HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-03-25
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, March 25, 2014
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: “FINANCIAL LITERACY MONTH”.
PROCLAMATION: “MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD”.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Quarterly Report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 11, 2014 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated March 11, 2014.
2. Bills.
Prepared 3/16/14
* Revised 3/21/14
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Public Safety, Utilities, Public Works Committee – March 13, 2014.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 2014.
(acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated February 19, 2014
(acknowledgement only).
6. Tree Board Minutes dated February 20, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision PUD 1st Filing, 570
Devon Drive; Franz & Carol Peterson/Applicant. Planner Kleisler.
B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP, Meadows Condominiums,
Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Subdivision
Replat; Condominiumize Units 301 & 305 Kiowa Drive; Greg
Coffman/Applicant. Planner Kleisler.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #08-14 – AMENDING ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 3.1.E CONCURRENT REVIEW AND SECTION 3.1.F APPLICATION
PROCESSING SCHEDULE. Director Chilcott.
2. ORDINANCE #09-14 – APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR
THE SALE OF LOT 4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR THE ANSCHUTZ
WELLNESS CENTER. Attorney White.
3. GEORGE HIX MEMORIAL SCULPTURE & PLAQUE. Director Zurn.
4. PURCHASE OF PORTABLE STALL BARNS FOR PAVILION. Director Winslow.
*
5. ORDINANCE #10-14 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.010
COMMITTEES AND SECTION 2.28.020 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR FUNCTIONS
AND DUTIES. AMEND POLICY GOVERNANCE 2.3 & 3.13 RELATED TO
ADMINISTRATOR FUNCTIONS. Attorney White & Town Administrator Lancaster.
6. TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE 101 - BOARD COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT POLICY. Administrator Lancaster.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Director Zurn.
2. VISITOR CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE UPDATE. Director Zurn.
5. ADJOURN.
Today we know more than ever before about the
importance of children's earliest years in shaping their
learning and development. Yet, never before have the needs of young children and their families
been more pressing. Our community continues to struggle to provide quality, consistent childcare
that meets the needs of families. Care for children under 2.5 years is not available. The Month of
the Young Child is a time to recognize that children's opportunities and well-being are our
responsibility, and to recommit ourselves to ensuring that every Estes Park child experiences safe,
nurturing, healthy learning environments that promote success.
The EVICS Scholarship Program has provided over $127,000 in child care assistance to lower
income families since 2006. These dollars are raised entirely through gifts and donations and have
allowed us to provide childcare and preschool access to over 165 working families.
Parents as Teachers is our parent outreach program, providing support to parents of children ages
0-5. Home visits help parents improve parenting skills, understand child development, get
connected to community resources, and prepare children for school and life success.
Outreach to Latino Families has grown by leaps and bounds with the addition of our Bilingual
Program Assistant. We have facilitated the enrollment of more Latino children into childcare
programs and preschools, and seen increased participation in our scholarship program and monthly
Family Nights.
Family Nights are offered once a month to all families in the community with children ages
0-5. Family Night’s includes dinner, activities, and parent education. Community Church of the
Rockies provides free space, local restaurants and clubs donate dinner, and numerous volunteers
help run the program. Family Nights give families the opportunity to strengthen connections with
others, learn about community resources, and improve parenting skills.
Community Developmental Screenings are coordinated through our Parents as Teachers Program,
in partnership with the school district. Screenings ensure that young children are on track develop-
mentally, and increase access to early intervention services for children with special needs.
The 5th Annual Estes Park Early Childhood Conference will take place on April 19 at the
YMCA of the Rockies. The conference offers a full day of professional development for early
childhood teachers and childcare providers. Last year’s conference drew 60 participants from Estes
Park and across the Front Range.
None of this would be possible without the support EVICS receives from the Town of Estes Park
and our other community partners, donors, and numerous supporters.
Nancy Almond, Director Karin Steers, Parent Educator Kellie Thompson, Program Asst/Bilingual Educator
www.evics.org 970.586.3055
.
April is the
Month of the Young Child
How are we investing in
young children?
Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success
April 2014
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 25th, 2014
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Each March I report on the following staff limitations:
Policy 3.1 Customer Service
Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff
Policy 3.4 Financial Condition and Activities
Policy 3.5 Asset Protection
Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board
Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming
Policy 3.11 General Town Administrator Constraint – Quality of Life
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3.1 The quality of life in The Town of Estes Park depends upon the
partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees.
Therefore, within the scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall
not fail to ensure high standards regarding the treatment of our citizens.
3.1.1 The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic
attitudes in employees:
3.1.1.1 The Citizens of The Town of Estes Park deserve the best possible
services and facilities given available resources.
3.1.1.2 Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues.
3.1.1.3 Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that
demonstrates a high level of professionalism.
3.1.1.4 Each employee represents excellence in public service.
3.1.1.5 Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public.
REPORT: I continue to stress the importance of high standards regarding
treatment of our citizens to all staff and leadership. Any citizen’s
concerns I become aware of are addressed asap. I am therefore
reporting compliance.
3.1.2 The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the
partnership between citizens, , elected officials and Town employees.
Accordingly, regarding the treatment of citizens and customers, the Town
Administrator shall not:
3.1.2.1 Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to due
process.
3.1.2.2 Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make material
decisions affecting the community in the absence of relevant community
input.
3.1.2.3 Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an untimely
basis) about relevant decision making processes and decisions.
3.1.2.4 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the
community.
3.1.2.5 Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to address
them in a timely manner.
3.1.2.6 Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment from Town
employees.
3.1.2.7 Unduly breach or disclose confidential information.
REPORT: With regard to treatment of citizens and customers, I am unaware
of any major failures to comply with any of the requirements of this
section. There have been minor failures that have been addressed
promptly with the staff involved. I am therefore reporting substantial
compliance.
3.2 With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town
Administrator may not cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or
undignified.
Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority,
the administrator shall not:
3.2.1 Operate without written personnel policies that clarify
personnel rules for employees.
REPORT: The Town has written personnel policies that clarify
personnel rules for employees. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.2.2 Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy
upon employment.
REPORT: New employees are informed of their rights under this
policy upon employment. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.2.3 Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal
Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act.
REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.2.4 Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working
environment for employees, volunteers and citizens
utilizing Town services
REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.2.5 Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the
responsibilities of volunteers and of the Town for all
volunteers.
REPORT: The Town has adopted volunteer policies. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.4 With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s
financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of
fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives.
Accordingly, the Town Administrator may not:
3.4.1. Expend more funds than are available.
REPORT: We have not expended more funds than are available. I
am therefore reporting compliance
3.4.2. Allow the general fund and other ins to decline below
twenty-five percent of annual expenditures as of the end of
the fiscal year, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
REPORT: The general fund balance at the end of 2013 is
anticipated to decline below the 25% level to 24% at this
time. We also anticipate it to be below 25% at the end of FY
2014 due to impacts from the September flood. However
this decline was discussed with and authorized by the board.
I am therefore reporting compliance
3.4.3. Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle
payroll and debts in a timely manner.
REPORT: Available cash has not dropped below the amount
needed to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.4.4. Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately
filed.
REPORT: All payments and fillings have been made in a timely
manner. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.4.5. Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent
protection has not been given against conflict of interest
and may not engage in purchasing practices in violation of
state law or Town purchasing procedures.
REPORT: The Town has not engaged in any purchases wherein
normally prudent protection has not been given against
conflict of interest nor in purchasing practices in violation of
state law or Town purchasing procedures.. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.4.6. Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund
was established.
REPORT: I have not used any fund for a purpose other than for
which the fund was established I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.5 Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the
Town Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected,
inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.5.1. Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which
insures against property losses and against liability losses to
Board members, staff and the Town of Estes Park to the
amount legally obligated to pay, or allow the organization to be
uninsured:
3.5.1.1 Against theft and casualty losses,
3.5.1.2 Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the
town itself in an amount equal to or greater than the
average for comparable organizations,.
3.5.1.3 Against employee theft and dishonesty.
REPORT: The Town has in place adequate insurance and risk
management procedures. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.5.2. Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear
and tear or insufficient maintenance (except normal
deterioration and financial conditions beyond Town
Administrator control).
REPORT: The Town owned facilities and equipment have not been
subject to improper wear and tear, within the control of the
Town Administrator. Current preventive maintenance
procedures for facilities are in need of review and revision
and were planned to be updated by the new Facilities
Director. That position has been put on hold due to the flood.
. I am therefore reporting only partial compliance
3.5.3. Receive, process or disburse funds under controls
insufficient to meet the Board-appointed auditor’s
standards.
REPORT: The Town has not received, processed or disbursed
funds under controls insufficient to meet the Board-appointed
auditor’s standards. . I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.4. Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of
Town Trustees or staff to claims of liability.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not unnecessarily exposed
Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff to
claims of liability. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.5 Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files
from loss or significant damage.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not failed to protect
intellectual property, information and files from loss or
significant damage. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.6 Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property
except as expressly permitted in Town policy.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not acquired, encumbered,
disposed or contracted for real property except as expressly
permitted in Town policy. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.5.7 Allow internal control standards to be less than that
necessary to satisfy generally accepted
accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the cost
of internal control should not exceed the benefits
expected to be derived.
