HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-12-09NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
The 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.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION – “Colorado Spirit Mountain Outreach Day”.
PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD. Finance Officer McFarland.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 25, 2014; Town Board Special Study
Session Minutes dated December 2, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services, November 20, 2014, Cancelled.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 4, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
5. Clifton Larson Allen Engagement Letter – 2014 Financial Audit.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUORS
INC. DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUORS TO KNH I&E INC. DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUOR, 350 W. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, RETAIL
LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
Prepared 11/30/14
*Revised: 12/04/14
*
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk
Williamson.
2. ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. RESOLUTION #34-14 - 2014 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS.
Finance Officer McFarland.
4. RESOLUTION #35-14 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DEVOLUTION OF BUSINESS HWY 34 FROM
MORAINE TO WONDERVIEW. Director Muhonen.
5. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE BID REVIEW. Director
Muhonen.
6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER FOR
SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE. Director Bergsten.
7. SPECIAL EVENT VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS - G105A, G117 &G126. Manager
McEachern.
8. SUPPORT FOR 2015 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ENTRANCE FEE
SCHEDULE.
4. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 3RD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland.
5. ADJOURN.
MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE:
The Town Board meeting scheduled December 23, 2014 has been cancelled.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 25, 2014
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 25th day of November, 2014.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION.
Mayor Pinkham presented a proclamation for Giving Tuesday/Colorado Gives Day
beginning at midnight on Tuesday, December 9, 2014. This annual statewide
movement celebrates and increases philanthropy in Colorado through online giving.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris thanked the Bear Task Force for their efforts during the 2014.
Communication has been the key in bringing the issue to the forefront for businesses,
homeowners and visitors. It was noted the Town appearance has improved with the
initiative.
Trustee Holcomb congratulated staff on a job well done in lighting up the downtown
area for the holidays.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig recognized the Best Western Saddle Inn for winning Best
Western’s “Chairman’s Award” for superior quality and service. This award is presented
to the top 5% of the North American chains.
Trustee Phipps reviewed the items from the November 18, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting, including the review and approval of a development plan for Mountain Center
at the YMCA with a height variance approved by the Board of Adjustment for a climbing
wall. The Planning Commission Chair and Community Development Director would
attend the upcoming interviews for the Planning Commission on December 2, 2014.
The County Commissioners approved the new bylaws for the Planning Commission at
their recent meeting. The Planning Commission was advised the Town Board would
discuss the visioning of the downtown at a study session on January 13, 2015.
Trustee Nelson stated the extension of the Open Space tax was approved by the voters
with an 82% affirmative vote. The Open Lands Advisory Board approved the purchase
of the Devil’ backbone below the keyhole.
Board of Trustees – November 25, 2014 – Page 2
Trustee Ericson stated the Transportation Advisory Committee held their regularly
scheduled meeting and discussed tasks the Board would be reviewing. He stated the
new lights have added a nice touch to downtown. Saturday is small business Saturday
and encouraged the citizens to shop locally. Restorative Justice held a fundraising
diner at Mama Roses this weekend with over 102 in attendance.
Mayor Pinkham reiterated the success of the new tree lighting downtown. He
mentioned the new AM radio station would be up and running with updated
broadcasting beginning January 2015. This Friday after Thanksgiving the Town would
present the Catch the Glow parade and encouraged everyone to attend.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Urban Land Institute report has been released and a copy would be provided to
each of the Board members. The report discusses resiliency issues after the
September 2013 flood for Estes Park, Fort Collins and Loveland.
On Monday, December 1, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board room the North Front Range
Metropolitan organization would be in Estes Park to provide an overview of the Van Go
program. He encouraged the local businesses to attend to learn more about the
carpooling program to provide transportation to employees from the valley.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 11, 2014 and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated November 11, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, November 13, 2014:
1. Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power Authority
(PRPA) and PRPA Municipal Members for Mutual Aid for Power
Operations.
4. Transportation Advisory Committee dated October 15, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated October 16, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission dated October 21, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS
1. STIPULATION AGREEMENT - EVEREST KITCHEN LLC, DBA FAMOUS
EASTSIDE GROCERIES, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% BEER OFF
PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the Board
with a stipulation agreement in lieu of a show cause hearing. The agreement
was reviewed at the November 11, 2014 meeting and tabled because the
licensee was not available. Mr. Bipin Shrestha was present at the meeting to
discuss the violation and efforts to ensure further violations do not occur. The
agreement considered the violation a second offense within two years and
outlines a 21 day suspension with 14 days served and 7 days held in
abeyance. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve the
Board of Trustees – November 25, 2014 – Page 3
Stipulation Agreement with Everest Kitchen LLC, dba Famous Eastside
Groceries, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. CONSENT ITEM:
1. CONDOMINIUM MAP, Supplemental Condominium Map #7, Stone
Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1125 Fish Creek road, Kingswood
Homes/Owner. Planner Kleisler.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Consent
Agenda with the Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed
unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision (Falcon Ridge),
TBD Red Tail Hawk Drive, Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the application stating the amended plat would
vacate existing easements and dedicate new easements necessary for
the Falcon Ridge development plan. The original development plan
application proposed a 66 unit development with buildings along the
southern property line. The new and Planning Commission approved
plan proposes a 48 unit development with buildings located along the
north end of the site. Planning Commission recommended unanimous
approval of the amended plat as presented at its October 21, 2014
meeting. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the
Amended Plat of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision with the
Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed with Trustee
Holcomb abstaining.
2. FEE WAIVER, Waiver of fees for Amended Plat of Lot 4, Good
Samaritan Subdivision (Falcon Ridge), Estes Park Housing
Authority/Owner. Planner Kleisler presented the fee waiver request for
the Amended Plat application. At the July 22, 2014 Town Board meeting
the Board approved a fee waiver request for the Falcon Ridge project
estimated at $56,422 for the development review and building permit
fees. This request is for the additional Amended Plat application and
administrative costs of $760. It was moved and seconded
(Ericson/Phipps) to approve the fee waiver for the Amended Plat of
Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision, and it passed unanimously.
4. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY UPDATE. Director Rita Kurelja
provided an update on the Falcon Ridge project. The complex was completely
redesigned and contains 48 units consisting of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom rental units.
The units will rent from $351- $765 for a one bedroom, $424 - $921 for a two
bedroom, and $681 - $1,063 for a three bedroom. The units would serve those
earning between 30% - 60% of the area median income. Construction of the
complex would begin approximately March 1, 2015 with a 9 month construction
timeline. Leasing of the units would begin at the end of 2015. The current
financing including tax credit equity, permanent mortgage, CDBG-DR and Town
fee waivers leaves a gap of $503,752 to complete the project. The Housing
Authority requested the Town Board consider waiving the water tap fees of
$396,606 to help fund the project. The Housing Authority would also provide
assistance to the Estes Park Economic Development Council in addressing
housing issues, work on seasonal housing concerns, land, Cleave Street
apartments as no smoking units, and be involved in the Colorado Association of
Ski Town (CAST) discussions on housing and methods to address housing in
Board of Trustees – November 25, 2014 – Page 4
resort communities. The Authority presented the Town with a final payment of
the loan for the purchase of the Pines apartment complex, a mix of senior
housing and market rate condominiums. The Town provided $2.7 million to the
Authority in 2006 for the purchase. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Norris
requested the Board discuss at an upcoming study session the use of the loan
repayment funds to pay for the water tap fees for the Falcon Ridge project.
2. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE. Director Muhonen
informed the Board the Town received four bids for the parking structure with a
range of $5.3 million to $6.3 million. Three of the four bids were disqualified
leaving only one successful bid at $5.75 million. The current successful bid
would require the Town to fund the $1.9 million shortfall or build just the shell
for $4.3 million. If the Town moves forward with the project, construction would
not be complete before the summer session. He would suggest the Board
reject the bids and start a new bid process. The topic would be discussed at a
special study session meeting on December 2, 2014.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk Williamson
stated interviews for two Town appointed position on the Local Marketing
District Board were held on November 18, 2014 following the Town’s adopted
policy governance. The interview team recommended the reappointment of
Lindsay Lamson and the appointment of Karen Ericson for 4-year terms
expiring on December 31, 2018. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) the reappointment of Lindsay Lamson and appointment
of Karen Ericson to the Local Marketing District beginning January 1,
2015 for a 4-year term expiring on December 31, 2018, and it passed with
Trustee Ericson recusing himself.
2. 2015 STRATEGIC PLAN. Administrator Lancaster presented the Board with
the final 2015 Board objectives developed as part of the Strategic Plan. The
plan and the objectives provide direction for staff activities and the use of
resources in the coming year. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson)
to approve the adoption of the 2015 Board of Trustees’ objectives and to
incorporate these annual objectives in the Town of Estes Park Strategic
Plan, and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – 2015 BUDGET – ADOPTION. Mayor Pinkham opened
the public hearing. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the adoption process
and recapped the previous budget presentation at the November 11, 2014
public hearing. He presented the Highway User’s Trust Fund stating the funds
consist of shared revenues, primarily derived from the fuel tax and vehicle
registrations, and estimated at $259,377 for 2015. The funds would be utilized
for street improvement projects, snow removal, vehicle and equipment usage,
and traffic control. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve
the Highway User’s Trust Fund, and it passed unanimously.
Finance Officer McFarland continued with the presentation of Resolution #29-
14 to set the mill levy, required to allow the Town to levy and collect property
taxes. For 2015 the mill levy would be set at 1.822 mills yielding $315,763.
The town’s property values have decreased approximately 3% or $11,000. The
total taxable assessed valuation has declined 7% in the past two years. It was
moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve Resolution #29-14, and it
passed unanimously.
Resolution #30-14 would adopt the 2015 budget and Resolution #31-14
appropriates sums of money to execute the budget and states that revenues
within each fund are sufficient to support the expenditures.
Board of Trustees – November 25, 2014 – Page 5
Elizabeth Fogarty/Visit Estes Park (VEP) CEO & President thanked the Board
for the Town’s investment in 2014 after the flood. Visit Estes Park requested
additional investment in the organization of $25,000 in 2015 to continue to grow
the marketing efforts of the organization. Bill Almond/Local Marketing District
Board Chair encouraged the Town Board to consider the request by VEP and
the opportunity of the Town to invest in the expertise of the organization’s staff
in marketing the Town of Estes Park and the events of the Town.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve Resolution #30-14,
and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve Resolution #31-
14, and it passed unanimously.
3. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT AT
215 VIRGINIA DRIVE. Engineer Ash presented a contract with Osmun
Construction to repair a rock retaining wall along Virginia Drive damaged during
the 2013 flood. Initially it was understood the wall was on private property;
however, through further survey it was determined the wall was within the right-
of-way. The request for assistance with the repair was denied by FEMA. The
project was advertised and two bids were received. Osmun Construction was
the low bid at $57,921.70. A new Redi-Rock gravity wall system would be
installed along the 75 foot length. It was moved and seconded
(Nelson/Holcomb) to approve the construction contract for a retaining wall
replacement at 215 Virginia Drive to Osmun Inc., in the amount of
$57,921.70, and it passed unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION #32-14 EXTENDING WAIVER OF UTILITY MONTHLY
BASE/MINIMUM CHARGES FOR 2013 FLOOD VICTIMS WITH HOMES AND
BUSINESSES RENDERED UNINHABITABLE. Director Bergsten presented
the resolution that would extend Resolution #32-13 approved by the Town
Board in November 2013 to grant temporary suspension of fixed monthly
minimum utility charges for customers who were victims of the 2013 flood with
their homes or businesses heavily damages or destroyed. Resolution #32-14
would extend the suspension for four additional years, expiring on October 1,
2018 and would be retroactive to October 1, 2014 or until service has been
restored. It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) to approve
Resolution #32-14, waiving monthly minimum utility charges for these
specified customers, and it passed unanimously.
5. ROOFTOP RODEO STOCK CONTRACT. Director Winslow stated the current
contract for rodeo stock with Powder River has expired. Staff identified eight
qualified PRCA stock contractors with the capability of producing the Rooftop
Rodeo and sent requests for bids to each. Three contractors responded with
proposals; Powder River Rodeo, Carr Pro Rodeo and Cervi Championship
Rodeo. The other potential bidders were either unable to produce the rodeo
during the timeframe requested or did not send back a response. The bids
were evaluated by Town staff and Western Heritage using the following criteria:
contractor experience, stock quality, ability to work within the team concept,
fees, and new ideas to continue to make the Rooftop Rodeo the best rodeo.
After the evaluation process it was recommended that Cervi Championship
Rodeo be awarded the contract for 2015-2017 with an option to extend the
contract for 2018 and 2019. The new contractor would bring new ideas and
energy to the rodeo and the parade, and address issues from the past. Cervi
has planned a tour that would require contestants to enter into three rodeos in
order to qualify for additional prizes; their fee would be less than the Town has
paid in the past; Cervi offers an option to continue with some of the same key
personnel; they are a leader in the industry producing some of the largest
rodeos in the nation; and they own over 650 bucking horses and 115 bulls
making them one of the largest rodeo stock companies in the nation.
Board of Trustees – November 25, 2014 – Page 6
Mike Cossoda/Western Heritage CEO & President thanked staff for the
opportunity to participate in the selection process for the new stock contractor.
He stated the process involved 14 members of Western Heritage who reviewed
each of the proposals and made a recommendation to Director Winslow.
