an allowed use in the CD-Commercial Downtown
zone district, and the variance was to allow that use in an open area, not wholly contained
in a building.
Planner Shirk stated the variance request is one step in a larger process. The applicant
will be going before the Town Board on March 24, 2015 to request a liquor license. If that
is approved, they would proceed to the building permit process, including floodplain
mitigation. If approved, the beer garden would have access from both the Elkhorn Avenue
side and the Big Thompson River side. The proposed bar is a converted shipping
container. Restrooms would be on a trailer connected to Town water and Estes Park
Sanitation District’s main sewer line. The site would also contain a walk-in cooler and a
small building used for the sale of food items. The buildings would be required to comply
with the Town building codes, which states they need to be permanently affixed on
foundations. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and
property owners within 500 feet of the site. Typically, variance requests are subject to
adjacent property owner notification a minimum of two properties from the site in all
directions (usually about 200 feet); however, in this case, staff chose to notify neighbors
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
March 3, 2015
500 feet from the site because of anticipated public interest and potential impact. Several
written comments were provided to staff, all in support of the request. No comments in
opposition were received. Comments from affected agencies included, but were not
limited to: (1) it was determined the proposed fencing of beer barrels and wrought iron
around the perimeter would not be considered a sign; (2) the Police Department would
not impose any special conditions, and let the noise ordinance address any noise issues;
(3) the Estes Park Sanitation District took the proposal to the Board of Directors, who had
no significant concerns, but would require the facility to connect to the main sewer line.
Planner Shirk stated the applicant has subleased the property from EPIC, with approval of
the property owners. The goal is to operate the beer garden for the next couple of years,
allowing time for the EPIC Board to continue to raise funds for a performing arts center at
the site. The proposed hours would be 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. While the beer garden would
operate mainly from late spring to early fall, some year round use is anticipated,
especially for special events like Catch the Glow parade, Highland Festival, etc. He added
there are no downtown residential units that face the proposed site.
Planner Shirk stated in reviewing the application, not every criterion is required to have a
“yes” answer. The project is reviewed as a whole.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Special circumstances have resulted in practical difficulties in developing the site. The
previous building burned to the ground in October, 2009, and the property has
remained vacant since. This vacant property in the heart of downtown disrupts the so-
called ‘urban fabric’ of downtown and down not contribute to the vibrant downtown
area the Comprehensive Plan encourages. The buildings will be permanently attached
with foundations that comply with the building code, but will be easily removed. This
means the beer garden would put the property to a positive cultural and economic use
until a more permanent use is found for the site. If approved, the variance would not
nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the specific standards, the development
code, or the comprehensive plan (for information on specific standards, please refer to
the staff report).
2. Practical difficulty:
a. In October 2009, the former Park Theater Mall burned to the ground. Since then, a
performing arts center has been proposed, but has not been approved for
development. No other uses have been proposed, and the parcel has remained
vacant, affecting the overall fabric of downtown. Staff finds the proposed use would
put the property to a productive use that will enhance the downtown area and will
extend the amount of time guests spend downtown.
b. The variance is not substantial. This finding is based on:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
March 3, 2015
i. The buildings will be permanently attached and connected to water and sanitary
sewer facilities.
ii. Taverns are an allowed use in the CD–Commercial Downtown district.
iii. Outdoor seating/eating areas are allowed in the CD–Commercial Downtown
district.
iv. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have outdoor
seating areas.
v. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have garage doors
that open during operating hours.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,
and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. The proposed
use would enhance the downtown area by providing a lively entertainment area on
a site that is currently blighted. The use would likely result in more guests visiting
the downtown area, especially in the evenings, with guests spending more time
downtown. The applicant proposes to paint the restrooms “champagne beige”.
This, or a complimentary color scheme, should be carried throughout all buildings.
Staff has discussed the issue of noise with Commander Eric Rose of the Estes
Park Police Department. Commander Rose’s opinion is that no special conditions
should be placed on this land use, and that the Town’s Noise Ordinance will allow
the Police Department to address any noise issues, should they arise.
d. The applicant proposes to connect to the Town water system and the Estes Park
Sanitation District sewer system, and would not adversely affect the delivery of
public services.
e. The applicant is a sub-lessee of the property, and is aware of the EVDC
requirement.
f. The only alternative the applicant has to a variance for an outdoor ‘beer garden’ in
the downtown area is to apply for an amendment to the development code.
g. Should the Board approve the variance, staff recommends conditions to mitigate
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. These conditions summarize
issues described above, and area outlined below.
Planner Shirk referred to Section 1 of the EVDC, which states “Preserve and protect the
architecture, history and small-town character of Estes Park’s historic downtown” and
“Strengthen and improve downtown Estes Park as the primary government, cultural,
office, financial, tourist, and specialty shopping and pedestrian district of the Estes Valley.
He also reviewed the land use policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which
support and encourage an operation such as this.
Planner Shirk stated the Board has the authority to recommend hours of operation or
limitations on dates of operation, as they see fit. Staff does not recommend imposing any
of these conditions. Staff recommends approval of the variance request, with conditions of
approval, listed below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 11
March 3, 2015
Staff and Board Discussion
Member Darling thanked Planner Shirk for a very thorough staff report. Member Moreau
inquired about the proposed string lighting complying with the EVDC. Planner Shirk
assured the Board all aspects of the project would comply with the EVDC and the local
building codes.
Public Comment
Roger Thorp/applicant representative wanted to clarify that EPIC is continuing to work
toward the construction of the performing arts center. They are hoping to begin the
development review process in the next few months, but it will take a couple of years to
get it off the ground. He stated the current situation at the site does not shed good light on
downtown Estes Park. He distributed photos of similar operations so the Board good get a
better visual perspective. Mr. Thorp stated once the performing arts center begins
construction, the beer garden will be removed. The restroom trailer is made by a company
that specializes in providing this type of facility, and includes an ADA accessible stall. The
restrooms will be connected to the Estes Park Sanitation District’s sewer line. The
restrooms will be locked when the beer garden is closed – they will not be public
restrooms. The container bar is a unique idea to repurpose these structures. The doors to
the bar will close after hours. A walk-in cooler will be placed behind the container, painted
to match, and will have minimal visual impact.
Discussion occurred between Mr. Thorp and the Board. Comments included, but were not
limited to: (1) signage about not taking alcohol off site; (2) access to water will be in the
storage shed; (3) uneven areas of elevation on the slabs have been taken into
consideration and will be covered and/or protected; (4) concern about the toilets not being
“public;” (5) no fire suppression system is required.
Paul Wyhard/local business owner stated the adjacent property owner notices should
have been sent to the tenants as well as the property owners. He did not think trailers
should be allowed, and suggested building a structure. He stated this project would create
an unfair advantage to other similar businesses, just to accommodate a timeline for the
performing arts center. He disagreed that the area was blighted, and thought the property
owners could improve the fencing on both exposed sides of the property. He was
opposed to the variance request, stating the proposed plan was not the only remedy for
this site.
Trudy Ester/local business owner stated her main concern is alcohol being served in the
close proximity to where children and families gather to eat ice cream and candy. She
was concerned about the people that smoke, and where they would be allowed to smoke.
She did not think the sanitation issue had been addressed to her satisfaction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 12
March 3, 2015
Ingrid and Lou Bush/applicants stated the buildings would be locked at night, with security
cameras and motion-sensor lights. She stated all prepackaged food will be provided by
the Park Theater Café, and no grease trap was required. A tavern license does not
require food preparation on site. The beer garden will be a no-smoking facility. They will
not have happy-hour prices, and will not be encouraging binge drinking. They want to
encourage families to visit the facility, but understand public concerns. Everyone wanting
to drink will be required to provide proper identification and a stamp will be placed on their
hand. During peak times, there will be staff at the entrances to ensure compliance with
the state liquor laws. All servers will have stamps, and customers will not have to go to a
specific area to obtain a stamp. There will be proper signage for “No Alcohol Beyond This
Point”. The state does not require entrances and exits be staffed. During very busy times,
they will consider hiring private security, as they do not want to area to be out of control.
There will be 60 beers on tap, focusing on Colorado craft beers, with additional craft beers
from others part of the US and world. Their initial investment is approximately $300,000.
They are excited about the opportunity, and plan on doing everything the right way.
Staff and Member Discussion
Comments included, but were not limited to: (1) variance requests are all decided upon
individually. No precedents are set by the approval or disapproval of a variance. Each
application is treated individually; (2) the beer garden will be subject to all the liquor
license regulations, just like any other establishment in town; (3) the building and health
departments are totally separate from the variance hearing; (4) the Larimer County Health
Department had no concerns, but did say it was an unusual set up; (5) Jim Duell with
Estes Park Sanitation took the application to the Sanitation Board, who approved the
concept; (6) the applicant met with the building department to address all issues
concerning building codes. The proposed buildings are considered structures and will be
permanently attached; (7) the Fire Marshall had no comments at this stage of the project,
but would provide comments during the building permit phase, as needed.
Ty Nagl/local business owner disagreed with the structures being considered permanent.
He referred to a letter to the editor by Burt Burglund, an EPIC board member. He stated
the lower portion of the Wheel Bar (of which he is the owner) has been called the Barrel,
and he thought it was interesting the applicant chose that name. He stated the downtown
business owners were not aware of the variance request because the notices went to
property owners. He recommended continuing the hearing to allow additional public
comment.
Jenna McGregor/property owner of the proposed site stated she wants to the performing
arts center come to fruition. The beer garden will not be a permanent business at that
location, but will provide some income to the EPIC group as they continue to work on their
project. There will not be a food truck or vending cart. The proposed beer garden would
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 13
March 3, 2015
bring additional revenue to the downtown area. She hopes there would be acoustic
entertainment. She was supportive of the project.
Elizabeth Fogarty/Director of Visit Estes stated a recent survey of Visit Estes stakeholders
indicated an overwhelming need for the downtown area to offer fresh new options for
guests and residents. Similar comments were received in a visitor survey. Comments
included a lack of food and craft beverage options. There is room for growth in this
community. This brings a service and product that we do not currently have downtown.
On a different note, she was supportive of food trucks, stating they are an expected
amenity in destination communities and they continually get requests for them. Entire
community has had to look at the slab for many years and no other entrepreneur has
come up with the creative solution like this. Throughout the application process, she has
met with Mr. and Mrs. Bush, and stated they have done their due diligence and have
always been very professional. Visit Estes is supportive of granting the variance request.
Stan Black/Chair, EPIC Board of Trustees stated food trucks are not allowed, and are not
a part of this project. The Seeley family (property owners of the site) owns an adjacent
licensed restaurant, and requested all food be provided by them. Food will be prepared at
the restaurant and delivered to the beer garden. The lease from the property owners to
EPIC is for $1 per year. The sublease to The Barrel will earn EPIC over $150,000 over
the course of their occupancy. This amount is significant to the EPIC campaign, and he
was appreciative of the Seeley family for allowing EPIC to be involved with the project.
He stated The Barrel will be paying market rate rent as if there were a building there, and
providing $300,000 in leasehold improvements. Mr. Black stated comments claiming
unfair competition are unfounded. One of the written comments in the meeting materials
is a letter of support from the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, which represents a
large portion of downtown businesses. Making claims that downtown is not represented is
not accurate.
Member Darling stated his concern about having a bar in close proximity to children. As a
member of Sunrise Rotary, they have had a successful annual event (Autumn Gold) in
Bond Park for over 20 years where alcohol is served in a family atmosphere, so he knows
it can be done. The local Police Department will assist when needed to ensure success.
Planner Shirk reiterated the liquor license hearing is scheduled for the March 24th Town
Board meeting. Public comment will be accepted at that meeting.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 14
March 3, 2015
1. All buildings shall be painted to match or compliment the “Champagne Beige” color
proposed for the restroom building. Final color scheme shall be subject to review and
approval of Community Development staff.
2. Lighting shall comply with Section 7.9 of the EVDC “Exterior Lighting”
3. Compliance with memos from:
a. Police Department dated February 26, 2015
b. Code Compliance Officer/Sign Code Technician dated February 19, 2015
c. Town Attorney dated February 9, 2015
d. Town Utilities Department dated February 16, 2015
e. Estes Park Sanitation District dated February 20, 2015
f. Public Works Department dated February 18, 2015
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Moreau) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
Member Newsom stated he expected the new business to be an asset to the downtown
area. The developers have addressed all the issues to the best of their ability.
6. REPORTS
A. Chair Smith reported he will be absent for the April and May meetings. Member Darling
will serve as chair in his absence.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38
a.m.
___________________________________
Pete Smith, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Memo
Community Services
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Bo Winslow, Community Services Director
Date: April 14, 2015
RE: Surprise Sidewalk Sale Resolution
Objective:
Have resolution approved.
Present Situation:
Due to Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to “containment” within the CD District, and
subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts,
Section 4, specifically Paragraph D.1.a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the
CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions), it is necessary for the Town Board to approve
a variance to allow this sale to occur. (Please see attached Estes Valley Development
Code citation - Attachment A.) The proposed resolution is attached. Also attached is the
Estes Valley Development Code Zoning District Citation referred to as Attachment (A).
Staff will insure that business owners are educated on the regulations.
Sandwich boards are prohibited in the Estes Park Municipal Code (17.66.170 Community
special events signs and Stanley Park special events signs). Staff recommends allowing
these signs as long as they don’t encroach in the required four-foot clearance.
Proposal:
The Surprise Sidewalk Sale has become a much-anticipated shoulder season event in
Estes Park. The Spring Surprise Sidewalk Sale is May 2-3, 2015. The sale is open to all
Estes Park businesses. Businesses that are located out of the downtown area may
reserve a space in Bond Park.
Advantages:
This allows local businesses to sell wares on the sidewalk and therefore attract shoppers
during a slower time of the year.
Disadvantages:
Access on the sidewalks can get tight and per ADA requirements, minimum distances
must be maintained.
Action Recommended:
Approve Resolution
Budget:
It is expected to cost approximately $200 in printing fees for posters. This is a budgeted
expense for the Events Division in account 101-5500-455.26-03.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff has talked with numerous Downtown Merchants and they are all in favor of the
sale.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #10-15.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-15
WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91
pertaining to “containment” within the C-D District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes
Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Section 4.4, specifically
Paragraph D.1.a.:Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the C-D Zoning District,
Number (3) Exceptions)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the “Surprise Sidewalk Sale
Days” being sponsored by the Events Department that is scheduled May 2-3, 2015:
1. Hours allowed to sell on the sidewalk are from 9 a.m. – 9 p.m.
2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses.
3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine.
4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their stores only
during the hours specified above.
5. Sidewalk displays, including signage, shall provide a minimum clearance of
four feet for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays
and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street.
6. Sandwich board signs and other temporary signage are allowed.
7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may contact the Events
Division at 586-6104 to reserve a space in Bond Park (10x10 spaces only).
8. Advertising posters will be provided.
9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business
License.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this
Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days annual event.
DATED this day of , 2015.
TOWN OF ESTESPARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Memo
Utilities Department
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date: April 14, 2015
RE: Upper Thompson Sanitation District IGA
Objective:
Staff seeks the approval of a revised Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which outlines
how a water main extension will be constructed to the Fish Creek Lift Station for Upper
Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) and UTSD will provide an equivalent value
additional sewer taps to the Town’s Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant.
Present Situation:
UTSD’s well at their Fish Creek lift station does not produce enough water. UTSD is
trucking water to the lift station which is more personnel and equipment intensive than a
Town Water connection.
The Town’s Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant requires additional sewer taps. The
Water Department limits production from Mary’s Lake Water Treatment until additional
sewer taps are acquired.
Proposal:
The Town’s Water Department and UTSD will cooperate in the construction of a new
water main to the UTSD lift station. The Town will lead and pay for the water main
project and UTSD will compensate the Town through an equivalent value of sewer taps.
Advantages:
This project allows the two utilities to focus on their core businesses. UTSD will achieve
improved operational performance. The Town’s Water Department will acquire
additional sewer taps needed for Mary’s Lake operations and continue the build out of
the Town’s drinking water system to complete looped supply around Mall Road.
Disadvantages:
The Water Department will see an increase in workload; however, future improvements
require the Department to take on these types of capital projects. This additional
workload will be temporary.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Town Board approval of the revision to the Intergovernmental
Agreement with UTSD and the execution thereof.
Budget:
503-7000-580.35-54, “WATER SYSTEM” $1,734,851 2015 budget. UTSD lift station
project $242,000 (with 15% contingency)
Level of Public Interest:
Low. Fish Creek flood recovery construction is underway. The addition of this project is
a marginal increase in disruption. Impacted properties have been contacted with
discussions of this project.
Recommended Motion:
I move for the approval of the revision to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Upper
Thompson Sanitation District and the execution thereof.
Attachment:
Second Amendment to IGA
- 2 -
SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT BETWEEN UPPER THOMPSON
SANITATION DISTRICT AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ("Second Amendment") is made and effective as of the ___ day
of ___________, 2015, (the "Effective Date") by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the "Town") and the
UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Colorado ("District"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered that certain Intergovernmental Agreement dated
February 6, 2009, memorializing the District's capacity to treat certain flows from the
Town's Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant ("MLWTP") and the Town's funding of the
costs thereof (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties amended the Agreement as of April 16, 2013, to allow for
the Town to purchase additional single family equivalents (SFE's) through the payment of
additional plant investment fees (PIF) based upon increased peak monthly flow capacity
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to memorialize the
Town's commitment to complete certain water infrastructure design and construction, a
portion of which will benefit the District, in exchange for a credit against future PIFs
required of the MLWTP (the "Project").
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do
hereby agree as follows:
COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1. PIF/Peak Month Flow Requirements-PIF Credit. Section 3 of the Agreement is
amended to acknowledge and to provide an estimated PIF credit to the Town, as of the date of
execution of this Second Amendment, in the rough equivalent amount of 24 SFEs, which
credit is given in exchange for the estimated Project delivery cost of $210,000.00 of District
improvements. The estimated Project deliverables, along with the estimated budget for
completion, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall serve as
the basis for determining both the estimated PIF credit and the actual PIF credit, which
shall be determined after completion of the Project and based on actual numbers. Upon
completion of the Project, the Town shall prepare and submit to the District a final and
actual Project cost matrix, which will be added to Exhibit A to document the actual Project
costs. Documented costs shall include only those costs which may be verified through receipts
and bid documentation; work performed by Town staff shall not be billed to the District,
unless approved, in advance, at a pre-determined rate. The actual PIF credit shall be
determined by the Parties based upon the sum that is created by dividing the actual Project
costs attributable to the District, by the current District PIF fee (currently $8,700/SFE). This
PIF will not be required to be paid and shall be considered to be a credit, subject to the
Town's completion of the Project. The peak month waste flow capacity requirements of the
Town shall be increased to 27,800 gpd (139 SFEs = 27,800 gpd divided by 200 gpd/SFE)
before an additional PIF shall be assessed.
2. Consideration for PIF Credit/Town Improvements. The Town has committed and agrees
to complete the design, engineering and construction of the Project, which shall include a
water main line extension with a water service connection to the District's Fish Creek Lift
Station, along with the necessary permitting, surveying, easements, administration,
engineering, blasting, asphalt patching or paving, materials and labor necessary to complete
such water main line extension. In exchange for the completion of the Project, the District
agrees to extend a credit toward the Town's additional PIF requirements based on the actual
costs of the District's share of the Project provided pursuant to Section 1 of the Second
Amendment. The Town shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the Project, including
supervising contractors necessary to complete the Project and providing for the necessary
bonding and insurance to adequately protect the Parties through the duration of the Project;
however, the District agrees to review plans and provide labor necessary to assist the Town
with completion of the Project, as determined by the Parties. Both the Town and the
District agree to timely inspect the Project upon completion and to cooperatively work
through discrepancies or disagreements regarding the Project during and upon completion of
the work. The Town agrees to commence the Project work within ten (10) days of execution of
this Second Amendment. The PIF credit shall survive the termination of the Agreement.
3. Term. The Agreement, as modified by its First and Second Amendments,
will terminate as of December 31, 2015, subject to automatic renewal for additional one-year
terms unless notice of non-appropriation of funds therefor is given at least thirty (30) days
prior to the end of the then-current term. Nothing in this Second Amendment is intended to be
construed as a termination of the Agreement.
4. No Other Amendments. All provisions of the Agreement not expressly
amended herein remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on
the date set forth below.\
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Mayor
Date of execution: , 2015
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION
DISTRICT
Larry Pettyjohn, Chairman
Date of execution: , 2015
ATTEST:
Chris Eshelman, Secretary
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT BETWEEN UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION
DISTRICT AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXHIBIT A
North Fish Creek Water Main Extension to UTSD Lift Station
UTSD Estimated Cost
QTY
Unit of
Measure Description Unit Cost Extended Cost
2070 ft. 8" DIP $ 29.35 $ 60,754.50
26 ea 8" MEGALUGS/BOLT PACKS $ 49.99 $ 1,299.74
8 ea 8" 45 ELBOWS $ 81.60 $ 652.80
6 ea 8" 22 1/2 ELBOWS $ 79.80 $ 478.80
4 ea 8" 11 1/4 ELBOWS $ 118.15 $ 472.60
4 ea 8" TEES $ 150.00 $ 600.00
4 ea 8" VALVES $ 1,070.10 $ 4,280.40
104 ea 8" FIELDLOCK GASKETS $ 150.00 $ 15,600.00
3 ea 12 X 6 reducers $ 138.12 $ 414.36
3 ea Fire Hydrant $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00
2070 ft. Blasting $ 14.00 $ 28,980.00
2 ea Air relief pit and fixtures $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00
1 ea 2" Corp $ 247.51 $ 247.51
1 ea 2" Curb Stop $ 368.76 $ 368.76
40 ft. 2" copper service line $ 34.12 $ 1,364.80
1 ea 2-1/2" VALVE BOX $ 60.00 $ 60.00
6 ea 5-1/4" VALVE BOXES $ 85.00 $ 510.00
1 ea Lift Station Tap Fee (20 @ 536) $ 10,720.00 $ 10,720.00
1 ea 2" Meter $ 1,245.00 $ 1,245.00
1 ea Easement $ 10,963.00 $ 10,963.00
1 ea HDR Engineering ($6.65/ft) $ 13,765.50 $ 13,765.50
2 ea Excavator Rental (monthly) $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00
6400 ft. Estimated Asphalt Replacement $ 4.80 $ 30,720.00
Estimated Total Cost $ 209,497.77
Finance Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: 04-14-2015
RE: Resolution #11-15 for signatory authority for grants
Objective:
Delegate signing authority for grants to the Town Administrator and/or the Finance
Officer.