REPORT: The Town Administrator has not allowed internal control
standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy generally
accepted accounting/auditing standards I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.6 In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services,
the Town Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the
Town management team familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town
Administrator issues and processes.
3.6.1. The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity
of Town Administrator in his/her absence. In the absence
of the Town Administrator and Assistant Town
Administrator a Town Department Head previously
designated by the Town Administrator will act in the
capacity of Town Administrator.
3.6.2. The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training
needed to enable successful emergency replacement.
REPORT: I have designated two department heads to act in my
capacity as Town Administrator should I be unavailable to
fulfill my duties. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.9 The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be
uninformed or unsupported in its work.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.9.1 Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant
trends, anticipated adverse media coverage, material external
and internal changes, and particularly changes in the
assumptions upon which any Board policy has been
previously established.
REPORT: Through my weekly updates and individual e-mails, as well as
updates at committee and board meetings, I believe I have
informed the Board of relevant trends, anticipated adverse media
coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly
changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has
been previously established. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.9.2 Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see
policy on Monitoring Town Administrator Performance in
Board/Staff Linkage) in a timely, accurate and
understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions of
Board policies being monitored.
REPORT I have submitted my monitoring data reports as required. . I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.9.3 Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town
Trustees as many staff and external points of view, issues
and options as needed for informed Board choices on major
policy issues.
REPORT Current processes brings to the Board of Town Trustees as
many staff and external points of view, issues and options as
needed for informed Board choices on major policy issues. I am
therefore reporting compliance
3.9.4 Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy
form.
REPORT Information submitted to the Board by staff has not been
unnecessarily complex or lengthy. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.9.5 Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees
activities or communications.
REPORT I believe staff has provided adequate support for official Board
of Trustees’ activities and communications. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.9.6 Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole
except when fulfilling individual requests for information.
REPORT I have not failed to deal with the board as a whole except when
fulfilling individual requests for information. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.9.7 Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated
noncompliance with any policy of the Board of Town
Trustees.
REPORT I have not failed to report in a timely manner any actual or
anticipated noncompliance with any policy of the Board of
Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.10 With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and
improvements programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either
operational or fiscal integrity of the organization.
Accordingly, he or she may not allow the development of a capital program
which:
3.10.1 Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’
stated priorities.
REPORT No capital plans nor expenditures have deviated materially
from the Board of Trustees’ state priorities.. I am therefore
reporting compliance
3.10.2 Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds
than are conservatively projected to be available during
that period.
REPORT There have been no plans nor actual expenditures for more
funds than are conservatively projected to be available during the
fiscal period. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.10.3 Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of
capital and operational start-up items, cash flow
requirements and subsequent audit trail.
REPORT Current processes provide adequate detail to enable accurate
separation of capital and operational start-up items, cash flow
requirements and subsequent audit trail.. I am therefore reporting
compliance
3.10.4 Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and
replacement/perpetuation expenses.
REPORT Prior to the flood we had been working on the CAMP and
Capital Investment policies, under the direction of the Deputy
Town Administrator. This project is not completed and very
little work has been done to follow up since the departure of the
Deputy Town Administrator. I have reassigned this task to the
Finance Director and we will be re-examining the proposed
process and plans. We believe these can be clarified and
simplified and will be working to bring these before the board at
some time in the future, hopefully by the end of the year. Our
current major capital planning is no sufficient or adequate. I
therefore cannot report compliance.
3.10.5 Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the
budget and on the progress of each active project,
including data such as changes and the financial status of
each project, including expenditures to date.
REPORT Staff has provided regular reporting on the status of the budget
and on the progress of each active project, including data such as
changes and the financial status of each project, including
expenditures to date. I am therefore reporting compliance
3.11 With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, the
Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the
Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility, and
community interests.
REPORT With respect to Town government's quality of life for the
community, I have continued to plan for implementing policies of
the Board regarding economic health, environmental
responsibility, and community interests, as directed by the Board
of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 11, 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 11th day of March, 2014.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
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.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated the Visit Estes Park Board (LMD) continues their search for a new
CEO. Their next meeting would be held on Tuesday, March 18, 2014.
Trustee Koenig commented Sister Cities would hold a meeting on Wednesday, March
12, 2014 at Coffee on the Rocks.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would hold its
monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 202. The Public
Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee would meet on Thursday, March 13, 2014
at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room.
Trustee Ericson stated the Transportation Advisory Committee would meet on March
19, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. in Rooms 202/203. The Visitor Center would hold an open
house on April 2, 2014 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Board of Trustees – March 11, 2014 – Page 2
The FOSH funds are held by the Town in a fiduciary fund and would continue to be held
until a final decision has been made on EPIC’s performing arts theater in 2017.
Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the election stating the Clerk’s office
would receive absentee ballots on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 and ballots would be
sent to all voters that requested a absentee ballot. Absentee ballots would be available
through close of business on Friday, March 28, 2014. Registered voters could vote
early through the absentee process in Town Hall.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 25, 2014, and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated February 25, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee. February 27,
2014.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY UPDATE. EPHA Director Kurelja
provided the Board with a review of the Housing Authorities latest project
Falcon Ridge located on Lot 4, Good Samaritan, 5.55 acres, zoned RM – multi-
family residential, approved for 66 units assuming the units are affordable (one,
two and three bedroom units), and build out in two phases. A market study
found the need for 1 and 2 bedroom units, low vacancy rates exacerbated by
the flood, and very long waiting lists with approximately twice as many
applicants as units proposed. The new development would serve income
levels between 30% - 60% of the area median income. To provide funding for
the development the Authority would sell tax credits if awarded by CHAFA in
late May to early June ($8.7 million), acquire a mortgage (1.8 million), and
apply for CDBG-DR grant ($900,000) and Federal Home Loan Bank grant
($675,000). The funding identified would leave the project with a funding gap of
$565,894. The Authority would request the Board approve fee waivers for
building permits and water tap fees at a cost of approximately $417,000 to
assist in building the development. The Housing Authority would need a
commitment by the Board late spring/early summer.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
Board of Trustees – March 11, 2014 – Page 3
1. ORDINANCE #08-14 – AMENDING ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 3.1.E CONCURRENT REVIEW AND SECTION 3.1.F
APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE. Item continued to the Town
Board meeting scheduled for March 25, 2014.
2. RESOLUTION #08-14 – SUPPORTING BALLOT ISSUE 1A INCREASING
SALES TAX BY 1% FOR 10 YEARS FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Blackhurst) to approve Resolution #08-14, and
it passed unanimously.
3. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION FEE SCHEDULE. Director Winslow presented
a rental fee schedule for equipment used in the new Event Center and Pavilion.
Staff has researched many facilities around the state and has reviewed the
Johnson report recommendations to develop the schedule: 1) Event Center
$2,000 – commercial, private, and other, $1,500 – non-profit and local, and
$3,000 – public event with ticket sales, and 2) Pavilion $1,500 – commercial,
private, other and $1,000 – non-profit and local. All room rentals are a per day
fee. Additional fees would be charged for rental equipment such as tables,
chairs, A/V, internet, etc. The fee schedule would be negotiable to address
time of year, labor intensive events, and include an all-inclusive price
arrangement. Staff would purchase the day-to-day equipment and rent other
items as needed. Items such as tables and chairs should recoup costs during
the first year of operations. The fee schedule would be reviewed annually to
ensure the rental prices remain competitive.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen thanked the Town for considering a non-
profit/local rate for use of the facilities. He would encourage the Town to review
the use of the shuttle system from the fairgrounds to downtown during events,
even on the shoulder seasons.
It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve the proposed fee
structure for the Estes Park Event Center, Pavilion and equipment rental,
and it passed unanimously.
4. CONTRACT WITH ROCKY MOUNTAIN DATA AVAILABILITY SYSTEM
(RMDAS) FOR IT & WIRELESS EQUIPMENT AT THE EVENT CENTER AND
PAVILION. Director Winslow presented a contract with RMDAS to provide the
design and installation of the IT and wireless equipment for the new Event
Center and Pavilion. Staff requests approval to sole source the work with
RMDAS because the company has already performed similar work at the
fairgrounds. The local company provides the services needed at the
fairgrounds including a large bandwidth that is symmetrical, local technicians
able to respond within 30 minutes, knowledge of the property and the current
infrastructure, redundancy, and provide continued maintenance and operate
the system after installation. RMDAS currently provides wireless access on the
Board of Trustees – March 11, 2014 – Page 4
fairgrounds property for a fee. In the new agreement the Town would own the
equipment/infrastructure and would provide internet access for free.
The Board commented on the need to ensure brand new equipment and
technology would be used in the facilities; as built drawings for the system
should be submitted for future use by staff or other contractors; the systems
should be compatible with current systems; and questioned the depth of the
company and its ability to be around for more than a couple of years.