Binion and Chase Cervi/Cervi Championship Rodeo were present and stated
the family run company has been in business for 48 years. They are a diverse
company that provide services to rodeos of all sizes and operate one of the
largest rodeos in the world in Houston, Texas. The advantage that Cervi has
over other vendors is location. They are located in Greeley, Colorado and can
work closely with staff and Western Heritage. They would utilize ideas used in
difficult rodeo venues to help address concerns of staff and the committee to
make the Rooftop Rodeo the best rodeo.
Board comments were heard and are summarized: questioned the quality of
the stock and the ability to provide good stock for the Rooftop Rodeo; could the
funds saved on the stock contract be used to increase the prize money and
attract more talent to the rodeo; appreciated the collaboration of the Town staff
and Western Heritage and the expertise and innovation of Cervi; and how
would the new contractor be evaluated and success determined.
Ken Smith/Town citizen stated he has known Mike Cervi for 50 years and
stated Cervi would produce a very good show for Estes Park.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Koenig) to approve the stock contract
agreement with Cervi Championship Rodeo for the Rooftop Rodeo for the
years 2015, 2016 and 2017 with an option to extend for 2018 and 2019, and
it passed unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION #33-14 SETTING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ALLOW THE
TOWN THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE ADVANCED, TELECOMMUNICATION,
AND CABLE TV SERVICES. Town Clerk Williamson presented the resolution
to set a Special Municipal Election on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 to pose the
question to the citizen’s of Estes Park on whether or not the Town should be
allowed to provide some level of high speed internet service to the citizens.
The resolution would set the election as an all mail ballot election and
designate the Town Clerk as the Designated Election Official, thereby giving
authority to complete all aspects of the election. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Norris) to approve Resolution #33-14, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado December 2, 2014
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
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 2nd day of December, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Director Muhonen and Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent: None.
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris stated he reviewed the Urban Land Institute report and found it contained
a lot of useful information. He requested the report be discussed at a study session
during the first quarter of 2015.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The future study session agenda list was reviewed and the following are the outcomes:
Discussion of Board policy 1.4.7.2 Special Trustee Assignments and Trustee
participation in community committees and groups in place of Community
Service Grant discussion on December 9, 2014.
Reschedule Community Service Grant discussion to January 13, 2015.
Possibility of joining the RTD scheduled for February 10, 2015.
Consistency of Interviewing for appointed Boards added to December 9, 2014.
Discuss use of funds repaid by the Housing Authority added to December 9,
2014.
Remove logo discussion from list of potential topics.
Flood plain fees discussion would be heard by the Community
Development/Community Services Committee and removed from the potential
topics for study session list.
EDC report would be added to the Town Administrator’s report at the Town
Board meeting to update the Board on EDC activities.
ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE.
Director Muhonen provided the Board with an overview of the current location of the
parking structure east of the Visitor Center on the north side of the river, including land
ownership, proximity of the structure to the highway, utility location, and access by both
vehicles and shuttles. He further indicated the shuttles would be required in the current
configuration to use the west entrance and exit closer to the Elkhorn/Hwy 34/Hwy 36
intersection. The traffic impact study completed for the project demonstrated the shuttle
delay for a left hand turn out of the parking lot could be up to 10 minutes, thereby further
impacting the congestion in the area.
The Town submitted a request for bids on the project and received four bids. Three of
the four bids did not meet the federal bid requirements and were eliminated from
consideration. The remaining bid was the third highest bid at $5.7 million for the full
structure. Director Muhonen indicated the Town could rebid the project; however,
substantial reductions in cost would not be realized. He would recommend reducing the
Town Board Study Session – December 2, 2014 – Page 2
requirements of the contractors to have experience with precast structure similar to the
complexity of a parking structure in an effort to receive additional bids. The request for
bids was limited to bidders with specific experience constructing parking structures.
The project budget summary was reviewed and noted that five funding sources,
including FTA, FHWA, CDOT, Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park
were involved in bringing the project forward. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned the
level of funding by the Park and suggested the Town request additional funding. The
total project funding to date of $4.9 million has been utilized to fund design costs, NEPA
process, bidding and construction administration, and other miscellaneous items for a
total expense of $1.1 million. The Town has approximately $3.77 million to build the
project. To reduce the cost of construction administration, staff would recommend
hiring a limited term project manager to oversee the parking structure, thereby providing
additional funds for construction.
The bids received did not include the restrooms; however the following deducts were
requested:
Deduct Alternate #1 - Stone base on the lower level
Deduct Alternate #2 – Heavy timber porch located on the lower pedestrian area
Deduct Alternate #3 – Perforated metal and heavy timber cladding
Deduct Alternate #4 – Heavy timber staircase
Additive Alternate – Electric car charges
Director Muhonen presented the Board with four options to move forward, including
Option 1 – Award bid to responsive bidder, Option 2 – Rebid the project at the current
location, Option 3 – Revise the design and bid the project located in the southern
parking lot across the river from the Visitor Center, and Option 4 – Cancel the project
and reject the bids. Option 3 would move the parking structure to the south campus of
the Visitor Center complex and be located largely on Bureau of Reclamation property
adjacent to the golf course. The new location would create 190 new parking spaces,
increase the foot print of the parking structure by 15 feet, preserve the current parking at
the Visitor Center on the north side of the campus including RV spaces, maintain
current access for the shuttles thereby decreasing traffic congestion otherwise created
by the parking structure on the north side, decrease the cost per parking stall from
approximately $79,000 with current bid to approximately $38,000, require a special use
permit by the Bureau of Reclamation and a new NEPA study (a year long process),
reduce the cost of utility relocation, reduce visual impact as the first level of the structure
would be below grade, and increase the cost with a new design process required. For
approximately $1 million in additional funding the Town could double the parking at the
Visitor Center campus. Further reductions in construction cost could be realized with
the elimination of decorative costs with the structure below grade. An additional option
would be to leave the parking structure on the north side and relocate the shuttles to the
south parking lot with some minor modifications.
Director Muhonen met with the Bureau of Reclamation and received support for the
parking structure at the south location. The NEPA study would be conducted by the
agency with the Town picking up the cost of approximately $75,000 to $100,000. The
Bureau would not charge the Town for the use of the property and would investigate the
potential of conveying the property to the Town if the parking structure is built. The
access to and from the parking structure would remain the same as the current
configuration as there is no competing traffic adjacent to the parking lot with the
undeveloped hillside.
The Town has clarified with the funding agencies that the funds allocated for the project
could be extended and the Town would not be at risk of losing the funding. The funds
must be used to develop a parking structure outside of the downtown corridor to
intercept cars before they reach downtown. CDOT was not aware of the increase traffic
impact created by the design of the structure at the north location.
Town Board Study Session – December 2, 2014 – Page 3
Administrator Lancaster stated the Town has reviewed the budget and would support
the additional funding of $1.3 million. The funds could come from the sale of Lot 4 - $1
million, $70,000 match not needed for the Sarbane trail grant, and savings from the
MPEC project. This would provide the Town with funding to build the basic structure
and build the additional decorative features in phases. The Town may find its self in a
better position a year from now with flood recovery efforts wrapping up and
reimbursements received, allowing for additional funds to be used on the project. The
Town may reach out to the funding agencies to discuss the new option to increase the
parking and ask for additional funding.
The Board consensus was to move forward with rebidding the project on the southern
parking lot. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig suggested a shuttle lane from the Fairgrounds
transportation hub be investigated linking the two locations and providing an incentive to
use the outlining parking lot. The new location would be less impactful to the visitors
and allow construction to take place during the summer, which is normally cheaper than
winter construction. Trustee Ericson requested staff provide a project timeline as soon
as possible. Staff stated the project once construction begins has been estimated at 10
months for full completion.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board:Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom,
Pete Smith, and Don Darling
Attending:Chair Lynch, Members Moreau, Newsom, Smith, and Darling
Also Attending:Senior Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent:None
Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance.
He introduced the Board members and staff. Member Darling is the newest member of
the Board, residing outside the Town limits in the Windcliff area. His expertise in
construction will make him a valuable asset to the Board of Adjustment.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence. There were two people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the October 7, 2014 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau)to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0, with Member Darling abstaining.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE.
Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the High Drive
area, and was developed in the 1930s as a summer cabin. The lot is zoned E-1–Estate,
which has a one acre minimum lot size. This lot is approximately ¼ acre. Planner Shirk
explained the how lot size related to setbacks; larger lot, larger setbacks. The E-1 district
has a minimum setback from all property lines of 25 feet. The lot being reviewed today is
only 45 feet wide, and very undersized for the zone district. Due to the E-1 zoning, any
improvements require a variance.
Planner Shirk stated a variance on this property was approved is 2003; however, the
property owner at that time never followed through with the project, and the approval
became null and void. The new property owner would like to make some improvements to
the existing single-family dwelling. The improvements would include an addition to the
south, with a new deck to the south of the new addition. The application was routed to
affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The next door neighbor shared
concerns about the possibility of having to connect to the sewer main. He spoke with
UTSD and the concern was resolved. Planner Shirk stated the existing structure has a
septic system and is connected to the Hondius water system. The water system serves
the majority of the High Drive area; the Town provides the water, and the Hondius system
distributes it. It is not a year-round system. Planner Shirk stated if the septic system was
not adequate for the proposed improvements, the property owner would be required to
connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District’s sewer lines. The property owner will
work with the Larimer County Health Department to ensure compliance with the septic
issue.
Staff Findings
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
November 4, 2014
1. Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions exist relating to lot size and
width. The existing house was built before setbacks were established. With present
setback requirements, the entire house is considered non-conforming.
2. In determining practical difficulty, staff finds the following:
a. Residential use may continue. The current 547 square foot structure, built in 1935,
is small relative to today’s standards and when compared with the surrounding
neighborhood, which has an average size of 923 square feet.
b. The variance is not substantial.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with
the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent with
the size and character of surrounding homes.
d. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public
services for this variance.
e. The applicant purchased the property in 2005, after the adoption of the current
setback standards.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance, staff finds the existing house is entirely nonconforming to setback
standards; therefore, it is impossible to do any expansion without a variance. The
only other option for the applicant is to purchase an adjacent property, combine
both lots, and rebuild to meet setbacks.
3. Staff finds the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general and
recurrent in nature.
4. Staff finds the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot.
5. Staff finds the variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
6. Staff finds residential uses are permitted in the E-1–Estate zone district.
7. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor
verify building placement.
Staff and Member Discussion
None.
Public Comment
Steve Lane/applicant representative stated if the setbacks were sized for this particular lot,
they would be 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet. He stated if the previous owner would
have followed through with the proposed project (in 2005), it would have triggered a
requirement to connect to the sewer system. The current proposed plan is to add a bedroom,
which will not increase the use of the septic system. He stated the property owner desires to
have additional square footage for summer use.
Richard Jensen/County resident was not opposed to the variance. He was in attendance to
gain a better understanding of the request. He stated the improvements would still be in
character with the neighborhood.
Board and Staff Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. Full compliance with applicable building codes, approved site plan, and building plans.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from the
Hondius Water System stating there is adequate water supply to the proposed
addition.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain any necessary
acquisition of sewer easement(s) and shall connect to the sewer or receive approval of
the Larimer County Health Department for the current septic system.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall notify the Larimer County
Health Department regarding abandonment of the existing septic system.
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
November 4, 2014
5. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land
surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
6. Compliance with email from Larimer County Chief Building Official dated October 22,
2014.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom)to approve the variance request with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0.
4. REPORTS
A. Planner Shirk reported on the Sombrero Ranch variance. The applicant is moving
forward and will begin hauling this week. All the issues with the various agencies,
associations, property owners, etc. have been resolved. He stated the project has
been scaled down. There is more immediate repair work than originally thought, and
some of the material to be stockpiled will now be taken directly to the repair sites. The
end result for the stockpile at Sombrero Ranch will be approximately one acre in size
rather than two acres, and the new road will not be needed because fewer trucks will
be going onto the property.
B. Planner Shirk shared information relating to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC). To provide continuing education to the Board, he reviewed the purpose of
setbacks, which are the most common reason for a variance request. The purpose of
setbacks is to ensure the structures are built on the property and not over the property
line. Setbacks ensure dwellings are in the right place, and allow for some perimeters
around the property lines for utilities, fire protection, emergency vehicle access, and
privacy. Other purposes are to allow for adequate air and light circulation. Lastly,
setbacks are established for aesthetics and to maintain character in neighborhoods.
C. Planner Shirk explained the process for Staff-Level Minor Modifications. Staff is
allowed to grant minor modifications to certain development standards up to 10% of
the setback requirement. Sometimes there are no issues, other times the modification
is difficult and uncomfortable, depending on the density of the neighborhood.
Therefore, staff has begun sending neighbor notices for all staff-level reviews. If there
are objections, staff can upgrade the level of review to a Board review. This
notification practice is fairly recent, and was put in place to be more transparent with
adjacent property owners.
D. Planner Shirk reported on a possible policy concerning deck replacements. He stated
many decks were originally permitted prior to the EVDC and current setback
requirements. If the property owner desires to replace the existing deck, a variance is
required; no grandfathering is allowed. Staff asked for feedback on a proposed policy
to consider those deck situations as normal repair and maintenance, which would not
require a variance. In order for the deck to qualify for the variance waiver, it would
need to have been permitted when originally built. Decks built without permits, within
the setbacks, would not qualify for the variance waiver. Instead, these situations could
be handled similar to minor modifications, where the neighbors would be notified. If no
objections were received, staff would move forward with a staff-level review. If
objections were received, the application would move to the Board of Adjustment for
review. The proposed policy for permitted decks would save applicants the $500 fee,
in addition to a six-week waiting period. Member Moreau inquired about the
requirement of a variance only if it was more than a certain percentage into the
setback. Planner Shirk stated decks are allowed up to 30% into the setback, if
constructed at grade. Fire codes also come into play with structures near property
lines. Member Newsom was in favor of the policy. Planner Shirk clarified this policy
would not apply if the variance request encroached into a utility easement. He would
work on a draft policy and bring it to the Board in early 2015.