Present Situation:
Currently the Mayor is the default signer for several grants awarded to the Town.
Depending on the grant this may include signatures on payment (reimbursement)
requests, quarterly financial status reports, quarterly project performance reports,
monitoring documents and certified payroll documents. Although Town staff work hard to
have such documentation completed well in advance of due dates, this can be
challenging at times.
Proposal:
The present situation will be improved with authority delegation from the Mayor to Town
Administrator and/or Finance Officer to efficiently obtain required signatures on
documents and meet granting organization’s due dates. Grant documentation is managed
by the departments responsible for the grant and the Finance Department.
Advantages:
Expedite document submission by having Town employees with signatory authority.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approval of signatory authority from the Mayor to the Town Administrator and/or Finance
Officer.
Budget:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #11-15, which delegates signatory authority from the
Mayor to the Town Administrator and/or Finance Officer, in respect to grants awarded to
the Town.
Attachments:
Resolution #11-15
RESOLUTION # 11-15
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park applies for and receives Federal and State
grants and funds, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to delegate to the Town Administrator and/or
the Town Finance Officer signatory authority for the purpose of executing documents, reports,
and certifications as required by the terms and conditions of Federal and State grants and
programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH BY THIS
RESOLUTION, INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
The Town Administrator, and/or the Town Finance Officer, are hereby delegated
unlimited signatory authority for the purpose of executing documents, reports, and
certifications including, but not limited to, payment requests (reimbursement requests
from the Town to granting organizations), quarterly financial status reports, quarterly
project performance reports, monitory documents, certified payroll, and other documents
as required.
Dated this_ , 2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Police Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Eric Rose, Commander Police Department
Date: 04-14-2015
RE: DOLA EIAF Grant Application for Quantars Replacement
Objective:
Request the Board of Trustees to authorize the application from the Town on behalf of
the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network (NCRCN) to the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Energy/ Mineral Impact Assistance Funds (EIAF).
This is grant is to replace public safety radio equipment on Prospect Mountain.
Present Situation:
Current radio communications equipment, known as Quantars, are aging and will soon
be obsolete. This radio communications is for public safety. The Town is the lead
agency in this application working closely with other entities. These Quantars are
quickly approaching the end of their useful life; therefore, replacement is critical for
continued effective and efficient communications among law enforcement, fire
departments, emergency medical services, and other first responders and emergency
services in Larimer County, rural and urban areas.
Proposal:
The present situation will be improved with the award of this grant to replace Quantars
located at Prospect Mountain. The replacement equipment will be for upgrades
improving the quality and reliability of communications. The proposal is for
$137,735.50; the match is also for $137,735.50, which is from the NCRCN membership
fees, of which the Town is a member. The replacement will be in phases with others
sites funded through future requests.
Advantages:
The replacement of equipment will ensure the continuation of a highly effective 800 Mhz
communications system for public safety and communications interoperability.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approval of this grant application to DOLA for funds to replace public safety radio
communications equipment on Prospect Mountain.
Budget:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve this DOLA EIAF grant application to replace radio communications
equipment on Prospect Mountain.
Attachments:
Application with attachments
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
the Ordinance included.
Rev. 7/30/14
#
(For Use by State)
State of Colorado - Department of Local Affairs
ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION
Tier I or Tier II
Applications Must Be Submitted Electronically - Directions on Last Page
-You are Highly Encouraged to Work with your Regional Field Manager with Completing your Application-
A. GENERAL AND SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Name/Title of Proposed Project: Northern Colorado Public Safety Radio Transmitter Replacement Project
2. Applicant: Town of Estes Park
(In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, name of the "lead" municipality, county, special district or other political subdivision).
In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, provide the names of other directly participating political subdivisions:
The Town of Estes Park is the lead agency for the application working closely with Northern Colorado Radio
Communications Network (NCRCN) members and partners:
• Town of Estes Park
• Estes Park Medical Center
• Estes Valley Fire Protection District
• City of Loveland
• Loveland Fire Rescue Authority
• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services
• Poudre Fire Authority
• Transfort Bus System
• Poudre Valley Hospital
• Poudre Valley School District
• Wellington Fire Department
• City of Fort Collins
• Berthoud Fire Department
• Colorado State University Police Department
• Platte River Power Authority
The Town of Estes Park also serves Rock Mountain National Park, providing dispatching services from
approximately 6:00 pm to 6:00 am (winter hours) and from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am (summer hours)
3. Chief Elected Official (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, chief elected official of the "lead" political
subdivision):
Name: William C. Pinkham Title: Mayor
Mailing Address: PO Box 1200 Phone: 970-577-4772
City/Zip: Estes Park CO 80517 Phone:
E-Mail Address: bpinkham@estes.org
4. Designated Contact Person (will receive all mailings) for the Application:
Name: Eric Rose Title: Commander, Police Dept.
Mailing Address: PO Box 1200 Phone: 970-577-3827
City/Zip: Estes Park CO 80517 Phone:
E-Mail Address: erose@estes.org
Page 1 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
5. Amount of Energy/Mineral Impact Funds requested:
(Tier I; Up to $200,000 or Tier II; Greater than $200,000 to $2,000,000)
$137,735.50
6. Brief Description of the Project Scope of Work:
(Give a brief introduction to the project in 100 words or less, including the various tasks involved in the project)
Replace aging and soon to be obsolete emergency site equipment, also known as Quantars in multiple
phases. The Town of Estes Park, as a member of the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network
(NCRCN), is seeking funds to replace the Quantars. This request is for an upgrade at the Prospect Mountain
site, which is significant to the services of the Estes Park region.
There are five (5) Quantars that must be replaced with six (6) next generation GTR 8000 series.
The Town is the lead agency in this application working closely with other entities. These Quantars are quickly
approaching the end of their useful life; therefore, replacement is critical for continued effective and efficient
communications among law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical services, and other first
responders and emergency services in Larimer County, rural and urban areas. This project supports public
safety.
7. Local priority if more than one application from the same local government (1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.) 1 of 1
Page 2 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
B. DEMOGRAPHIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
1. Population
a. What was the 2010 population of the applicant jurisdiction? 6021
b. What is the current population? 6086
(Current/most recent conservation trust fund/lottery distribution estimate is acceptable.) What is the source of the estimate? US Census
c. What is the population projection for the applicant in 5 years? 7474
What is the source of the projection? US Census
2. Financial Information (Current Year):
In the column below labeled “Applicant” provide the financial information for the municipality, county, school district or special district directly
benefiting from the application. In the columns below labeled “Entity”, provide the financial information for any public entities on whose behalf the
application is being submitted (if applicable).
Complete items “a through j” for ALL project types:
Applicant Entity Entity
a. Assessed Valuation (AV) Year: 2014 173,163,880
b. Mill Levy 1.822
c. Property Tax Revenue (mill levy x AV) 315,727
d. Sales Tax (Rate/Estimated Annual Revenue) 5% / $8.4m % / $ % / $
e. Total General Fund Budget Revenue 12,256,132
f. Total Applicant Budget Expenditures
(Sum of General Fund and all Special Funds) 20,340,439
g. General Fund Balance as of January 1 of this
current calendar year. 4,695,303
h. General Fund Balance (Unrestricted) as of
January 1 of this current calendar year. 3,750,551
i. Total Multi-year Debt Obligations (all funds*) 15,442,593
j. Total Lease-Purchase and Certificates of
Participation obligations* 6,075,000
For projects to be managed through a Special Fund other than the General Fund (e.g. County Road and Bridge
Fund) or managed through an Enterprise Fund (e.g. water, sewer, county airport), complete items “k through o”:
Identify the relevant Special Fund or Enterprise Fund: Emergency Response System Fund (this is a new fund)
k. Special or Enterprise Fund Budget Amount 60,000
l. Special or Enterprise Fund Multi-Year Debt
Obligations* 0
m. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance as of
January 1 of this calendar year 0
n. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance
(Unrestricted) as of January 1 of this calendar
year
0
o. Special or Enterprise Fund Lease-Purchase
and Certificate of Participation Obligations* 0
p. Special Fund Mill Levy (if applicable) 0
For Water and Sewer Project Only complete items “q through s”: NOT APPLICABLE
q. Tap Fee
r. Average Monthly User Charge
(Divide sum of annual (commercial and residential)
revenues by 12 and then divide by the number of total taps
served.)
NOTE: Commercial and Residential Combined
s. Number of total Taps Served by Applicant
* Include the sum of the year-end principal amounts remaining for all multi-year debt obligations, lease purchase
agreements or certificate of participation notes
Page 3 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
C. PROJECT BUDGET. List expenditures and sources of revenue for the project. The totals on each side of the ledger must equal.
Expenditures Sources of Revenue
(Dollar for Dollar Cash Match is Encouraged)
Funding
Committed
List Budget Line Items (Examples: architect, engineering, construction,
equipment items, etc.)
List the sources of matching funds and indicate either cash or
documentable in-kind contribution
Yes/No
Line Item Expenditures Line Item Costs
Cash In-Kind
Replace & upgrade Quantars;
Motorola model GRT 8000 -
equipment
$184,412.22 Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Grant
Request $92,206.11
In-kind: no
Installation $91,062.78 Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Grant
Request $45,531.39 In-kind: no
Northern Colorado Radio
Communications Network $137,737.50 Yes
$275,475.00
TOTAL $275,475.00
$
Please attach a more detailed budget if available *Loans with a 5% interest rate may only be awarded for potable
water and sewer projects. Leave blank if a loan is not requested.
Page 4 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
D. PROJECT INFORMATION.
The statutory purpose of the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance program is to provide financial assistance to
“political subdivisions socially or economically impacted by the development, processing or energy conversion of
minerals and mineral fuels.”
1. Demonstration of Need:
a. Why is the project needed at this time?
The current public safety site equipment in operations in Northern Colorado will be obsolete in 2017; the end of
their useful life. Without new Quantars, public safety and emergency communications may fail, thereby
jeopardizing lives and property. These devices are critical for emergency, public safety and first responder
communications. The NCRCN is strategically planning a phased approach for replacement Quantars at all
sites, over the next 2 years.
b. How does the implementation of this project address the need?
The replacement of site equipment will ensure the continuation of a highly effective 800 Mhz communications
system for public safety and communications interoperability. The NCRCN has carefully researched supplier
options for purchase and installation.
c. Does this project, as identified in this application, completely address the stated need? If not, please describe
additional work or phases and the estimated time frame. Do you anticipate requesting Energy and Mineral Impact
Assistance funds for future phases?
This project will completely address the need for this one site, replacing the public safety communications
equipment at Prospect Mountain. However, additional sites will also need to be upgraded to complete the
entire project. The NCRCN and a designated entity intends to apply for additional funding in the coming grant
cycles.
d. What other implementation options have been considered?
No other known grants meet this funding criteria. The local governmental members of the NCRCN do not have
budgeted funds to complete this project. The NCRCN Board funds are limited for additional phases of multiple
Quantar replacements at other tower sites.
e. What are the consequences if the project is not awarded funds?
Public safety would be jeopardized if these communications devices are not replaced. This would have a
devastating negative impact on residents, and to visitors traveling to Colorado’s premiere tourist destination,
Estes Park and the Rocky Mountain National Park. First responders may experience some measure of or total
loss of communications, which would delay responses to emergencies. The Northern Colorado region would
then need to rely on less effective means of communications. If multiple emergencies were taking place
communications is needed for coordination and if it is not effective lives and property could be at risk.
2. Measurable Outcomes:
a. Describe measurable outcomes you expect to see when implementation of this project is complete. How will the
project enhance the livability* of your region, county, city, town or community (e.g. constructing a new water plant will
eliminate an unsafe drinking water system and provide safe and reliable drinking water; the construction of a new
community center will provide expanded community services, or projects achieving goals regarding energy conservation,
community heritage, economic development/diversification, traffic congestion, etc.)?
*(Livability means increasing the value and/or benefit in the areas that are commonly linked in community development such
as jobs, housing, transportation, education, emergency mitigation, health and environment)
Page 5 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
At the completion of this project:
1) NCRCN sites will have the latest GTR8000 equipment for public safety communications
2) Public safety communications among emergency and first responders will be improved with new
equipment.
3) Public safety communications will continue with no interruptions to service when GTR8000’s are installed
and before the current system is no longer functional
b. How many people will benefit from the project? (i.e., region, county, city, town, community, subdivision, households or
specific area or group; or any portion thereof)
The residents of Larimer County will be the primary beneficiaries of this system with a population of 316,000.
However, neighboring counties will also benefit as law enforcement, medical responders and fire fighters work
in a collaborative effort to assist each other regardless of jurisdictions. This was evident during the 2013 flood
and High Park wildfire.
Visitors to the region will also benefit from this as the high tourist season inevitably results in accidents. In
2014, the Rocky Mountain National Park had a record 3.4 million visitors. Accidents in the Park (hiking,
climbing, and encounters with wildlife) and vehicular (tourists not familiar with driving mountain roads) require
sophisticated and coordinated responses among local, county, state and federal jurisdictions.
c. How will the outcome of the project be measured to determine whether the anticipated benefits to this population
actually occur?
1) Continued highly effective communications for Public Safety
2) High level of reliability with upgraded equipment
3) Upgraded equipment will have a useful life of over 10 years
4) New equipment is capable of software upgrades for added benefits
d. Does this project preserve and protect a historic building, facility or structure? If yes, please describe.
No
e. Will this project implement an energy efficiency/strategy that could result in less carbon footprint or conserve energy
use or capitalize on renewable energy technology? If yes, please describe.
This project does not directly address energy efficiency; rather this is about maintaining a highly effective
emergency communications system.
3. Relationship to Community Goals
a. Is the project identified in the applicant’s budget or a jurisdictionally approved plan (e.g. capital improvement plan,
equipment replacement plan, comprehensive plan, utility plan, road maintenance and improvement plan or other local or
regional strategic management or planning document)? What is its ranking?
The Town citizens voted for a temporary sales tax increase to support several special projects including the
emergency response system. However, the citizen vote was specific for the following (ballot language) and the
funds will be allocated to this project (along with other named projects): TWO AND ONE HALF PERCENT
(2.5%) FOR CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITIES OF
THE TOWN, SUCH AS EMERGENCY PUBLIC RADIO AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS.
The 2013 flood clearly initiated some forward thinking on the part of the Town.
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees have adopted a strategic plan that includes references to:
Page 6 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
• Infrastructure that is reliable, efficient and up-to-date to serve our residents, businesses and guests.
• Public safety, health and environment – Estes Park as a safe place to live, work and visit with our
extraordinary natural environment.
• Government services – providing high-quality, reliable municipal services for the benefit of our citizens,
guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources.
4. Local Commitment and Ability to Pay/Local Effort
a. Why can’t this project be funded locally?
The Town of Estes Park continues its recovery efforts from the devastating 2013 floods, extreme rain fall, and
rock and mudslides. Flood expenditures have primarily impacted General and Proprietary (Light & Power,
Water) Funds. The General Fund balance percent as of 12/31/2012 was at 47 percent; and dropped to 27
percent as of 12/31/2013. Preliminary fund balance for 12/31/2014 is 17 percent. Reimbursement takes time
so there is significant lag in receiving funds and requests for reimbursements are arduous and time consuming.
Not all expenses are eligible for reimbursement so the Town will be responsible for some of the flood recovery
costs. The next stage of flood recovery involves significant capital outlay (large construction projects) with the
Town’s General Fund. The Town simply does not have the capacity to take on non-flood expenses at this time.
b. Has this project been deferred because of lack of local funding? If so, how long?
The NCRCN is fully aware of the impending end of life for the current public safety communications system
and has been strategically researching options and opportunities for replacement devices and funding.
Working with its NCRCN partners, the Town of Estes Park also researched in-kind and cost share options. The
timing for replacement was planned.
c. Explain the origin of your local cash match. (Note: Whenever possible, local government cash match on a dollar for
dollar match basis is encouraged.)
The NCRCN has a membership fee based on the number of transmitter devices used by that agency. These
fees will be used as the cost share support, 1:1. Paying members include
• Town of Estes Park
• Estes Park Medical Center
• Estes Valley Fire Protection District
• City of Loveland
• Loveland Fire Rescue Authority
• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services
• Poudre Fire Authority
• Transfort Bus System
• Poudre Valley Hospital
• Poudre Valley School District
• Wellington Fire Department
• City of Fort Collins
• Berthoud Fire Department
• Colorado State University Police Department
• Platte River Power Authority
Page 7 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
d. What other community entities, organizations, or stakeholders recognize the value of this project and are collaborating
with you to achieve increased livability of the community? Please describe how your partners are contributing to achieve
the improvement to the livability of the community through this project. If in-kind contributions are included in the project
budget, detailed tracking will be required on project monitoring report.
The NCRCN partners are participating through their financial support as members and are substantially
involved in planning. The Town of Estes Park is an active NCRCN Board member, represented by Commander
Eric Rose of the Estes Park Police Department. The Town is the primary entity responsible for project tracking
and monitoring including reporting to DOLA as required. Working closely with the NCRCN Board and
members, the Town will communicate directly with DOLA on project progress and completion. Because this
project focuses on public safety, community organizations, citizens and businesses will all benefit from this
project even if not directly, through peace of mind.
i. Please describe the level of commitment by each collaborator. (e.g. fee waivers, in-kind services, fundraising,
direct monetary contribution, policy changes.)
The Town of Estes Park is committed to this project on behalf of the region; along with the NCRCN
membership and most importantly the citizens and visitors to Northern Colorado. The commitment of the
NCRCN is evident by the 1:1 cost share contribution from its membership fees. The following members are
active and paid members and as such their membership fees are contributing to the match:
• Town of Estes Park
• Estes Park Medical Center
• Estes Valley Fire Protection District
• City of Loveland
• Loveland Fire Rescue Authority
• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services
• Poudre Fire Authority
• Transfort Bus System
• Poudre Valley Hospital
• Poudre Valley School District
• Wellington Fire Department
• City of Fort Collins
• Berthoud Fire Department
• Colorado State University Police Department
• Platte River Power Authority
The NCRCN Board includes:
• Mary Moore, Board Chair, Fort Collins Police Services
• Eric Rose, Vice-Chair, Estes Park Police Department
• Mike Gress, Treasurer, Poudre Valley Fire Authority
• Rob McDaniel, Secretary, Loveland Police Department
• Greg Gilbert, Loveland Fire Rescue Authority
This Board is actively involved in the plans for replacing aging Quantars site equipment. During their October
6, 2014, Board meeting they discussed and supported this project (attached).
Page 8 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
ii. Please list the value of the resources that each collaborator is bringing to the program.
This is a membership organization and as members each organization contributes fees to NCRCN which is
what is being used for the cost share.
e. Has the applicant dedicated the financial resources in their current budget, reserve funds and/or unused
debt capacity that are being used for the local matching funds? Explain if No
The Town of Estes Park is supporting the match through its membership fee with the NCRCN.
f. Have the applicant’s tax rates, user charges or fees been reviewed recently to address funding for the proposed
project?
The Town of Estes Park participates in an annual audit in which tax rates are reviewed; financial audit, single
audit (federal financial assistance) and in the future will participate in flood recovery audits. The Town’s
Financial Officer will work closely with the Police Department to budget the expenditures and revenue for this
project and to list the equipment as a Town asset.
g. If the tax rate, user charges or fees were modified, what was the modification and when did this change occur?
No modification.
h. Has the applicant contacted representatives from local energy or mineral companies to discuss the project? If yes,
when was the contact and what was discussed.
Not applicable
i. Has the applicant requested financial support from the industry? If yes, when was the contact, what amount did you
request? W hat were the results? If no, why not?
No. This is not applicable.
5. Readiness to Go
a. Assuming this project is funded as requested, how soon will the project begin? Select One ( √ ) Within 3 months,
(__) 3-6 months, (_) 6-9 months or (_) 9-12 months? What is the time frame for completion? Select One (__)Within 3
months, (_) 3-6 months, ( ) 6-9 months, ( √_) 9-12 months or (_) >12 months.
b. Describe how you determined that the project can be completed within the proposed budget as outlined in this
application? Are contingencies considered within the project budget?
The supplier has the equipment in stock; the installation company had been contacted regarding the possibility
of funding for this project, and is the existing contractor services; and NCRCN has agreed to support any
additional costs associated with this project, including unforeseen costs. The supplier and the installation
company have experience working together for a smooth installation process; each has multiple years of
experience in this highly-focused and technical area. No permits are required; no engineering or design is
required. Quotes have been received directly from the manufacturer for proprietary equipment.
Page 9 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
c. Has the necessary planning been completed? How? What additional design work or permitting must still be
completed, if any? When? How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Is the project supported by bids,
professional estimates or other credible information? Please attach a copy of any supporting documents.
Yes. The NCRCN Board has been discussing this project; entered into discussions with the DOLA regional
office; has informed its members and partners; and received quotes on prices for equipment and installation.
Meeting minutes attached.
6. Energy & Mineral Relationship
a. Describe how the applicant is, has been, or will be impacted by the development, production, or conversion of energy
and mineral resources.
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder public records show that 1,122 oil and gas leases and 526 mineral deeds
have been filed.
b. To further document the impact in the area, name the company or companies involved, the number of employees
associated with the activities impacting the jurisdiction and other relevant, quantitative indicators of energy/mineral impact.
In 2014, local public safety agencies has handled the following hazardous material incidents that included
gas/oil leaks:
• Estes Valley Fire Protection District—8
• Loveland Fire Rescue Authority—123
• Poudre Fire Authority—137
• Platte River Power Authority—3
• Berthoud Fire Department—3
7. Management Capacity
a. How will you separate and track expenditures, maintain funds and reserves for the capital expenditures and
improvements as described in this project?
Projects funded by grants are assigned a project code which is entered into the Town’s accounting system. All
expenditures are clearly coded, reviewed and signed off by the department point of contact. In this case, this
person will be Commander Rose. Electronic and paper copies are retained in the accounting department
according to Town document retention policy. Access to files will be granted by DOLA authorized personnel
upon request.
b. Describe the funding plan in place to address the new operating and maintenance expenses generated from the
project?