Mark Repine/RMDAS Managing Partner stated the company has been in
business for three years, and has two IT professionals and two individuals in
college. The company has a long term lease with the hospital, leases fiber
from the Town, and has begun working on agreements with Airbits. The
company has every intention of being in business for the foreseeable future.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to
approve the contract with RMDAS at a contract amount of $74,760 and a
5% contingency, and it passed unanimously.
5. PURCHASE FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE EVENT
CENTER AND PAVILION. The Town does not own the necessary equipment
to operate the new Event Center and Pavilion, therefore, staff requests the
approval to purchase equipment that would be rented and provide revenue for
the facilities. A number of quotes were received and staff recommended the
following: 150 – 8 ft. aluminum tables from Southern Aluminum at $314/table,
30 – 6 ft. round tables at $472/table, 16 – 4x8 section staging from Southern
Aluminum at $740/section, 800 – 4x6 vulcanized rubber mats from The Rubber
Man - $39/matt, and 300 banquet chairs padded and ganged form Worthington
Direct at $50.95/chair. The total cost of the items before deliver fees would be
$119,585. Staff continues to work on a grant for trash and recycling
receptacles at the facilities. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps)
to approve the purchase of equipment for the purchase price identified to
include necessary shipping cost, and it passed unanimously.
6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT APPLICATION TO
SUPPORT THE ESTES PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. The
recently formed Economic Development Council identified diversification and
economic resiliency as elements to improve the local economy. The recent
flood highlighted the Town’s dependency on tourism. The USEDA would
provide technical assistance to communities that have suffered adverse
economic impact due to the Colorado floods through grant assistance. The
USEDA has a strong interest in strategic planning; therefore, the Town has a
unique opportunity to take advantage of best practices and innovation through
the use of an experienced consulting firm. As the EDC has no history of
operation to rely on, the Town would apply for and assume compliance for the
$80,000 grant if awarded. The partnership between the Town and the ECD
Board of Trustees – March 11, 2014 – Page 5
would benefit the entire business community. The grant would require $20,000
in matching funds, which would come from Community Foundation of Northern
Colorado and Larimer County. No matching funds would be required by the
Town.
Jon Nicholas/EDC Director stated the outreach would be similar to the process
used by Downtown Development Inc. and involve all segments of the
community. The grant application does not have a deadline; however, the
sooner the application can be submitted the sooner the EDC can move forward
with the process.
Charlie Dickey/Town citizen stated the support by the Town aids the
advancement in developing a strategic plan.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the grant
application contingent on the review and comment by the Board. All
comments to be sent to Administrator Lancaster by close of business
Friday, March 14, 2014, and it passed unanimously.
7. 2014 ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN. Administrator Lancaster presented the Town
Board with the 2014 Organizational plan, as required by the Municipal Code.
Trustee Elrod questioned the need for the plan to be reviewed and adopted,
and suggested the requirement be removed from the Municipal Code. Further
discussion ensued with the Board recognizing the adopted Policy Governance
and the need to simply review the organizational plan through the Administrator
updates annually. Administrator Lancaster stated the policy governing staff
limitations would be amended to require the Administrator to update an
organizational chart and report regularly to the Board any changes. An
amendment would also come forward to remove the requirement from the
Municipal Code.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/) to approve the administrative
organization plan for 2014 as submitted by the Town Administrator, and
the motion died for lack of a second.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE. Director Zurn updated the Board on the construction progress
stating the Pavilion (stall barn) would be delivered by mid-April and the
concrete floor would be poured in two weeks. Work on the event center
(MPEC) has been favorable due to improved weather conditions. The building
has been closed up and a number of items are moving toward completion. The
construction schedule has slipped 10 days with an estimated deliver in mid-
May.
Board of Trustees – March 11, 2014 – Page 6
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 11, 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
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of March, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Phipps stated difficulty in hearing individuals speaking at the podium in the
Board Room. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst agreed and stated there are staff members
that are hard to hear as well. Discussion was heard. IT Manager Fraundorf
commented a consultant has been evaluating upgrades to the Board Room, including
the sound system.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Board retreat would be rescheduled to June 26,
2014. Trustee Ericson requested a status report on the development/revision to Town
policies.
REVIEW PROGRESS OF 2014 OBJECTIVES.
Administrator Lancaster provided the Board an update on the current status of the 2014
objectives. The September flood, recovery, election, etc has delayed the progress of
some objectives.
Robust Economy – Staff continues to work on Town codes to make the land
use code easier to read/use and to address the establishment of new businesses
(micro breweries, wineries, wedding facilities, etc.).
Town Board Study Session – March 11, 2014 – Page 2
Infrastructure – A number of the items are in progress. The environmental
study for the extension of Fall River has not begun and may be delayed due to
the significant changes that occurred on Fall River from the flood. The
development of funding for facilities maintenance has not started. Director
Bergsten stated a master plan and financial plan for the Water department would
be completed this year. Options for upgrading the Glacier Creek water treatment
plant or a new facility would be discussed along with setting new rates to fund the
improvements. An ad-hoc committee has been formed to review options to
capitalize on the fiber infrastructure, including the use of grant funding to analyze
best uses. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst requested the Board consider the addition
of the final phase of Bond Park as an objective for 2015. Planning for the final
phase was delayed due to the flood.
Exceptional Guest Services – Objectives are in progress. An ad-hoc
committee has been formed to review the current special events, the venues,
and how the events benefit the community. The group would also set criteria for
new events and provide a report to the Board by the end of the year. Trustee
Ericson requested staff provide income for each event and estimated income for
new events for review by the Board.
Public Safety, Health and Environmental – Objectives in progress with the
exception of the public advisory radio, on hold until after the April 1st election, and
changes to radio frequencies has been placed on hold. The land fill remediation
plan for Elm Road landfill continues to move forward. The initial results from the
consultant suggest the cost could be approximately half the original estimate of
$1 million.
Outstanding Community Services – The comprehensive plan update
continues; however, staff resources are focused on flood recovery. Staff
recommends a study session with the new Board after the April 1st election to
discuss the Town’s role in community housing. Staff would bring forward a policy
for the Board’s review on accepting public art.
Governmental Services and Internet Support – Objectives are in progress
with the exception of the capital planning process which has been placed on hold
with the departure of the Assistant Town Administrator Richardson. Finance
Officer McFarland would review past documents and possibly bring forward a
simplified document for the Board’s review. Code Compliance Officer Kleisler
continues to work on compliance with the Town’s business licensing regulations
for vacation homes. Staff continues to work on updating Town polices; however,
progress has been delayed due to the significant work being conducted by staff
on flood recovery issues.
Town Board Study Session – March 11, 2014 – Page 3
Transportation – All objectives are in progress. The Transportation Advisory
Committee has looked as signage and has suggested a standard be developed
for the downtown commercial district. The flood repairs to the Fish Creek
corridor would begin next week.
Administrator Lancaster stated the January sales tax was up 10% over last year. Staff
continues to be cautiously optimistic that revenues would be positive for 2014. The
Town FEMA match is still unknown and could affect the addition of new/additional
projects to the 2014 budget. He would provide quarterly updates to the Board on the
status of the objectives. Trustee Ericson requested staff provide an implementation
plan for the objectives with a few bullet points outlining how each would be
accomplished before the Board’s retreat in June.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS/DEFINITIONS.
Staff has revised the Board Committee Appointment policy as directed by the Board at
their August 13, 2013 study session to include definition of appointments to interview
committees, added definition of Outside committee appointments, updated list of
Committees and Boards, and updated staff assignments.
Board comments included the following: need to update the Municipal Code to reflect
the current standing committees, i.e. Community Development/Community Services
Committee and Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee; individual Trustees
need to be mindful of their role as liaison to outside entities; Board consensus was the
Audit Committee should remain as a special committee and not a standing committee;
the policy should be consistent as to when appointments are made; i.e. certification of
the election results; discussed the appointment of the Mayor Pro Tem and the public’s
perception of succession planning with the appointment; the Shuttle Committee would
be removed as a formal committee and would become administrative; and the Estes
Park Housing Authority would remain as a formal Board with a Board liaison because
the Town appointments their members and provides funding.
Staff would make final revisions to the policy and present it at the Board meeting on
March 25, 2014 for the Board’s consideration.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW UPDATE.
Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the Mountain State Employers Councils
multi-rating tool. The Board reviewed the questions to be used in the evaluation. The
tool would be programmed and sent to the Board by Monday, March 17th for the Board
to complete, responses evaluated, report completed, and a Human Resource Specialist
to review with the Board during an Executive Session on Tuesday, March 25th. The
Board would hold a final evaluation with Town Administrator on Tuesday, April 8th during
an Executive Session.
Town Board Study Session – March 11, 2014 – Page 4
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 13, 2014
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of
Estes Park on the 13th day of March, 2014.
Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Police Chief Kufeld,
Commander Pass, Directors Bergsten, and Zurn Grant
Specialist Crosser, Superintendent Lockhart, Supervisor
Beehler, Manager Fraundorf, and Recording Secretary
Limmiatis
Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Annual Report – Director Mesropian presented a
report reviewing 2013 progress and achievements, including the struggles faced
during the September flood, and highlighted the hard work and commitment of
staff. The safe house was operational after two months of being flooded with the
help of grants to restore the damage incurred. The regular work of placing
advocate calls for suicides, sudden death, domestic violence, and sexual assault
continued throughout the closure during October and November. Initially help
was provided for flood victims through counseling, and support groups until
disaster resources arrived. Three adult residents and one child were residing at
the safe house during the flood and were relocated. The counseling program
continues to be a need in the community. The annual fashion show had to be
cancelled in 2013, but through donations most of the lost revenue was
recovered. The endowment fund currently has a fund balance over $33,000.00,
with the goal being $200,000.00.
2. Communications Update – Commander Pass prvided a verbal update on multiple
technology upgrades which are taking place in the Police Department
communications center, including the Positron Viper Phone System, MCC7500
Radio System, the Tiburon upgrade, the recording system, Everbridge, and
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 13, 2014 – Page 2
Pictometry. Restorative Justice recently completed mediation training and added
new programs in the school system titled Student Support and Accountability
Circle and the Girls Circle, and the Auxiliary Unit would host the Police Academy
again in 2014.
3. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chief Kufeld updated the Committee
on recruiting efforts underway for Community Service Officers and a vacant
Police Officer I position.
UTILITIES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Update on Flood Recovery – Director Bergsten reported thirty-six separate
damage sites identified by the Utilities department after the September flood,
nine of which were repaired immediately. Twenty-seven sites are still pending
final approval from either FEMA or the insurance company. To date, FEMA has
approved approximately $1.4 million for permanent repairs and another $2 million
in repairs remain pending. Grant Specialist Crosser informed the Committee that
no money has been received from FEMA for large project and permanent
repairs, only small projects paid from State purchase orders.
2. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control
Division Grant – Director Bergsten stated the Town has received a grant in the
amount of $10,600.00 to address damage caused by the flood.
3. PRPA Public Sessions for Future Electricity Resources – Director Bergsten
informed the Committee every five years the Platte River Power Authority
(PRPA) is required to do an Integrated Resource Plan. Which requires public
input when resources are added to a region. A public meeting would be held at
the end of the month to solicit input on future resources.
4. Seasonal Decorations – Line Superintendent Lockhart stated the Light and
Power and Parks have worked together to update the holiday lights downtown.
Winter Green Christmas Lights reviewed the lights and suggested LED lights,
which were tried in Confluence Park. Staff has decided to wrap the trunks and
branches of 150 trees downtown in white and wrap light poles in blue LED lights.
A much cleaner look will be produced when the snow becomes dirty and brown
after several winter months. The LED lights are slightly more expensive initially,
but these lights will be reused for approximately three years, would cost less to
operate, and maintenance would be reduced by wrapping the trees. Demo lights
would be purchased and installed in Confluence Park to get a visual concept and
consensus to move forward with the design. The holiday lights will be turned on
the day of the Glow Parade.
5. Annual Water Consumer Confidence Report – Laboratory & Water Quality
Supervisor Beehler discussed changes to the Annual Water Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR), such as the Unregulated Contaminate Monitoring
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 13, 2014 – Page 3
Rule (UCMR) which is completed every five years. Twenty-one of thirty possible
contaminates were tested with six found in the water samples. There are no
regulated maximum contaminated levels for the six contaminates found. The
report would include a list of the six contaminates, the range of detection, and
typical sources.
6. Annual Water Line Flushing - Director Bergsten updated the Committee on the
Annual Water Line Flushing program, which is completed to maintain the
freshness and quality of the water. Some discoloration of water may be observed
during the process.
7. Information Technology Verbal Update – IT Manager Fraundorf presented brief
verbal updates to the Committee on the replacement of all Windows XP
computers, the Sungard One Solution agreement, the damage to Century Link’s
fiber during the flood and their use of the Town’s fiber moving forward, and the
server consolidation project.
PUBLIC WORKS.
GEORGE HIX MEMORIAL SCULPTURE & PLAQUE.
Director Zurn presented the proposed George Hix Memorial Sculpture and Plaque to be
placed on a boulder in Confluence Park. Trustee Koenig requested the wording on the
plaque be changed from “visitor” to “guest” to be consistent with Visit Estes Park
branding. Kim Stevens, daughter of George Hix, agreed to Trustee Koenig’s request
and spoke briefly about the choice of the saddle sculpture and the meaning behind the
interactive piece by George Walbye. A dedication ceremony would take place in the late
summer / early fall of 2014 after installation. The Committee recommended approval
of the installation of the bronze saddle and associated plaque commemorating
the renaming of the park in recognition of the contributions of George Hix to be
included as an Action Item at the March 25, 2014 Town Board meeting.
There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:27
a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,
Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Dickey, Bowers, Hills and Murphree
Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer
County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Sykes
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 75 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated
public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process
for accepting public comment at today’s meeting.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, January 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Amended Plat & Minor Modification of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, 570 Devon
Drive; Franz & Carol Peterson, Owners/Applicants
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
3. EPMC/ANSCHUTZ WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District; TBD Steamer
Parkway
NOTE: Due to the length of the staff report for this project, and the need to transcribe the
minutes as soon as possible, the staff report has been included as an official part of the
minutes. The Town Board is scheduled to make final decisions on this project next Tuesday,
February 25, 2014.
Planner Shirk stated the proposal was the development of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, to
include accommodations units, and a proposed wellness center/treatment facility. The
applicant is Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC, owner of the Stanley Hotel. The applicant
proposes to construct a structure containing fifty (50) accommodations units, reception area,
lecture hall, and the treatment/nutrition center. A second building would house the wellness
center. Phase II of the project would include an additional thirty‐two (32) accommodations
units. The site will include 30% open space, with lot coverage being 37%, both complying with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the proposed underlying zone district standards. The property is zoned CO–Commercial
Outlying, with the Stanley Hotel property zoned A–Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping
Center, directly east of Lot 4, is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. The applicant proposes to
amend the zoning map so Lot 4 will be zoned A–Accommodations aligning with the Stanley
Hotel complex. The surrounding areas contain single‐family residential areas to the north and
east, multi‐family residential areas to the south and west, and the Knoll‐Willows open space
across Wonderview Avenue to the south. Planner Shirk stated there is an approximate 60‐foot
elevation drop from the main hotel to the southwest corner of the lot. Lot 5, adjacent to Lot 4
on the southwest side, is owned by the Town of Estes Park and has been placed in a
conservation easement. Planner Shirk stated the design includes an emergency access lane
on Steamer Drive, which would be closed to traffic except in an emergency. All traffic would
be routed via Steamer Parkway. The proposed parking areas would lie behind the structures,
complying with guidelines of the Stanley Historic District. Proposed loading docks would be
somewhat screened by the structures, complying with the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC). Several bicycle racks would be installed on the property. There have been some minor
design changes to the structures, which will be included in the revised plans to be submitted
prior to the Town Board meeting. These include changes to the semi‐conical roof, variations
to the exterior walls to create offsets, etc.
Planner Shirk stated the project was reviewed to determine how it interacts with the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to page six (6) of the staff report for detailed
information. He stated accommodations use is a sub‐category of commercial development.
Planner Shirk reviewed the code amendments that would be applicable to this project. Please
refer to page eight (8) of the staff report for detailed information. This section also includes
information pertaining to the proposed uses as they relate to the use classifications in the
EVDC.
Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed amended plat, which would remove a platted “non‐
development area” located on the western portion of the lot. Please refer to page 11 of the
staff report for additional information, including some history behind the Stanley Historic
District Master Plan. The applicant proposes to use the platted non‐development area for the
hotel/lecture hall/treatment facility, and has designated the eastern triangular area (near True
Value and Dad’s Laundry in Upper Stanley Village) as open space. Planner Shirk stated the
proposed project complies with the view corridors as required in Section 17.44.060(a) of the
Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC). The applicant and staff conducted separate analyses
surrounding the view corridors; both came to the same conclusion that the proposed view
corridors comply with the code.
Planner Shirk explained the Special Review process, stating special reviews are development
plans that include uses that, by their nature, have potential impact on surrounding properties.
Because of this potential, these uses require Town Board approval. Special Review uses
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
require “the application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum
extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services,
and the environment.” Additional information concerning the special review process can be
found on page 16 of the staff report.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. Notices to adjacent property owners extended far beyond the 500‐foot requirement,
to include those property owners with a view of the Stanley Hotel. Details concerning
affected agency comments are on page 17 of the staff report. Significant comments included:
(1) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requested and received a revised traffic
study to examine traffic volume, and determined no off‐site improvements would be
necessary for this proposed development; (2) Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) expressed
concern regarding the fragmentation of habitat, human/bear conflicts, and possible increase
in accidents between wildlife and vehicles. Vehicle conflicts could be addressed with signage
near the existing open space areas (Lot 5 and Knoll‐Willows) that will likely receive additional
grazing; and (3) The State Historic Preservation Officer provided several comments (page 18 of
the staff report) and stated “the variation of construction techniques and detailing meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts.”