E. Planner Shirk explained the definition of a building envelope, stating it is lines drawn
on a plat that establishes setbacks for that particular parcel. Structures can only be
built within those lines, or building envelope. Building envelopes cannot be granted
variances, because they are part of the plat, rather than setbacks required in the
development code. Changes to building envelopes require an amended plat, which is
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Recommendations are made by the Planning
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
November 4, 2014
Commission to either the Town Board or the County Commission, depending on the
location of the parcel. As an example, Thunder Mountain Subdivision established
building envelopes when the subdivision was originally created. Those envelopes
have since been vacated, and the standard zoning regulations now apply.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:33
a.m.
___________________________________
John Lynch, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
December 3, 2014
Board of Trustees and Management
Town of Estes Park
P.O Box 1200
170 MacGregor Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Ladies and Gentleman:
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the terms and objectives of our engagement and the
nature and limitations of the audit and nonaudit services CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) will provide for
the Town of Estes Park (“you,” “your,” or “the entity”) for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Paul Niedermuller, CPA, is responsible for the performance of the audit engagement.
Audit services
We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the
discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information,
which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the Town of Estes Park, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) provides for certain required supplementary
information (RSI) to accompany the entity’s basic financial statements. The following RSI will be
subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited.
1. Management’s discussion and analysis.
2. Schedule of funding progress
3. Budgetary comparison schedules.
We will also evaluate and report on the presentation of the following supplementary information other
than RSI accompanying the financial statements in relation to the financial statements as a whole:
1. Schedule of expenditures of federal awards
2. Combining individual fund statements and schedules
3. Budgetary comparison schedules
4. Local highway finance report
The following information other than RSI accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to
the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and our auditors’ report will not
provide an opinion or any assurance on that information:
1. Introductory section
2. Statistical section
An independent member of Nexia International
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP
370 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 500
Broomfield, CO 80021
303-466-8822 | fax 303-466-9797
CLAconnect.com
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 2
Nonaudit services
We will also provide the following nonaudit services:
Preparation of your financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and
related notes.
Preparation of adjusting journal entries.
Audit objectives
The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions about whether your basic financial statements
are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAS); the standards for financial
audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States; the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; and the provisions of Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Our
audit will include tests of your accounting records, a determination of major program(s) in accordance
with OMB Circular A-133, and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express
opinions and render the required reports. We will perform procedures on the financial information of the
Town of Estes Park Local Marketing District to enable us to express our opinions. We will apply certain
limited procedures to the RSI in accordance with U.S. GAAS. However, we will not express an opinion
or provide any assurance on the RSI because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. We will also perform procedures to enable
us to express an opinion on whether the supplementary information (as identified above) other than RSI
accompanying the financial statements is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial
statements as a whole.
The objectives of our audit also include:
Reporting on internal control related to the financial statements and on compliance with the
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which
could have a material effect on the financial statements in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards.
Reporting on internal control related to major programs and expressing an opinion (or disclaimer
of opinion) on compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts and grant
agreements that could have a direct and material effect on each major program in accordance
with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133.
The Government Auditing Standards report on internal control over financial reporting and on
compliance and other matters will include a paragraph that states (1) that the purpose of the report is
solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the result of that
testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on
compliance, and (2) that the report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. The OMB
Circular A-133 report on internal control over compliance will include a paragraph that states that the
purpose of the report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing
of internal control over compliance and the result of that testing based on the requirements of OMB
Circular A-133. Both reports will state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 3
We will issue written reports upon completion of our audit of your financial statements and compliance
with requirements applicable to major programs. We cannot provide assurance that unmodified
opinions will be expressed. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary for us to modify our
opinions, add an emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraph(s), or withdraw from the engagement. If
our opinions on the financial statements are other than unmodified or the single audit compliance
opinion is other than unqualified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If circumstances
occur related to the condition of your records, the availability of sufficient, appropriate audit evidence, or
the existence of a significant risk of material misstatement of the financial statements or material
noncompliance caused by error, fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets, which in
our professional judgment prevent us from completing the audit or forming opinions on the financial
statements or an opinion on compliance, we retain the right to take any course of action permitted by
professional standards, including declining to express opinions or issue reports, or withdrawing from the
engagement.
Auditor responsibilities, procedures, and limitations
We will conduct our audit in accordance with U.S. GAAS and the standards for financial audits
contained in Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements as a whole are free
from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. An audit involves performing procedures to
obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial
statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors’ judgment, including the assessment of
the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. An audit
also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of
significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation
of the basic financial statements.
There is an unavoidable risk, because of the inherent limitations of an audit, together with the inherent
limitations of internal control, that some material misstatements or noncompliance may not be detected,
even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with U.S. GAAS, Government
Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133. Because we will not perform a detailed examination of all
transactions, material misstatements, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting,
(3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable
to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity, may not be
detected. Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not
expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse.
In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or
governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or on
major programs. However, we will inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors,
fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also
inform the appropriate level of management of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that
come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential, and of any material abuse that comes to our
attention. We will include such matters in the reports required for a single audit.
In making our risk assessments, we consider internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair
presentation of the basic financial statements and compliance in order to design audit procedures that
are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Tests of controls may be performed to test the
effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting fraud or errors
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 4
that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting
from noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that have a
material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be
necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our
report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
As required by OMB Circular A-133, we will perform tests of controls over compliance to evaluate the
effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or
detecting material noncompliance with the direct and material compliance requirements applicable to
each major federal award program. However, our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to
render an opinion on those controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on
internal control issued pursuant to OMB Circular A-133.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies, significant
deficiencies, or material weaknesses in internal control. However, we will communicate to you in writing
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control relevant to the audit of the basic
financial statements that we identify during the audit that are required to be communicated under
AICPA professional standards, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133.
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we will perform tests of the entity’s compliance with the provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements that have a material effect on the financial statements. However, the
objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express
such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
We will include in our report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance relevant
information about any fraud; noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant
agreements; or abuse that may have occurred that are required to be communicated under
Government Auditing Standards.
OMB Circular A-133 requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the auditee has complied with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of
contracts and grant agreements applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of tests of
transactions and other applicable procedures described in the “OMB Circular A-133 Compliance
Supplement” for the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on
each of the entity’s major programs. The purpose of these procedures will be to express an opinion on
the entity’s compliance with requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on
compliance issued pursuant to OMB Circular A-133.
We will evaluate the presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards accompanying the
financial statements in relation to the financial statements as a whole. We will make certain inquiries of
management and evaluate the form, content, and methods of preparing the schedule to determine
whether the information complies with U.S. GAAP and OMB Circular A-133, the method of preparing it
has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to
our audit of the financial statements. We will compare and reconcile the schedule to the underlying
accounting records and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial
statements themselves.
Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any
later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 5
Management responsibilities
Our audit will be conducted on the basis that you (management and, when appropriate, those charged
with governance) acknowledge and understand that you have certain responsibilities that are
fundamental to the conduct of an audit.
You are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, RSI, and the
schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Management is also
responsible for identifying all federal awards received, understanding and complying with the
compliance requirements, and for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in
accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133.
Management’s responsibilities include the selection and application of accounting principles; recording
and reflecting all transactions in the financial statements; determining the reasonableness of significant
accounting estimates included in the financial statements; adjusting the financial statements to correct
material misstatements; and confirming to us in the management representation letter that the effects of
any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the
latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial
statements taken as a whole. Management is responsible for compliance with applicable laws and
regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Your responsibilities also include
identifying significant vendor relationships in which the vendor has responsibility for program
compliance and for the accuracy and completeness of that information.
You are responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control,
including internal control over compliance, and for evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities to help
ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of
financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; and that
there is reasonable assurance that government programs are administered in compliance with
compliance requirements.
You are responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls to prevent
and detect fraud; assessing the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a
result of fraud; and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving
(1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the
fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us
of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity received in
communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you
are responsible for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws and
regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements; identifying and ensuring that the
entity complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and informing us of
all instances of identified or suspected noncompliance whose effects on the financial statements should
be considered.
You are responsible for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy any fraud; noncompliance with
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements; or abuse that we may report.
Additionally, as required by OMB Circular A-133, it is management’s responsibility to follow up and take
corrective action on reported audit findings and to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings
and a corrective action plan. The summary schedule of prior audit findings should be available for our
review on April 27, 2015.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 6
You are responsible for ensuring that management is reliable and for providing us with (1) access to all
information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements, such as records, documentation, and other matters, and for the accuracy and
completeness of that information, and for ensuring the information is reliable and properly reported;
(2) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit; and (3) unrestricted access
to persons within the entity from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. You agree
to inform us of events occurring or facts discovered subsequent to the date of the financial statements
that may affect the financial statements. You are also responsible for providing us access to component
information, those charged with governance of components and component management (including
relevant audit documentation and communications).
You agree to include our report on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in any document that
contains and indicates that we have reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. You
also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the schedule of
expenditures of federal awards that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial
statements readily available to intended users of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards no
later than the date the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is issued with our report thereon.
Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the representation letter that (1) you are
responsible for presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with OMB
Circular A-133; (2) you believe the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, including its form and
content, is fairly presented in accordance with OMB Circular A-133; (3) the methods of measurement or
presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the
reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or
interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards.
You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains, and
indicates that we have reported on, the supplementary information. You also agree to include the
audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our
report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to users of the supplementary
information no later than the date the supplementary information is issued with our report thereon. You
agree to provide us written representations related to the presentation of the supplementary
information.
Management is responsible for providing us with a written confirmation concerning representations
made by you and your staff to us in connection with the audit and the presentation of the basic financial
statements and RSI. During our engagement, we will request information and explanations from you
regarding, among other matters, the entity’s activities, internal control, future plans, specific
transactions, and accounting systems and procedures. The procedures we will perform during our
engagement and the conclusions we reach as a basis for our report will be heavily influenced by the
representations that we receive in the representation letter and otherwise from you. Accordingly,
inaccurate, incomplete, or false representations could cause us to expend unnecessary effort or could
cause a material fraud or error to go undetected by our procedures. In view of the foregoing, you agree
that we shall not be responsible for any misstatements in the entity’s financial statements that we may
fail to detect as a result of misrepresentations made to us by you.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit
findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous financial
audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives
discussed in the “Audit objectives” section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 7
corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those
audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other engagements or studies. You are also
responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions for the report, and for the timing and
format for providing that information.
Responsibilities and limitations related to nonaudit services
For all nonaudit services we may provide to you, management agrees to assume all management
responsibilities; oversee the services by designating an individual, preferably within senior
management, who possesses suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience to understand and oversee
the services; evaluate the adequacy and results of the services; and accept responsibility for the results
of the services.
The responsibilities and limitations related to the nonaudit services performed as part of this
engagement are as follows:
We will prepare a draft of your financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards,
and related notes. Since the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements and
schedule of expenditures of federal awards is your responsibility, you will be required to
acknowledge in the representation letter our assistance with preparation of the financial
statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards and that you have reviewed and
approved the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related
notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. You have a
responsibility to be in a position in fact and appearance to make an informed judgment on those
financial statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards.
We will propose adjusting journal entries as needed. You will be required to review and approve
those entries and to understand the nature of the changes and their impact on the financial
statements.
These nonaudit services do not constitute an audit under Government Auditing Standards and such
services will not be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
Use of financial statements
The financial statements and our report thereon are for management’s use. If you intend to reproduce
and publish the financial statements and our report thereon, they must be reproduced in their entirety.
Inclusion of the audited financial statements in a document, such as an annual report or an offering
document, should be done only with our prior approval of the document. You are responsible to provide
us the opportunity to review such documents before issuance.
If we agree that CLA will not be involved with your official statements related to municipal securities
filings or other offering documents, we will require that any official statements or other offering
documents issued by you with which we are not involved clearly indicate that CLA is not involved with
the contents of such documents. Such disclosure should read as follows:
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP, our independent auditor, has not been engaged to perform and has not
performed, since the date of its report included herein, any procedures on the financial
statements addressed in that report. CliftonLarsonAllen LLP also has not performed any
procedures relating to this offering document.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 8
With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial
statements published electronically on your website or submitted on a regulator website, you
understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not
required to read the information contained in those sites or to consider the consistency of other
information in the electronic site with the original document.
We may issue preliminary draft financial statements to you for your review. Any preliminary draft
financial statements should not be relied on or distributed.
Engagement administration and other matters
We understand that your employees will prepare all confirmations, account analyses, and audit
schedules we request and will locate any documents or invoices selected by us for testing. A list of
information we expect to need for our audit and the dates required will be provided in a separate
communication.