Operations and maintenance will be contracted with Wireless Advanced Communications (WAC) which is the
current maintenance contactor for the transmitter sites. WAC provides professional radio and communications
system services for demanding commercial, government and mission critical public safety systems. They have
highly trained technical staff that support and service public safety communications devices. WAC was
established in 1996, and is a Colorado based company. Extending this contract will ensure continued,
uninterrupted service with quality professionals who know the system and have a good working relationship
with the Town of Estes Park and the NCRCN.
c. Describe the technical and professional experience/expertise of the person(s) and/or professional firms responsible to
manage this project.
WAC: has highly trained technical staff with over two hundred years of combined experience in the
Page 10 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
communications industry. WAC has grown to employ 55 full time employees and encompass approximately
35,000 square feet of technical, fabrication and production facilities.
Motorola: Motorola Solutions serves more than 50,000 public safety and commercial customers in more than
100 countries. Motorola Solutions grew from a 1928 Chicago startup into a global mission-critical and
commercial solutions provider. Motorola invented the world’s first FM portable two-way radio and relayed the
first words from the moon.
Both companies are ideally suited to assist the Town and NCRCN to achieve the goals of this project.
d. Does the project duplicate service capacity already established? Is the service inadequate? Has consolidation of
services with another provider been considered?
There is no duplication of service capacity. Current equipment will expire in 2017. The Town of Estes Park is
the lead agency working closely with the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network.
E. HIGH PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (HPCP) PROGRAM COMPLIANCE.
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 24-30-1301 to 1307) require all new facilities, additions, and renovation projects
funded with 25% or more of state funds to conform with the High Performance Certification Program (HPCP) policy
adopted by the Office of the State Architect (OSA) if:
• The new facility, addition, or renovation project contains 5,000 or more building square feet; and
• The project includes an HVAC system; and
• In the case of a renovation project, the cost of the renovation exceeds 25% of the current value of the property;
and
• The project has NOT entered the design phase prior to January 1, 2008.
The HPCP requires projects achieve the highest possible LEED certification with the goal being LEED Gold. Projects are
strongly encouraged to meet the Office of the State Architect’s (OSA) Sustainable Priorities in addition to the LEED
prerequisites. Projects funded through DOLA are required to participate in the OSA's registration and tracking process.
See DOLA’s HPCP web page for more information or contact your DOLA regional manager.
In instances where achievement of LEED Gold certification is not practicable, an applicant may request a modification of
the HPCP policy or a waiver if certain conditions exist.
Please answer the following questions:
1. What is the total building square footage of the new facility, addition, or renovation? Not applicable
2. Does the project include an HVAC system? Yes No
3. Is the project a renovation? (If no, please skip to Question 6 below.) Yes No
4. What is the current property value*? $
5. W hat is the total project cost for the renovation? $
6. Will you need assistance locating resources, third party consultants, or technical assistance for LEED requirements,
preparing cost estimates, or otherwise complying with the HPCP?
Yes No Explain
F. TABOR COMPLIANCE.
1. Does the applicant jurisdiction have the ability to receive and spend state grant funds under TABOR spending
limitations? Explain:
Yes. Calculated annually, de-Bruced in 2000; excess TABOR funds are spent in Community Reinvestment
Fund.
Page 11 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
2. If the applicant jurisdiction receives a grant with State Severance funds, will the local government exceed the TABOR
limit and force a citizen property tax rebate?
Not applicable
3. Has the applicant jurisdiction been subject to any refund under TABOR or statutory tax limitations? Explain.
No
4. Has the applicant sought voter approval to keep revenues above fiscal spending limits? Explain.
Yes. Calculated annually, de-Bruced in 2000; excess TABOR funds are spent in Community Reinvestment
Fund.
5. Are there any limitations to the voter approved revenues? (e.g., Can revenues only be spent on law enforcement or
roads?)
The Town of Estes Park is de-Bruced (TABOR). This application referenced the local ballot in Community
Reinvestment Fund, set aside funds for public safety and road improvements, and these funds have been
allocated.
6. If the applicant jurisdiction is classified as an enterprise under TABOR, will acceptance of a state grant affect this
status? Explain.
Not applicable
G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
Indicate below whether any of the proposed project activities:
1. Will be undertaken in flood hazard areas. Yes No X
List flood plain maps/studies reviewed in reaching this conclusion. Describe alternatives considered and mitigation
proposed.
NA
2. Will affect historical, archeological or cultural resources, or be undertaken in geological
hazard area?
Yes No X
Describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed.
NA
3. Address any other related public health or safety concerns? Describe.
Yes X No
This equipment replacement project will provide efficient and effective public safety communications among
jurisdictions for emergencies. It is essential for public safety.
APPLICATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
AND
OFFICIAL BOARD ACTION DATE (REQUIRED)
Application and attachments must be submitted electronically in
WORD .DOC (Preferred) or .PDF Format (Unsecured) to:
ImpactGrants@state.co.us
Page 12 of 13
Rev. 7/30/14
Please Cc your Regional Field Manager all documents as well to ensure receipt.
In email subject line include: Applicant Local Government name and Tier for which you are applying
-example- Subject: Springfield County EIAF Grant Request, Tier 1
NOTE: Please do not submit a scanned application (scanned attachments ok).
(If you are unable to submit electronically please contact your DOLA regional manager)
For any questions related to the electronic submittal please call Bret Hillberry @ 303.864.7730
Attachments List (Check and submit the following documents, if applicable):
Preliminary Engineering Reports NA
Architectural Drawings NA
Cost Estimates Yes
Detailed Budget Yes
Map showing location of the project Yes
Attorney’s TABOR decision NA
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
Official Board Action taken on
On the Board Agenda for April 14, 2015
Date
Submission of this form indicates official action by the applicant’s governing board
authorizing application for these funds.
Attachments
Price quote from Motorola dated March 6, 2015
NCRCN Board meeting minutes supporting the application, dated October 6, 2014
Letter of support from NCRCN Board
NCRCN IGA
Map for replacement Quantars
Map for oil wells located in Larimer County
Page 13 of 13
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: April 10, 2014
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Estes Valley Recreation
and Park District et al, dba HANGAR RESTAURANT AT ESTES PARK
GOLF COURSE, to Estes Valley Recreation and Park District et al, dba
HANGAR RESTAURANT AT ESTES PARK, 1480 Golf Course Road,
Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premises Liquor License
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 1480 Golf Course Road to the applicant.
Present Situation:
A Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premises Liquor License is currently held at the
location referenced above. The license is held by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District (EVRPD) and their former concessionaires, Buff and Lorraine Carter. Per their
concession agreement, EVRPD requires that the concessionaires, along with the
EVRPD Board of Directors, be listed on the liquor license. EVRPD recently contracted
with Tory and Berenice Nelson to provide food and beverage service at the Hangar
Restaurant. This change in concessionaires requires a transfer of the liquor license.
The Hangar Restaurant opened for the season on April 1, 2015. A temporary permit
was issued on April 1, 2015, which authorizes the continued sale of alcohol beverages
as permitted under the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of
the license is pending.
The application was delivered to the Town Clerk’s office on March 26, 2015, along with
all required fees. The applicant is aware of the TIPS training requirement.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Tory and Berenice Nelson, dba HANGAR
RESTAURANT AT ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE.
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 existing Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premises Liquor
license to EVRPD et al.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant with Optional
Premises Liquor License transfer is $1319. The fee covers the administrative costs
related to processing the application, background checks, and business licensing. In
addition, the renewal fee payable to the Town for a Hotel and Restaurant with Optional
Premises Liquor License is $869 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Hotel and Restaurant with
Optional Premises Liquor License filed by Estes Valley Recreation and Park District et
al, dba HANGAR RESTAURANT AT ESTES PARK GOLF COURSE.
April 2003
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed March 26, 2015 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as Other .
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 Valley Recreation and Park District et al .
doing business as Hangar Restaurant at Estes Park Golf Course for a Hotel and
Restaurant License with Optional Premises be approved/denied.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: March 12, 2015
RE: Ordinance #02-15 Vacating Utility Easement on Lot 1, Thompson’s
Pinewood Acres Resubdivision.
Objective:
Consideration an ordinance vacating a ten-foot-wide platted utility easement for the
purpose of constructing a shed within a same location.
Present Situation:
The subject lot is within the Thompson’s Pinewood Acres Resubdivision. Approved by
the Town Board in 1972, this plat established 10-foot-wide utility easements along
several internal property lines within the subdivision. Since this time the subdivision has
been built out with utilities generally installed along the streets. General utility
easements allow all utilities, including public main lines and private service lines, to be
installed and maintained where that right exists.
Proposal:
Due to various site constraints, the owner of the subject lot wishes to construct a small
shed within the platted utility easement. Since easements are intended to remain clear
of all structures, the Town Board must formally vacate the easement through an
adopted ordinance prior to the construction of the shed.
All relevant utility providers have agreed to the easement vacation through the attached
signature sheet.
Advantages:
Allows the property owners a more functional use of their property.
The location contemplated for the shed is the most hidden area on the site and
consequently, will have the least amount of site disturbance.
Disadvantages:
Utility providers will no longer have the ability to utilize this area. However, there
is a platted ten-foot-wide utility easement along the adjacent lot to the west,
which would likely be adequate for any future needs.
Action Recommended:
On March 12, 2015, the Estes Park Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee
reviewed this request. No concerns were expressed by the Committee during this time.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Very low. As of April 8, 2015, no public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance #02-15.
Attachment:
1. Draft ordinance
2. Exhibit A, site plan
3. Exhibit A Map
4. Exhibit B Map
5. Statement of Intent
6. Utility Signature Sheet
7. Original Plat
ORDINANCE NO. 02-15
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN UNUSED UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE THOMPSON’S
PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have requested that the
Town vacate an unused utility easement; and
WHEREAS, the owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have received written
authorization to vacate the easement by all relevant utility providers; and
WHEREAS, the said easement granted by previous owners of the property is no longer
necessary and should be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that in the best interest of the Town to
permanently abandon and vacate the utility easement as more fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby authorizes
the vacation of an unused and unnecessary utility easement within the Thompson’s Pinewood Acres
subdivision as set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2015 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the 6th day of March,
2015, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
SCOTT AVE
S SAINT VRAIN AVETWIN DR
PAWNEE DR
PINEWOOD LN
S MORRIS CTDEKKER CIR
PIN
E
W
O
O
D D
R
LONGS DR
PINEWOOD LN
E-1 E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1 R
R
RE
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map Printed: 3/5/2015Created By: phil kleisler
Project Site
Town Boundary
Lots
Zoning
Project Name:Project Description:
Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:
Rusch Easement VacationVacate Unused Easement
Cornerstone Engineering34011-18-001610 Pinewood Lane
MARYS LAKE RD
S SAINT VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDPEAK VIEW DR
MARYS LAKE
Site
Vicinity Map
General Location of Ease ment
SCOTT AVE
S SAINT VRAIN AVETWIN DR
PAWNEE DR
PINEWOOD LN
S MORRIS CTDEKKER CIR
PIN
E
W
O
O
D D
R
LONGS DR
PINEWOOD LN
E-1 E-1
E-1
E-1
E-1 R
R
RE
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B M ap Printed: 3/5/2015Created By: phil kleisler
Project Site
Town Boundary
Lots
Zoning
Project Name:Project Description:
Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:
Rusch Easement VacationVacate Unused Easement
Cornerstone Engineering34011-18-001610 Pinewood Lane
MARYS LAKE RD
S SAINT VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDPEAK VIEW DR
MARYS LAKE
Site
Vicinity Map
General Location of Ease ment
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date:March 24, 2015
RE: Policy on public forums
Objective:
To provide direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums
on public policy issues.
Present Situation:
Currently there are no guidelines or policies regarding when staff may hold a public
outreach forum to gather public opinion and input on public policy issues. At previous
study sessions on 3/25/14 and 5/27/14, the board requested that staff not hold any
forums to gather public opinion on a specific issue without prior approval of the Town
Board. A draft policy was presented to the Board at a study session on March 10th.
The attached proposed policy includes board recommendations from the March 10th
meeting.
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
The draft policy is attached.
Advantages:
x Insures that staff and the Board of Trustees are in agreement on the need for a
forum before it is held
x Avoids staff having policy discussions with the public without Trustee awareness
and consent
x Clarifies what constitutes a public forum necessitating Board approval.
x Allows the Town Administrator to poll individual Trustees to see if there are any
individual objections to holding a public forum, thus expediting the process for
non-controversial items.
Disadvantages:
x May result in minor delays to gather public input on an issue
Requested Action:
Consideration of Policy 106 on Public Forums
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the adoption of policy 106 regarding public forums and meetings.
Document Title Draft 1 3/20/15
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 1 of 2
Effective Period: until supersceeded
Review Schedule: Annually - January
Effective Date: March 25th, 2015
References: Policy Governance 1.1
ADMINISTRATION
106
PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS
1. PURPOSE –
To provide direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums
on public policy issues.
This policy is only applicable to forums sponsored by the Town of Estes Park.
2. POLICY
a. For the purposes of this policy, a public forum is any meeting, forum, charette or
open house that is designed for the purpose of soliciting input and public opinion
from citizens on proposed new or revised regulations, ordinance or program of
the Town. It does not include regularly scheduled meetings or meetings with
citizens associated with existing projects, such as land use applications or
approved infrastructure projects, or any meeting designed to disseminate
information to the public.
b. Approval of the Board of Trustees is required prior to the scheduling or
promotion of any public meeting or forum as defined above.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Any staff desiring of hosting a public meeting or forum as defined in this policy
must first contact the Town Administrator and request that he/she bring the
proposal for the meeting before the full Town Board.
b. The Town Administrator may either bring the proposal for the meeting before the
full Town Board at a regular board meeting, or may poll individual board
members via e-mail. If no Trustee objects to the public meeting, staff may
proceed. If any Trustee individual objects to the public meeting, the Town
Administrator shall schedule the issue for discussion at an upcoming regularly
scheduled Town Board meeting.
c. Only after receiving approval from the Town Board shall staff proceed with a
public forum on any public policy issue as defined in 2a above.
Document Title Draft 1 3/20/15
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 2 of 2
Approved:
_____________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
_____________
Date
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: April 14th,, 2015
RE: Amending Policy Governance 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 & Policy 101.
Objective:
Clarify the procedure and policies surrounding Trustees serving on outside committees,
either as official representatives of the Board or as individual board members.
Present Situation:
Over the past year the Board has had several discussions about the role of individual
board members on outside committees and when or if an individual Board member can
represent the Board of Trustees with outside groups. The Board discussed this at
length at the study session on December 9th of last year and at the study session on
March 24th. This includes a minor change to Policy 1.7, Board Liaison Roles, to be
consistent with the appointment of Board Liaisons modified in Policy 1.4 and Policy 1.6.
Proposal:
The attached proposed changes to the Board Policy Governance policies and to Town
Policy 101 reflect the outcome of those discussions in December and at the last study
session on March 24th.
Advantages:
Consistency of how appointments and the role of trustees on outside groups
when performing in their official capacity will help to avoid misunderstandings
between trustees and with the public
Disadvantages:
Formal limitations set by the board may limit the activities of individual trustees
Action Recommended:
Consider the proposed amendments to Policy Governance 1.4, 1.6 and Policy 101
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
moderate
Sample Motion:
I move for the adoption of Policy Governance Policies 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and Town Policy 101
as amended.
1
Governing
Policies of the
Town of
Estes Park
Board of
Trustees
2
Introduction
These Governing Policies, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, incorporate four categories of
policy. The first category is the Governance Process, which clarifies the board's own job and rules,
how they work together and how the Board relates to the citizens of Town of Estes Park. Category
two is Board/ Staff Linkages which outlines the delegation and accountability through the Town
Administrator. The third Category is Executive Limitations which describes the prudence and ethics,
and limitations of the authority and responsibilities of the Town Administrator in his/her role as the
Chief Appointed Official for the board directing the staff of the Board of Trustees. The first three all
work together to efficiently and effectively implement the fourth Category, which is the vision,
direction, and policy of the Board of Trustees. These describe what benefits will occur, for which
people, at what cost.
To further its accountability to the citizens and taxpayers of the Town of Estes Park, the Board
of Trustees adheres to the following principles of governance:
1. Ownership: The Board connects its authority and accountability to its “owners” – the citizens
and taxpayers of the Town – seeing its task as servant leader to and for them.
2. Governance Position: With the ownership above it and operational matters below it,
governance forms a distinct link in the chain of command and authority. The Board’s role is that of
commander, not advisor. It exists to exercise that authority and properly empower others rather
than to be management’s consultant, or adversary. The Trustees—not the staff—bears full and
direct responsibility for the process and products of governance, just as it bears accountability for
any authority and performance expectations delegated to others.
3. Board Holism: The Board of Trustees makes authoritative decisions directed toward
management and toward itself, its individual Trustees, and committees only as a total group. That
is, Town Board authority is a group authority rather than a summation of individual authorities.
4. Goals Policies: The Town Board defines, in writing, the (a) results, changes, or benefits that
should come about for specified goals (b) recipients, beneficiaries, or otherwise defined impacted
groups, and (c) at what cost or relative priority for the various benefits or various beneficiaries.
These are not all the possible “side benefits” that may occur, but those that form the purpose of the
organization, the achievement of which constitutes organizational success. Policy documents
containing solely these decisions are categorized as “Goals” in the policies that follow.
5. Board Means Policies: The Board of Trustees defines, in writing, those behaviors, values
added, practices, disciplines, and conduct of the Board itself and of the Board’s
delegation/accountability relationship with its own subcomponents and with the management part of
the organization. Because these are not decisions relating to Goals, they are called “Board Means”
to distinguish them from “Ends” and “Staff Means”. These decisions are categorized as
“Governance Process” and “Board Management Delegation”.
3
6. Management Limitations Policies: The Board makes decisions with respect to its staff’s means
decisions and actions only in a proscriptive way in order simultaneously (a) to avoid prescribing
means and (b) to put off limits those means that would be unacceptable even if they work. These
decisions are categorized as “Management Limitations” in the policies that follow.
7. Self-Enforcing – These policies are collectivily adopted by the Estes Park Board of Trustees
and as such only the board and individual trustees are responsible for compliance both individually
and collectively.
4
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL
Table of Contents
Category 1. Governance Process
Policy 1.0 Governance Commitment
Policy 1.1 Governing Style
Policy 1.2 Operating Principles
Policy 1.3 Board Job Description
Policy 1.4 Mayor’s Responsibility
Policy 1.5 Board Members' Code of Conduct
Policy 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
Policy 1.7 Board Liaison Roles
Policy 1.8 Board Committee Principles
Policy 1.9 Annual Planning And Agendas
5
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.0 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNANCE COMMITMENT
Within the authority granted to it by Colorado Revised Statutes, the purpose of the Town of
Estes Park Board of Trustees (the “Board”), on behalf of the citizens of Town of Estes Park, is
to see to it that the Town of Estes Park government 1) achieves results for citizens at an
acceptable cost and 2) avoids unacceptable actions and situations.
1.1 The Board of Trustees will approach its task with a style which emphasizes
outward vision rather than an internal preoccupation, strategic leadership more
than administrative detail, clear distinction of Board and staff roles, collective rather
than individual decisions, future rather than past or present, and proactively rather
than reactively.
1.2 The operating principles and commitments of the Board of Trustees, as it relates to
the working relationship between the Trustees, staff and citizens of theTown of
Estes Park, are to emphasize fairness; responsibilities as elected officials; respect;
honesty and integrity; and communication.
1.3 The job of the Board of Trustees is to make contributions which lead the Town
Government toward the desired performance and to assure that it occurs. The
Board’s specific contributions are unique to its trusteeship role and necessary for
proper governance and management.
1.4 The responsibility of the Mayor is, primarily, to establish procedural integrity and
representation of the Board of Trustees and the Town to outside parties (as
delegated by the Board).
1.5 The Board expects of its members ethical and businesslike conduct.
1.6 The Board of Trustees may establish committees to advise the Board in carrying
out its responsibilities. Other than those statutorily required, all committees
appointed by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees exist so that Board
decisions (a) will be made from an informed position, and (b) will be made in a
public forum consistent with Board policy.
1.7 The Board of Trustees may appoint an individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison
of the Board to Town Boards and Commissions. The Board of Trustees may appoint an
individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison to other community groups.
1.8 Board Committees, when used, will be assigned so as to reinforce the wholeness of the
Board’s job and so as never to interfere with delegation from the Board to Town
Administrator. The purpose of Board Committee’s shall be to provide more indepth
6
discussion and information on the specific areas assigned to the Committee.
Committee’s may not vote or adopt policy, but may make recommendations to the Town
Board for action.
1.9 The Town Board will prepare and follow an annual agenda plan that includes (1) a
complete re-exploration of Goals policies and (2) opportunity for continuous improvement
in Town Board performance through Town Board education, enriched input, and
deliberation.
7
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.1 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNING STYLE
The Board of Trustees will approach its task with a style which emphasizes outward vision
rather than an internal preoccupation, strategic leadership more than administrative detail,
clear distinction of Board and staff roles, collective rather than individual decisions, future
rather than past or present, and proactive rather than reactive.
In this spirit:
1) The Board of Trustees will operate fully aware of its trusteeship and
stewardship obligation to its constituents.
2) The Board of Trustees will conduct itself individually and collectively with
whatever discipline is needed to govern with excellence through:
3) Being committed to matters such as policy making principles, role clarification, speaking
with one voice and self-policing of any tendency to stray from governance adopted in
Board policies.
4) Individual Board members’ thorough preparation for meetings and regular attendance.
5) Continuation of Board development including orientation of new members in the Board’s
governance process, participation in relevant continuing education, and periodic Board
discussion of process improvement.
6) The Board of Trustees will direct, control and motivate the organization
through the careful establishment of broad written policies reflecting the Board’s values
and perspectives. The Board’s emphasis will be on impacts on the Town outside the
organization, not on the administrative means.
7) The Board of Trustees, as trustee for and working with the citizens of the
Town of Estes Park, will be the primary initiator of policy, and will also be receptive to
other policy initiatives from citizens and staff. The Board, not the staff, will be responsible
for Board performance as specified in the policy entitled Board Job Products.
1.1.5. The Board of Trustees will be accountable to the Citizens of the Town of
Estes Park for competent, conscientious and effective accomplishment of its
obligations as a body. It will allow no individual, committee or entity to usurp
this role or hinder this commitment.