Planner Shirk reviewed the application for compliance with other areas of the EVDC, including
but not limited to building height, pedestrian amenities and linkage requirements, grading and
site disturbance, landscaping, stormwater drainage, exterior lighting, outdoor storage areas,
etc. He stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed with Phase I.
Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the comprehensive
Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application
advances several Community‐Wide policies, as delineated in the staff report.
2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and
the environment.
3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10
“Subdivision Standards.”
4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open
space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan.
5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected.
There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and
development code.
6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and
intent of the comprehensive plan.
7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8. The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley
Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site
design; pedestrian circulation; and signs.
9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of
thirty (30) feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section
1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.
10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley
Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design: red roof, white
walls, building facades, and conical roof. The proposed code amendments would provide
compliance to these standards. NOTE: After the completion of the staff report, the
applicant revised the plans of the conical roof to be compliant with the EPMC.
11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
Review Discussion in the staff report.
12. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees of the
Town of Estes Park.
13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Town Board agenda. Placement on the February 25, 2014
Town Board agenda requires a February 19, 2014 submittal of a revised application that
fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
Applicant Presentation
John Cullen/applicant congratulated Senior Planner Shirk and Town staff for the extraordinary
effort put forth by Town staff and others involved in the review. If the sale of Lot 4 is
approved by voters on April 1st, he anticipates construction of the first building to commence
in early September, 2014. Estes Park Medical Center will have a two‐year window to begin
construction on the wellness center. He assured the Commission that if the hospital did not
construct the wellness center, he would. He made a promise to the community that this
project would be completed. The wellness center would be a benefit to the economic viability
of the medical center, and he was honored to be working with them and the Anschutz
organization on this project.
Brian Herwig/Estes Park Medical Center CEO applauded staff, the engineers, and architects on
the project. He stated it was very important to the hospital to stabilize their finances at a time
when reimbursements are declining. He was committed to provide great healthcare to the
community, which would be difficult without a new stream of revenue. Mr. Herwig mentioned
a recent study completed by the Economic Development Committee, and stated this would be
a great boost for the hospital and the community. He appreciated the cooperation and
collaboration with the Stanley Hotel.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Lucia Liley/applicant representative was pleased to present the project to the Commission.
She acknowledged the hard work of Town staff, attorney, and referral agencies. The process
has been successful due to in‐depth discussion and dialogue that ultimately improved the
project. She stated the goal of their proposal was to meet all the Town’s applicable
requirements, and was obligated to be very clear about what the project is and is not. She
stated the rezoning request would make the proposed development a continuation of the
Stanley Hotel use. She stated the project fit in very well with the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines, particularly the economic vision statements. Concerning the amended plat to
remove the no‐build line, she stated three main reasons: 1) Lot 4 is very irregularly shaped,
creating a challenge for building construction; 2) It is important to have a large buffer
between the proposed buildings and nearest residential neighborhoods; and 3) The highest
concentration of existing trees and shrubs are on the northeastern portion of the lot;
removing the no‐build line would allow those to remain. Additionally, the historic Odie’s Trail
would be dedicated on the plat as a permanent public trail. She clarified the proposed
buildings would not impact the view corridors, the development would comply with the 30%
open space requirement, which could not include parking lots, sidewalks, emergency access
lanes, etc. The proposed open space will be compact and contiguous. She stated there would
be another 10% qualified open space on the western portion of the lot (adjacent to Lot 5). Ms.
Liley stated the applicant wanted to ensure the buildings would complement and be
compatible with the Stanley Hotel. This was the reason for the amendment to the EPMC. The
project would be functionally and visually integrated into the Stanley Hotel complex. She
stated there were some technical portions of the development plan that were not complete,
but would be addressed with staff and agencies as soon as possible. She stated the applicant
was willing to comply with the conditions of approval.
David Bangs/project engineer stated there were multiple meetings with the Public Works
Department regarding the stormwater drainage plan. Discussions revolved around
conceptual design standards to detain the stormwater on site and release it into the existing
drainage systems located at the downstream end of Stanley Village Shopping Center.
Calculations are being finalized and a full report will be submitted on Wednesday, February
19, 2014. He provided an additional document (posted on the website as Additional Open
Space Exhibit A) outlining the additional open space adjacent to Lot 5 previously mentioned
by Ms. Liley. Any technical questions should be directed to Mr. Bangs.
Barry Smith/corporate architect for applicant stated the proposed development was an
opportunity for Lot 4 to be part of the downtown area. Ideally, dense projects are placed in
areas where they already exist, so this location would be an integral part of downtown and
would create a symbiotic relationship with the downtown area. Mr. Smith was supportive of
the amended plat in order to be able to move the open space to the eastern portion of the
lot, where it was better suited. He reiterated the new buildings would not impact the view
corridors to the Stanley Hotel and Manor House. Concerning the conditions of approval, he
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
stated revisions would be made to comply with the conditions. Additional research would be
conducted on wildlife habitat and migration to ensure the open areas are wildlife‐friendly. Mr.
Smith stated the architectural design of the new buildings would be compatible without being
imposing on the original historic development, and the development would be a year‐round
facility.
Public Comment
Kent Smith/Town resident stated he reviewed the Secretary of the Interior’s rule on historic
preservation, and determined there was enough architectural change to comply with the rule.
Arthur Blume/Town resident objected to removing the no‐build line. He stated building in that
area would not allow wildlife to roam freely in the area and their habitat would be
fragmented.
Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the Town Board did not have the legal right to approve
development applications on property not owned by the applicant. She stated the rezoning
request should not be allowed if the applicant does not own the land in question, and
discouraged the Planning Commission from recommending approval to the Town Board. Her
written comments were placed on the Town web site.
Phil Moenning/County resident supported the staff report, findings, recommendations, and
conditions of approval.
Chris Reveley/Town resident acknowledged Mr. Cullen for making the Stanley Hotel
economically successful. However, he was opposed to the development of Lot 4.
Ed Hayek/Town resident encouraged the Planning Commission to not require the entire
parking area be completed with Phase I, stating the parking areas could be built as needed
with future development of the property. He recommended having an access agreement to
allow public use of the social trail on the property, stating this existing trail is heavily used by
residents of the nearby neighborhood. He encouraged the Commissioners to pay close
attention to the building heights to limit view corridor impacts, and was opposed to any
height in excess of thirty feet.
Sherry Ruth/Town resident stated the Estes Valley is surrounded by open space and wildlife.
The loss of the no‐build area would not have a negative impact, and she supported the
project.
Steve Thorn/County resident supported the rezoning from CO to A, stating the approval of the
rezoning would allow the development to align more with the Stanley Hotel than the Stanley
Village Shopping Center.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Bill Ruth/Town resident was supportive of the amended plat, stating open space would still be
maintained on the lot, just in a different location. View corridors would be preserved.
Susan Wolf/County resident encouraged the Commissioners to consider the view impacts
from Lake Estes.
Greg Millikan/Town resident supported the development and looked forward to a view better
than the back of Safeway. He stated the view shed is 360 degrees, not just uphill towards the
hotel. He was concerned as to whether the allowance of white exterior walls and red roofs
would extend to other areas of the Stanley Historic District.
Anne Morris/County supported the project. She appreciated the designs being complimentary
to the historic architecture of the hotel, and thought the view from the Stanley Hotel to the
southeast would be greatly improved with the approval of this development.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White stated the applications presented today are all contingent on the
closing of the sale of Lot 4. The decisions made by Planning Commission and Town Board
would not go into effect until the transaction closes. He stressed the importance of voting on
April 1st to determine whether or not Lot 4 is sold to the applicant.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed at the same time.
They could be phased in, but staff would need to be ensured that Phase I would have
adequate parking. Mr. Cullen added he would prefer to begin construction of Phase II
immediately following Phase I, and was not concerned about phasing the parking areas.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of all aspects of the proposed
EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, including:
1. The rezoning of Lot 4 from CO–Commercial Outlying to A–Accommodations
2. The amended plat of Lot 4
3. Special Review of the Development Plan (SR 2014‐01)
4. Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide a three‐year approval
period
5. Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code to permit the buildings to be compatible
with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel; and, subject to the following:
Conditions of Approval
1. April 1, 2014 voter approval to allow sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District
2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I
3. Architecture
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
a. Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0
b. Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property
and other free‐standing monument signs
4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotels regarding amount of
gross floor area for non‐living quarters.
5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20‐feet in width, include a roll‐over
curb and a concrete sidewalk.
6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible. NOTE: After
completion of the staff report, the traffic circle was widened approximately five feet
and will now accommodate a large van or small bus.
7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. NOTE: After completion of
the staff report, the applicant made the necessary revisions and the study now
complies with the CDOT standards.
8. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) wildlife crossing signs are required
on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll‐Willows open
space. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan
approval process.
9. Landscaping Plan:
a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to
buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with
irrigation)
b. Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot
perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel.
c. Comply with Section 7.78.G.1.b Non‐Native Vegetation applies.
10. Building plans shall be revised to comply with EPMC 17.44.060(d)(8) “Facades.”
Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18, 2014.
11. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Community Development dated February 4, 2014.
b. Public Works dated January 31, 2014.
c. Light and Power dated January 29, 2014.
d. Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014.
e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014.
f. Estes Park Sanitation District (James Duell) dated January 30, 2014.
g. CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014.
h. CPW dated January 29, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of rezoning Lot 4 from CO–
Commercial Outlying to A–Accommodations to the Town Board with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of the
amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.44, to the Town Board with the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with
one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Bowers) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lot 4, removing the no‐build line and dedicating easements, to the Town Board with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with
one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommended approval of Special Review 2014‐
01, EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, to the Town Board with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Chair Hull called a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 3:35.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE – Sections 3.3E, 3.5C, & 3.6D
Commissioner Klink recused himself from this item and left the dais.
Town Attorney White stated the proposed amendment to the development code was not
being proposed specifically because of EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center. However, if
approved, it may be applicable to that project. He explained the EVDC currently provides that
approved development and variance applications must start construction within one year of
approval, or the approval will be null and void. The proposed amendment would change the
one year timeframe to three years. He supported the code amendment, stating it is often
difficult for everything to come into place within one year after approval, especially on
complex projects. Prior to the expiration, the applicant may request a two‐year extension,
which would require approval by the Town Board or County Commissioners. Additionally,
there is a three year vesting period in the Colorado state statutes. The development code is
not in alignment with the state statutes, and the Town would have problems if it needed to
enforce the one‐year approval timeframe.
In regards to the Board of Adjustment, the approval period will remain at one year unless the
variance approval is associated with a special review or development plan project. In that
case, the approval would have three‐year timeframe. The variance would ride with the
project, so if the development plan approval would lapse, the variance approval would also
lapse.
In summary, Attorney White stated larger projects need more time, and the proposed
amendment would provide for the needed time extension.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of the amendment
to the Estes Valley Development Code, Sections 3.3.E, 3.5C, and 3.6.D regarding timeframe
for lapses of approval to the Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners and the motion passed 5‐0, with one absent and Commissioner Klink
not voting.
Commissioner Klink returned to the dais.
5. REPORTS
A. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Planning Commission will be reviewing the Estes Park
Transit Center & Parking Structure on March 18, 2014.
B. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Town Board agenda for February 25, 2014 will include
The Sanctuary Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Stone Bridge Estates Supplemental
Condominium Map #5, the Final Plat for Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision, and
the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center.
C. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Estes Park Medical Center requested their proposal to
expand the north parking lot be tabled until further notice.
D. Director Chilcott reported six proposals were received for the Fall River Master Plan. A
team reviewed the proposals and interviewed three finalists. Walsh Environmental
Scientists & Engineers, LLC was chosen to implement their Fall River Master Plan. She also
reported on a grant received by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for
approximately $80,000 to apply towards a Fish Creek Master Plan. Staff will be working on
obtaining matching funds before sending out a Request for Proposal (RFP).
E. Commissioner Hills commented for the record how much she appreciated staff’s
preparation for today’s meeting. Attorney White also acknowledge staff’s and the
applicant’s good working relationship which eased a very complex application.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 19
th, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Room 202 in said
Town of Estes Park on the 19
th day of February, 2014.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Cory LaBianca
Also Present:John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works
Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Secretary
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative
Absent: Thom Widawski
Bryon Holmes
Ann Finley
Kimberly Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Minutes from the January 16, 2014, TAC meeting were reviewed by members. A minor
amendment was proposed, and it was moved and seconded (Black/Morris) to approve
the amended minutes, with the motion passing unanimously.
Shuttle Committee liaison Sandy Osterman attended and gave a brief overview of the
responsibilities and duties of the Shuttle Committee. TAC members questioned the
possibility of converting shuttles to electric or natural gas. Ms. Osterman agreed to
present the TAC’s questions and interest on this matter to the Shuttle Committee.
Belle Morris reported that a few potential candidates had been approached to apply for
a position on the committee. The committee will have four vacancies on April 1st, due to
the current vacated term and three terms ending on March 31st, 2014. The committee
posting will be advertised during the beginning of March, with the posting closing by
mid-March.
REGULATIONS/GOVERNANCE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
The committee continued to discuss issues associated with private businesses that
could potentially impact traffic and transit in the Estes Valley. Concerns included proper
marketing to differentiate between public transit and private tour businesses, start and
stop locations, and avoiding impact to private property and potential impacts to traffic.
The committee deliberated the potential need for regulations and governance of private
enterprises to moderate impact.
Suggestions included a policy requiring new businesses to present proposals before a
public venue to allow public input, exploring what similar communities have done in
regard to guidelines and policies to govern comparable enterprises, as well as creating
guidelines to help staff determine approvals/denials of permits and acceptable routes.
The committee will continue discussion of this topic at future meetings.
SIGNAGE REVIEW
The committee is interested in producing a cohesive look and feel for downtown traffic
signage by creating a traffic signage standard for the downtown commercial district. An
Transportation Advisory Committee – February 19
th, 2014 – Page 2
artistic custom style of signage with a certain shape and color could also be a branding
tool and it could be beneficial to work with Visit Estes Park during development. An
architectural standard for traffic signage would allow guests to easily identify the
downtown historic district.
It was moved and seconded (LaBianca/Rounds) that the committee is interested in
making a recommendation to have Director Zurn approach the Town Board for creation
of a unique directional/informational signage standard for the downtown district, to be
implemented in conjunction with the FLAP project; the motion passed unanimously.
DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE PARKING
Sandy Osterman spoke to the shuttle issues related to downtown employee parking.
The Shuttle Committee has attempted in the past to address issues of early/late hours
of downtown employees, but the extension of shuttle hours to accommodate these very
early/late shifts is cost prohibitive. TAC members asked about the cost of additional
routes and questioned the viability of potentially keeping one route from the Fairgrounds
to downtown open for extended hours. It was proposed that a survey of downtown
businesses to determine early/late hours might be beneficial.
FLAP PROJECT UPDATE
Director Zurn reported that the Town is negotiating the MOA with Central Federal Lands
and the agreement will be presented to the Town Board on February 25, 2014. The
preliminary engineering and NEPA processes will begin soon after the MOA is
completed.
Belle Morris requested that bike routes in conjunction with the FLAP project be added
as an agenda item for the March meeting.
Kimberly Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m.
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, 570 Devon
Drive, Franz and Carol Peterson/Applicant
Objective: Amend an existing platted building envelope to encompass existing structures on
the property. No new lots are being created.
Present Situation: This is a request to adjust the
existing platted building envelope within one (1)
parcel. An existing deck and garage corner
currently lie outside of the building envelope.
The home, located within town limits, was
constructed in 1983. The Town does not have
permitting records for the existing deck that is
located outside the building envelope.
Per Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
Section 13.3.145.c, setback requirements for this
lot are 15’ from the front and 10’ from each side
(no rear setback).
Proposal:
Approval of the Amended Plat to amend the
existing building envelope to encompass
existing structures on the property.
Advantages:
This proposal complies with the applicable sections of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
Updates plat to accurately reflect the location of the home and deck.
Disadvantages:
None
Current Building Envelope
Amended Portions
of Building
Envelope
(proposed)
Action Recommended:
On Tuesday February 18, 2014 the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public
meeting to discuss the Amended Plat of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision. At that
time the Planning Commission found:
1. This proposal complies with the applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code,
including section 3.9E “Standards for Review” and 10.3 “Review Procedures”.
2. Approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in
the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code.
3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.
The concerns are expressed at this time.
4. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall
submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day
time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, one absent) to recommend
APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low: As of March 4, 2014, no public comment has been received.
Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot
6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision subject to the findings recommended by staff.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: Supplemental Condominium Map, Units 1 & 2, The Meadow
Condominiums – Greg Coffman/Applicant.
Objective:
Review of The Meadows Supplemental Condominium Map application, submitted by
applicant Greg Coffman, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code.
Present Situation:
The site is zoned A-Accommodations, and is located at the northwest corner of Mary’s
Lake Road and Kiowa Drive. Development Plan DP 06-01 is approved for 35 units.
Eight (8) of the 35 units approved on this site have been constructed.
Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be finalized until the units are
substantially complete. Because of this, final “supplemental maps will be submitted as
the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is
not reviewed by the Planning Commission.
This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H
“Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.”
Unit 6 encroaches into a platted electric easement by one foot. This supplemental map
would vacate and relocate the easement. This vacation/rededication requires minor
changes, which are outlined as suggested conditions of approval.
Proposal:
Approving the subject Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the units. This
is the third supplemental condominium map, condominiumizing a duplex containing
Units One and Two. Units are addressed 311 and 315 Kiowa Trail.
Advantages:
• Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval conditional to compliance with Development Plan 06-01
“Marys Meadow.”
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
No public comment has been received.
Sample Motion:
I move to Approve (Deny) the Supplemental Condominium Map conditional to:
1) Relocated electric easement shall specify portions that are being relocated to
differentiate from those left unchanged.