At the conclusion of the engagement, we will complete the auditor sections of the electronic Data
Collection Form SF-SAC and perform the steps to certify the Form SF-SAC and single audit reporting
package. It is management’s responsibility to complete the auditee sections of the Data Collection
Form. We will create the single audit reporting package PDF file for submission; however, it is
management’s responsibility to review for completeness and accuracy and electronically submit the
reporting package (including financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards,
summary schedule of prior audit findings, auditors’ reports, and corrective action plan) along with the
Data Collection Form to the federal audit clearinghouse and, if appropriate, to pass-through entities.
The Data Collection Form and the reporting package must be electronically submitted within the earlier
of 30 days after receipt of the auditors’ reports or nine months after the end of the audit period, unless a
longer period is agreed to in advance by the cognizant or oversight agency for audit.
We will provide copies of our reports to the entity; however, management is responsible for distribution
of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or containing
privileged and confidential information, copies of our reports are to be made available for public
inspection.
The audit documentation for this engagement is the sole and exclusive property of CLA and constitutes
confidential and proprietary information. However, subject to applicable laws and regulations, audit
documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a timely matter
to the Town’s Cognizant or Oversight Agency for Audit, or its designee, a federal agency providing
direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for purposes of a quality review
of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any
such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision
of CLA personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation
to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or
information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies.
The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of seven years after the
report release date or for any additional period requested by the Town of Estes Park. If we are aware
that a federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we will
contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit
documentation.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 9
Professional standards require us to be independent with respect to you in the performance of these
services. Any discussion that you have with our personnel regarding potential employment with you
could impair our independence with respect to this engagement. Therefore, we request that you inform
us prior to any such discussions so that we can implement appropriate safeguards to maintain our
independence and objectivity. Further, any employment offers to any staff members working on this
engagement without our prior knowledge may require substantial additional procedures to ensure our
independence. You will be responsible for any additional costs incurred to perform these procedures.
Our relationship with you is limited to that described in this letter. As such, you understand and agree
that we are acting solely as independent accountants. We are not acting in any way as a fiduciary or
assuming any fiduciary responsibilities for you. We are not responsible for the preparation of any report
to any governmental agency, or any other form, return, or report or for providing advice or any other
service not specifically recited in this letter.
Government Auditing Standards require that we make our most recent external peer review report
publicly available. The report is posted on our website at www.CLAconnect.com/Aboutus/.
Mediation
Any disagreement, controversy, or claim (“Dispute”) that may arise out of any aspect of our services or
relationship with you, including this engagement, shall be submitted to non-binding mediation by written
notice (“Mediation Notice”) to the other party. In mediation, we will work with you to resolve any
differences voluntarily with the aid of an impartial mediator.
The mediation will be conducted as specified by the mediator and agreed upon by the parties. The
parties agree to discuss their differences in good faith and to attempt, with the assistance of the
mediator, to reach an amicable resolution of the Dispute.
Each party will bear its own costs in the mediation. The fees and expenses of the mediator will be
shared equally by the parties.
Any Dispute will be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota, without giving effect to choice of
law principles.
Time limitation
The nature of our services makes it difficult, with the passage of time, to gather and present evidence
that fully and fairly establishes the facts underlying any Dispute. The parties agree that, notwithstanding
any statute or law of limitations that might otherwise apply to a Dispute, any action or legal proceeding
by you against us must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months (“Limitation Period”) after the
date when we deliver our final audit report under this agreement to you, regardless of whether we do
other services for you relating to the audit report, or you shall be forever barred from commencing a
lawsuit or obtaining any legal or equitable relief or recovery.
The Limitation Period applies and begins to run even if you have not suffered any damage or loss, or
have not become aware of the existence or possible existence of a Dispute.
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 10
Fees
The charges for our work are to be based upon the time involved, degree of responsibility assumed and
skills required, plus expenses including internal and administrative charges. Bills for services are due
when submitted. Interim bills may be submitted at periodic dates to cover charges and expenses
incurred. If a bill for services is not paid when due, we reserve the right to cease work and withdraw
from the engagement.
It is hereby agreed that our fee will not exceed $23,660. If necessary, audits of major federal programs
under the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of
States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, will be performed at a fee of $4,200 per
major program, except for testing related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
which will be performed at a fee of up to $6,500, if necessary. In addition, our fee for procedures
performed over the Estes Park Local Marketing District will be $5,000. These fees are based on our
understanding that your accounting records, including supporting schedules, a list of which will be
communicated in a separate letter, will be substantially completed by one week prior to the start of final
fieldwork. We expect that your office personnel will help us by locating and providing us with invoices,
vouchers, and other corporate documents and records that we request. We do not anticipate that we
will encounter any substantial amount of accounting work to be completed or adjusted by us, or any
defalcation or other significant problem or contingency. We will, of course, advise you before
undertaking any work that would require an increase in the fee arrangement.
Unanticipated services
We do not anticipate encountering the need to perform additional services beyond those described in
this letter. Below are listings of services considered to be outside the scope of our engagement. If any
such service needs to be completed before the audit can proceed in an efficient manner, we will
determine whether we can provide the service and maintain our independence. If appropriate, we will
notify you and provide a fair and reasonable price for providing the service. We will bill you for the
service at periodic dates after the additional service has been performed.
Bookkeeping services
Bookkeeping services are not audit services. Bookkeeping services include the following
activities:
Preparation of a trial balance
Account reconciliations
Bank statement reconciliations
Capital asset accounting (e.g., calculating depreciation, identify capital assets for
additions and deletions)
Calculating accruals
Analyzing transactions for proper recording
Converting cash basis accounting records to accrual basis
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 11
Additional work resulting from unanticipated changes in your organization or accounting
records
If your organization undergoes significant changes in key personnel, accounting systems,
and/or internal control, we are required to update our audit documentation and audit plan. The
following are examples of situations that will require additional audit work:
Revising documentation of your internal control for changes resulting from your
implementation of new information systems
Deterioration in the quality of the entity’s accounting records during the current-year
engagement in comparison to the prior-year engagement
Significant new accounting issues
Significant changes in your volume of business
Mergers, acquisitions, or other business combinations
New or unusual transactions
Changes in audit scope or requirements resulting from changes in your activities
Erroneous or incomplete accounting records
Evidence of material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control
Substantial increases in the number or significance of problem loans
Regulatory examination matters
Implementation or adoption of new or existing accounting, reporting, regulatory, or tax
requirements
New financial statement disclosures
Changes in engagement timing and assistance by your personnel
The fee estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and their assistance
with timely preparation of confirmations and requested schedules. If the requested items are not
available on the dates required or are not accurate, we will advise management. Additional time
and costs may be necessary because of such unanticipated delays. Examples of situations that
may cause our estimated fee to increase include:
Significant delays in responding to our requests for information such as reconciling
variances or providing requested supporting documentation (e.g., invoices, contracts,
and other documents)
Rescheduling our fieldwork
Schedule disruption caused by litigation, financial challenges (going concern), loan
covenants (waivers), etc.
Identifying a significant number of proposed audit adjustments
Schedules prepared by your personnel that do not reconcile to the general ledger
Numerous revisions to information and schedules provided by your personnel
Restating financial statements for accounting errors in the prior year
Lack of availability of entity personnel during audit fieldwork
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 12
Changes in accounting and audit standards
Standard setters and regulators continue to evaluate and modify standards. Such changes may result
in new or revised financial reporting and disclosure requirements or expand the nature, timing, and
scope of the activities we are required to perform. To the extent that the amount of time required to
provide the services described in the letter increases due to such changes, our fee may need to be
adjusted. We will discuss such circumstances with you prior to performing the additional work.
Other fees
You also agree to compensate us for any time and expenses, including time and expenses of legal
counsel, we may incur in responding to discovery requests or participating as a witness or otherwise in
any legal, regulatory, or other proceedings that we are asked to respond to on your behalf. You and
your attorney will receive a copy of every subpoena or request we are asked to respond to. You can
control the costs of any discovery process or document request by informing us which requests you
would like us to act on.
Finance charges and collection expenses
You agree that if any statement is not paid within 30 days from its date, the unpaid balance shall accrue
interest at the monthly rate of one and one-quarter percent (1.25%), which is an annual percentage rate
of 15%. In the event that any collection action is required to collect unpaid balances due us, reasonable
attorney fees and expenses shall be recoverable.
Agreement
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and believe this letter accurately summarizes the
significant terms of our engagement. This letter constitutes the entire agreement regarding these
services and supersedes all prior agreements (whether oral or written), understandings, negotiations,
and discussions between us. If you have any questions, please let us know. Please sign, date, and
return a copy of this letter to us to indicate your acknowledgment and understanding of, and agreement
with, the arrangements for our audit of your financial statements including the terms of our engagement
and our respective responsibilities.
Sincerely,
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP
Paul Niedermuller, CPA
Principal
303-466-8822
Paul.Niedermuller@CLAconnect.com
December 3, 2014
Town of Estes Park
Page 13
Response:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the Town of Estes Park.
Authorized governance signature:
Title:
Date:
Authorized management signature:
Title:
Date:
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: December 5, 2014
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Rocky Mountain Discount
Liquors, Inc., dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUORS to KNH
I&E, Inc., dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUORS, 350 W.
Riverside Drive, Retail Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing liquor license located at 350 W. Riverside Drive to the new owner
of the business, KNH I&E, Inc.
Present Situation:
A Retail Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced above by Rocky
Mountain Discount Liquors, Inc. The business is being sold and the new owner of the
business, applying as KNH I&E, Inc., is requesting a transfer of the liquor license. The
application was submitted to the Town Clerk’s office on October 29, 2014, and a
temporary permit is scheduled to be issued on December 10, 2014. The temporary
permit authorizes the transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted
under the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is
pending.
The applicant, KNH I&E, Inc., has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The
applicant is aware of the TIPS training requirement, however, to date, has not yet
completed the training.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license
to the new owner of the business.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the new business owner with the opportunity to
continue operating the existing, liquor-licensed establishment.
Disadvantages:
The new owner is unable to continue operating the existing liquor-licensed business
during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the existing Retail Liquor License to KNH I&E, Inc.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a liquor license transfer is $1,086. The fee
covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background
checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee paid annually to the Town
of Estes Park for a Retail Liquor License is $636.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Retail Liquor License filed by
KNH I&E, Inc., dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUORS.
April 2003
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed October 29, 2014 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Retail Liquor Store License filed by
KNH I&E, Inc. doing business as ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT
LIQUORS.
Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: December 5, 2014
RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment
Objective:
To appoint a new Commissioner to the Estes Valley Planning Commission with the
expiration of Kathy Bowers term on December 31, 2014.
Present Situation:
Kathy Bowers confirmed with staff that she was not interested in renewing her term for
the Planning Commission. The Town advertised for the position in the local paper and
on the Town’s website through November 21, 2014. Two applications were received
and interviews were scheduled with Trustee Phipps, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Planning
Commission Chair Betty Hull and Code Compliance Officer Wes Reichardt on
December 2, 2014.
Proposal:
The interview team is recommending the appointment of Russell Schneider for a 4-year
term beginning January 1, 2015 and expiring on December 31, 2018.
Russell Schneider has lived in Estes Park for approximately 28 months and became
interested in the Planning Commission and its functions through the Falcon Ridge
development. He is a neighbor to the development. He holds a Ph. D. from Michigan
State University in Soil Chemistry.
Advantages:
The position would be filled.
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position can
be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Appoint Russell Schneider to the Estes Valley Planning Commission beginning January
1, 2015 for a 4-year term expiring on December 31, 2018.
Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment 2
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Russell Schneider to the Estes Valley
Planning Commission beginning January 1, 2015 for a 4-year term expiring on
December 31, 2018.
Board of Appeal Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: December 5, 2014
RE: Board of Appeals
Objective:
To reappoint John Spooner to the Board of Appeals.
Present Situation:
The Board of Appeals was modified in 2013 with the adoption of the 2009 International
Building Codes which requires five members with technical qualifications. Five
members were appointed with staggered terms. Mr. Spooner was appointed to a one
year term in April of 2013. The Board has not met and therefore his position on the
Board has remained vacant since it expired in May 2014.
The building code would begin the process to adopt the new Building codes with the
help of the Board of Appeals. Therefore, staff announced the vacant position on the
Board of Appeals and Mr. Spooner was the only applicant.
Proposal:
Staff would recommend the Board accept Mr. Spooner’s application and forego
additional advertisement for this technical position. Mr. Spooner is a licensed
professional engineer with over 40 years of professional experience in engineering. He
has extensive experience in storm drainage and hydraulics. He works for Van Horn
Engineering and Surveying and has extensive local design experience, including
structural analysis of approximately 450 residential homes in the Estes area. Mr.
Spooner was heavily involved in the adoption process of the 2009 International Building
Codes.
Advantages:
The position would be filled and staff could move forward with a full Board reviewing the
new building codes.
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the positions would remain vacant until the positions can
be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Board of Appeal Appointment
2
Action Recommended:
Reappoint John Spooner to the Board of Appeals beginning January 1, 2015 for a 5-
year term expiring on December 31, 2019.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the reappointment of John Spooner to the Board of Appeals
beginning January 1, 2015 for a 5-year term expiring on December 31, 2019.
FINANCE DEPT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: December 9th, 2014
RE: Resolution #34-14; 2014 Supplemental Budget Appropriations
Background:
At the end of each calendar/fiscal year, the Town is required to assess and if necessary,
amend the current budget to account for any funds that have exceeded their originally
approved expenditure levels. Budget overages are often the result of Board-approved
opportunities taken throughout the year which did not exist at the time of the budget
creation. In some instances, the expenditures may have revenue offset. This year’s
actual data has been affected by the September 2013 flood, but also by various projects
and opportunities arising during 2014. The following pages contain explanations for the
proposed Supplemental Appropriations to the 2014 Budget.