8
1.1.6. The Board of Trustees will monitor and discuss the Board’s own process and
performance, and ensure the continuity of its governance capability through
continuing education and training.
1.1.7. A member of the Board of Trustees who votes in the minority is free to
express his/her dissent but will respect the process and legitimacy of the
majority decision.
1.1.8 All Town Trustees will respect legitimacy of the opinions and reasoning of
other Trustees when and after making board decisions.
1.1.9 Agree not to hold grudges or bring disagreements from past actions into future
decisions.
1.1.10 A member of the Board of Trustees who, in their sole opinion, believes they
have a conflict of interest or for any other reason believes that they cannot
make a fair and impartial decision in a legislative or quasi-judicial decision,
will recuse themselves from the discussion and decision. Any recusal will be
made prior to any board discussion of the issue.
1.1.11 Any Trustee may choose to abstain from voting on any question, at their sole
discretion. If there is not conflict of interest or reason for recusal as outlined
in 1.1.10, the trustee may participate fully in Board discussions of the issue,
yet abstain from voting, should they so choose.
9
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.2 POLICY TITLE: OPERATING PRINCIPLES
The operating principles and commitments of the Board of Trustees, as it relates to the
working relationship between the Trustees, staff and citizens of Town of Estes Park, are to
emphasize fairness; responsibilities as elected officials; respect; honesty and integrity; and
communication.
1.2.1 FAIRNESS: We are committed to fairness in our day to day activities. To
ensure an atmosphere of fairness, we agree to the following principles:
A. We will listen to all sides of an issue.
B. We will be fair with each other.
C. Citizens will have opportunity to access the Board of Trustees, with the
exception of any contact that may be considered ex-parte communication
associated with a quasi-judicial decisions.
D. We have an obligation to listen to each other, citizens and staff with the
understanding that an obligation to listen does not necessarily equate to an
obligation to agree or to act as requested.
E. We will treat each other as equals.
1.2.2 RESPONSIBILITIES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS: We understand and agree
that we have certain responsibilities to the public and community beyond those
simply articulated in law.
A. We believe we are each responsible for our own actions as Trustees. We
will take responsibility for our own actions.
B. We agree to address issues and respond to each others requests in a
timely and open manner.
C. We will give equal weight to rights and responsibilities when making
decisions.
D. When giving staff responsibility we will grant the appropriate authority to
carry out that responsibility.
E. We have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of Colorado, and all laws and regulations of the United
States, the State of Colorado and the Town of Estes Park.
1.2.3. RESPECT: Citizens’ trust in government is critically important. The key to
building and maintaining this trust is placing a high value on respecting each
other and those we work with and serve as public officials.
A. We agree to take others' concerns seriously.
B. We agree to accept and respect each other's individuality, supporting each
other by capitalizing on our individual strengths, working together, as a
team, utilizing each others' expertise, to accomplish our goals and the goals
of the Town of Estes Park.
C. We believe that information flow within the organization is important and
10
that all affected parties should have all of the information that is important
to them, whenever possible.
D. We agree to respect each other's feelings and ideas and to treat everyone
with respect.
E. We will make every effort to not just listen but to understand the point from
others' perspective.
F. We understand that respect comes in many forms and we will make every
effort to show respect for others both in our verbal and non-verbal actions.
G. We treat those providing input at Town meetings with respect.
1.2.4. HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND TRUST: As elected officials we will hold
ourselves to a high standard of honesty and integrity in the community.
A. We will deal with each other honestly.
B. We are committed to high standards of ethics in our dealings with each
other, employees, and citizens.
C. If an interpersonal conflict or problem develops, we will work with the
people involved only and strive to settle the conflict or problem in a
constructive basis.
D. We treat our office as a public trust. The Town’s resources and powers are to be
used for the benefit of the public. .
E. We refrain from decisions in which our financial or personal interests are
specifically affected by a decision and shall adhere to applicable Colorado Law
governing conflict of interest.
F. We do not accept personal gifts except as specifically allowed by Colorado Law.
G. We respect and adhere to our oath of office
H. We will abide by Article 29 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado regarding
ethical behavior.
1.2.5. COMMUNICATION: We believe that to be effective as elected officials, we must
communicate clearly and completely at all times.
A. We believe in full disclosure and “no surprises” in our internal operations and
in working together as a Board. We will strive for open and candid
communication among citizens, staff and each other.
B. We are committed to providing our citizens with relevant, accurate and
timely information about the Town goals, services, fiscal programs, services
provided, and the decisions that will affect the public.
C. We believe it is important to keep each other informed of our activities and
of issues facing us as a Board of Trustees.
1.2.6 ACCOUNTABILITY:
A. We will exercise our authority with open meetings and access to public records.
B. We will hold executive sessions only for reasons allowed by Colorado Revised
Statutes.
C. We are positive advocates for the Town and are accessible to the citizens of
Estes Park.
11
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.3 POLICY TITLE: BOARD JOB DESCRIPTION
The job of the Board of Trustees is to lead the Town Government toward the desired
performance and to assume a good faith effort toward those objectives. The Board’s
leadership is unique to its trusteeship role and necessary for proper governance and
management.
1.3.1 The products of the Board shall be:
1. Linkage: As the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees places a high
value on open, participatory government, the board will produce the
linkage between Town of Estes Park government and the Citizens of
Town of Estes Park.
A. Needs Assessment: The Board of Trustees will strive to identify the
needs of the citizens as they relate to Town of Estes Park’s activities
and scope of influence, and shall translate such knowledge into the
articulation of Board Objectives policies (see definition below).
B. Advocacy and Ambassadorship: The Board of Trustees will act as
the representatives of the citizens to the Town of Estes Park
government, and shall take steps to inform and clarify:
i. the citizens relationship with government, and
ii. the organization’s focus on future results, and as well as present
accomplishments.
C. Communication:
i. Any Board member expressing a personal point of view on a
matter of Town business must include language which states
the views expressed do not represent the view of the Town,
rather they are the official’s personal opinions, unless
previously authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of
Trustees, or when articulating a position official adopted by
the Board of Trustees.
ii. ii. Board members should recognize that they may be legally
liable for anything they write, present online or say.
2. Written governing policies that, at the broadest levels, address each
category of organizational decision:
12
A. GOVERNANCE PROCESS: Specification of how the Board of
Trustees conceives carries out and monitors its own task
B. STAFF LIMITATIONS: Constraints on staff authority which establish
the prudence and ethics boundaries within which all Town
Administrator and staff activity and decisions must take place.
C. BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE: How power is delegated and its proper
use monitored; the role, authority and accountability of the Town
Administrator (and the Town Attorney)..
D. OUTCOMES: Organizational products, effects, benefits, to answer
the questions for (what good, for which recipients, and at what
cost?).
3. The Board will produce assurance of:
A. Town Administrator performance (in accordance with policies in 2A
and 2B)
B. Town Attorney performance (in accordance with policies in 2A and
2B)
4. Adopted resolutions, regulations, ordinances, and fee schedules; legislative
positions; the Audit; the Budget; Boards and Commissions; and statutorily mandated
items.
1.3.2 Role of Town Trustees
1.3.2.1 Representation:
i. Providing leadership for the Town on behalf of the citizens of Estes Park.
ii. Representing and acting in the best interest of citizens of the Town of Estes
Park.
iii. Being knowledgeable of issues, researching background information,
attending regularly scheduled meetings, and acting as a resource for citizens’
concerns.
iv. Serving as a conduit for information from citizens to the Town Administrator
and the Mayor in responding to questions and individual problems.
v. Finding a balanced approach for addressing competing interests among
constituent groups to ensure the community is fairly represented.
vi. Representing the Board of Trustees on standing committees of the Town for
the purpose of monitoring major Town activities and policy implementation.
1.3.2.2 Legislative:
I. Serving as the governing body of the Town and holding all legislative and
corporate powers of the Town specifically granted or implied by statutory
provisions and the Municipal Code.
13
II. Enacting ordinances, resolutions and policies for the governance of the
Town of Estes Park and protecting the life, health and property of its
citizens and visitors.
III. Establishing policy for the direction of the Town Board and Town Staff.
IV. Establishing fiscal policy, financial targets, and budget goals for the Town
government.
V. Having final decision making responsibilities over pertinent land use
issues and application of development code requirements within the Town
of Estes Park.
1.3.2.3 Quasi-Judicial:
i. Acting in a quasi-judicial manner in matters brought before it that relate to
public hearings, appeals, land use, and liquor licensing.
ii. Making decisions concerning quasi-judicial matters based upon testimony
presented at formal hearings which are normally conducted during regularly
scheduled Town Board meetings.
iii. Not accepting nor seeking outside input or lobbying that attempts to influence
their decision prior to the quasi-judicial Public Hearing. Any and all ex parte
communication shall be disclosed at the beginning of the hearing. Not doing
so may cause a Trustee to be disqualified from the proceedings.
1.3.2.4 Communications:
I. Following a formal decision, acting as a united body, not as individual
Trustees, and acknowledging the decision of the Town Board.
II. The Town Administrator is the sole point of contact between the Trustees, as
policy makers, and Town Staff.
III. Interacting with the media, governmental entities, the public or other bodies
as individual Trustee and not as a representative of the majority of Trustees
unless an official position or legislative action has been established or
authorized to do so.
IV. Communicating to the Mayor and other Trustees items of importance from
their respective committees and providing information that may be necessary
to keep other members aware of important Town activities or critical
functions.
V. In times of community emergency it is important that the Town Board speak
with one voice. The Mayor, or the Mayor Pro-Tem, if the Mayor is not
available, shall speak for the Board during an emergency. Other trustees will
refer all requests for information to the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem. The Mayor
will coordinate all communication with the incident commander and the Town
Administrator. The purpose of this policy is not to restrict the communication
of the trustees or the Mayor, but to insure all communication is timely and
accurate and is in concert with the incident response plan.
14
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.4 POLICY TITLE: MAYOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
REV 4/15/15
The responsibility of the Mayor is, primarily, to establish procedural integrity and
representation of the Board of Trustees and the Town to outside parties (as delegated by
the Board). Accordingly:
1.4.1. The responsibility of the Mayor is to consistently guide the behavior of the
Board with its own rules and those legitimately imposed upon it from outside
the organization.
1.4.1.1. Meeting agendas and discussion content will be only those issues
which, according to Board policy, clearly belong to the Board to
decide, not the Town Administrator.
1.4.1.2. Deliberation will be fair, open, orderly and thorough, but also efficient,
limited to time, and kept to the point.
a. 1.4.2. The authority of the Mayor is to preside over meetings and to sign documents as
authorized by the Board of Trustees and to preside over the evaluation of the Town
Administrator by the Town Board.
1.4.3. The Mayor shall not act on behalf of the Town in any unilateral manner, except
as approved by the Board of Trustees. This shall include any appointment of
committee or board positions, making any financial or other binding obligations
on behalf of the town, or expressing the official position of the Town on any
matter.
1.4.4 Representation:
1.4.4.1 Provide leadership for the Town of Estes Park.
1.4.4.2 Serve as the primary representative of the Town of Estes Park in official
and ceremonial functions.
1.4.4.3 Represent the Town in interaction with other government agencies.
1.4.4.4 Be the spokesperson for the Town unless the Town Board has decided
otherwise.
1.4.4.5 Represent the Town Board as a liaison with the Town Administrator to
promote the timely flow of information between the Town Board, Town Staff
and other governmental organizations.
1.4.4.6 Represent the Town on the Platte River Power Authority Board.
1.4.5 Enactment:
15
1.4.5.1 Mayor in conjunction with the Town Board and Town Administrator
enforces the ordinances and laws of the Town.
1.4.5.2 Signs all warrants (see section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code).
1.4.5.3 Executes all ordinances and resolutions authorizing expenditure of money
or the entering into a contract before they become valid. The Mayor has the
authority to disapprove such ordinances or resolutions in writing, subject to
Board of Trustees override.
1.4.5.4 Mayor with, Town Board approval, appoints members of committees, and
other entities that may be necessary from time to time for the effective
governance of the Town.
1.4.5.5 Facilitating policies and procedures for the effective management of the
Board, establishing Town goals in conjunction with the Town Board,
promoting consensus and enhancing Board performance.
1.4.6 Mayor Pro Tem – Mayor Pro Tem shall assume all duties of the Mayor in the Mayor’s
absence in accordance with Section 2.16.010 of the Municipal Code.
1.4.7 – Mayoral Appointments
1.4.7.1 – Board Standing Committees – “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint
three (3) Trustees to the following standing committees: community
development, public safety, public works and utilities.” (EP Municipal Code
2.08.010)
1.4.7.2 Special Assignments –
The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve on committees, community
groups, or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board
for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every
effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the
Board.
1.4.7.3 Special committees.- Special committees may be established by the Board
of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (EP Municipal Code
2.08.020)
Deleted: -
Deleted: -
Deleted: , except in cases where a Board Liaison has been
approved by the Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.)
Deleted: full
Deleted: The Mayor may appoint other trustees to serve on
temporary committees, community groups, and interview
panels or in some other capacities as a representative of the
Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been
approved by the Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor
shall inform the entire board of any special assignments and
will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.¶
Deleted: Revised draft 12‐31‐143‐24‐2015¶
16
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.5
Rev 11/11/14 POLICY TITLE: BOARD MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT
The Board of Trustees shall operate in an ethical and businesslike manner. As leaders of our
community, it is important that the members of the Town Board hold themselves to the
highest standard of conduct, setting an example for other Town officials and Town
employees, and ensuring that the public has confidence in the integrity of its government and
Town Officials. Adherence to these standards will protect and maintain the Town of Estes
Park’s reputation and integrity.
.
1.5.1 CONDUCT WITH ONE ANOTHER
A. The Board of Trustees is composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds,
personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Embracing this diversity, all have chosen to
serve in public office in order to preserve and protect the present and the future of the
community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as Trustees may
“agree to disagree” on contentious issues. We will conduct business in a manner consistent
with this code of conduct and as outlined in the operating principles of the board (Policy
1.2.)
1.5.2 IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. Practice civility, professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult
questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and
information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. This does not, however,
allow Trustees to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive,
or disparaging comments. Trustees should conduct themselves in a professional manner at
all times.
B. Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. Effective governance allows
individuals with disparate points of view to find common ground and seek a compromise
that benefits the community as a whole, whenever possible. A member of the Board of
Trustees who votes in the minority is free to express his/her dissent but will respect the
process and legitimacy of the majority decision.
C. Be punctual and keep comments relative to topics discussed. Trustees have made a
commitment to attend meetings and partake in discussions. Therefore, it is important that
Trustees be punctual and that meetings start on time. Be respectful of other people’s time.
Prepare for meetings in advance, and be familiar with issues on the agenda. Stay focused
and act efficiently during public meetings. It is equally important that discussions on issues
be relative to the topic at hand to allow adequate time to fully discuss scheduled issues.
D. Avoid expressing opinions during Public Hearings. Trustees should not express
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
17
opinions during the public hearing portion of the meeting except to ask pertinent questions
of the speaker or staff. “I think” and “I feel” comments by Trustees are not appropriate until
after the close of the public hearing. Trustees should refrain from arguing or debating with
the public during a public hearing and shall always show respect for different points of view.
E. Respect the role of the Mayor or Committee Chairpersons in maintaining order. It is
the responsibility of the Mayor to keep the comments of Trustees on track during public
meetings. Trustees should honor efforts by the Mayor to focus discussion on current
agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Mayor’s actions, those
objections should be voiced politely and with reason.
1.5.3 IN PRIVATE COMUNNICATIONS
A. Continue respectful behavior in private. The same level of respect and consideration of
differing points of view that is deemed appropriate for public discussions should be
maintained in private conversations.
B. Be aware of the public nature of written notes, voicemail messages, and e-mail.
Technology allows words written or said without much forethought to be distributed wide
and far. Would you feel comfortable to have this note faxed to others? How would you feel
if this voicemail message was played on a speakerphone in a full office? What would
happen if this e-mail message was forwarded to others? Written notes, voicemail
messages and e-mail should be treated as “public” communication and are subject to
disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
C. Even private conversations can have a public presence. Elected officials are always on
display. People around them that they may not know monitor their actions, mannerisms,
and language. Lunch table conversations will be overheard, parking lot debates will be
watched, and casual comments between individuals before and after public meetings
noted.
1.5.4 TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH TOWN STAFF
A. Board prioritization of Staff projects. It is the responsibility of the Town Board as a whole
and not individual Trustees to identify and prioritize projects for the Town Staff. Individual
Trustees shall refrain from instructing Staff as to the prioritization of projects identified by
the Board. It is the responsibility of the Town Administrator to communicate and direct the
prioritization of Town activities with the staff.
B. Treat all staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities,
experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not
acceptable.
C. Limit contact with specific Town staff. Questions of Town staff and/or requests for
additional background information may be addressed directly with the appropriate town
staff member, however individual trustees should not direct staff to take any specific action
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
18
or direct them to produce any work product. The Town Administrator should be copied on
or informed of any request. Requests for follow-up or directions to staff should be made
only through the Town Administrator or the Mayor when appropriate. When in doubt about
what staff contact is appropriate, Trustees should ask the Town Administrator or Mayor for
direction. Materials supplied to Trustees in response to a request may be made available
to all Trustees, so that all have equal access to information.
D. Do not disrupt Town staff from their jobs. Trustees should not disrupt Town staff while
they are in meetings, on the phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions, in order
to have their individual needs met.
E. Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Trustees should never express
concerns about the performance of a Town employee in public, to the employee directly,
or to the employee’s supervisor. Comments about staff performance should only be made
to the Town Administrator through private correspondence or conversation.
F. Do not get involved in administrative functions. Trustees must not attempt to influence
Town staff on making appointments, selecting consultants, processing of development
applications, or granting of Town licenses and permits unless the Trustee has been invited
to participate in the process.
G. Check with Town staff on correspondence before taking action. Before sending
correspondence, Trustees should check with Town staff to see if an official Town response
has already been sent or is in progress. When responding to correspondence always
clarify if the opinion expressed is your personal opinion or position, or if it is the official
position as adopted by the Board of Trustees.
H. Requests for staff support, should be made to the Town Administrator, who is
responsible for allocating Town resources in order to maintain a professional, well-run
Town government. The office of the Town Clerk, in the Administrative Services
Department provides routine clerical and support services for the Board. Routine requests
for items such as meeting registrations, benefits, reimbursements, scheduling questions
can be addressed directly to the Town Clerk.
I. Do not solicit political support from staff. Trustees should not solicit any type of political
support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.)
from Town staff. Town staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support
political candidates but all such activities must be done away from the workplace.
J. Evaluation of Staff – Individual Board members will not formally evaluate the performance
of the Town Administrator, his/her staff or the Town Attorney except as that performance is
assessed in accordance with explicit Board of Trustees’ policies.
1.5.5 TRUSTEES CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC
A. IN PUBLIC MEETINGS – Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the
democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the
Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing:
single, No bullets or numbering, Widow/Orphan control,
Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space
between Asian text and numbers
Deleted: -
Deleted: -
19
part of individual Trustees toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort
should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony.
a. Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness. Speaking
in front of the Board can be a difficult experience for some people. Some issues the
Board undertakes may affect people’s daily lives and homes. Some decisions are
emotional. The way that the Trustees treat people during public hearings can do a
lot to make them relax or to push their emotions to a higher level of intensity.
b. Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual speakers.
The Mayor may determine and announce limits on speakers at the start of the public
hearing process. If many speakers are anticipated, the Mayor may shorten the time
limit and/or ask speakers to limit themselves to new information and points of view
not already covered by previous speakers. No speaker will be turned away unless
he or she exhibits inappropriate behavior. Each speaker may only speak once during
the public hearing unless the Board requests additional clarification later in the
process. After the close of the public hearing, no more public testimony will be
accepted unless the Mayor reopens the public hearing for a limited and specific
purpose.
c. Active listening. It is disconcerting to speakers to have Trustees not look at them
when they are speaking. It is fine to look down at documents or to make notes, but
reading for a long period of time or gazing around the room gives the appearance of
disinterest. Be aware of facial expressions, especially those that could be interpreted
as “smirking,” disbelief, anger or boredom.
d. Ask for clarification, but avoid debate and argument with the public. Only the
Mayor – not individual Trustees – can interrupt a speaker during a presentation.
However, a Trustee can ask the Mayor for a point of order if the speaker is off the
topic or exhibiting behavior or language the Trustee finds disturbing. If speakers
become flustered or defensive by Trustees questions, it is the responsibility of the
Mayor or Committee Chairperson to calm and focus the speaker and to maintain the
order and decorum of the meeting. Questions by Trustees to members of the public
testifying should seek to clarify or expand information. It is never appropriate to
challenge or belittle the speaker. Trustees’ personal opinions or inclinations about
upcoming votes should not be revealed until after the public hearing is closed.
e. No personal attacks of any kind, under any circumstance. Trustees should be
aware that their body language and tone of voice, as well as the words they use,
could appear to be intimidating or aggressive.
B. IN UNOFFICAL SETTINGS
a. Make no promises on behalf of the Board. Individual Board members can
represent the Board on Town matters only when delegated those responsibilities by
the Board Trustees will frequently be asked to explain a Board action or to give their
opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
Deleted: --
Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing:
single, No bullets or numbering, Widow/Orphan control,
Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space
between Asian text and numbers
20
appropriate to give a brief overview of Town policy and to refer to Town staff for
further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Board action, or
to promise that Town staff will do something specific (fix a pothole, waive a fee, plant
new flowers in the median, etc.).
b. Make no personal comments about other Trustees. It is acceptable to publicly
disagree about an issue, but it is unacceptable to make derogatory comments about
other Trustees, their opinions and actions.
c. Remember that Estes Park is a small community at heart. The community is
constantly observing Trustees every day that they serve in office. Their behaviors
and comments serve as models for proper deportment in the Town of Estes Park.
Honesty and respect for the dignity of each individual should be reflected in every
word and action taken by Trustees, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a
serious and continuous responsibility.
1.5.6 BOARD CONDUCT WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
A. Be clear about representing the Town or personal interests. If a Trustee appears
before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the
Trustee must clearly state: 1) if his or her statement reflects personal opinion or is the
official stance of the Town; 2) whether this is the majority or minority opinion of the Board.