The attached spreadsheet is divided into two sections.
The first section of the document reports revenues/transfers in.
A. Column A reports 2014 “revenues/transfers in” as forecasted in the original 2014
budget, approved in December 2013.
B. Column B reports 2014 “revenues/transfers in” as estimated as of December 02,
2014.
C. Column C reports the variance between columns A and B.
Specific revenue (includes transfers in) comments:
Almost all of the funds are slated for higher revenues than provided for in the Original
2014 Budget.
There are $6,021,747 in flood related revenues (reimbursements for estimated projects)
posted to the General ($3,751,086), Open Space ($144,118) and Light & Power
($1,866,433) Funds. The General Fund is also reporting higher revenues from an
increase in sales tax projections (+$385,000) and from a pass-through grant to the EDC
($300,000).
The Community Reinvestment Fund revenues have increased primarily because the
parking structure revenues were restated from 2013 (~$3.9 million), and due to the
place holder for the FLAP grant ($4.2 million). Additionally, Lot 4 revenues of $996,000
were added.
Community Services revenues have been reduced because the MPEC did not open as
early as expected.
The 4 new Funds resulting from the 1% sales tax increase are now listed (Emergency
Response, Community Center, Trails, Streets). In addition, the Streets Fund now has
monies transferred to it from both the General and Community Reinvestment Funds.
The IT Fund’s revenues are increasing because of a new fiber optic contract.
The remaining Funds’ revenue changes are not material, but staff is pleased to report
increases across the board.
The second section of the document reports expenditures. The columns include:
A) The original 2014 Budget as approved in December 2013,
B) The two supplemental appropriations that occurred during the year:
a. Res #07-14: rollovers from 2013 approved in February 2014, and
b. Res #05-14: supplemental appropriation for CRF in May 2014 to primarily
restate the parking structure and MPEC/stall barn projects.
C) The sum of columns A & B, which represent the current 2014 Budget.
D) The projected final expenditures (the grey column is the focal point of the
document, and is the revised total 2014 expenditures being requested for
approval),
E) Whether or not column D (new forecast) exceeds column C (original forecast).
Explanation of variances in expenditures – 2014 was an active year for financial activity
of the Town. Whereas usually 1 or 2 funds require additional appropriations, 8 funds
out of 16 will need additional appropriations for 2014.
The General Fund is forecasted to exceed the original 2014 budget by roughly $4.3
million. Operationally, the General Fund has actually done well this year. Flood costs
are ~$3.9 million, with an addition $300,000 for the pass through EDC grant.
The Community Reinvestment Fund has been restated to show expected expenditures.
The parking structure remains in the 2014 budget, but will obviously be part of the 2015
revision process.
The Conservation Trust Fund will cover some of the ice rink expenditures. It was
learned mid-year that the ice rink is an eligible cost.
The Open Space Fund has flood-related expenditures offsetting its increased revenue
forecast. In reality, it is unlikely that these expenditures will occur in 2014.
The FF&E costs for MPEC have been spread between the Community Services and
Community Reinvestment Funds. As a result, Events and MPEC costs have exceeded
Budgets. Monies should be saved on FF&E in CRF as a result.
The Utility Funds (Light and Power, Water) actual expenditures are both expected to
decrease because flood-related capital projects have been pushed into 2015.
The Vehicle Replacement Fund will exceed original budget by roughly $31,000 because
of a vehicle budgeted but not purchased in 2013 (and not rolled over).
Several Funds have minor cost increases associated with corresponding increases in
revenues.
In the case of all Funds, the proposed modifications / supplemental appropriations do
not jeopardize a positive fund balance (in fact, 11 of the 16 funds report increased fund
balances), nor do they adversely affect required ratios in any Funds.
Finally, a few comments about the 2013 Flood and its effect on the 2014 financial
statements. As stated, there are over $6,000,000 in flood-related expenditures and
reimbursements (revenues) budgeted in 2014. It is unrealistic to think that all of the
projects and reimbursements will actually transpire in 2014. Indeed, many of the
projects and a great deal of the reimbursements will not occur until 2015, and will
probably continue for several years. A 2015 amended budget will have to be created
when 2014 financial statements are completed and staff can determine what remains
incomplete in flood-related projects. Staff is confident that over a period of time, the
numbers reported are as accurate as is possible at this time. Placing the entirety of the
flood financial activity in 2014 is not realistic, but does allow for easier convenience of
determining what is expected to happen (ie, it is easier to view expected activity when it
is all in 1 year than to have it spread out over multiple years). This is much the same
strategy that is employed with projects in CRF.
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of the amended 2014 Budget and its accompanying
Resolution.
Advantages:
The Town’s financial statements will accurately reflect the activities of 2014. The Town
will be also able to operate within the framework of financial compliance as per the
State Auditor and County Treasurer’s Offices.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantage to not approving the Supplemental Budget for 2014 is that the Town
would be in violation of State budgetary laws in 8 of the 16 Funds.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the 2014 Revised Budget and its accompanying
Resolution.
Budget:
The entire 2014 Budget is affected/revised with approval.
Level of Public Interest
Various sections of the 2014 Revised Budget are probably of moderate to significant
interest to different organizations and citizens.
Sample Motion:
“I recommend approval of Resolution 34-14 to Appropriate Sums of Money to revise the
2014 Budget”.
Attachments:
The previously cited Resolution and spreadsheet are attached.
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 34-14
A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS
TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES
IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS
SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE
FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2014, AND
ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the
annual 2014 budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on
December 10th, 2013; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014, the
estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to more accurately
represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate the government;
and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the
revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to
impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of
each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated.
ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
AB C2014 Budget H.T.E. (12/02/14) Increase/(2014 Approved Budget)2014 EOY Estimate(Decrease)101 General 12,662,144 16,719,035 4,056,891204 Community Reinvestment 1,575,00010,004,8708,429,870211 Conservation Trust 32,50032,515 15220 Larimer Cty Open Space 290,500444,723 154,223222 Community Services Fund 2,592,9722,414,870(178,102)236 Emergency Response 0 63,142 63,142238 Community Center 0 331,425 331,425244 Trails Expansion 0 165,713 165,713260 Streets 0 1,566,9481,566,948502 Light & Power 13,814,52415,633,4201,818,896503 Water 3,803,8003,875,77171,971606 Medical 1,927,5001,929,7882,288612 Fleet 300,500311,031 10,531625 Information Technology 617,952 694,185 76,233635 Vehicle Replacement 582,031 586,482 4,451716 Theater 600 600 0 Total 38,200,02354,774,51816,574,495includes all sources of money inflow: revenues, proceeds from debt, transfers inABCDEOriginal 2014 Budgetsupplemental appropriationsH.T.E. 2014 EOYDecrease/(Resolution 07‐14, 02/11/14) ('2014 budget')H.T.E 12/02/14(Increase)*(Resolution 11‐14, 05/13/14)(A + B)Ending expenditures(C ‐ D)101 General 13,231,79733,757 13,265,55417,588,050(4,322,496)204 Community Reinvestment 1,531,1734,021,9779,872,0149,189,622682,392204 Community Reinvestment * 9,872,014211 Conservation Trust 32,7160 32,71667,572(34,856)220 Larimer Cty Open Space 262,903 0 262,903 433,383(170,480)222 Community Services Fund 2,845,4810 2,845,4813,168,960(323,479)236 Emergency Response 0 0 0 53,701(53,701)238 Community Center 0 0 0 0 0244 Trails Expansion 0 0 0 0 0260 Streets 0 0 0 0 0502 Light & Power 16,552,89489,181 16,642,07515,846,728795,347503 Water 4,868,84353,9904,922,8334,796,349126,484606 Medical 1,925,0000 1,925,0001,925,0000612 Fleet 372,0640 372,064378,038(5,974)625 Information Technology 709,912 85,165 795,077817,760(22,683)635 Vehicle Replacement 738,715 444,6161,183,3311,213,911(30,580)716 Theater 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 43,071,49814,600,69952,119,04755,479,074(3,360,027)all funds include total expenditures and transfers outINFORMATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO 2014 BUDGETREVENUES/TRANSFER INEXPENDITURES/TRANSFERS OUT
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: December 9, 2014
RE: Resolution #35-14 Entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) pertaining to the Devolution of
US 34 Business (W Elkhorn Ave)
Objective:
Obtain a $4,200,000 payment of CDOT RAMP funds through the ownership transfer of
approximately 2.5 lane miles of US 34 Business (W Elkhorn Ave) from the Colorado
Department of Transportation to the Town of Estes Park.
Present Situation:
The 1.28 linear mile segment of US 34 Business from Moraine Avenue (US 36) to
Wonderview Avenue (US 34 Bypass) is owned and maintained by CDOT. Estes Park
has been awarded a Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant in the
amount of $13,005,000 contingent upon the Town’s provision of local matching funds
equal to or greater than $3,000,000.
Proposal:
The terms of the attached IGA stipulate that CDOT will pay the Town $4,200,000 in
exchange for the Town accepting ownership and perpetual maintenance responsibility
for W Elkhorn Avenue. This responsibility would be administered by the Town of Estes
Park Public Works Department.
Advantages:
External funding is provided to satisfy the local match requirements imposed by the
FLAP grant, this facilitating design and construction of the FLAP funded street
improvements in the Town.
The Town will have jurisdictional authority to oversee and regulate permitted activity
within the devolved right of way.
Disadvantages:
A perpetual increase in street and sign maintenance costs will be incurred by the Town.
Oversight of all activities within the devolved right of way will require additional
administrative effort and cost from the Town.
Action Recommended:
The Public Works Department recommends the Board of Trustees approve the attached
Resolution 35-14 and authorize the Mayor to sign the IGA on behalf of the Town within
one week of this action.
Budget:
Account Number 204-0000-334-30-00 in the Capital Reserve Fund (CRF), Capital
Grants revenue line item.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial for Resolution #35-14 and authorize the Mayor to sign
the attached IGA on behalf of the Town within one week of this action.
Attachments:
Resolution #35-14
Intergovernmental Agreement
RESOLUTION # 35-14
WHEREAS, CDOT owns and maintains US Highway 34 through the Town
known as Elkhorn Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Town is the recipient of a grant from the Federal Lands Access
Program (the “FLAP Grant”) for the purpose for designing and constructing road
improvements to facilitate traffic flow through Estes Park to Rocky Mountain National
Park (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, CDOT has agreed to provide funding in the estimated amount of
four million, two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000); and
WHEREAS, the 1.28 linear mile portion of US Highway 34 between Moraine
Avenue and the US Highway 34 By-Pass (West Elkhorn Avenue) will be devolved by
CDOT to the Town and become part of the Town’s road system within 90 days of the
date of execution of this Resolution 35-14.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Estes Park and
the Colorado Department of Transportation attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference is approved and the Town accepts ownership of
the devolved right of way as described in the IGA.
Dated this___________________________, 2014.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park Public Works Dept (Engineering Division)
BID OPENING: 11/25/2014 DATE:12/01/14
OPENING TIME: 3:00 PM TABULATION OF BIDS PAGE:1
PROJECT: EP Transit Facility Parking Structure CONTRACT TIME: 200 WORKING DAYS = 10 months
BID FULL PROJ TOTAL MIN PROJ MIN PROJ % OF % OF
RANK VENDOR NAME RESPONSIVE?BID DEDUCTS BID DEFICIT LOW BID EST
0 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $4,969,500.00 ($50,000.00)$4,919,500.00 $1,142,837.00 94%100%
1 Mark Young Construction Inc.N $5,308,282.00 ($948,478.00)$4,359,804.00 $583,141.00 100%107%
2 Heath Construction N $5,428,640.00 ($839,906.00)$4,588,734.00 $812,071.00 102%109%
3 MW Golden Constructors Y $5,751,000.00 ($644,120.00)$5,106,880.00 $1,330,217.00 108%116%
4 Alliance Const Solutions, LLC N $6,330,000.00 ($588,000.00)$5,742,000.00 $1,965,337.00 119%127%
(0) -EST-(1)(2)(3)(4)
LOW BID UNIT
COST
HIGH BID UNIT
COST
AVE UNIT
COST
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Mark Young Construction Inc.Heath Construction MW Golden Constructors Alliance Const Solutions, LLC
ITEM
CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE BID PRICE
REVISED
PROJECT
COST
COST PER
SPACE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
1 Base Bid (Full Structure)1.00 LS $4,969,500.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $63,686.82 $5,428,640.00 $5,428,640.00 $64,878.49 $5,751,000.00 $5,751,000.00 $68,070.17 $6,330,000.00 $6,330,000.00 $73,802.84 $5,308,282.00 $6,330,000.00 $5,704,480.50
2 Structural Alternate 1 (Cast in Place Struct Concrete)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 $885,821.00 $6,194,103.00 $72,457.33 $0.00 $5,428,640.00 $64,878.49 $0.00 $5,751,000.00 $68,070.17 $0.00 $6,330,000.00 $73,802.84 $0.00 $885,821.00 $221,455.25
3 Structural Alternate 2 (Doug Fir in lieu of Cedar)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,969,500.00 $60,332.54 ($45,560.00)$5,262,722.00 $63,235.73 ($10,700.00)$5,417,940.00 $64,772.54 $21,190.00 $5,772,190.00 $68,279.97 ($13,000.00)$6,317,000.00 $73,674.13 ($45,560.00)$21,190.00 ($12,017.50)
4 Deductive Alternate 1 (Stone Masonry Veneer)1.00 LS ($50,000.00)$4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($75,359.00)$5,187,363.00 $62,489.60 ($53,270.00)$5,364,670.00 $64,245.12 ($81,340.00)$5,690,850.00 $67,474.62 ($31,000.00)$6,286,000.00 $73,367.20 ($81,340.00)($31,000.00)($60,242.25)
5 Deductive Alternate 2 (Custom Porch & Seat Walls)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($181,093.00)$5,006,270.00 $60,696.60 ($238,247.00)$5,126,423.00 $61,886.24 ($146,364.00)$5,544,486.00 $66,025.48 ($176,000.00)$6,110,000.00 $71,624.62 ($238,247.00)($146,364.00)($185,426.00)
6 Deductive Alternate 3 (Art Panels & Timbers)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($343,724.00)$4,662,546.00 $57,293.40 ($405,507.00)$4,720,916.00 $57,871.32 ($196,670.00)$5,347,816.00 $64,078.25 ($280,000.00)$5,830,000.00 $68,852.35 ($405,507.00)($196,670.00)($306,475.25)
7 Deductive Alternate 4 (Pre-fab Stairs in lieu of Custom)1.00 LS $0.00 $4,919,500.00 $59,837.50 ($302,742.00)$4,359,804.00 $54,295.95 ($132,182.00)$4,588,734.00 $56,562.58 ($240,936.00)$5,106,880.00 $61,692.74 ($88,000.00)$5,742,000.00 $67,981.06 ($302,742.00)($88,000.00)($190,965.00)
8 Additive Alternate (Elect Vehicle Charging Stations)1.00 LS $70,000.00 $4,989,500.00 $60,530.56 $93,268.00 $4,453,072.00 $55,219.40 $87,620.00 $4,676,354.00 $57,430.11 $79,476.00 $5,186,356.00 $62,479.63 $81,500.00 $5,823,500.00 $68,787.99 $79,476.00 $93,268.00 $85,466.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST (including design & CM)$6,093,587.00 $71,462.12 $6,432,369.00 $74,816.40 $6,552,727.00 $76,008.06 $6,875,087.00 $79,199.74 $7,454,087.00 $84,932.42
FULL PROJECT BUDGET DEFICIT $1,192,837.00 $1,531,619.00 $1,651,977.00 $1,974,337.00 $2,553,337.00
NOTES
1. No restrooms included
2. All landscaping and irrigation by Town
3. Budget reflects Const Mgmt & Inspection by Contract Employee instead of Consultant
4. FASTER = Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009
5. Cost per space includes all design and construction costs divided by net gain of 101 parking spaces.
PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATED COST TO BUILD 253 SPACE GARAGE ON SOUTH PARKING LOT (net gain 190 Spaces)
REVENUE Funding Source
Funding
Agency ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COMMENTS
Federal Transit Administration Grant FTA Low Bidder Total Project Cost 6,432,369.00
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality FHWA Design & TIS Revisions 300,000.00
FASTER CDOT $400,000.00 New EA (NEPA) Report 100,000.00 adds 6-12 months
Local Sales Tax General Fund ToEP $972,250.00 Avoided utilitity Relocation -160,000.00
Rocky Mountain National Park NPS $10,000.00 Add 15' length to Garage 170,000.00
TOTAL FUNDING BUDGETED TO DATE $4,900,750.00 Project Management 100,000.00
Construction Inflation (4%)??212,331.28
EXPENSE Design Engineering Walker PC $443,118.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,154,700.28 budget deficit = $2,253,950.28 Min Proj Budget Deficit = $1,305,472.28
Authorized Scope Revisions (Design)Walker PC $68,150.00 % INCREASE IN COST 11.2%
Bidding & Construction Administration Walker PC $157,819.00
Environmental Assessment (NEPA) & Traf Impact Study FHU $250,000.00 COST PER SPACE $37,656.32
Landscaping & Irrigation Materials ToEP $50,000.00 % SAVINGS PER SPACE 49.7%
Electrical Utility Relocation ToEP $30,000.00 % INCREASED YIELD=(190-101)/101 =88.1%
Construction Mgmt & Inspection ToEP $125,000.00
SUBTOTAL EXPENSES $1,124,087.00
BENEFITS of RELOCATION
REMAINING BUDGETED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR
CONSTRUCTION $3,776,663.00 1. Diminished visual impact on EP Hwy 34 iconic entry view for guests
2. Improved fit to topography on recessed south parking lot.
3. Decrease vehicular delay for visitors using the garage and shuttles accessing Hwy 34.
4. Improved safety for guests using Hwy 36 access vs competing with Hwy 34 commercial traffic for gaps.
5. Preserves all RV and auto parking and landscaping in north lot.
6. No adverse impact to primary sanitary sewer line in EP.
7. Provides elevated viewing structure for watching elk on the golf course.
8. Diminished construction period impact on Visitor Center operations and guests.
9. Preserves north access extension options to east (Steamer Dr) for the future.
$3,200,000.00
$328,500.00
Amount
CONSISTING of a new 215 stall parking garage, utility relocations, and revised site improvements to modify bus circulation. Net increase 101 parking spaces
East of Visitor Center
Town of Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure
Project Options Screening Summary
ITEM NO EVALUATION CRITERIA
OPTION 1
Award to
Responsive Bidder
Start Jan 2015
OPTION 2
Rebid Visitor Center Site
Start Mar 2015
OPTION 3
Revise Design
Bid South Site
Start Jan 2016
OPTION 4
Cancel Project
Reject bids REMARKS
1 Number of New Parking Spaces Provided 101 101 190 0 Traffic study states Estes Park needs an additional 500 parking spaces to meet summer demand
2 Project Cost per Parking Space $79,199.00 $74,816.00 $37,656.00 NA
3 Town Cost per Parking Space $19,547.89 $15,164.54 $11,862.90 NA
4 Impact to Bureau of Reclamation Land Special Use Permit
Required for Utility Redesign
Special Use Permit
Required for Utility Redesign
Special Use Permit
Required New NEPA none SUP processed in 3 weeks. Allow 6-12 months for new NEPA. BoR will oversee NEPA. Budget $75k to $100k.
5 Safety/Access Delay to Shuttle Bus
Peak Period Left Turn Exit 590 sec = 10 minutes 590 sec = 10 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes Delay per TIS. Remedies: install traffic signal at West Access (VC site), move shuttles to south lot, move parking
structure to south lot, build future access east at Steamer Dr. No funding exists for $300k traffic signal or roundabout.
6 Safety/Access Delay to Guests
Peak Period Left Turn Exit 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes Not measured. Assume 1.3 min 80 sec = 1.3 minutes New Traffic Impact Study would be required for NEPA evaluation of south site.
7 Cost to Relocate Existing Utilities $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 Three utilities conflict with structure at VC site (sewer, storm drainage, electric). Elect conflicts at south site.
8 Visual Impact from Adjacent Highway 2 Story Structure 2 Story Structure 1 Story Structure none South site is approximate 10' below Hwy 36 road surface.
9 Peak Hour Traffic Volume August 6, 2014 1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)869 (Hwy 36 westbound)1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)Daily counts in Sep 2014 were about 3% higher on Hwy 34 as compared to Hwy 36.
10 Project Cost (Full Amenities)$6,875,087.00 $6,432,369.00 $7,154,700.00 $0.00 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site.
11 Full Project Budget Deficit (paid by Town)$1,974,337.00 $1,531,619.00 $2,253,950.00 $0.00 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site.
12 Bid Construction Cost (All Deducts Removed)$5,106,880.00 $4,359,804.00 $5,082,135.00 $0.00 South Site not bid. Value is estimate only and assumes deduct value equal to lowest bid received for VC site.
13 Minimal Project Budget Deficit (paid by Town)$1,330,217.00 $583,141.00 $1,305,474.00 $0.00 South Site not bid. Value is estimate only and assumes deduct value equal to lowest bid received for VC site.
14 Citizen Transp Advisory Board Ranking 4 4 1 4
15 Staff Ranking (1 = preferred)3 2 1 4
16 Trustee Ranking
LEGEND:Significant Benefit
Good
Tolerable
Poor
Major Concern
TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Committee
Date: December 3, 2014
RE: Proposed Transit Hub at Visitor Center
After attending the Special Study Session on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, the Transportation
Advisory Committee met at noon on Wednesday, December 3rd to discuss the options
pertaining to the proposed Visitor Center Transit Hub. Materials from the study session were
reviewed and a vigorous discussion ensued.
By unanimous vote of the members present, the Transportation Advisory Committee proposes
that the Trustees:
1. Reject all bids for the transit hub at the currently proposed north visitor center lot;
2. Do not re-bid the project at the north visitor center location;
3. Proceed with evaluating the feasibility of a transit hub on the south lot of the visitor
center with a commitment to the project in its “full amenity” format, not the “minimal
project budget.”
a. This includes authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to perform a new NEPA
study and the preparation of modified design schematics; and
b. Tasks the Town with (while the NEPA is ongoing):
i. finding additional funding sources for the project
ii. reducing overall project cost, or
iii. committing additional funds to the project;
4. And, that the Town develop a parking master plan.
Commentary on our findings:
• South lot vs. Visitor Center Lot: The committee strongly preferred the south lot to
the currently proposed north visitor center lot.
• Transit Hub Aesthetics: During the design phase, it was very clear that residents do
not want an ugly cement box. An aesthetically pleasing design is integral to the project
and the committee would like the Town to do everything it can to keep the design
components in the project.
• Transit Hub Design: The design that came out of the public process earlier in the
year is generally acceptable to the committee and should be modified to fit the new
location. Less expensive design options should also be considered in an effort to reduce
overall project cost without compromising the style of the structure.
• Parking Master Plan: Without a parking master plan, the committee found it difficult
to be confident that either of these proposed locations were ideal. A parking master
plan would provide guidance on the Town’s long term parking objectives and criteria for
new investment (ie. Are we committed to “remote” lots and shuttles, or should we
enhance downtown parking?).
!!2
!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!(
×
×
×
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
!(!A
!(!(!(")V")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
"U"U"U
"U
"U
"U
"U"U
"U
#.ÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwX88 âFâFâF
!(D
!(D !(D
!(D
!(D!%NNN!%NNN%,P
7 5 0 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E 750 AL-ABC - BIG THOMPSON750 AL-ABC - MORAINE2 A L -A B C - B IG T H O M P S O N
7 5 0 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E2 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER2 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER750 AL-ABC - MORAINE750 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER2 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E 750 AL-ABC - BIG THOMPSON
750 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER
2 ''D I6''DI6''DI
6''DI8''GST6'
'DI2''DI2''DI
8''GST8''GST2 A
L-A - F
A
LL RIV
E
R
2086
2091
2092
20933
SV4
SV1
SV3
3278300ABC
2628300ABC
1325150ABC
199915A
323115A
336215A
BIGTHOMPSONAVEN SAINTVRAINAVE
B i g T h o m p s o n R i v e r
8'' PVC15''PVC6'' P
V
C
18'' PVC10'' P
V
C
8'' PVC10'' P
V
C 8'' P V C
10'' PVC10'
'
PVC2 0 '' D IP10'' PVC8'' PVC10'' PVC18'' DIP1 5 '' P V C
1
5
'' PVC15'' PVC
15'' PVC
1 8 '' P V C
1920
21
22
23
24
34
1
5''
C
L
A
Y
2 4 ''D U C T IL E
IR O N 24''DUCTILEIRON
1
5'' C
L
A
Y
30'' DUCTILE IRON24'' D U C TILE IR O N
2 4 '' D U C T I L E I R O N
SHEET TITLE:DESCRIPTION
ISSUE:
MARK DATE COLORADOPROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:23-7422.005DECBA6784321PARKING STRUCTURE
TRANSIT HUB
ESTES PARK56784321Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.\\FHUMAIN\FHUMAINK\113156-01\CADD\113156-01DESIGN-SIGNING AND STRIPING.DWG 9/24/2014 1:09:32 PM BARRY.NOVAK
Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.
Firm Certificate of Authority Number:
19871396991
ESTES PARK
ISSUED FOR BID9/23/14 1424423555C-600PAVEMENTMARKING &SIGNAGEPLANPROPOSEDPARKINGGARAGE11
Town of Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure
Project Options Screening Summary
ITEM NO EVALUATION CRITERIA
OPTION 1
Award to
Responsive Bidder
Start Jan 2015
OPTION 2
Rebid Visitor Center Site
Start Mar 2015
OPTION 3
Revise Design
Bid South Site
Start Jan 2016
OPTION 4
Cancel Project
Reject bids REMARKS
1 Number of New Parking Spaces Provided 101 101 190 0 Traffic study states Estes Park needs an additional 500 parking spaces to meet summer demand
2 Project Cost per Parking Space $79,199.00 $74,816.00 $37,656.00 NA
3 Town Cost per Parking Space $19,547.89 $15,164.54 $11,862.90 NA
4 Impact to Bureau of Reclamation Land Special Use Permit
Required for Utility Redesign
Special Use Permit
Required for Utility Redesign
Special Use Permit
Required New NEPA none SUP processed in 3 weeks. Allow 6-12 months for new NEPA. BoR will oversee NEPA. Budget $75k to $100k.