Even if the Trustee is representing his or her own personal opinions, remember that this
still may reflect upon the Town as an organization.
If a Trustee serves in a decision making capacity for another organization and a matter
which the Town has taken an official position is discussed by the organization, the Trustee
should not maintain a position that significantly impacts or is detrimental to the Town’s
official position. In the event the Town has not taken an official position with regard to a
matter, and in the Trustee’s judgment, the Trustee believes that the Town would take a
position substantially different than that proposed to be taken by the organization, the
Trustee should consult with the Mayor regarding the Town’s possible position.
B. Correspondence expressing official Town positions. All official Town correspondence
shall be signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem unless a specific Trustee is authorized by
the Town Board to individually respond to a matter and express the Town’s official position.
A copy of official correspondence should be given to the Town Clerk to be filed as part of
the permanent public record.
C. Trustee correspondence concerning town matters: Trustees may correspond with
individuals or organizations on any matter involving the Town. In the event that the
Trustee’s personal correspondence expresses a personal opinion that differs from the
Town’s official position, the Trustee should make clear that the Trustee’s personal opinion
differs from the Town’s official position.
1.5.7 TOWN TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
The Town has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of increasing community
involvement in government and to serve as advisors to the Town Board. They are a valuable
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
21
resource to the Town’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
A. If attending a Board or Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal
opinions unless you are authorized to represent the Town Board. Trustees may attend
any Board or Commission meeting open to the public, but should be sensitive to the way
their participation – especially if it is on behalf of an individual, business or developer –
could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Trustee at a
Board or Commission meeting should be clearly indicate if it is an individual opinion or a
representation of the official opinion of the Town Board.
B. Be respectful of diverse opinions. A primary role of the Board or Commission is to
provide advice and make decisions based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives.
Trustees must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions.
C. Inappropriate behavior. Inappropriate behavior by a Trustee should be noted to the
Mayor, and the Mayor should counsel the offending member. If inappropriate behavior
continues, the Mayor should bring the situation to the attention of the Town Board.
1.5.8 CONDUCT WITH THE MEDIA
Trustees may be contacted by the media for background information and quotes. All media
contacts should be referred to the PIO.
A. The Mayor is the official spokesperson for the Town Board of Trustees. The Mayor is
the designated representative of the Board of Trustees to present and speak on the official
Town position. If the media contacts an individual Trustee, the Trustee should be clear
about whether her/his comments represent the official Town position or a personal
viewpoint.
B. The best advice for dealing with the media is to never go “off the record.” Most
members of the media represent the highest levels of journalistic integrity and ethics, and
can be trusted to keep their word. But one bad experience can be catastrophic. Words that
are not said cannot be quoted.
C. Choose words carefully and cautiously. Comments taken out of context can cause
problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sarcasm, or word play. It is never
appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media.
1.5.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Section 31-4-404 (2) C.R.S. “Any member of the governing body of any city or town who
has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the governing
body shall disclose such interest to the governing body, shall not vote thereon, and shall
refrain from the attempt to influence the decisions of the other members of the governing
body in voting on the matter.”
B. Disclosure: A Trustee having a conflict of interest in any matter before the Town Board
shall disclose the interest to the Town Board. The Trustee shall not vote or otherwise take
any formal action or discussion concerning the matter, shall not participate in any executive
Deleted: --
Deleted: "
Deleted: "
22
session concerning the matter, and shall refrain from attempting to influence any other
member of the Board of Trustees either in public or private discussion of the matter.
C. Exception: A member of the Board of Trustees may vote notwithstanding a conflict of
interest if the Trustee’s participation is necessary to obtain a quorum or otherwise enable
the Board to act if the Trustee complies with the volunteer disclosure provisions of Section
24-18-110 C.R.S.
D. Appearance of Impropriety: A Trustee should consider, but is not required to, excuse
themselves from those matters which due to the specific circumstances concerning the
matter may appear to members of the public to be a potential conflict of interest thus
avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
1.5.10 SANCTIONS
A. Inappropriate Staff Behavior. Trustees should refer to the Town Administrator any Town
staff that does not follow proper conduct in their dealings with Trustees, other Town staff, or
the public. These employees may be disciplined in accordance with standard Town
procedures for such actions.
B. Trustees Behavior and Conduct. Trustees who intentionally and repeatedly do not follow
proper conduct may be reprimanded or formally censured by the Town Board. Serious
infractions of the Code of Conduct may lead to other sanctions as deemed appropriate by
the Town Board.
It all comes down to respect
Respect for one another as individuals. . . Respect for the validity of different opinions. . .
Respect for the democratic process. . . Respect for the community that we serve.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
23
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.6 POLICY TITLE: BOARD COMMITTEE REV 4/15/15
PRINCIPLES
For simplicity and clarity in this policy, the term “Committee” shall refer to any board, commission, task
force, council, committee or any other volunteer group of citizens.
The Board of Trustees may establish committees to advise the Board in carrying out its
responsibilities. Other than those statutorily required, all committees appointed by the Town
of Estes Park Board of Trustees exist so that Board decisions (a) will be made from an
informed position, and (b) will be made in a public forum consistent with Board policy.
Accordingly:
1.6.1 Committees which are appointed by the Board of Trustees.
1.6.1.1 - It is the policy of the Board of Trustees to encourage citizen
involvement in town affairs, as well as to avoid conflicts involving trustees who
serve on committees, boards, commissions and organizations. For these
reasons, the trustees have agreed that a trustee shall serve only as a liaison to
town committees, commissions and boards.
1.6.1.2 -Other than those legislatively directed, committees may not speak or act
for the Board of Trustees except when formally given such authority for specific
and time-limited purposes. Expectations and authority will be carefully stated in
order not to conflict with authority delegated to the staff.
1.6.1.3 - Committees appointed by the board are to help the Board of Trustees
do its job, not to help the staff do its job. Committees ordinarily will assist the
Board by preparing policy alternatives and implications for Board deliberation.
Committees are not created by the Board to advise staff. The Board
understands that at times the Town Administrator or Town Staff may convene ad-
hoc or ongoing advisory boards to serve as advisors for operational issues.
These advisory groups are subject to the same limitations as Board appointed
committees.
1.6.1.4 - In keeping with the Board of Trustees’ broader focus, committees
normally will not have direct dealings with current staff operations. Committees
cannot exercise authority over staff.
1.6.1.5 - Because the staff works for the Board, they will not be expected to
obtain approval of a committee before taking action unless otherwise authorized
by state statute, Board policy, or federal regulation.
1.6.1.6 -Because of the differing nature of committees, some of which are
defined by state statute, the Board shall have and keep current an operating
policy defining the role of different committees and setting forth rules and
Deleted: APPOINTED
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: serving the Town of Estes Park
Deleted: This policy applies only to committees
Deleted: ¶
24
procedures for Town of Estes Park committees (Operating Policy 102).
1.6.1.7 -The authority and responsibility of any committee will not duplicate the
authority or responsibility of:
a) The Board of Trustees
b) Town Staff
c) Any other committee
d) Town Auditor
e) Town Attorney
1.6.1.8 - All committees will undergo a regular sunset review, at least once every
five years, unless otherwise provided for more frequently and according to a
staggered schedule to be adopted separately by the Board of Trustees.
1.6.1.9 - Said sunset review shall include a review of the Board and
Commission’s Mission Statement, and of the Board of Trustees’ charge to the
Committee of their role, responsibility and authority.
1.6.2 - Outside Committees
At times a Trustee may seek to serve or be asked to serve on an outside
committee not appointed by the Board of Trustees. A Trustee may seek or be
asked to serve on an outside committee in an official capacity representing the
Board and the Town of Estes Park, or as an individual Board member, not as the
official representative of the Town or the Board.
1.6.2.1 - Official Representation
a) No Trustee may represent the Town or the Board of Trustees or represent
themselves as being an official representative or speak for the Town or the
Board without have first been officially designated as the Town’s
representative by the Board of Trustees at a regular meeting of the Board.
b) The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve on committees, community groups,
or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town.The Mayor shall
present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute
special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
c) A trustee serving on an outside committee shall not chair the outside
committee, board, commission or organization (with the existing exceptions
of the Platte River Power Authority Board or the County Open Lands
Board) without prior approval of the full Board of Trustees.
1.6.2.2 - Individual Representation
Deleted: –
Deleted: a majority of
Deleted: , except in cases where a Board Liaison has been
approved by the Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.)
Deleted: full
Deleted: or take a leadership position in
25
a) Individual trustees have the right to participate as an individual in any
outside group or committee.
b) When participating as an individual trustee, the trustee should clearly
express to the committee membership that he/she is there as an
individual and do not speak for nor represent the Town of Estes Park or
the Board of Trustees.
c) When participating on any outside committee, trustees should be cautious to
avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest and any involvement that
could compromise the role of the trustee in any quasi-judicial actions or other
decisions.
Deleted: <#>The trustee seeking to so serve or being
requested to do so, shall first so advise the Board of Trustees,
both as a matter of transparency and courtesy.¶
Deleted: Revised draft 12‐31‐143‐24‐2015¶
26
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.7 POLICY TITLE: BOARD LIAISON ROLES
REV 4/15/15
Trustees may serve as the official liaison of the Board to Town committees. The Board of
Trustees may appoint an individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison to other community
groups.
1.7.1 Appointment - The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The Mayor
shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special
assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
1.7.2 Term – A Trustee shall serve as the Town Board Liaison solely at the pleasure of the
Town Board, with no specific term limit.
1.7.3 Duties of a Liaison
1.7.3.1 Communicate with the committee when Board of Trustees communication is
needed and to serve as the primary two-way communication channel
between the Town Board and the committee or community group.
1.7.3.2 Review applications, interview candidates and make recommendations to the
Town Board for final approval.
1.7.3.3 Serve as the primary Trustees’ contact for the committee or community
group.
1.7.3.4 Attend assigned committee or community group meetings when requested or
whenever appropriate, in the opinion of the Trustee liaison. Trustee liaisons
are not expected to attend every meeting of the committee or group.
1.7.3.5 The liaison is not a member of the committee and when in attendance at a
meeting is there as an observer for the Board of Trustees and a resource for
the committee. Participation in board discussions should be minimal and
restricted to clarification of Town Board positions or collection of information
to bring back to the full Town Board.
Deleted: The Board of Trustees may appoint an individual
Deleted: to
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.13", Hanging: 0.88", No bullets
or numbering
Deleted: Any Trustee serving as a liaison to any group, either
internal or external, shall be appointed by the Town Board.¶
27
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.8 POLICY TITLE: BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES
For the purpose of this policy, Board Committee is defined as a sub-committee of the Board of
Trustees and membership is composed solely of Town Trustees.
1.8.1 Board Committees – The Board shall have the following Board Committees (EP Municipal Code
2.08.010)
1.8.1.1 Community Development and Community Services Committee – Responsible for
discussions of issues and policy associated with Community Planning, Building
and Code Compliance, Fairgrounds and Events, Museum, Senior Center, Visitors
Center, Finance and Administration
1.8.1.2 Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety Committee – Responsible for
discussions of issues and policy associated with Police, Engineering, Facilities,
Parks, Streets, and Utilities.
1.8.2. Board Committees, when used, will be assigned so as to reinforce the wholeness of the
Board’s job and so as never to interfere with delegation from the Board to Town Administrator.
The purpose of Board Committee’s shall be to provide more indepth discussion and information
on the specific areas assigned to the Committee. Committee’s may not adopt policy, but shall
make recommendations to the Town Board for action.
1.8.3 The following principles shall guide the appointment and operation of all Town Board
Committees:
1.8.3.1 Board Committees may not speak or act for the Board except when formally given
such authority for specific and time limited purposes. Expectations and authority will
be carefully stated in order not to conflict with authority delegated to the Town
Administrator.
1.8.3.2 Board Committees cannot exercise authority over staff. Because the Town
Administrator works for the full board, he or she will not be required to obtain
approval of a Board, Committee or Commission before an executive action.
1.8.3.3 Board committees shall consist of no more than 3 trustees so that the committee is
never a quorum of the Town Board.
28
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.9 POLICY TITLE: ANNUAL PLANNING AND AGENDAS
1.9 The Town Board will prepare and follow an annual agenda plan that includes (1) a complete
re‐exploration of Goals policies and (2) opportunity for continuous improvement in Town Board
performance through Town Board education, enriched input, and deliberation.
Accordingly:
1.9.1 The Town Board annual planning cycle will conclude each year on July 1, so that
administrative planning and budgeting can be based on accomplishing a one‐year segment of
long‐term Goals.
1.9.1.1 The cycle will start with the Town Board development of its agenda for the next
year. In April-May of each year, the Board will adopt its key objectives for the
following year.
1.9.1.2 The Town Board will identify its priorities for Goals, objectives and other issues to
be resolved in the coming year, and will identify the information‐gathering necessary
to fulfill its role. This may include consultations with selected groups in the
ownership, other methods of gaining ownership input, governance education, and
other education related to Goals issues (e.g. presentations by advocacy groups,
demographers, other providers, and staff).
1.9.1.3 The Board of Trustees, with the assistance of the Town Administrator at the
commencement of the Town Board annual planning cycle, prepare a tentative
agenda plan for the following year’s meetings.
1.9.2 AGENDAS
1.9.2.1 Regular Board Meetings - The Town Clerk will prepare the agenda for any regular
meeting of the board, in consultation with the Town Administrator and staff. A draft
agenda will be distributed to the Board of Trustees for comment prior to the
publication of the agenda.
Individual trustees may request agenda matters for Town Board consideration at
least two weeks prior to the regular board meeting. If any Trustee objects to an item
on the draft agenda when distributed, the Town Administrator will only place items
on the agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
The Town Administrator may add routine administrative and consent items to any
Board agenda.
1.9.2.2 Study Sessions – The Town Board will approve the schedule for upcoming Study
Sessions. The Mayor, Trustees or staff may request or recommend any appropriate
29
matters for Town Board consideration; however the Town Administrator will only
place items on a Study Session agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
1.9.2.3 By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long as it is allowed by
statute.
1.9.3 The Town Board will attend to Consent Agenda items (those items delegated to the Town
Administrator yet required by law or contract to be Town Board‐approved, or minor non-
controversial or routine matters) as expeditiously as possible.
1.9.4 Monitoring reports due and/or submitted to the Town Board will be on the Town Board
Meeting agenda for acceptance. Discussion of the reports will be only for indication of policy
violations or if the Town Board does not consider the Interpretation to be reasonable. Potential,
extensive policy revisions under consideration will be scheduled during a Town Board Work
Session or future Town Board Meeting.
‐
1
Governing
Policies of the
Town of
Estes Park
Board of
Trustees
2
Introduction
These Governing Policies, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, incorporate four categories of
policy. The first category is the Governance Process, which clarifies the board's own job and rules,
how they work together and how the Board relates to the citizens of Town of Estes Park. Category
two is Board/ Staff Linkages which outlines the delegation and accountability through the Town
Administrator. The third Category is Executive Limitations which describes the prudence and ethics,
and limitations of the authority and responsibilities of the Town Administrator in his/her role as the
Chief Appointed Official for the board directing the staff of the Board of Trustees. The first three all
work together to efficiently and effectively implement the fourth Category, which is the vision,
direction, and policy of the Board of Trustees. These describe what benefits will occur, for which
people, at what cost.
To further its accountability to the citizens and taxpayers of the Town of Estes Park, the Board
of Trustees adheres to the following principles of governance:
1. Ownership: The Board connects its authority and accountability to its “owners” – the citizens
and taxpayers of the Town – seeing its task as servant leader to and for them.
2. Governance Position: With the ownership above it and operational matters below it,
governance forms a distinct link in the chain of command and authority. The Board’s role is that of
commander, not advisor. It exists to exercise that authority and properly empower others rather
than to be management’s consultant, or adversary. The Trustees—not the staff—bears full and
direct responsibility for the process and products of governance, just as it bears accountability for
any authority and performance expectations delegated to others.
3. Board Holism: The Board of Trustees makes authoritative decisions directed toward
management and toward itself, its individual Trustees, and committees only as a total group. That
is, Town Board authority is a group authority rather than a summation of individual authorities.
4. Goals Policies: The Town Board defines, in writing, the (a) results, changes, or benefits that
should come about for specified goals (b) recipients, beneficiaries, or otherwise defined impacted
groups, and (c) at what cost or relative priority for the various benefits or various beneficiaries.
These are not all the possible “side benefits” that may occur, but those that form the purpose of the
organization, the achievement of which constitutes organizational success. Policy documents
containing solely these decisions are categorized as “Goals” in the policies that follow.
5. Board Means Policies: The Board of Trustees defines, in writing, those behaviors, values
added, practices, disciplines, and conduct of the Board itself and of the Board’s
delegation/accountability relationship with its own subcomponents and with the management part of
the organization. Because these are not decisions relating to Goals, they are called “Board Means”
to distinguish them from “Ends” and “Staff Means”. These decisions are categorized as
“Governance Process” and “Board Management Delegation”.
3
6. Management Limitations Policies: The Board makes decisions with respect to its staff’s means
decisions and actions only in a proscriptive way in order simultaneously (a) to avoid prescribing
means and (b) to put off limits those means that would be unacceptable even if they work. These
decisions are categorized as “Management Limitations” in the policies that follow.
7. Self-Enforcing – These policies are collectivily adopted by the Estes Park Board of Trustees
and as such only the board and individual trustees are responsible for compliance both individually
and collectively.
4
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL
Table of Contents
Category 1. Governance Process
Policy 1.0 Governance Commitment
Policy 1.1 Governing Style
Policy 1.2 Operating Principles
Policy 1.3 Board Job Description
Policy 1.4 Mayor’s Responsibility
Policy 1.5 Board Members' Code of Conduct
Policy 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
Policy 1.7 Board Liaison Roles
Policy 1.8 Board Committee Principles
Policy 1.9 Annual Planning And Agendas
5
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.0 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNANCE COMMITMENT
Within the authority granted to it by Colorado Revised Statutes, the purpose of the Town of
Estes Park Board of Trustees (the “Board”), on behalf of the citizens of Town of Estes Park, is
to see to it that the Town of Estes Park government 1) achieves results for citizens at an
acceptable cost and 2) avoids unacceptable actions and situations.
1.1 The Board of Trustees will approach its task with a style which emphasizes
outward vision rather than an internal preoccupation, strategic leadership more
than administrative detail, clear distinction of Board and staff roles, collective rather
than individual decisions, future rather than past or present, and proactively rather
than reactively.
1.2 The operating principles and commitments of the Board of Trustees, as it relates to
the working relationship between the Trustees, staff and citizens of theTown of
Estes Park, are to emphasize fairness; responsibilities as elected officials; respect;
honesty and integrity; and communication.
1.3 The job of the Board of Trustees is to make contributions which lead the Town
Government toward the desired performance and to assure that it occurs. The
Board’s specific contributions are unique to its trusteeship role and necessary for
proper governance and management.
1.4 The responsibility of the Mayor is, primarily, to establish procedural integrity and
representation of the Board of Trustees and the Town to outside parties (as
delegated by the Board).
1.5 The Board expects of its members ethical and businesslike conduct.
1.6 The Board of Trustees may establish committees to advise the Board in carrying
out its responsibilities. Other than those statutorily required, all committees
appointed by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees exist so that Board
decisions (a) will be made from an informed position, and (b) will be made in a
public forum consistent with Board policy.
1.7 The Board of Trustees may appoint an individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison
of the Board to Town Boards and Commissions. The Board of Trustees may appoint an
individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison to other community groups.
1.8 Board Committees, when used, will be assigned so as to reinforce the wholeness of the
Board’s job and so as never to interfere with delegation from the Board to Town
Administrator. The purpose of Board Committee’s shall be to provide more indepth
6
discussion and information on the specific areas assigned to the Committee.
Committee’s may not vote or adopt policy, but may make recommendations to the Town
Board for action.
1.9 The Town Board will prepare and follow an annual agenda plan that includes (1) a
complete re-exploration of Goals policies and (2) opportunity for continuous improvement
in Town Board performance through Town Board education, enriched input, and
deliberation.
7
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.1 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNING STYLE
The Board of Trustees will approach its task with a style which emphasizes outward vision
rather than an internal preoccupation, strategic leadership more than administrative detail,
clear distinction of Board and staff roles, collective rather than individual decisions, future
rather than past or present, and proactive rather than reactive.
In this spirit:
1) The Board of Trustees will operate fully aware of its trusteeship and
stewardship obligation to its constituents.
2) The Board of Trustees will conduct itself individually and collectively with
whatever discipline is needed to govern with excellence through:
3) Being committed to matters such as policy making principles, role clarification, speaking
with one voice and self-policing of any tendency to stray from governance adopted in
Board policies.
4) Individual Board members’ thorough preparation for meetings and regular attendance.
5) Continuation of Board development including orientation of new members in the Board’s
governance process, participation in relevant continuing education, and periodic Board
discussion of process improvement.
6) The Board of Trustees will direct, control and motivate the organization
through the careful establishment of broad written policies reflecting the Board’s values
and perspectives. The Board’s emphasis will be on impacts on the Town outside the
organization, not on the administrative means.
7) The Board of Trustees, as trustee for and working with the citizens of the
Town of Estes Park, will be the primary initiator of policy, and will also be receptive to
other policy initiatives from citizens and staff. The Board, not the staff, will be responsible
for Board performance as specified in the policy entitled Board Job Products.
1.1.5. The Board of Trustees will be accountable to the Citizens of the Town of
Estes Park for competent, conscientious and effective accomplishment of its
obligations as a body. It will allow no individual, committee or entity to usurp
this role or hinder this commitment.
8
1.1.6. The Board of Trustees will monitor and discuss the Board’s own process and
performance, and ensure the continuity of its governance capability through
continuing education and training.
1.1.7. A member of the Board of Trustees who votes in the minority is free to
express his/her dissent but will respect the process and legitimacy of the
majority decision.
1.1.8 All Town Trustees will respect legitimacy of the opinions and reasoning of
other Trustees when and after making board decisions.
1.1.9 Agree not to hold grudges or bring disagreements from past actions into future
decisions.
1.1.10 A member of the Board of Trustees who, in their sole opinion, believes they
have a conflict of interest or for any other reason believes that they cannot
make a fair and impartial decision in a legislative or quasi-judicial decision,
will recuse themselves from the discussion and decision. Any recusal will be
made prior to any board discussion of the issue.