5 Safety/Access Delay to Shuttle Bus
Peak Period Left Turn Exit 590 sec = 10 minutes 590 sec = 10 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes Delay per TIS. Remedies: install traffic signal at West Access (VC site), move shuttles to south lot, move parking
structure to south lot, build future access east at Steamer Dr. No funding exists for $300k traffic signal or roundabout.
6 Safety/Access Delay to Guests
Peak Period Left Turn Exit 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes Not measured. Assume 1.3 min 80 sec = 1.3 minutes New Traffic Impact Study would be required for NEPA evaluation of south site.
7 Cost to Relocate Existing Utilities $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 Three utilities conflict with structure at VC site (sewer, storm drainage, electric). Elect conflicts at south site.
8 Visual Impact from Adjacent Highway 2 Story Structure 2 Story Structure 1 Story Structure none South site is approximate 10' below Hwy 36 road surface.
9 Peak Hour Traffic Volume August 6, 2014 1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)869 (Hwy 36 westbound)1069 (Hwy 34 westbound)Daily counts in Sep 2014 were about 3% higher on Hwy 34 as compared to Hwy 36.
10 Project Cost (Full Amenities)$6,875,087.00 $6,432,369.00 $7,154,700.00 $0.00 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site.
11 Full Project Budget Deficit (paid by Town)$1,974,337.00 $1,531,619.00 $2,253,950.00 $0.00 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site.
12 Bid Construction Cost (All Deducts Removed)$5,106,880.00 $4,359,804.00 $5,082,135.00 $0.00 South Site not bid. Value is estimate only and assumes deduct value equal to lowest bid received for VC site.
13 Minimal Project Budget Deficit (paid by Town)$1,330,217.00 $583,141.00 $1,305,474.00 $0.00 South Site not bid. Value is estimate only and assumes deduct value equal to lowest bid received for VC site.
14 Citizen Transp Advisory Board Ranking 4 4 1 4
15 Staff Ranking (1 = preferred)3 2 1 4
16 Trustee Ranking
LEGEND:Significant Benefit
Good
Tolerable
Poor
Major Concern
ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 6Figure 6.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"SOUTH SITEDecember 04, 2014
LIGHT & POWER Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: December 9, 2014
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power for Substation
Maintenance
Objective:
To obtain approval to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Platte
River Power Authority (PRPA) for SCADA services (Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition) for the Town’s SCADA systems at their two substations.
Present Situation:
The Light and Power Department wants to reduce costs and improve reliability by
outsourcing our SCADA maintenance. Last year PRPA began SCADA maintenance for
the City of Loveland thereby creating an opportunity for the Town to participate in the
same PRPA service.
Proposal:
The proposed IGA outlines expectations, obligations and requirements of both parties
with regard to providing SCADA services.
Advantages:
This agreement will reduce costs and increase reliability by consolidating the Town’s
need for SCADA services with PRPA.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the IGA be approved.
Budget:
This item has been budgeted for 2015.
502-6301-540.25-31, Light & Power/O&M/Distribution/Operations & Maintenance
Level of Public Interest:
No direct involvement.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Town entering into the IGA for SCADA Services with
Platte River Power Authority.
Attachment:
Intergovernmental Agreement for SCADA Services
- 2 -
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR
SCADA SERVICES
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SCADA SERVICES (“Agreement”)
is made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2015, by and between the TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (“Estes
Park”), and PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY, a political subdivision organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado (“Platte River”).
WHEREAS, Estes Park desires to retain Platte River to perform Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”) Services (the “Services”) as set forth in this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Platte River desires to provide those S ervices to Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, as governmental entities in Colorado, Estes Park and Platte River are
authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-203, to cooperate or contract with one another to
provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services. Estes Park agrees to retain Platte River to provide the Services as more
specifically set forth in Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, and Platte River agrees to so serve. Platte River represents
that it has the requisite authority, capacity, experience, and expertise to perform
the Services in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and all
applicable laws and agrees to perform the Services on the terms and conditions
set forth herein. Exhibits A and B may be modified by mutual written
agreement of the General Manager of Platte River and the Utilities Director of
Estes Park without further approval from Platte River’s Board of Directors or
the Estes Park Town Board, provided such modifications are technical in
nature and do not alter the intended purpose of this Agreement.
2. Compensation. Estes Park agrees to pay Platte River for the Services amounts
due as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Exhibit C may be modified on an annual basis by the Platte River General Manager
to reflect increases in the Base Costs incurred by Platte River to provide the
Services. Estes Park will be notified in writing of any such modification by
September 1 for the increase in Base Costs for the future annual period. Estes Park
shall make payment upon receipt and approval of invoices submitted by Platte
River, which invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly and
Page 1 of 12
shall identify the Services performed for which payment is requested.
3. Procurement. Estes Park agrees to purchase its own hardware and software, or
reimburse Platte River for hardware and software purchases on Estes Park’s behalf,
required to maintain the Services in accordance with Exhibit A, and as directed by
Platte River. Commencing with the 2016 budget year, Platte River agrees to provide
an annual budget to Estes Park identifying new estimated operating, maintenance,
and capital expenses for each budget cycle.
4. Infrastructure. Estes Park agrees to use Platte River infrastructure identified in
Exhibit B for portions of the Services. Platte River agrees to select and provide
sufficient hardware and software to ensure reliable operation of the Platte River
infrastructure. Neither party shall claim any ownership interest in the other’s
infrastructure.
5. Operations Technology. Estes Park agrees to allow, and to the extent necessary will
assist in making, necessary modifications to its SCADA system required to
implement and maintain the Services in accordance with Exhibit A, and as directed
by Platte River.
6. Term. The Term of this Agreement shall be from the date first written above
until terminated as provided in Paragraph 13 below.
7. Appropriation. To the extent this Agreement constitutes a multiple fiscal year
debt or financial obligation of Estes Park, it shall be subject to annual
appropriation by the Estes Park Town Board and Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution. Neither Platte River nor Estes Park shall have any
obligation to continue this Agreement in any fiscal year in which no such
appropriation is made.
8. Monitoring and Evaluation. Estes Park reserves the right to monitor and evaluate
the progress and performance of Platte River to ensure that the terms of this
Agreement are being satisfactorily met in accordance with Estes Park’s and other
applicable monitoring and evaluating criteria and standards. Platte River shall
cooperate with Estes Park relating to such monitoring and evaluation.
9. Independent Contractor. The parties agree that Platte River shall be an
independent contractor and shall not be an employee, agent, or servant of Estes
Park.
10. Insurance Requirements.
a. Excess Liability Insurance. Platte River self insures up to One Million
Page 2 of 12
Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Thereafter, Platte River maintains an excess liability
insurance policy.
b. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. Platte River shall
procure and keep in force during the duration of this Agreement a policy
of comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring Platte River
against any liability for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising
out of the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the
site of all motor vehicles controlled by Platte River which are used in
connection with the Services, whether the motor vehicles are owned,
non-owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000).
c. Terms of Insurance. Insurance required by this Agreement may provide
for deductible amounts as Platte River deems reasonable for the Services.
No such policies shall be cancelable or subject to reduction in coverage
limits except after ten days prior written notice to Estes Park.
d. Workers’ Compensation and Other Insurance. During the term of this
Agreement Platte River shall procure and keep in force workers’
compensation insurance and all other insurance required by any
applicable law.
e. Evidence of Coverage. Upon request, Platte River shall furnish to Estes
Park certificates of insurance policies evidencing insurance coverage
required by this Agreement.
f. Subcontracts. Platte River shall contract only with entities capable of
performing the work for which they are retained. Platte River shall
require all subcontractors to carry adequate levels of insurance and to
name Estes Park as an additional insured under the required policies. In
addition, all contracts between Platte River and subcontractors for work
under this Agreement shall name Estes Park as a third party beneficiary
of such contracts.
g. Property Insurance. Estes Park shall maintain adequate property
insurance, which insurance shall provide a waiver of subrogation in favor
of Platte River. Upon request, Estes Park shall provide documentation to
Platte River confirming the existence of said property insurance with the
waiver of subrogation language.
11. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, each party hereby covenants and
agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless the other party, its officers,
Page 3 of 12
employees, and agents from any and all liability, loss, costs, charges, obligations,
expenses, attorney’s fees, litigation, judgments, damages, claims, and demands of
any kind whatsoever arising from or out of any gross negligence or intentional
misconduct of its officers, employees, or agents in the performance or
nonperformance of its obligations under this Agreement.
12. Limitations of Liability. In recognition of the nature of the compensation received
for the Services rendered by Platte River under this Agreement, in no event will
Platte River be liable to Estes Park for any claim for damage to property of Estes
Park, whether such claim is in contract or tort, except as provided in Paragraph 11,
above. IN NO EVENT WILL PLATTE RIVER BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL,
INCIDENTAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
13. Termination.
a. Generally.
1) Estes Park may terminate this Agreement without cause if it
determines that such termination is in Estes Park’s best interest.
Estes Park shall effect such termination by giving written notice of
termination to Platte River, specifying the effective date of
termination, at least thirty-six calendar months prior to the
effective date of termination. In the event of such termination by
Estes Park, Estes Park shall be liable to pay Platte River for Services
performed as of the effective date of termination. Platte River shall
not perform any additional Services after the effective date of the
termination unless otherwise instructed in writing by Estes Park.
2) Platte River may terminate this Agreement without cause if it
determines that such termination is in Platte River’s best interest.
Platte River shall effect such termination by giving written notice
of termination to Estes Park, specifying the effective date of
termination, at least thirty-six calendar months prior to the
effective date of termination.
b. For Cause. If, through any cause, either party fails to fulfill its obligations
under this Agreement in a timely and proper manner, violates any provision
of this Agreement, or violates any applicable law, and does not commence
correction of such nonperformance or violation within seven calendar days
of receipt of written notice and diligently completes the correction
thereafter, the non-breaching party shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement for cause immediately upon written notice of termination to the
breaching party. In the event of such termination by Estes Park, Estes Park
Page 4 of 12
shall be liable to pay Platte River for Services performed as of the effective
date of termination. Platte River shall not perform any additional Services
following receipt of the notice of termination.
14. Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Agreement shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities,
rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq.
15. Survival Clause. The “Indemnification” provision set forth in this Agreement
shall survive the completion of the Services and the satisfaction, expiration, or
termination of this Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not
be modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties. This
Agreement is for the benefit of the parties, and there is no third party or other
intended beneficiaries to this Agreement.
17. Severability. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision
of this Agreement invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not invalidate or
render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement.
18. Heading. Paragraph headings used in this Agreement are for convenience of
reference and shall in no way control or affect the meaning or interpretation of
any provision of this Agreement.
19. Notices. Written notices required under this Agreement and all other
correspondence between the parties shall be directed to the following and shall
be deemed received when hand-delivered or three days after being sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested:
If to Estes Park: Utilities Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
If to Platte River: General Manager
Platte River Power Authority
2000 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
20. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
Page 5 of 12
the State of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
21. Legal Constraints. The parties recognize the legal constraints imposed upon them
by the constitutions, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and of the
United States, and imposed upon Estes Park by its M unicipal Code, and, subject
to such constraints, the parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of
this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to
the contrary, in no event shall either of the parties hereto exercise any power or
take any action which shall be prohibited by applicable law.
22. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, and
the counterparts taken together shall constitute the whole of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Town Attorney
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY
By:
Jackie A. Sargent, General Manager/CEO
ATTEST:
Assistant Secretary
Page 6 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Platte River shall provide SCADA support for Estes Park’s SCADA system. This Exhibit
A describes in general the work responsibilities that Platte River will assume, the manner
in which those responsibilities will be performed, and the administrative activities that
will support this work. If this Exhibit A is modified as set forth in Paragraph 1, a new
Exhibit A will be substituted. The new Exhibit A will be executed by both the General
Manager of Platte River and Utilities Director of Estes Park, and will include a revised
effective date.
Staffing
Platte River will:
• Employ adequate staff to perform the Services. These employees may have
other job responsibilities in addition to their responsibilities under this
Agreement.
• Provide a single point of contact for Estes Park staff. The single point of contact
will distribute information from Estes Park to Platte River staff.
Estes Park will:
• Provide personnel to perform point to point checks.
• Provide a single point of contact for Platte River. The single point of contact will
distribute information from Platte River to Estes Park staff.
Scope of Work
Platte River will:
• Complete SCADA implementation tasks as outlined in Exhibit B and
described in Platte River’s document titled “Town of Estes Park SCADA
Recommendations,” dated _________, 201_, as revised from time to time (“SCADA
Recommendations”).
• Perform SCADA maintenance tasks as outlined in Exhibit B and described in
the SCADA Recommendations document.
• Provide SCADA support 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
• Provide staffing to support SCADA projects.
• Provide budgetary estimates to Estes Park.
Estes Park will:
• Complete SCADA and compliance tasks as outlined in Exhibit B, and as
directed by Platte River.
• Coordinate with Platte River to perform point to point checks.
• Provide adequate dedicated facilities, HVAC, UPS, and physical security to
Page 7 of 12
support Service assets.
• Allow authorized Platte River staff access to Service assets.
Administrative Support
Platte River will:
• Coordinate any SCADA activities with Estes Park’s single point of contact.
• Maintain documentation associated with SCADA system work.
• Coordinate purchases of Estes Park owned SCADA hardware and software
with Estes Park’s single point of contact.
Estes Park will:
• Provide access to SCADA documentation necessary to perform the Services.
• Follow the SCADA callout procedure.
• Purchase items requested by Platte River.
Reimbursement
Platte River will:
• Provide a monthly invoice to Estes Park for Services performed in accordance with
Exhibit C.
Estes Park will:
• Pay invoices submitted by Platte River on a timely basis.
Effective Date: January 1, 2015.
Page 8 of 12
EXHIBIT B
Estes Park SCADA Services/Responsibilities
Task Description (System/Asset Owner) Responsibility Department Contact
Naming Conventions (Estes Park) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Alarms –
Programming & Maintenance (Estes Park)
PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Calculations –
Programming & Maintenance
PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Comm Channels (Estes Park) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Points –
Programming & Maintenance (Estes Park)
PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Displays –
Creation & Maintenance (Estes Park)
PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Survalent Hardware Upgrades (Estes Park) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Survalent Software Upgrades (Estes Park) PRPA
SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Redundant Survalent Server & Network (Estes Park) PRPA
SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
WAN Network Connectivity (PRPA) PRPA Telecom SCADA Engineer
SCADA Historian (Estes Park) PRPA
SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Cyber Asset Status Monitoring and Alerting (PRPA) PRPA
SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA System Backup and Recovery (PRPA)
PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Security Patch Management (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Anti-virus (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Security Logging and Alerting (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Windows Domain Administration (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Access Reviews – Administrator (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Vulnerability Assessments (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
System Hardening PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Secure File Transfer (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Page 9 of 12
Electronic Security Perimeter (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Appropriate Use Banners (Estes Park) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Group Policy (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Cyber Security Policy (PRPA) PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Backup and Recovery Procedures PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
SCADA Support – 24x7 PRPA SCADA Services SCADA Engineer
Access Reviews – Owner (PRPA) Estes Park Power Operations Senior Electrical
Engineer
SCADA Alarms – Testing Estes Park
Power Operations -
Engineering
Senior Electrical
Engineer
SCADA Point to Point Estes Park Power Operations -
Engineering
Senior Electrical
Engineer
If this Exhibit B is modified as set forth in Paragraph 1, a new Exhibit B will be
substituted. The new Exhibit B will be executed by both the General Manager of Platte
River and Utilities Director of Estes Park, and will include a revised effective date.
Effective Date: January 1, 2015.
Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT C
Cost of Services
Background - Service Costs to Platte River:
Platte River estimates that its current obligation to provide SCADA Services through
IGAs with both the City of Loveland (“Loveland”) and Estes Park can be performed by
one full-time SCADA Engineer equivalent.
The current Platte River equivalent cost of one full-time SCADA Engineer is as follows:
Salary $95,040.00
Benefits $39,632.00
Management $7,050.00
Training $5,400.00
Annual $147,122.00
Monthly $12,260.17
Cost Allocation:
The equivalent cost of one full-time SCADA Engineer as set forth above shall be paid
by Loveland and Estes Park.
The equivalent cost of one full-time SCADA Engineer shall be paid by Loveland and
Estes Park in an amount proportional to their percentage of the total number of
substations being controlled by their SCADA systems. The Cost shall be paid on a
monthly basis.
Loveland and Estes Park together have a total of nine (9) substations. Of those nine
substations, Loveland owns seven (7) and Estes Park owns two (2). The pro rata share of
the equivalent cost of one full-time SCADA Engineer shall be paid as follows:
Loveland – 7/9
Annual $114,428.22
Monthly $9,535.69
Estes Park – 2/9
Annual $32,693.78
Monthly $2,724.48
Page 11 of 12
Administrative and Incidental Costs:
In addition to the Costs above, Loveland and Estes Park shall pay Platte River for its
administrative and incidental costs associated with the Services. Such costs shall be
itemized in separate Work Orders and shall be included as a separate line item in the
invoices submitted to Loveland and Estes Park.
If this Exhibit C is modified as set forth in Paragraph 2, a new Exhibit C will be
substituted.
Page 12 of 12
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Date: December 9, 2014
RE: Special Event Department Vehicle Replacements - G105A, G117 & G126
Objective:
To replace three trucks for the Special Events Department: G105A (a 1994 Ford F250
4x4 that has been in service for 20 years), G117 (a 1993 Chevy C3500 4x2 that has
been in service for 21 years), and G126 (a 2000 Ford F350 4x4 that has been in service
for 14 years). These three trucks will be replaced with two 2015 Ford F550’s. The
replacement trucks will be used for Special Events Department operations.
Present Situation:
The funds for these replacements are included in the 2014 Special Events Department
budget. The cost of these vehicles exceeds $30,000 and must approved by the Board
of Trustees.
Proposal:
To utilize the 2014 budget amount from the vehicle replacement fund to replace G105A,
G117, and G126. This will be accomplished by purchasing two Ford F550 pickup trucks
from Spradley Barr of Greeley, each for the amount of $43,314.00 w/trade-in for a total
of $86,628.00.
The Town of Estes Park is utilizing the State of Colorado competitive bid process. The
lowest bid was from Spradley Barr of Greeley.
Advantages:
• New vehicles
• Newer technology
• Heavy work load capabilities for region
• Easier, more efficient operation for Special Events
• Less maintenance costs
Disadvantages:
None
Budget:
G105A--$26,781.00 / 635-7000-435-34-42 / Vehicle Replacement Fund
G117----$23,132.00 / 635-7000-435-34-42 / Vehicle Replacement Fund
G126----$41,340.00 / 635-7000-435-34-42 / Vehicle Replacement Fund
Total $91,253.00
Less $86,628.00 (purchase cost)
$ 4,625.00 savings of budgeted funds
Level of Public Interest
Minimal.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Town purchasing two 2015 Ford F550’s in the
amount of $86,628.00 to replace the three retired trucks for the Special Events
Department.
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: December 9th, 2014
RE: Financial Report for 3rdd Q 2014
Background:
Attached is the Financial Report for the October 2014. Sales tax data is reported
through September 2014.
With all of the Town’s financially-affected areas from the Flood, Staff decided to modify
the Dashboard Report from 4 areas to 8. After 9 years, I have yielded to the increased
need for data and have expanded the Dashboard Report to 2 pages.
General Fund: A general rule of thumb for all Town budgets is that it is desirable
for revenues to exceed “% of year elapsed”, and for expenses to trail “% of year
elapsed” (through October, that number will be 83%). General Fund
expenditures are currently at 93%, due to flood-related expenditures. This will be
addressed during the supplemental budget approval process.
Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF): The 2014 CRF Budget was revised in
the May 13, 2014 Board meeting. The CRF is significantly under budget from
both a revenue and expenditure standpoint. Neither the parking structure nor
FLAP projects have advanced as far as was thought when the CRF budget was
revised in May 2014.
Community Services Fund (CSF): From an operational standpoint, the CSF
Budget is the most dynamic. Expenditures are slightly over budget, which will be
addressed with the supplemental budget appropriation. As the year has elapsed,
MPEC expenditures have come into better focus.
Larimer County Open Space: The Open Space Fund brings in ~ $300,000/year
from a 0.6% sales tax levy. Expenditures are restricted to acquisition and
maintenance of open spaces. As this includes parks and trails, some of which
were flood-affected, Staff believes that this fund will become important in the
recovery efforts in 2014. Most of the expenditures in 2014 are expected to be
used for reconstruction of said open spaces and trails. To date, very little has
been expended out of Open Space.
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
Light & Power, Water Funds: Staff has separated the Utility Funds (L&P, Water)
because, while the funds are similar from an accounting standpoint (Enterprise
Funds), Light & Power and Water often perform very differently. Electric and
Water revenues do not necessarily move in the same direction, and the two
funds have common but also different economic challenges. The Utility Funds
were dramatically affected by the Flood. In response, Staff made every effort to
reduce expenditures in anticipation of the expected revenue loss. At the same
time, Staff tried to address capital projects with in-house staff and available
inventory. Several projects were delayed and will be delayed until such time as
the effects of the flood, both on revenues and infrastructure, were better
understood.
Sales Tax: Several slides are included later in this presentation that provide
more detail to this portion of the Dashboard Report.
Investments: A municipality’s investment universe is limited to interest-rate
sensitive instruments, including money markets, CDs, US Treasuries and US
Instrumentalities. The drop in interest rates from 2008 (~4.75%) to today (~
0.25%) has caused over $750,000 in returns to evaporate, subsequently
affecting every Town fund. Recent legislation (HB 12-1005) has allowed
municipalities to again invest in government-backed securities that were
prohibited when the ratings agencies downgraded the US Government in 2010.
The Town took advantage of this, and is now positioned in accordance with
recommendations from our investment advisors. Our investment strategy is to
keep duration (length of investment) on a very short leash – the Town does not
want to be caught disproportionately in long positions should interest rates
increase significantly. Our investment universe is anchored by rates of return of
0.02%-0.12%. Staff is inclined to leave the bulk of the portfolio in cash pending
identification of the timing of the repair work on Fish Creek and Fall River.
Pertinent information included in the sales tax slides include:
CAST information shows another good start to the year. Most reporting towns are
ahead of 2013, which itself was a record year. The Town is doing well, but is no more
than average compared to the CAST community at large.
On the sales tax slide that shows a hyperlink, staff is proud to present the updated sales
tax information page on the Finance Department section of the Town website.
Page 3
FINANCE Memo
Flood cost/reimbursement update
Staff is working on a chart to report an update for flood costs/reimbursements and will
bring it to the Tuesday night Board meeting.
Concluding/Other thoughts
Staff has been diligently working on revising the 2014 Budget and forecasting 2015.
These will be our most challenging budgets yet, as staff attempts to balance flood
recovery costs and reimbursements, the four new funds (roads, community center,
emergency systems, trails) resulting from the 1% sales tax increase, the operational
budget of MPEC, and the capital projects before the Town (parking structure, FLAP).
Despite the devastation caused by the Flood, Staff is convinced that the Town and
citizens will emerge from the recovery in position to take advantage of future
opportunities presented to our community. Staff will continue to closely monitor and
report the economics of the Flood recovery. In the meantime, Staff will diligently
monitor the financial challenges before us, and will report regularly to the Board and
citizens.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
UPDATE: Financial and Sales Tax Report(through October 2014)Steve McFarland –Finance Officer
FINANCIAL INDICATORSTOWN OF ESTES PARK – THROUGH Oct 31st, 2014GENERAL FUNDLIGHT & POWER FUND2014 2014 % of 2014 2014 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES* $10,378,532 $12,662,144 ($2,283,612) 82.0% REVENUES $13,007,166 $13,814,524 ($807,358) 94.2%EXPENSES 12,322,503 13,265,553 943,050 92.9% EXPENSES 10,936,837 16,642,075 5,705,238 65.7%Net increase/decrease ($1,943,971) ($603,409) ($1,340,562) Net increase/decrease $2,070,329 ($2,827,551) $4,897,880 *sales tax included through Aug 2014COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND WATER FUND2014 2014 % of 2014 2014 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83%% of year elapsed> 83%REVENUES $2,762,756 $6,567,676 ($3,804,920) 42.1% REVENUES $3,323,536 $3,803,800 ($480,264) 87.4%EXPENSES 2,825,007 9,872,014 7,047,007 28.6% EXPENSES 3,009,358 4,922,833 1,913,475 61.1%Net increase/decrease ($62,251) ($3,304,338) $3,242,087 Net increase/decrease $314,178 ($1,119,033) $1,433,211
FINANCIAL INDICATORSTOWN OF ESTES PARK – THROUGH Oct 31st, 2014COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND INVESTMENTS (Fair value)Aug‐14 Sep‐14 Oct‐142014 2014 % of Town FundsYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Money markets/CDs 15,568,561 16,775,790 17,770,306 % of year elapsed> 83% U.S. Treasuries 3,107,509 3,101,459 3,106,625 COPs 1,327,375 1,327,501 1,754,281 REVENUES $2,039,144 $2,592,972 ($553,828) 78.6% U.S. Instrumentalities 5,472,498 5,451,290 5,471,202 EXPENSES 2,449,716 2,845,481 395,765 86.1% Total 25,475,943 26,656,041 28,102,414 Net increase/decrease ($410,572) ($252,509) ($158,063) FOSH/Theater Fund 458,984 459,028 459,073 annual pooled govt mmf rate: 10/31/14 = 0.12%; 0.02% locally.LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDSALES TAX2014 2014 % of 1st Q2nd Q3rd QTotalYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 83% 2014 1,094,090 2,143,981 3,814,689 7,052,760 2013 1,035,558 2,017,648 3,175,455 6,228,661 REVENUES* $218,581 $290,500 ($71,919) 75.2% 2012 995,733 1,963,313 3,459,742 6,418,788 EXPENSES 36,975 262,903 225,928 14.1%Net increase/decrease $181,606 $27,597 $154,009 2014 vs 2013 5.7% 6.3% 20.1% 13.2%*revenues included through Aug 2014 2014 vs 2012 9.9% 9.2% 10.3% 9.9%
SALES TAX FACTS•2014 (through September):•75% of calendar year; 82% of fiscal year.•13.2% ahead of 2013.•11.8% ahead of 2014 budget.•24 CAST communities currently reporting:•2014 is another strong year.
CAST COMMUNITIES
CAST COMMUNITIES
SALES TAX RATE OF CHANGE
SALES TAX RATE OF CHANGE
NEW SALES TAX INFO ON WEBSITE•www.colorado.gov/townofestespark•Updates to new funds•Emergency Response•Community Center•Trails•Streets•Five year history of General Fund•Sectors
FLOOD UPDATEStaff will present a financial update at the Board meeting. Data is still being gathered and will be distributed at the Board meeting.