1.1.11 Any Trustee may choose to abstain from voting on any question, at their sole
discretion. If there is not conflict of interest or reason for recusal as outlined
in 1.1.10, the trustee may participate fully in Board discussions of the issue,
yet abstain from voting, should they so choose.
9
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.2 POLICY TITLE: OPERATING PRINCIPLES
The operating principles and commitments of the Board of Trustees, as it relates to the
working relationship between the Trustees, staff and citizens of Town of Estes Park, are to
emphasize fairness; responsibilities as elected officials; respect; honesty and integrity; and
communication.
1.2.1 FAIRNESS: We are committed to fairness in our day to day activities. To
ensure an atmosphere of fairness, we agree to the following principles:
A. We will listen to all sides of an issue.
B. We will be fair with each other.
C. Citizens will have opportunity to access the Board of Trustees, with the
exception of any contact that may be considered ex-parte communication
associated with a quasi-judicial decisions.
D. We have an obligation to listen to each other, citizens and staff with the
understanding that an obligation to listen does not necessarily equate to an
obligation to agree or to act as requested.
E. We will treat each other as equals.
1.2.2 RESPONSIBILITIES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS: We understand and agree
that we have certain responsibilities to the public and community beyond those
simply articulated in law.
A. We believe we are each responsible for our own actions as Trustees. We
will take responsibility for our own actions.
B. We agree to address issues and respond to each others requests in a
timely and open manner.
C. We will give equal weight to rights and responsibilities when making
decisions.
D. When giving staff responsibility we will grant the appropriate authority to
carry out that responsibility.
E. We have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of Colorado, and all laws and regulations of the United
States, the State of Colorado and the Town of Estes Park.
1.2.3. RESPECT: Citizens’ trust in government is critically important. The key to
building and maintaining this trust is placing a high value on respecting each
other and those we work with and serve as public officials.
A. We agree to take others' concerns seriously.
B. We agree to accept and respect each other's individuality, supporting each
other by capitalizing on our individual strengths, working together, as a
team, utilizing each others' expertise, to accomplish our goals and the goals
of the Town of Estes Park.
C. We believe that information flow within the organization is important and
10
that all affected parties should have all of the information that is important
to them, whenever possible.
D. We agree to respect each other's feelings and ideas and to treat everyone
with respect.
E. We will make every effort to not just listen but to understand the point from
others' perspective.
F. We understand that respect comes in many forms and we will make every
effort to show respect for others both in our verbal and non-verbal actions.
G. We treat those providing input at Town meetings with respect.
1.2.4. HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND TRUST: As elected officials we will hold
ourselves to a high standard of honesty and integrity in the community.
A. We will deal with each other honestly.
B. We are committed to high standards of ethics in our dealings with each
other, employees, and citizens.
C. If an interpersonal conflict or problem develops, we will work with the
people involved only and strive to settle the conflict or problem in a
constructive basis.
D. We treat our office as a public trust. The Town’s resources and powers are to be
used for the benefit of the public. .
E. We refrain from decisions in which our financial or personal interests are
specifically affected by a decision and shall adhere to applicable Colorado Law
governing conflict of interest.
F. We do not accept personal gifts except as specifically allowed by Colorado Law.
G. We respect and adhere to our oath of office
H. We will abide by Article 29 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado regarding
ethical behavior.
1.2.5. COMMUNICATION: We believe that to be effective as elected officials, we must
communicate clearly and completely at all times.
A. We believe in full disclosure and “no surprises” in our internal operations and
in working together as a Board. We will strive for open and candid
communication among citizens, staff and each other.
B. We are committed to providing our citizens with relevant, accurate and
timely information about the Town goals, services, fiscal programs, services
provided, and the decisions that will affect the public.
C. We believe it is important to keep each other informed of our activities and
of issues facing us as a Board of Trustees.
1.2.6 ACCOUNTABILITY:
A. We will exercise our authority with open meetings and access to public records.
B. We will hold executive sessions only for reasons allowed by Colorado Revised
Statutes.
C. We are positive advocates for the Town and are accessible to the citizens of
Estes Park.
11
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.3 POLICY TITLE: BOARD JOB DESCRIPTION
The job of the Board of Trustees is to lead the Town Government toward the desired
performance and to assume a good faith effort toward those objectives. The Board’s
leadership is unique to its trusteeship role and necessary for proper governance and
management.
1.3.1 The products of the Board shall be:
1. Linkage: As the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees places a high
value on open, participatory government, the board will produce the
linkage between Town of Estes Park government and the Citizens of
Town of Estes Park.
A. Needs Assessment: The Board of Trustees will strive to identify the
needs of the citizens as they relate to Town of Estes Park’s activities
and scope of influence, and shall translate such knowledge into the
articulation of Board Objectives policies (see definition below).
B. Advocacy and Ambassadorship: The Board of Trustees will act as
the representatives of the citizens to the Town of Estes Park
government, and shall take steps to inform and clarify:
i. the citizens relationship with government, and
ii. the organization’s focus on future results, and as well as present
accomplishments.
C. Communication:
i. Any Board member expressing a personal point of view on a
matter of Town business must include language which states
the views expressed do not represent the view of the Town,
rather they are the official’s personal opinions, unless
previously authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of
Trustees, or when articulating a position official adopted by
the Board of Trustees.
ii. ii. Board members should recognize that they may be legally
liable for anything they write, present online or say.
2. Written governing policies that, at the broadest levels, address each
category of organizational decision:
12
A. GOVERNANCE PROCESS: Specification of how the Board of
Trustees conceives carries out and monitors its own task
B. STAFF LIMITATIONS: Constraints on staff authority which establish
the prudence and ethics boundaries within which all Town
Administrator and staff activity and decisions must take place.
C. BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE: How power is delegated and its proper
use monitored; the role, authority and accountability of the Town
Administrator (and the Town Attorney)..
D. OUTCOMES: Organizational products, effects, benefits, to answer
the questions for (what good, for which recipients, and at what
cost?).
3. The Board will produce assurance of:
A. Town Administrator performance (in accordance with policies in 2A
and 2B)
B. Town Attorney performance (in accordance with policies in 2A and
2B)
4. Adopted resolutions, regulations, ordinances, and fee schedules; legislative
positions; the Audit; the Budget; Boards and Commissions; and statutorily mandated
items.
1.3.2 Role of Town Trustees
1.3.2.1 Representation:
i. Providing leadership for the Town on behalf of the citizens of Estes Park.
ii. Representing and acting in the best interest of citizens of the Town of Estes
Park.
iii. Being knowledgeable of issues, researching background information,
attending regularly scheduled meetings, and acting as a resource for citizens’
concerns.
iv. Serving as a conduit for information from citizens to the Town Administrator
and the Mayor in responding to questions and individual problems.
v. Finding a balanced approach for addressing competing interests among
constituent groups to ensure the community is fairly represented.
vi. Representing the Board of Trustees on standing committees of the Town for
the purpose of monitoring major Town activities and policy implementation.
1.3.2.2 Legislative:
I. Serving as the governing body of the Town and holding all legislative and
corporate powers of the Town specifically granted or implied by statutory
provisions and the Municipal Code.
13
II. Enacting ordinances, resolutions and policies for the governance of the
Town of Estes Park and protecting the life, health and property of its
citizens and visitors.
III. Establishing policy for the direction of the Town Board and Town Staff.
IV. Establishing fiscal policy, financial targets, and budget goals for the Town
government.
V. Having final decision making responsibilities over pertinent land use
issues and application of development code requirements within the Town
of Estes Park.
1.3.2.3 Quasi-Judicial:
i. Acting in a quasi-judicial manner in matters brought before it that relate to
public hearings, appeals, land use, and liquor licensing.
ii. Making decisions concerning quasi-judicial matters based upon testimony
presented at formal hearings which are normally conducted during regularly
scheduled Town Board meetings.
iii. Not accepting nor seeking outside input or lobbying that attempts to influence
their decision prior to the quasi-judicial Public Hearing. Any and all ex parte
communication shall be disclosed at the beginning of the hearing. Not doing
so may cause a Trustee to be disqualified from the proceedings.
1.3.2.4 Communications:
I. Following a formal decision, acting as a united body, not as individual
Trustees, and acknowledging the decision of the Town Board.
II. The Town Administrator is the sole point of contact between the Trustees, as
policy makers, and Town Staff.
III. Interacting with the media, governmental entities, the public or other bodies
as individual Trustee and not as a representative of the majority of Trustees
unless an official position or legislative action has been established or
authorized to do so.
IV. Communicating to the Mayor and other Trustees items of importance from
their respective committees and providing information that may be necessary
to keep other members aware of important Town activities or critical
functions.
V. In times of community emergency it is important that the Town Board speak
with one voice. The Mayor, or the Mayor Pro-Tem, if the Mayor is not
available, shall speak for the Board during an emergency. Other trustees will
refer all requests for information to the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem. The Mayor
will coordinate all communication with the incident commander and the Town
Administrator. The purpose of this policy is not to restrict the communication
of the trustees or the Mayor, but to insure all communication is timely and
accurate and is in concert with the incident response plan.
14
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.4 POLICY TITLE: MAYOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
REV 4/15/15
The responsibility of the Mayor is, primarily, to establish procedural integrity and
representation of the Board of Trustees and the Town to outside parties (as delegated by
the Board). Accordingly:
1.4.1. The responsibility of the Mayor is to consistently guide the behavior of the
Board with its own rules and those legitimately imposed upon it from outside
the organization.
1.4.1.1. Meeting agendas and discussion content will be only those issues
which, according to Board policy, clearly belong to the Board to
decide, not the Town Administrator.
1.4.1.2. Deliberation will be fair, open, orderly and thorough, but also efficient,
limited to time, and kept to the point.
a. 1.4.2. The authority of the Mayor is to preside over meetings and to sign documents as
authorized by the Board of Trustees and to preside over the evaluation of the Town
Administrator by the Town Board.
1.4.3. The Mayor shall not act on behalf of the Town in any unilateral manner, except
as approved by the Board of Trustees. This shall include any appointment of
committee or board positions, making any financial or other binding obligations
on behalf of the town, or expressing the official position of the Town on any
matter.
1.4.4 Representation:
1.4.4.1 Provide leadership for the Town of Estes Park.
1.4.4.2 Serve as the primary representative of the Town of Estes Park in official
and ceremonial functions.
1.4.4.3 Represent the Town in interaction with other government agencies.
1.4.4.4 Be the spokesperson for the Town unless the Town Board has decided
otherwise.
1.4.4.5 Represent the Town Board as a liaison with the Town Administrator to
promote the timely flow of information between the Town Board, Town Staff
and other governmental organizations.
1.4.4.6 Represent the Town on the Platte River Power Authority Board.
1.4.5 Enactment:
15
1.4.5.1 Mayor in conjunction with the Town Board and Town Administrator
enforces the ordinances and laws of the Town.
1.4.5.2 Signs all warrants (see section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code).
1.4.5.3 Executes all ordinances and resolutions authorizing expenditure of money
or the entering into a contract before they become valid. The Mayor has the
authority to disapprove such ordinances or resolutions in writing, subject to
Board of Trustees override.
1.4.5.4 Mayor with, Town Board approval, appoints members of committees, and
other entities that may be necessary from time to time for the effective
governance of the Town.
1.4.5.5 Facilitating policies and procedures for the effective management of the
Board, establishing Town goals in conjunction with the Town Board,
promoting consensus and enhancing Board performance.
1.4.6 Mayor Pro Tem – Mayor Pro Tem shall assume all duties of the Mayor in the Mayor’s
absence in accordance with Section 2.16.010 of the Municipal Code.
1.4.7 – Mayoral Appointments
1.4.7.1 – Board Standing Committees – “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint
three (3) Trustees to the following standing committees: community
development, public safety, public works and utilities.” (EP Municipal Code
2.08.010)
1.4.7.2 Special Assignments –
The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve on committees, community
groups, or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board
for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every
effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the
Board.
1.4.7.3 Special committees.- Special committees may be established by the Board
of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (EP Municipal Code
2.08.020)
16
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.5
Rev 11/11/14 POLICY TITLE: BOARD MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT
The Board of Trustees shall operate in an ethical and businesslike manner. As leaders of our
community, it is important that the members of the Town Board hold themselves to the
highest standard of conduct, setting an example for other Town officials and Town
employees, and ensuring that the public has confidence in the integrity of its government and
Town Officials. Adherence to these standards will protect and maintain the Town of Estes
Park’s reputation and integrity.
.
1.5.1 CONDUCT WITH ONE ANOTHER
A. The Board of Trustees is composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds,
personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Embracing this diversity, all have chosen to
serve in public office in order to preserve and protect the present and the future of the
community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as Trustees may
“agree to disagree” on contentious issues. We will conduct business in a manner consistent
with this code of conduct and as outlined in the operating principles of the board (Policy
1.2.)
1.5.2 IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. Practice civility, professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult
questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and
information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. This does not, however,
allow Trustees to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive,
or disparaging comments. Trustees should conduct themselves in a professional manner at
all times.
B. Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. Effective governance allows
individuals with disparate points of view to find common ground and seek a compromise
that benefits the community as a whole, whenever possible. A member of the Board of
Trustees who votes in the minority is free to express his/her dissent but will respect the
process and legitimacy of the majority decision.
C. Be punctual and keep comments relative to topics discussed. Trustees have made a
commitment to attend meetings and partake in discussions. Therefore, it is important that
Trustees be punctual and that meetings start on time. Be respectful of other people’s time.
Prepare for meetings in advance, and be familiar with issues on the agenda. Stay focused
and act efficiently during public meetings. It is equally important that discussions on issues
be relative to the topic at hand to allow adequate time to fully discuss scheduled issues.
D. Avoid expressing opinions during Public Hearings. Trustees should not express
17
opinions during the public hearing portion of the meeting except to ask pertinent questions
of the speaker or staff. “I think” and “I feel” comments by Trustees are not appropriate until
after the close of the public hearing. Trustees should refrain from arguing or debating with
the public during a public hearing and shall always show respect for different points of view.
E. Respect the role of the Mayor or Committee Chairpersons in maintaining order. It is
the responsibility of the Mayor to keep the comments of Trustees on track during public
meetings. Trustees should honor efforts by the Mayor to focus discussion on current
agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Mayor’s actions, those
objections should be voiced politely and with reason.
1.5.3 IN PRIVATE COMUNNICATIONS
A. Continue respectful behavior in private. The same level of respect and consideration of
differing points of view that is deemed appropriate for public discussions should be
maintained in private conversations.
B. Be aware of the public nature of written notes, voicemail messages, and e-mail.
Technology allows words written or said without much forethought to be distributed wide
and far. Would you feel comfortable to have this note faxed to others? How would you feel
if this voicemail message was played on a speakerphone in a full office? What would
happen if this e-mail message was forwarded to others? Written notes, voicemail
messages and e-mail should be treated as “public” communication and are subject to
disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
C. Even private conversations can have a public presence. Elected officials are always on
display. People around them that they may not know monitor their actions, mannerisms,
and language. Lunch table conversations will be overheard, parking lot debates will be
watched, and casual comments between individuals before and after public meetings
noted.
1.5.4 TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH TOWN STAFF
A. Board prioritization of Staff projects. It is the responsibility of the Town Board as a whole
and not individual Trustees to identify and prioritize projects for the Town Staff. Individual
Trustees shall refrain from instructing Staff as to the prioritization of projects identified by
the Board. It is the responsibility of the Town Administrator to communicate and direct the
prioritization of Town activities with the staff.
B. Treat all staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities,
experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not
acceptable.
C. Limit contact with specific Town staff. Questions of Town staff and/or requests for
additional background information may be addressed directly with the appropriate town
staff member, however individual trustees should not direct staff to take any specific action
18
or direct them to produce any work product. The Town Administrator should be copied on
or informed of any request. Requests for follow-up or directions to staff should be made
only through the Town Administrator or the Mayor when appropriate. When in doubt about
what staff contact is appropriate, Trustees should ask the Town Administrator or Mayor for
direction. Materials supplied to Trustees in response to a request may be made available
to all Trustees, so that all have equal access to information.
D. Do not disrupt Town staff from their jobs. Trustees should not disrupt Town staff while
they are in meetings, on the phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions, in order
to have their individual needs met.
E. Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Trustees should never express
concerns about the performance of a Town employee in public, to the employee directly,
or to the employee’s supervisor. Comments about staff performance should only be made
to the Town Administrator through private correspondence or conversation.
F. Do not get involved in administrative functions. Trustees must not attempt to influence
Town staff on making appointments, selecting consultants, processing of development
applications, or granting of Town licenses and permits unless the Trustee has been invited
to participate in the process.
G. Check with Town staff on correspondence before taking action. Before sending
correspondence, Trustees should check with Town staff to see if an official Town response
has already been sent or is in progress. When responding to correspondence always
clarify if the opinion expressed is your personal opinion or position, or if it is the official
position as adopted by the Board of Trustees.
H. Requests for staff support, should be made to the Town Administrator, who is
responsible for allocating Town resources in order to maintain a professional, well-run
Town government. The office of the Town Clerk, in the Administrative Services
Department provides routine clerical and support services for the Board. Routine requests
for items such as meeting registrations, benefits, reimbursements, scheduling questions
can be addressed directly to the Town Clerk.
I. Do not solicit political support from staff. Trustees should not solicit any type of political
support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.)
from Town staff. Town staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support
political candidates but all such activities must be done away from the workplace.
J. Evaluation of Staff – Individual Board members will not formally evaluate the performance
of the Town Administrator, his/her staff or the Town Attorney except as that performance is
assessed in accordance with explicit Board of Trustees’ policies.
1.5.5 TRUSTEES CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC
A. IN PUBLIC MEETINGS – Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the
democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the
19
part of individual Trustees toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort
should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony.
a. Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness. Speaking
in front of the Board can be a difficult experience for some people. Some issues the
Board undertakes may affect people’s daily lives and homes. Some decisions are
emotional. The way that the Trustees treat people during public hearings can do a
lot to make them relax or to push their emotions to a higher level of intensity.
b. Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual speakers.
The Mayor may determine and announce limits on speakers at the start of the public
hearing process. If many speakers are anticipated, the Mayor may shorten the time
limit and/or ask speakers to limit themselves to new information and points of view
not already covered by previous speakers. No speaker will be turned away unless
he or she exhibits inappropriate behavior. Each speaker may only speak once during
the public hearing unless the Board requests additional clarification later in the
process. After the close of the public hearing, no more public testimony will be
accepted unless the Mayor reopens the public hearing for a limited and specific
purpose.
c. Active listening. It is disconcerting to speakers to have Trustees not look at them
when they are speaking. It is fine to look down at documents or to make notes, but
reading for a long period of time or gazing around the room gives the appearance of
disinterest. Be aware of facial expressions, especially those that could be interpreted
as “smirking,” disbelief, anger or boredom.
d. Ask for clarification, but avoid debate and argument with the public. Only the
Mayor – not individual Trustees – can interrupt a speaker during a presentation.
However, a Trustee can ask the Mayor for a point of order if the speaker is off the
topic or exhibiting behavior or language the Trustee finds disturbing. If speakers
become flustered or defensive by Trustees questions, it is the responsibility of the
Mayor or Committee Chairperson to calm and focus the speaker and to maintain the
order and decorum of the meeting. Questions by Trustees to members of the public
testifying should seek to clarify or expand information. It is never appropriate to
challenge or belittle the speaker. Trustees’ personal opinions or inclinations about
upcoming votes should not be revealed until after the public hearing is closed.
e. No personal attacks of any kind, under any circumstance. Trustees should be
aware that their body language and tone of voice, as well as the words they use,
could appear to be intimidating or aggressive.
B. IN UNOFFICAL SETTINGS
a. Make no promises on behalf of the Board. Individual Board members can
represent the Board on Town matters only when delegated those responsibilities by
the Board Trustees will frequently be asked to explain a Board action or to give their
opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is
20
appropriate to give a brief overview of Town policy and to refer to Town staff for
further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Board action, or
to promise that Town staff will do something specific (fix a pothole, waive a fee, plant
new flowers in the median, etc.).
b. Make no personal comments about other Trustees. It is acceptable to publicly
disagree about an issue, but it is unacceptable to make derogatory comments about
other Trustees, their opinions and actions.
c. Remember that Estes Park is a small community at heart. The community is
constantly observing Trustees every day that they serve in office. Their behaviors
and comments serve as models for proper deportment in the Town of Estes Park.
Honesty and respect for the dignity of each individual should be reflected in every
word and action taken by Trustees, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a
serious and continuous responsibility.
1.5.6 BOARD CONDUCT WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
A. Be clear about representing the Town or personal interests. If a Trustee appears
before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the
Trustee must clearly state: 1) if his or her statement reflects personal opinion or is the
official stance of the Town; 2) whether this is the majority or minority opinion of the Board.
Even if the Trustee is representing his or her own personal opinions, remember that this
still may reflect upon the Town as an organization.
If a Trustee serves in a decision making capacity for another organization and a matter
which the Town has taken an official position is discussed by the organization, the Trustee
should not maintain a position that significantly impacts or is detrimental to the Town’s
official position. In the event the Town has not taken an official position with regard to a
matter, and in the Trustee’s judgment, the Trustee believes that the Town would take a
position substantially different than that proposed to be taken by the organization, the
Trustee should consult with the Mayor regarding the Town’s possible position.
B. Correspondence expressing official Town positions. All official Town correspondence
shall be signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem unless a specific Trustee is authorized by
the Town Board to individually respond to a matter and express the Town’s official position.
A copy of official correspondence should be given to the Town Clerk to be filed as part of
the permanent public record.
C. Trustee correspondence concerning town matters: Trustees may correspond with
individuals or organizations on any matter involving the Town. In the event that the
Trustee’s personal correspondence expresses a personal opinion that differs from the
Town’s official position, the Trustee should make clear that the Trustee’s personal opinion
differs from the Town’s official position.
1.5.7 TOWN TRUSTEE CONDUCT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
The Town has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of increasing community
involvement in government and to serve as advisors to the Town Board. They are a valuable
21
resource to the Town’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
A. If attending a Board or Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal
opinions unless you are authorized to represent the Town Board. Trustees may attend
any Board or Commission meeting open to the public, but should be sensitive to the way
their participation – especially if it is on behalf of an individual, business or developer –
could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Trustee at a
Board or Commission meeting should be clearly indicate if it is an individual opinion or a
representation of the official opinion of the Town Board.
B. Be respectful of diverse opinions. A primary role of the Board or Commission is to
provide advice and make decisions based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives.
Trustees must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions.
C. Inappropriate behavior. Inappropriate behavior by a Trustee should be noted to the
Mayor, and the Mayor should counsel the offending member. If inappropriate behavior
continues, the Mayor should bring the situation to the attention of the Town Board.
1.5.8 CONDUCT WITH THE MEDIA
Trustees may be contacted by the media for background information and quotes. All media
contacts should be referred to the PIO.
A. The Mayor is the official spokesperson for the Town Board of Trustees. The Mayor is
the designated representative of the Board of Trustees to present and speak on the official
Town position. If the media contacts an individual Trustee, the Trustee should be clear
about whether her/his comments represent the official Town position or a personal
viewpoint.
B. The best advice for dealing with the media is to never go “off the record.” Most
members of the media represent the highest levels of journalistic integrity and ethics, and
can be trusted to keep their word. But one bad experience can be catastrophic. Words that
are not said cannot be quoted.
C. Choose words carefully and cautiously. Comments taken out of context can cause
problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sarcasm, or word play. It is never
appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media.
1.5.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Section 31-4-404 (2) C.R.S. “Any member of the governing body of any city or town who
has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the governing
body shall disclose such interest to the governing body, shall not vote thereon, and shall
refrain from the attempt to influence the decisions of the other members of the governing
body in voting on the matter.”
B. Disclosure: A Trustee having a conflict of interest in any matter before the Town Board
shall disclose the interest to the Town Board. The Trustee shall not vote or otherwise take
any formal action or discussion concerning the matter, shall not participate in any executive
22
session concerning the matter, and shall refrain from attempting to influence any other
member of the Board of Trustees either in public or private discussion of the matter.
C. Exception: A member of the Board of Trustees may vote notwithstanding a conflict of
interest if the Trustee’s participation is necessary to obtain a quorum or otherwise enable
the Board to act if the Trustee complies with the volunteer disclosure provisions of Section
24-18-110 C.R.S.
D. Appearance of Impropriety: A Trustee should consider, but is not required to, excuse
themselves from those matters which due to the specific circumstances concerning the
matter may appear to members of the public to be a potential conflict of interest thus
avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
1.5.10 SANCTIONS
A. Inappropriate Staff Behavior. Trustees should refer to the Town Administrator any Town
staff that does not follow proper conduct in their dealings with Trustees, other Town staff, or
the public. These employees may be disciplined in accordance with standard Town
procedures for such actions.
B. Trustees Behavior and Conduct. Trustees who intentionally and repeatedly do not follow
proper conduct may be reprimanded or formally censured by the Town Board. Serious
infractions of the Code of Conduct may lead to other sanctions as deemed appropriate by
the Town Board.
It all comes down to respect
Respect for one another as individuals. . . Respect for the validity of different opinions. . .
Respect for the democratic process. . . Respect for the community that we serve.
23
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.6 POLICY TITLE: BOARD COMMITTEE
REV 4/15/15 PRINCIPLES
For simplicity and clarity in this policy, the term “Committee” shall refer to any board, commission, task
force, council, committee or any other volunteer group of citizens.
The Board of Trustees may establish committees to advise the Board in carrying out its
responsibilities. Other than those statutorily required, all committees appointed by the Town
of Estes Park Board of Trustees exist so that Board decisions (a) will be made from an
informed position, and (b) will be made in a public forum consistent with Board policy.
Accordingly:
1.6.1 Committees which are appointed by the Board of Trustees.
1.6.1.1 - It is the policy of the Board of Trustees to encourage citizen
involvement in town affairs, as well as to avoid conflicts involving trustees who
serve on committees, boards, commissions and organizations. For these
reasons, the trustees have agreed that a trustee shall serve only as a liaison to
town committees, commissions and boards.
1.6.1.2 -Other than those legislatively directed, committees may not speak or act
for the Board of Trustees except when formally given such authority for specific
and time-limited purposes. Expectations and authority will be carefully stated in
order not to conflict with authority delegated to the staff.
1.6.1.3 - Committees appointed by the board are to help the Board of Trustees
do its job, not to help the staff do its job. Committees ordinarily will assist the
Board by preparing policy alternatives and implications for Board deliberation.
Committees are not created by the Board to advise staff. The Board
understands that at times the Town Administrator or Town Staff may convene ad-
hoc or ongoing advisory boards to serve as advisors for operational issues.
These advisory groups are subject to the same limitations as Board appointed
committees.
1.6.1.4 - In keeping with the Board of Trustees’ broader focus, committees
normally will not have direct dealings with current staff operations. Committees
cannot exercise authority over staff.
1.6.1.5 - Because the staff works for the Board, they will not be expected to
obtain approval of a committee before taking action unless otherwise authorized
by state statute, Board policy, or federal regulation.
1.6.1.6 -Because of the differing nature of committees, some of which are
defined by state statute, the Board shall have and keep current an operating
policy defining the role of different committees and setting forth rules and
24
procedures for Town of Estes Park committees (Operating Policy 102).
1.6.1.7 -The authority and responsibility of any committee will not duplicate the
authority or responsibility of:
a) The Board of Trustees
b) Town Staff
c) Any other committee
d) Town Auditor
e) Town Attorney
1.6.1.8 - All committees will undergo a regular sunset review, at least once every
five years, unless otherwise provided for more frequently and according to a
staggered schedule to be adopted separately by the Board of Trustees.
1.6.1.9 - Said sunset review shall include a review of the Board and
Commission’s Mission Statement, and of the Board of Trustees’ charge to the
Committee of their role, responsibility and authority.
1.6.2 - Outside Committees
At times a Trustee may seek to serve or be asked to serve on an outside
committee not appointed by the Board of Trustees. A Trustee may seek or be
asked to serve on an outside committee in an official capacity representing the
Board and the Town of Estes Park, or as an individual Board member, not as the
official representative of the Town or the Board.
1.6.2.1 - Official Representation
a) No Trustee may represent the Town or the Board of Trustees or represent
themselves as being an official representative or speak for the Town or the
Board without have first been officially designated as the Town’s
representative by the Board of Trustees at a regular meeting of the Board.
b) The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve on committees, community groups,
or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town.The Mayor shall
present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute
special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
c) A trustee serving on an outside committee shall not chair the outside
committee, board, commission or organization (with the existing exceptions
of the Platte River Power Authority Board or the County Open Lands
Board) without prior approval of the full Board of Trustees.
1.6.2.2 - Individual Representation
25
a) Individual trustees have the right to participate as an individual in any
outside group or committee.
b) When participating as an individual trustee, the trustee should clearly
express to the committee membership that he/she is there as an
individual and do not speak for nor represent the Town of Estes Park or
the Board of Trustees.
c) When participating on any outside committee, trustees should be cautious to
avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest and any involvement that
could compromise the role of the trustee in any quasi-judicial actions or other
decisions.
26
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.7 POLICY TITLE: BOARD LIAISON ROLES
REV 4/15/15
Trustees may serve as the official liaison of the Board to Town committees. The Board of
Trustees may appoint an individual Trustee to serve as the official liaison to other community
groups.
1.7.1 Appointment - The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The Mayor
shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special
assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
1.7.2 Term – A Trustee shall serve as the Town Board Liaison solely at the pleasure of the
Town Board, with no specific term limit.
1.7.3 Duties of a Liaison
1.7.3.1 Communicate with the committee when Board of Trustees communication is
needed and to serve as the primary two-way communication channel
between the Town Board and the committee or community group.
1.7.3.2 Review applications, interview candidates and make recommendations to the
Town Board for final approval.
1.7.3.3 Serve as the primary Trustees’ contact for the committee or community
group.
1.7.3.4 Attend assigned committee or community group meetings when requested or
whenever appropriate, in the opinion of the Trustee liaison. Trustee liaisons
are not expected to attend every meeting of the committee or group.
1.7.3.5 The liaison is not a member of the committee and when in attendance at a
meeting is there as an observer for the Board of Trustees and a resource for
the committee. Participation in board discussions should be minimal and
restricted to clarification of Town Board positions or collection of information
to bring back to the full Town Board.
27
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.8 POLICY TITLE: BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES
For the purpose of this policy, Board Committee is defined as a sub-committee of the Board of
Trustees and membership is composed solely of Town Trustees.
1.8.1 Board Committees – The Board shall have the following Board Committees (EP Municipal Code
2.08.010)
1.8.1.1 Community Development and Community Services Committee – Responsible for
discussions of issues and policy associated with Community Planning, Building
and Code Compliance, Fairgrounds and Events, Museum, Senior Center, Visitors
Center, Finance and Administration
1.8.1.2 Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety Committee – Responsible for
discussions of issues and policy associated with Police, Engineering, Facilities,
Parks, Streets, and Utilities.
1.8.2. Board Committees, when used, will be assigned so as to reinforce the wholeness of the
Board’s job and so as never to interfere with delegation from the Board to Town Administrator.
The purpose of Board Committee’s shall be to provide more indepth discussion and information
on the specific areas assigned to the Committee. Committee’s may not adopt policy, but shall
make recommendations to the Town Board for action.
1.8.3 The following principles shall guide the appointment and operation of all Town Board
Committees:
1.8.3.1 Board Committees may not speak or act for the Board except when formally given
such authority for specific and time limited purposes. Expectations and authority will
be carefully stated in order not to conflict with authority delegated to the Town
Administrator.
1.8.3.2 Board Committees cannot exercise authority over staff. Because the Town
Administrator works for the full board, he or she will not be required to obtain
approval of a Board, Committee or Commission before an executive action.
1.8.3.3 Board committees shall consist of no more than 3 trustees so that the committee is
never a quorum of the Town Board.
28
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.9 POLICY TITLE: ANNUAL PLANNING AND AGENDAS
1.9 The Town Board will prepare and follow an annual agenda plan that includes (1) a complete
re‐exploration of Goals policies and (2) opportunity for continuous improvement in Town Board
performance through Town Board education, enriched input, and deliberation.
Accordingly:
1.9.1 The Town Board annual planning cycle will conclude each year on July 1, so that
administrative planning and budgeting can be based on accomplishing a one‐year segment of
long‐term Goals.
1.9.1.1 The cycle will start with the Town Board development of its agenda for the next
year. In April-May of each year, the Board will adopt its key objectives for the
following year.
1.9.1.2 The Town Board will identify its priorities for Goals, objectives and other issues to
be resolved in the coming year, and will identify the information‐gathering necessary
to fulfill its role. This may include consultations with selected groups in the
ownership, other methods of gaining ownership input, governance education, and
other education related to Goals issues (e.g. presentations by advocacy groups,
demographers, other providers, and staff).
1.9.1.3 The Board of Trustees, with the assistance of the Town Administrator at the
commencement of the Town Board annual planning cycle, prepare a tentative
agenda plan for the following year’s meetings.
1.9.2 AGENDAS
1.9.2.1 Regular Board Meetings - The Town Clerk will prepare the agenda for any regular
meeting of the board, in consultation with the Town Administrator and staff. A draft
agenda will be distributed to the Board of Trustees for comment prior to the
publication of the agenda.
Individual trustees may request agenda matters for Town Board consideration at
least two weeks prior to the regular board meeting. If any Trustee objects to an item
on the draft agenda when distributed, the Town Administrator will only place items
on the agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
The Town Administrator may add routine administrative and consent items to any
Board agenda.
1.9.2.2 Study Sessions – The Town Board will approve the schedule for upcoming Study
Sessions. The Mayor, Trustees or staff may request or recommend any appropriate
29
matters for Town Board consideration; however the Town Administrator will only
place items on a Study Session agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
1.9.2.3 By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long as it is allowed by
statute.
1.9.3 The Town Board will attend to Consent Agenda items (those items delegated to the Town
Administrator yet required by law or contract to be Town Board‐approved, or minor non-
controversial or routine matters) as expeditiously as possible.
1.9.4 Monitoring reports due and/or submitted to the Town Board will be on the Town Board
Meeting agenda for acceptance. Discussion of the reports will be only for indication of policy
violations or if the Town Board does not consider the Interpretation to be reasonable. Potential,
extensive policy revisions under consideration will be scheduled during a Town Board Work
Session or future Town Board Meeting.
‐
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: March 25th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 3/24/2015
Deleted: April 22, 2014
Deleted: 4/22/2014
1. Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2. Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a. Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3. Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a. Assignments to Standing Committees: “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3)
Trustees to the following standing committees: community development, public
safety, public works and utilities.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.08.010)
i. Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
b. Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4. Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: March 25th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 3/24/2015
Deleted: April 22, 2014
Deleted: 4/22/2014
5. Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may nominate
trustees to serve on committees, community groups, or in some other capacities as a
representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the
Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall present the nomination of any such
appointments to the Board for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make
every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
6. Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7. Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
8. Liaison Assignments ‐ The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 0.31" + Indent at: 0.56"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Deleted: <#>The Mayor may appoint trustees to serve on
temporary committees, community groups, or in some other
capacities as a representative of the Town, except in cases
where a Board Liaison has been approved by the Board of
Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall inform the entire board of
any special assignments and will make every effort to distribute
special assignments equitably among the members of the Board. ¶
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 0.31" + Indent at: 0.56"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Deleted: <#>¶
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: March 25th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 3/24/2015 Deleted: April 22, 2014Deleted: 4/22/2014Board Assignments Mayor Pro‐Tem ‐ Wendy Koenig Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force LiaisonStaff LiaisonType of CommitteeCreative Sign Design Review Board Alison Chilcott Decision Making Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Phipps Alison Chilcott Advisory/ Decision Making Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Alison Chilcott Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Koenig Bo Winslow Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc. Derek Fortini Outside Ambassadors Teri Salerno Outside Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group Parks Board Trustee Holcomb Kevin McEachern Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Ericson Kevin Ash Advisory Senior Center Inc Lori MitchellOutsideEstes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Norris Outside Estes Park Board of Appeals Alison Chilcott Advisory/Decision Making
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: March 25th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 3/24/2015 Deleted: April 22, 2014Deleted: 4/22/2014 Sister Cities Trustee Koenig Working Group Committee or Board Appointed Member(s) Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson Steve McFarland Frank Lancaster Deb McDougall Advisory Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Utilities/Public Safety Committee Trustees Norris (chair) Koenig and Nelson Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Trustees Ericson (chair), Holcomb, Phipps Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson Outside Community Grant Review Committee Trustee Ericson, Trustee Koenig, Jackie Williamson Board Committee Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham, Frank Lancaster Outside
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/2015
1. Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2. Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a. Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3. Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a. Assignments to Standing Committees: “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3)
Trustees to the following standing committees: community development, public
safety, public works and utilities.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.08.010)
i. Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
b. Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4. Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/2015
5. Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may nominate
trustees to serve on committees, community groups, or in some other capacities as a
representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the
Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall present the nomination of any such
appointments to the Board for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make
every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
6. Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7. Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
8. Liaison Assignments ‐ The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/2015 Board Assignments Mayor Pro‐Tem ‐ Wendy Koenig Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force Liaison Staff Liaison Type of Committee Creative Sign Design Review Board Alison Chilcott Decision Making Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Phipps Alison Chilcott Advisory/ Decision Making Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Alison Chilcott Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Koenig Bo Winslow Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc. Derek Fortini Outside Ambassadors Teri Salerno Outside Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group Parks Board Trustee Holcomb Kevin McEachern Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Ericson Kevin Ash Advisory Senior Center Inc Lori Mitchell Outside Estes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Norris Outside Estes Park Board of Appeals Alison Chilcott Advisory/Decision Making
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/2015 Sister Cities Trustee Koenig Working Group Committee or Board Appointed Member(s) Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson Steve McFarland Frank Lancaster Deb McDougall Advisory Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Utilities/Public Safety Committee Trustees Norris (chair) Koenig and Nelson Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Trustees Ericson (chair), Holcomb, Phipps Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson Outside Community Grant Review Committee Trustee Ericson, Trustee Koenig, Jackie Williamson Board Committee Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham, Frank Lancaster Outside
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date: April 14, 2015
RE: Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company MOU
Objective:
To improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of delivering drinking water to our
citizens. To obtain the Town Board’s support (with Mayor Pinkham recusing himself) for
a joint venture project with Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
(PEMPWCo, Public Water System ID # 135559) which will allow access to grant funding
and low interest loans for this project.
Present Situation:
The Town and PEMPWCo have worked together to complete the attached
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Proposal:
Staff seeks Town Board approval of the attached MOU. With approval from both Town
Board and the PEMPWCo board, staff will proceed with the project as outlined in Exhibit
B of the MOU.
Advantages:
This project supports the Town’s mission to provide high-quality, reliable services for the
benefit of our citizens while being good stewards of public resources. All project funding
obligations will be covered by PEMPWCo and its owners.
Disadvantages:
Staff work load will increase; however, hours and costs will be logged and included for
reimbursement through the project.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Town Board approval to enter into the Memorandum of
Understanding with PEMPWCo.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate. Other neighborhoods are looking to do this same thing. Those
neighborhoods are located in the County and would be processed through the County.
Recommended Motion:
I move for the approval of the Town of Estes Park entering into a joint venture with Park
Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company and executing the Memorandum of
Understanding with PEMPWCo.
Attachments:
Memorandum of Understanding
- 2 -
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is dated this ____ day of ____________,
2015 by and between the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”) and the Park Entrance
Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (the “Water Company”).
WHERAS, the Town owns and operates its Water Utility; and
WHEREAS, the Water Company owns the distribution system which provides
water to a portion of the Park Entrance Estates Subdivision located within the Town;
and
WHEREAS, the Water Company is receiving potable drinking water from the
Town as a bulk water customer; and
WHEREAS, the Water Company’s distribution system is in bad repair and needs
replacement; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to seek grant funding for professional
planning and engineering services related to the distribution system; forming a Special
Improvement District pursuant to Colorado statutes; applying for and receiving a loan
from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to install a new
distribution system; and transferring the new distribution system to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree to the terms and conditions as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
stated herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, is the SRF
Future State Application Steps which provides an illustration of the steps needed to
apply and receive a loan from Colorado Resources and Power Development Authority
(the “Authority”). This MOU is divided into two parts. Phase 1 states the terms and
conditions necessary to complete all the tasks through the Process Design Report.
Phase 2 starts with the Plans and Specifications and continues through the loan
application, approval, and construction of the new distribution system.
2
PHASE 1
A. DOLA Grant. The Water Company has requested that the Town act as a
sponsor and recipient, on its behalf, for an administrative grant from the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for the purpose of obtaining professional planning
and engineering services related to the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund
application and design of the new distribution system. With regard to the obtaining and
administration of this administrative grant, the parties agree as follows:
i. The Town will administer and oversee professional engineering services
on behalf of the Water Company to obtain a drinking water Project Needs
Assessment and Technical, Environmental Determination and Managerial,
Financial (TMF) report (“Phase 1 Report”) meeting requirements of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment and in accordance with the DOLA
grant contract.
ii. The current estimate for the cost of Phase I is $36,000. The
administrative grant requires a 1:1 match by the Town as grantee. The Water
Company shall initially deposit $18,000 to the Town to be used as matching
funds for the administrative grant and reimbursement for Town expenses. Town
expenses shall include in-house costs and outside consulting costs. It is
unknown whether the $18,000 deposit will be sufficient to complete all the work
necessary to acquire the loan. The Water Company agrees to deposit with the
Town additional funds, within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice from the
Town, of the need to deposit additional funds for reimbursement to the Town for
Phase I. The Town may suspend any activities of the Town until such time as
funds have been deposited by the Water Company.
iii. No third party professional planning and engineering services will begin
until the fully executed grant contract has been received and approved by the
Town.
iv. The Town will maintain accounting records of the grant in accordance with
the Town’s and DOLA’s procedures.
v. The Town will disburse Water Company’s funds and DOLA’s grant funds
to pay for Phase 1 in a 50/50 manner.
vi. Any funds remaining at the end of the project will be returned 50% to
Water Company and 50% to DOLA.
vii. The Water Company shall deposit the initial sum of $18,000 with the Town
within 30 days of notice from DOLA of its approval of the administrative grant.
3
viii. The Town shall consult with the Water Company in the review of all
proposals and selection of the professional engineering firm.
ix. The Town shall contract with the selected firm for Phase I and be
responsible for administration of the contract.
x. Upon receipt of the Phase 1 Report, the parties shall review the report,
and the Water Company shall determine whether or not to move forward with the
Plans and Specifications.
xi. Upon receipt of the Plans and Specifications, the Water Company shall
determine whether or not to move forward with the formation of the SID to fund
construction, and operation of a new distribution system (“Phase 2”) by written
notice to the Town.
B. In the event that the grant is not received by the Town, the parties agree
to either amend this MOU or either party may terminate this MOU by written notice to
the other party.
PHASE 2
1. Phase 2 shall consist of all tasks required to submit the loan application to the
Authority, form the SID, obtain loan approval, and construct the new distribution system.
A. The parties have determined that funding currently exists through the
EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund administered through the Authority. The
parties have determined that to provide funds for construction of the new system, the
appropriate method is to form a special improvement district (SID) pursuant to the
applicable state statutes. This process is as follows:
i. The Water Company shall be responsible for filing with the Town the
necessary petition and documentation requesting the formation of the SID.
ii. The Town shall process the petition for the formation of the SID pursuant
to the state statutes.
iii. The formation of the SID will require an election by the property owners
within the boundaries of the SID.
iv. The parties contemplate having this election at the regular Town municipal
election in April of 2016.
v. The Town shall be responsible for holding the election for the formation of
the SID including all necessary publications, election judges, and
administrative duties.
vi. Upon approval of the formation of the SID at this election, the Town shall
proceed to form the SID.
4
vii. The SID shall proceed to secure funding through the Authority’s process
for the construction the new distribution system.
B. In the event that the loan is not approved and received by the SID, or the
SID is unable to procure alternate funding, this MOU shall terminate.
2. Upon receipt of the approval of the funding from the Authority, the SID shall
proceed to obtain services for competitive bidding of the construction project. The SID
shall contract with the selected construction firm for construction of the new system.
The SID shall consult with the Water Company during the construction process.
3. Upon payment in full of all obligations of the SID, the SID shall be dissolved and
the Water Company shall transfer the entire water distribution system to the Town to
become part of the Town’s water utility system.
4. The Town shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the new
water system between the acceptance of the system by the Town and transfer of the
new system to the Town as set forth in Paragraph 3 above.
5. It is understood by the parties, that construction of the new system may include
the need to obtain easements from property owners within the SID area. The Water
Company shall be responsible for obtaining and providing easements to the Town for
the location and installation of the system on private property.
6. The Water Company shall be responsible for reimbursing the Town for all its
administrative, legal, including bond attorney if applicable, and any other costs incurred
by the Town in performing its duties and responsibilities pursuant to this MOU.
7. The Town shall provide the Water Company with periodic reports of all expenses
incurred by the Town.
8. Currently, there is a water storage tank owned by the Water Company on Lot 26
of the Park Entrance Estate Subdivision. The parties understand and agree that the
Town is not interested in, nor will accept, any responsibility for the water storage tank.
9. The Water Company shall be responsible for all of its old water distribution
system.
10. Water Development Charges. The parties understand and agree that all lots
within the SID have been credited with the appropriate amount of the bulk water rate
surcharge entitling all current lots receiving water service from the Water Company to
have fulfilled the financial requirement for a water tap fee for an individual customer of
the Town except for the vacant Lot 12B in the Park Entrance Estates. Future
5
connection to the Town’s water system for service to Lot 12B shall require payment of
the Town’s then current water development fee (tap fee).
11. Attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B is a proposed
timeline. The parties understand and agree this is a preliminary timeline, and this
timeline shall be modified by the Town if necessary.
Signed by the parties the ___ day of ____________, 2015.
Town of Estes Park Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and
Water Company
By: _______________________ By: _____________________
6
EXHIBIT A
7
EXHIBIT B, DRAFT SCHEDULE
Introductory Presentation/Project Charter 5/4/2015
Phase 1 Preliminary Application and loan requirements (pre- Details and Design) 2/12/2016
Phase 2
Formation of Special Improvement District (SID), Title 31, article 25, part 5,
C.R.S. 4/5/2016
Election, SID 4/5/2016
Loan Drinking Water Revolving Fund 8/10/2016
Construction 12/15/2016
Project Closeout 2/16/2017
Maintenance by Town, Ownership by SID until loan is paid off? 2/16/2045
Ownership transfer (deeded) from SID to Town (when bond is paid off) 2/17/2045
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District
Date: 4-14-15
RE: Estes Valley Community Recreation Center – Capital Campaign Director
Financial Contribution Request
Objective:
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) is requesting a contribution of
$50,000 from the Town of Estes Park to be utilized to fund year one of the capital
campaign expenses. EVRPD will match the $50,000 contribution for year one of the
capital campaign.
Present Situation:
Our goal is to raise $5 million dollars between 2015 and 2019 to assist in funding capital
construction of a future Estes Valley Community Recreation Center (EVCRC). Attached
as supporting documentation is a square footage breakdown and conceptual
layout/design of the spaces and facilities our community requested as indicated in the
feasibility study public scoping and surveying conducted in 2013-4.
In order to meet our capital campaign goal we need to have professionals hired to
conduct a formalized and professional capital campaign. EVRPD, nor any of the
EVCRC partners have the current resources to assign these important campaign efforts
to their staff or team of resources.
Proposal:
EVRPD proposes to hire a Campaign Director and assistant to professionally manage a
capital campaign for the EVCRC.
Please review the three attached documents titled “The Design for the Next Generation,
The Historic Collaboration to Build The Estes Valley Community Recreation Center”,
“The Anatomy of a Campaign To Build the Estes Valley Community Recreation Center
A Summary Document” & “Estes Valley Community Recreation Center Campaign
Director Suggested Qualifications, Credentials, Experiences and Responsibilities.”
Advantages:
Please review the three attached documents as referenced above.
Dedicated & Professional Leadership Staff for a Capital Campaign
Pro-Bono Leadership from a Historically Successful and Engaged Fundraising
Professional
Private and Philanthropy Funds Raised to Support Public Infrastructure Project
Strategic Planning for EVCRC
Consistent and Coordinated Communications Amongst Partners and the Community
Construction and Opening of the EVCRC
Long-term Model to be Utilized for Future Public Infrastructure Capital Campaigns
Disadvantages:
Zero Funds will be Raised for the EVCRC
o However, with the assistance and dedication from a historically successful
and engaged fundraising professional shepherding the efforts, our
opportunity to be successful is much greater than without this leadership.
Action Requested:
The Town of Estes Park Town Trustees and Mayor approve to appropriate $50,000
from the 2015 budget to assist in funding year one of an EVCRC capital campaign.
Budget:
$50,000
Level of Public Interest
High
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny of the appropriation of $50,000 from the 2015 budget to assist
in funding year one of an EVCRC capital campaign contingent upon EVRPD matching
this $50,000 contribution in budget year 2015.
The Design for the Next Generation
The Historic Collaboration to Build
The Estes Valley Community Recreation Center
The Mission
Build a facility designed to provide pooled resources offering recreation, childcare, health and
wellness opportunities, including education, athletic, medical and social services for residents of
and visitors to Estes Park and the region.
The Funding Goal
The funding required to build the Estes Park Community Recreation Center providing previously
defined benefits to residents of the town, the region and visitors is $25 million.
A Change in Paradigm
The Campaign to build the Center will be managed by a historic collaboration of Partners
committed to raising funds by creating a new fundraising paradigm in Estes Park, one with the
potential to serve other public/private projects for decades to come.
Challenges
Estes Park does not currently have a philanthropic platform (office and professionals) in place to
mount and operate a major philanthropic project with community service implications, nor are the
town's nonprofits equipped and experienced to engage in a collaborative, high dollar, strategic
campaign.
Over the years, several significant public/private projects have been introduced to the community
accompanied by unrealistic expectations and absent the required infrastructure and business
plans required for success. These experiences have fostered skepticism about the viability of
funding future such initiatives among potential donor sources in and beyond the town.
Three large projects in Estes Park are currently in some form of planning and/or development,
including the Wellness Center, the Community Recreation Center and the Performing Arts
Center. Each will require some level of private sector funding. Unless all three projects
strategically pursue funding sources beyond the town and state, it is highly unlikely all three will
be successful. To date, the Wellness Center appears best postured for success because of the
formation of relevant collaborations and the leadership and financial commitment demonstrated
by the ownership of the Stanley Hotel.
Time Line
The partnership will commit to a four-year campaign possibly comprised of two phases (the
quiet and public phases) activated by the final quarter of 2015, concluding when the required
funding is confirmed or not later than the end of 2019.
The Partners
The Campaign's Partners include the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Town of Estes
Park and Senior Citizens Center, the Estes Park School District R-3, the Estes Park Medical
Center, the Estes Valley Public Library District, CrossFit of Estes Park, Estes Valley Investment
in Childhood Success, Larimer County Food Bank, Larimer County Boys and Girls Club, and
Center Stage Dance, and additional potential partners. The Campaign will be jointly owned and
managed by the Partners and each will contribute to its operation and success in the form of
community advocacy, conduits to pre-qualified donor sources in and beyond Estes Park and
Colorado, dedicated revenue and/or cash commitments, in-kind services and products, volunteer
support, a formalized agreement, and oversight management.
Actions
The EVRPD will need to formalize collaborations with the Town and in particular the senior
center, the school district, the hospital, the library, Crossfit of Estes Park, Larimer County Boys
and Girls Club and possibly others. In this sense, collaborations are agreements defining the
kinds of support and services each entity is prepared to provide the campaign, defining each
entity's expectations, investments (both resources and dollars), affirming management and
reporting relationships and related matters.
Funds (not inclining sales tax revenue) will need to be committed to underwrite the campaign's
start up and early operation (possibly $200,000 supporting the campaign's first two years)
funding staff (an executive director and an assistant), the publication of collaterals, equipment,
travel, postage and mailing, expenses related to donor development events and functions and
related costs.
The campaign's partnership (the EVRPD, Town and its collaborators) will commit to developing
and implementing a responsible campaign plan led by qualified volunteers, managed by
prepared professionals, supported by the partnership and other sources and dedicated to
raising the volume of funding required to construct the Center and endow its operation.
Rules of Engagement
The partnership will develop and commit to the campaign's rules of engagement designed to
assure fairness, consistency, and compliance with laws and various regulations, codes and
policies. The rules will define the kinds of gifts that can be accepted, pledge payment schedules,
processes for acknowledging, announcing and thanking donors, applications of approved donor
benefits and naming opportunities, accounting and reporting and related matters.
The Management
The Campaign will be managed on a daily basis by an appointed Director functioning as a full-
time employee of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, managed by the District's
Executive Director, reporting to the Partner's Campaign Cabinet and operating in donated
office space. An experienced campaign consultant will advise the Campaign on a pro bono
basis, including assistance in developing the Campaign's budget and funding sources, rules of
engagement and operating protocols, inventory of gift opportunities at various price thresholds,
a compelling menu of donor benefits, the Campaign's stewardship and communications
strategies, publications of collaterals, production of proposals and grant applications and
development of gift and grant request strategies and processes.
The Cabinet
The Cabinet will serve as the Campaign's governing board comprised of appointed
representatives of the Partners, other residents of Estes Park and the region and leaders and
philanthropists in and beyond Colorado. The Cabinet will convene in quarterly meetings for the
duration of the Campaign and be kept informed in between meetings through the distribution of
reports and other kinds of communications. The Cabinet will share the responsibility of
operating and overseeing the Campaign, rendering decisions regarding its budget, philanthropic
strategies and related matters, monitoring all aspects of gift/grant requests and accounting and
creating and implementing metrics to annually measure the effectiveness and productivity of the
Campaign Director and all systems and procedures.
The Anatomy of Funding
As a public/private project, the Campaign will be dedicated to generating income from tax
revenue approved by Estes Park residents, grants from Colorado and national foundations, gifts
from individuals and families in and beyond Estes Park and Colorado, gifts and grants from
organizations committed to providing services in the Center and benefiting from its operation
and sponsorships from corporations desiring a presence in the Center and/or hosting annual
events, functions and activities
The Funding Focus
The Campaign's funding focus will be on the application of requests for seven-figure gifts and
grants from local and national pre-qualified donor sources until a Cabinet-approved percentage
of the total fundraising goal has been committed in cash gifts or documented pledges. As such,
the number of funding requests in the Campaign's early operation will be purposefully limited to
a select group of donor candidates. The Campaign will transition into a representative project
once a Cabinet-approved funding level has been achieved at which time gifts of all sizes will be
invited.
Funding Strategy
Members of the Cabinet will in appropriate ways assist in identifying potential donor sources
and in introducing them to the Campaign's mission and inventory of funding opportunities. The
Cabinet and other volunteers will also participate on "ask teams" inviting gifts and grants at the
highest levels in and beyond Colorado.
Managing Expectations
The Campaign Cabinet will manage the distribution of all Campaign-related announcements,
public statements, updates and progress reports introducing only authenticated and
documented information. The public will be kept updated with the Campaign's progress on a
regular basis for accountability and transparency.
The Anatomy of a Campaign
To Build the Estes Valley Community Recreation Center
A Summary Document
Preamble
A campaign to build a Community Recreation Center in Estes Park should be designed and operated as a
catalyst to generate public awareness by defining the myriad of kinds of services such a facility will provide,
raising public and private dollars to fund construction and endow the venue's annual operation and
establishing a philanthropic culture enabling EVRPD, the town and its affiliates to successfully
embrace future such initiatives.
Investment in the Future
The campaign could be postured as a historic collaboration among Estes Park and several of its
organizations, a movement dedicated to assuring a promising future for the town and region.
Challenges
Estes Park does not currently have a philanthropic platform (office and professionals) in place to mount and
operate a major philanthropic project with community service implications, nor are the town's nonprofits
equipped and experienced to engage in a collaborative, high dollar, strategic campaign.
Over the years, several significant public/private projects have been introduced to the community
accompanied by unrealistic expectations and absent the required infrastructure and business plans required
for success. These experiences have fostered skepticism about the viability of funding future such initiatives
among potential donor sources in and beyond the town.
Three large projects in Estes Park are currently in some form of planning and/or development, including the
Wellness Center, the Community Recreation Center and the Performing Arts Center. Each will require some
level of private sector funding. Unless all three projects strategically pursue funding sources beyond the
town and state, it is highly unlikely all three will be successful. To date, the Wellness Center appears best
postured for success because of the formation of relevant collaborations and the leadership and financial
commitment demonstrated by the ownership of the Stanley Hotel.
The Campaign
To plan, mount and operate a campaign to fund the Community Recreation Center will necessitate specific
actions by the EVRPD, Town and other partners that will require several essential components.
Actions
The EVRPD will need to formalize collaborations with the Town and in particular the senior center, the school
district, the hospital, the library, Crossfit of Estes Park, Larimer County Boys and Girls Club and possibly
others. In this sense, collaborations are agreements defining the kinds of support and services each entity is
prepared to provide the campaign, defining each entity's expectations, investments (both resources and
dollars), affirming management and reporting relationships and related matters.
Funds (not inclining sales tax revenue) will need to be committed to underwrite the campaign's start up and
early operation (possibly $200,000 supporting the campaign's first two years) funding staff (an executive
director and an assistant), the publication of collaterals, equipment, travel, postage and mailing, expenses
related to donor development events and functions and related costs.
The campaign's partnership (the EVRPD, Town and its collaborators) will commit to developing and
implementing a responsible campaign plan led by qualified volunteers, managed by prepared professionals,
supported by the partnership and other sources and dedicated to raising the volume of funding required to
construct the Center and endow its operation.
Essential Elements
Among the campaign's essential elements are the following:
The Partnership
The formation of the partnership (EVRPD, the town and other organizations) with clearly defined structure,
committed services, management and reporting relationships and expectations.
Staff
An executive director and assistant will be identified and engaged as full-time employees of the EVRPD,
Town or one of the partners, including compensation and benefits. Management and reporting will be
defined and metrics established to provide accountability and transparency measuring the effectiveness and
productivity of staff and systems.
Concept
The partnership will commit to engagement in a volunteer-lead campaign, supported by an executive
committee comprised of respected leaders from Estes Park, the state of Colorado and possibly other places.
Time Line
The partnership will commit to a four-year campaign possibly comprised of two phases (the quiet and public
phases) activated by the final quarter of 2015, concluding when the required funding is confirmed or not later
than the end of 2019.
Funding Purpose
The partnership will define the Center's mission in the broadest possible sense relative to the scope of its
services to the town and region. By doing so, the campaign's mission will be to seek funding to support the
venue's multiple services from an expanded base of donor sources.
Budget and Funding Source
The partnership will seed the campaign's start up and early operation. Thereafter, a gift fee of not more than
five cents per each donor dollar will be imposed and dedicated to helping support the campaign's operation
with donors informed of the fee and its intended purpose at the time their commitments are invited. The
campaign's four-year budget will determine the amount of the gift fee.
Rules of Engagement
The partnership will develop and commit to the campaign's rules of engagement designed to assure
fairness, consistency, and compliance with laws and various regulations, codes and policies. The rules will
define the kinds of gifts that can be accepted, pledge payment schedules, processes for acknowledging,
announcing and thanking donors, applications of approved donor benefits and naming opportunities,
accounting and reporting and related matters.
Funding Priorities
The partnership will agree to focus the campaign on generating unrestricted gifts and grants for design and
construction, but include restricted gift opportunities supporting specific elements within the Center which
may be of special interest to certain donor sources. Gifts and grants supporting the Center's operating
endowment will also be pursued.
Communications
The partnership will commit to developing and implementing a campaign communications plan managed by
staff designed to report and communicate on a regular schedule to all of the campaign's stakeholders and
dedicated constituencies and to manage expectations.
Estes Valley Community Recreation Center
Campaign Director
Suggested Qualifications, Credentials, Experiences and Responsibilities
Credentials
Candidates will have an earned undergraduate baccalaureate degree from an accredited
college or university.
Experience
Candidates will have five or more years of experience working in the philanthropic department
of a nonprofit organization managing annual and/or campaign fundraising programs, projects
and initiatives or comparable experiences.
Skills
Candidates will have excellent interpersonal skills, a record of successfully managing people
and projects and demonstrated organization ability.
Location
Preferably, candidates will live in or near Estes Park and be familiar with the town and many
of its residents and leaders, a condition that will eliminate both the time and expense of
relocation and additional time to develop essential relationships and credibility.
Reporting, Benefits and Accountability
The Campaign Director will be a full-time employee of EVRPD, eligible to receive
benefits available to other full-time employees of EVRPD.
The Campaign Director will take direction from and report to the EVRPD Executive Director with
defined "dotted line" communication responsibilities to the Town Administrator.
The Campaign Director's performance will be evaluated annually by means of metrics
mutually developed and agreed to by the Campaign Director, EVRPD Executive Director
and Town Administrator.
Responsibilities
The Campaign Director will manage the day to day operation of a comprehensive campaign
to generate public awareness and raise private sector funding to construct the Estes Valley
Community Recreation Center, including but not limited to the following responsibilities:
Help recruit, train and manage volunteers engaged in the campaign as members of the
Campaign Cabinet and in other ways;
Help develop the campaign's mission and case statements;
Help develop priced gift thresholds accompanied by appropriate donor incentives and
benefits;
Manage national, state and local research to identify potential donor sources (individuals,
families, foundations and corporations);
Manage the production of compelling print and electronic collateral materials and proposals for
donor sources in and beyond Estes Park;
Manage individual and group donor prospecting meetings with members of the Campaign
Cabinet and others in and beyond Estes Park translating data collected into relevant
action strategies;
Manage the planning and execution of Campaign Cabinet meetings in Estes Park, on location
and by means of teleconference, including the development of agendas, confirmation of
attendance, preparation of volunteers and materials and inclusion of timely calls to action;
Manage the confirmation of appointments for volunteers and others with donor sources to
invite gifts/grants;
Manage the preparation of materials for all campaign gifts and grant requests and the design
and execution of follow up strategies after requests;
Develop and implement the campaign's communications plan dedicated to managing
expectations and keeping all stakeholders and dedicated constituencies informed, empowered
and inspired;
Develop, implement and manage the campaign's stewardship plan designed to
acknowledge donors at all funding levels for tax purposes and to express gratitude;
Develop, implement and manage the campaign's gift income accounting and reporting
plan in compliance with generally approved accounting practices;
Manage the campaign's donor introduction and cultivation projects and events, ensure that data
related to prospects and donors is recorded and tracked in electronic and hard copy files;
Manage the preparation and production of the campaign's special events;
Develop metrics and track integrated campaign effectiveness utilizing internal reporting and
system audits and then design and report on program outcomes/ progress to internal and
external constituents;
Routinely analyze data and troubleshoot to understand issues and identify solutions; proactively
plan for contingencies;
Oversee quality control and ensure approvals;
Other duties as assigned
Comments
The responsibility schedule generally defined in this document suggests the need to engage
both a Campaign Director and Executive Assistant to embrace a scope of philanthropic
initiatives at a professional quality level essential to raising the funds required to construct the
Community Recreation Center. As implied in the schedule, the campaign would be operated at
a higher quality threshold than any previous philanthropic undertaking in Estes Park's history
raising the funds required to construct the Center while concurrently establishing an enhanced
fundraising culture enabling the town to address future projects effectively.
It is probable no professional currently residing in or around Estes Park has the qualifications,
breadth of experience and/or dedicated time to accept appointment to be Campaign Director.
However, it is probable that educated, energetic professionals do reside in or around Estes Park
committed to a vibrant future for the town and region that could be trained, guided and
supported by the campaign's experienced pro bono counsel to the extent required to become a
successful Campaign Director.
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTRECREATION CENTER STUDYGRAPHIC NORTHMAIN LEVEL2013-03216 JUNE 2014SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"05025100
ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTRECREATION CENTER STUDYGRAPHIC NORTHMAIN LEVEL2013-03216 JUNE 2014SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"05025100
2013-03216 JUNE 2014ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTRECREATION CENTER STUDYGRAPHIC NORTHUPPER LEVELSCALE: 1" = 50'-0"05025100
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE
April 27, 2010
Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town
Board.
Limited Purposes.
Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not oc cur at
any executive session.
Procedure.
Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce
the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be
discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated
below. Prior to entering into an executive session, t he Mayor shall state whether or not
any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the
executive session.
1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest – Section 24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S.
2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S.
3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law,
rule, or regulation – Section 24-6-402(4)(c), C.R.S.
4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations –
Section 24-6-402(4)(d), C.R.S.
5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and /or instructing
negotiators – Section 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S.
6. For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person
to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non -disclosure
provision of the Colorado Open Records Act – Section 24-6-402(4)(g), C.R.S.
2
Electronic Recording.
A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be
made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or
malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the
Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor.
The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the
specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording
or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the
Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the
executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be
maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the
Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance
of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by
the Board at a subsequent executive session.
If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is
present at the executive session, “all or a portion” of the discus sion constitutes
attorney-client privileged communications:
1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion.
2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from
the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session
constituted, in the attorney’s opinion, privileged attorney-client communications.
The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that
the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic
or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open
Meetings Law.
Executive Session Motion Format.
Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of
the statutory provision authorizing the executive session.
THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
_ For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) – initiated
ordinances for the sale and use of Town-owned property.
_ For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e).
3
____ To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or
other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a).
_ _ For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
____ For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal
or state law, rule or regulation: under C.R.S. Section 24-
6-402(4)(c).
_ X _ For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements under C.R.S.
Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
____ For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure
provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g).
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR
IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the
details): .
The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum
present.
Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes.
Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.R.S., the Town Clerk shall retain the
electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day
period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day
period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24 -72-
204(5.5) C.R.S.
If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved
and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event tha t the
next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session,
the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next
executive session and then immediately destroyed.
4
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED
ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO
ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
It is ____Tuesday, April 14, 2014___, and the time is (state time)_.
For the Record, I am ___Bill Pinkham _________________, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro
Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, the executive
session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(d) discussion of specialized details of
security arrangements, is not being electronically recorded.
Also present at this executive session are the following person(s):__ Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig, Trustees John Ericson, Bob Holcomb, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and John
Phipps. (Also include any others who will be present for the executive session in this
announcement.)
This is an executive session for the following:
For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements under C.R.S.
Section 24-6-402(4)(d).
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive
session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is
outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion
and make an objection.
The close of the executive session is in the Mayor’s discretion and does not require a
motion for adjournment of the executive session.
The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open
meeting.
After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in
open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by
the Town Board.