A
AA
RE
E-1 E-1
E
2800
301
190
2625
180
2720
2636
2824 2840
2850
2800
451
2845
2855
26252625
262526252625
26252625
2625 26252625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
262526252625
262526252625
26252625
2625262526252625
2625
26252625
2625 26252625
26252625
26252625
2625262526252625
KIOWA DR
KIOWA TRL
M
A
R
Y
S L
A
K
E
R
D
S SAINT VRAIN AVEKI
OWA CTPROMONTORY DR0 100 200Feet
1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map
Printed: 3/11/2014Created By: Phil Kleisler
Project Site
Town Boundary
Parcels-Larimer
Zoning
Project Name:
Project Description:
Petitioner(s):
The Meadow SuppCondo Map #3Condominiumize two residential/accomodations units.
Greg Coffman/Applicant, Owner
M
A
R
Y
S L
A
K
E R
D
MARYS LAKE
SiteVicinity Ma p
A
AA
RE
E-1 E-1
E
2800
301
190
2625
180
2720
2636
2824 2840
2850
2800
451
2845
2855
26252625
262526252625
26252625
2625 26252625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
2625
262526252625
262526252625
26252625
2625262526252625
2625
26252625
2625 26252625
26252625
26252625
2625262526252625
KIOWA DR
KIOWA TRL
M
A
R
Y
S L
A
K
E
R
D
S SAINT VRAIN AVEKI
OWA CTPROMONTORY DR0 100 200Feet
1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B Map
Printed: 3/11/2014Created By: Phil Kleisler
Project Site
Town Boundary
Parcels-Larimer
Zoning
Project Name:
Project Description:
Petitioner(s):
The Meadow SuppCondo Map #3Condominiumize two residential/accomodations units.
Greg Coffman/Applicant, Owner
M
A
R
Y
S L
A
K
E R
D
MARYS LAKE
SiteVicinity Ma p
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Community Development Director Chilcott
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: Ordinance #08-14 – Amending Estes Valley Development Code Section
3.1.E Concurrent Review and Section 3.1.F Application Processing
Schedule
Objective:
Amended the Estes Valley Development Code to clarify that staff has the authority to
promulgate processing schedules for related development applications; and
In all cases, require review and approval of related development applications by the
Planning Commission and Town Board prior to review by the Board of Adjustment.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Development Code does not state whether Board of Adjustment
review must occur before or after review by the Planning Commission/Boards. Clearer
direction for developers is needed.
Proposal:
Revise the code as directed by the Town Board of Trustees to require BOA review after
Planning Commission and Board review in all cases.
Advantages:
Described in attached Problem Statement.
Disadvantages:
Described in attached Problem Statement.
Action Recommended:
Revise code as directed by Trustees.
Budget:
Described in attached Problem Statement.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: Level of public awareness and interest is low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #08-14.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance #08-14 with Exhibit A
2. Planning Commission recommended code amendment
3. Planning Commission 12/17/2013 Minutes
4. Approved Problem Statement
ORDINANCE NO. 08-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
SECTIONS 3.1.E CONCURRENT REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit
“A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the
best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, set forth on
Exhibit “A.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth
on Exhibit “A.”
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2014 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of
, 2014, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Exhibit A March 25, 2014 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 3 REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
§3.1 General Provisions
§3.1.E Concurrent Submittal, and Timing of Reviews
At the election of the Applicant and with the concurrence approval of the
Staff, applications for different types of development approvals may be
processed concurrently whenever possible to expedite total review and
processing time for a project, except as follows:
The Community Development Director shall require that BOA review occur
after final action on related development applications by the Decision-
Making Body, e.g., the EVPC/Boards. Related development applications
include, but are not limited to, rezoning, subdivision, development plan,
and special review applications.
Exhibit A September 17, 2013 Estes Valley
Planning Commission
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 3 REVIEW PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
§3.1 General Provisions
§3.1.E Concurrent Review
At the election of the Applicant and with the concurrence of the Staff,
applications for different types of development approvals may be processed
concurrently whenever possible to expedite total review and processing
time for a project.The Community Development Director may require
concurrent submittal of related development applications. However, in all
cases a related BOA application shall be reviewed after final action on
related development applications by EVPC.
§3.1.F Application Processing Schedule
The staff may promulgate a processing schedule for each application.
Planning Commission Recommendation
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
December 17, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,
Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Dickey, Bowers, Hills, Murphree, Klink and Sykes
Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording
Secretary Thompson, Larimer County Community Development Director Terry
Gilbert
Absent: Town Board Liaison Elrod
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated
public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, November 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Sykes/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously.
3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-05 AND PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, THE
SANCTUARY ON FALL RIVER TOWNHOMES, Tract 59A, Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62, &
63, Fall River Addition
Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to develop Tract 59A, Fall
River Addition, within the town limits. The application includes both a development plan and a
preliminary plat. The applicant is The Sanctuary, LLC (Mark Theiss). The overall property is
approximately 12 acres, zoned A–Accommodations. The applicant proposes to develop four
free-standing units on the developable portion of the parcel, which is approximately 1.75
acres. Single-family dwellings are permitted in the A–Accommodations zone district, and the
applicant’s intent is to use the dwellings for accommodations use; therefore, the project was
designed for accommodations use (e.g. wider sidewalks, level streets, etc.). The Planning
Commission is the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending
body for the Preliminary Plat and subsequent Final Plat, with the Town Board making the final
decision. The property was part of a 2003 amended plat, which established the limits of
disturbance to restrict development activity to the lower portion of the property and created
a platted 50-foot river setback. The proposed development would comply with the platted
setback requirement.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. An access agreement between the applicant and the owners of Streamside
Condominiums is being prepared, so the proposed development could be legally accessed
through the Streamside property. Depending on the outcome of the application, the
agreement will be finalized. The sewer design has been finalized, and Estes Park Sanitation is
supportive of the application. Redesign of the road to the property, agreed upon by both the
applicant and the Public Works Department, would widen the bridge and create a two-lane
access. The Public Works Department has approved the sidewalk design, which will be ADA
compliant. At least one new fire hydrant would be installed, increasing fire protection in the
area. The application also included a wildfire mitigation plan, which would benefit the
neighborhood. The proposed project would include a centrally located cul de sac to be named
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
December 17, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Preliminary
Plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the
motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Sykes) to recommend approval of Rezoning Outlots A and
B from E–Estate to RM–Multi-Family Residential with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend disapproval of Special Review
2013-03 to the Town Board with the findings and recommendations by staff due to the
proposed uses of Lots 1 and 2, which do not comply with the use standards of the E–Estate
zone district, and the motion pass unanimously.
Mr. Igel complimented the Commission on their decision, stating it was a strong statement to
the hospital board. The neighbors will continue to work with the hospital.
6. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING CONCURRENT REVIEW AND
PROMULGATING PROCESSING SCHEDULES
Town Attorney White stated the Town Board directed staff to draft an amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code requiring concurrent submittal of development applications.
Town Board directed staff to apply the amendment in all cases, so the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment would review the applications after the Town Board and County Commission had
reviewed and made decisions on applications. After discussion at the study session, it was
determined it was a very complex amendment, would not address all the problems, but would
prevent Board of Adjustment approval of a proposed project prior to going to the Planning
Commission, Town Board, and/or County Commission. There was brief discussion concerning
unintended consequences the amended would bring. Director Chilcott stated the Town Board
was clear in their direction, and typically applications for large projects requiring multiple
reviews are submitted at the same time allowing a review schedule to be determined. In one
particular case, the only application submitted for a proposed complex development was for a
height variance, which went to the Board of Adjustment without major sharing of information
about the project.
Commissioner Hills was supportive of concurrent review. Commissioner Klink was supportive
of some flexibility. Director Chilcott stated the Town Board desired to have no flexibility in the
amendment, so in all cases the Board of Adjustment would have the final review.
The Commission’s consensus was to revise the draft amendment, removing the last three
words “and/or Boards.”
The proposed draft amendment is as follows:
Section 3.1.E Concurrent Review
At the election of the applicant and with the concurrence of the Staff, applications for
different types of development approvals may be processed concurrently whenever possible
to expedite total review and processing time for a project. The Community Development
Director may require concurrent submittal of related development applications. However, in
all cases a related BOA application shall be reviewed after final action of related development
application by EVPC and/or Boards.
Section 3.1.F Application Processing Schedule
The staff may promulgate a processing schedule for each application.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as described in Exhibit A to the Estes
Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with a slight
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
December 17, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
change, removing “and/or Boards” from the last sentence in Section 3.1.E. and the motion
passed unanimously.
7. REPORTS
A. Director Chilcott reported the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure, originally on a
fast-track schedule has been slowed down due to the flood. The tentative Planning
Commission review schedule is February, 2014 depending on details of the review process.
B. Director Chilcott reported the Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel special
Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 9, 2013 was cancelled when the
applicant withdrew the application. Plans are being revised, and we are anticipating a new
submittal with a possible February review. The new application review process would not
be expedited, and would be completed by staff.
C. Planner Shirk reported the Wildfire Development Plan applicant has requested a
continuance. The property owner has ceased the use of the saw mill. Staff continues to
communicate with the applicant to determine the future status of the application.
D. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved the Al Fresco Place Amended Plat and
Supplemental Map #4 for Stonebridge Estates Condominiums were approved in
November.
E. Planner Shirk reported he will begin meeting with the County Commissioners again, now
that Hwy 34 has reopened.
F. Planner Shirk reported going on a site visit to view monopine cell towers. These towers
can be placed in forested areas, and resemble pine trees. Cell tower reviews are
conducted at staff level.
G. Planner Shirk reported the Board of Adjustment would be reviewing a variance for the fire
truck turnaround would be heard on January 7, 2014.
H. Planner Kleisler reported the modernization of the Comprehensive Plan was put on hold
following the flood. An amended timeline was distributed to the Planning Commission at
the study session. Staff is ready to begin again with work on the modernization, with a
completion date targeted for July, 2014. The changes would require review by the
Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission.
I. Director Chilcott stated the Town applied for and received funding for a Fall River Master
Plan, $94,000 from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and $50,000 from the
Community Foundation. The Town is hoping to obtain grants to produce new floodplain
maps. Funds to restore Fish Creek have been applied for. Several meetings are planned
with property owners to inform them as to what resources are available. Shellie Tressell
has been assisting the department with grant writing.
J. Planner Shirk reported the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District was the recipient of a
$35,000 GoCo grant to update the trails plan in the Estes Valley.
K. Chair Hull stated she was proud of how the Planning Commission handled the review
process for the Hospital Parking Lot Expansion.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Alison Chilcott, Director
Date:October 8, 2013
RE:Revised Problem Statement for Estes Valley Development Code Text
Amendment Concurrent Review and Promulgating Processing Schedules
Objective:
Obtain policy direction on revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The EVDC allows an applicant to request concurrent processing of different types of
development approvals to expedite total review and processing time for a project.
The EVDC also authorizes staff to promulgate processing schedules for each
application.
Proposal:
During a Town Board study session, the Trustees requested staff draft text
amendments to the EVDC to:
1. Clarify that staff has the authority to promulgate processing schedules for related
development applications; and
2. In all cases, require review and approval of related development applications by
Planning Commission and Town Board prior to review by the Board of Adjustment.
Advantages:
1. Increased clarity about staff’s authority to promulgate processing schedules for
related development applications; and
2. Clear policy direction on when Board of Adjustment review shall occur.
Disadvantages:
1. Time and cost to process Estes Valley Development Code text amendment;
2. Slightly more regulatory language; and
Community DevelopmentMemo
Page 1
3. Potential for longer review times for developers waiting on Board of Adjustment
decision on a non-controversial/minor variance request.
Action Recommended:
Direct the Estes Valley Planning Commission to review and forward a text amendment
to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners to:
1. Clarify that staff has the authority to promulgate processing schedules for related
development applications; and
2. In all cases, require review and approval of related development applications by
Planning Commission and Town Board prior to review by the Board of Adjustment.
Code language shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to Planning
Commission review.
Code language shall provide examples of processing schedules.
Budget:
Staff Time:15 hours (Estimated)
Legal Notice, Publication, and Codification Fees: Minimal (Estimated at $300)
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to direct the Estes Valley Planning Commission to review and forward an Estes
Valley Development Code text amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners as described in the problem
statement.
Page 2
Ordinance No. 09-14 - Agreement to Amend Contract – Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg White, Town Attorney
Date: March 17, 2014
RE: Ordinance No. 09-14 - Agreement to Amend Contract – Sale of Lot 4,
Stanley Historic District
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, adopt Ordinance No. 09-14 which approves the Agreement
to Amend Contract for the purpose of amending Section 6(d) of the Contract To Buy
and Sell Real Estate between the Town, the Seller, and Grand Heritage Hotel Group,
LLC, the Buyer, dated January 10, 2014. The purpose of the amendment is to extend
the contingency in the Contract for the Buyer and the Park Hospital District to execute a
lease from March 11, 2014 to March 26, 2014.
Present Situation:
On January 6, 2014, the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 01-14 which approved the
Contract To Buy and Sell Real Estate between the Town and the Buyer for the
purchase of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Subdivision. The Contract was signed by
both parties on January 10, 2014.
Section 6 (d) of the Contract provided as follows:
(d) Hospital District Lease. This Contract is also expressly conditional and
contingent upon execution of the Hospital District Lease prior to March 11, 2014,
on terms and conditions acceptable to Buyer and the Hospital District in their sole
discretion.
The Hospital District delivered to the Town a document dated February 25, 2014, which
outlined the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, but was not in lease
agreement form. Subsequently, a Lease Agreement dated March 11, 2014, between
the Buyer and the Park Hospital District was delivered to the Town on March 17, 2014.
The Agreement to Amend Contract extends the time to file the Lease with the Town
until March 26, 2014. No other terms or conditions of the Contract are affected by the
Agreement to Amend Contract.
Proposal:
Adoption of Ordinance No. 09-14 in order to approve the Agreement to Amend Contract
to extend the time to file the Lease with the Town to March 26, 2014.
Intergovernmental Agreement for Repair of the Fish Creek Corridor 2
Advantages:
Adoption of Ordinance No. 09-14 approves the Agreement to Amend Contract and
extends the time to file the Lease with the Town to March 26, 2014.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approve Ordinance No. 09-14.
Budget:
There are not budget implications for this action.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 09-14.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-14
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND
SELL REAL ESTATE
FOR THE SALE OF LOT 4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBDIVISION
TO GRAND HERITAGE HOTEL GROUP, LLC
WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 01-14 on January 6, 2014,
which approved the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for the Sale of Lot 4; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 6 (d) of the Contract relating to the
Lease between the Buyer and the Park Hospital District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Agreement to Amend Contract, as more fully set forth on Exhibit A, is
approved; and the Mayor or, in the absence thereof, the Mayor Pro Tem is
authorized and directed to execute the Agreement to Amend Contract for and on
behalf of the Town.
2. The Board of Trustees hereby finds, determines and declares this Ordinance is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the
Town and its citizens, and therefore, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its passage and signature of the Mayor.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _____ day of ____________, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
2
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2014 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2014.
Town Clerk
AGREEMENT TO AMEND CONTRACT
March 25, 2014
RE: Contract dated January 10, 2014 between Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company (Buyer) and The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation (Seller)
relating to the sale and purchase of the following described real estate in the County of Larimer,
Colorado; to wit:
Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a
portion of Tracks 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado.
(hereinafter referred to as “the Contract”).
Buyer and Seller hereby agree to amend paragraph 6(d) of the Contract in its entirety as follows:
1. (d) Hospital District Lease. This Contract is also expressly conditional and contingent
upon execution of Hospital District Lease prior to March 26, 2014, on terms and conditions
acceptable to the Buyer and the Hospital District in their sole discretion.
This Amendment is effective as of March 11, 2014, regardless of the date on which it is executed.
All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain the same.
SELLER:
The Town of Estes Park, Colorado
a municipal corporation
By:____________________________________
Name:__________________________________
Title:___________________________________
BUYER:
Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC
a foreign limited liability company
By:____________________________________
Name:__________________________________
Title:___________________________________
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: George Hix Memorial Sculpture & Plaque
Objective:
Town Board approved the renaming of Riverside Plaza. This item of consideration is the
review of the dedication plaque and associated commemorative bronze artwork. These
permanent installations are to be installed commemorating
the contributions of Mr. Hix to the Estes Park community.
Present Situation:
Gary Klaphake, previous Town Administrator, addressed the
PUP committee on February 14, 2013, about the possible
renaming of Riverside Plaza in recognition of the life and
community contributions of prominent citizen George Hix.
This was approved by the Town Board on July 23, 2013.
Town Staff and the Hix family have agreed to the following:
The Hix family would like to offer for consideration the
renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza.
In conjunction with the renaming, the Hix family would
contribute a bronze plaque (see attached) and a life-size
bronze saddle (photo on right) to be set over a granite
boulder to simulate a natural interactive piece of artwork that would simulate a saddle
thrown over a boulder after removing the saddle from the horse for the last ride. The
family will donate the saddle and plaque along with $10,000 for the purchase of the
boulder and installation of the project.
Proposal:
Staff proposes to accept these donations and complete installation upon approval from
the board. After completion, staff will coordinate an unveiling of the new artwork and
renaming of the park with the Hix family.
Action Recommended by Staff:
Staff supports the concepts of this proposal from the Hix family and recommends
approval of the project. Staff feels this artwork is consistent with existing pieces and is
an interactive piece of artwork that we predict to be a very popular addition to the public
art program.
Budget:
Private funding and donations.
Level of Public Interest
This item is a moderate level of interest with the community.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the installation of the bronze saddle and associated
plaque commemorating the renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza
to in recognition of the contributions of Mr. George Hix.
Attachments:
Photo of the bronze plaque and accompanying text commemorating the George Hix
Riverside Plaza.
George J. Hix Riverside Plaza Dedicated to George Hix who served Estes Park as a businessman, community leader and volunteer, this plaza area was made possible by his foresight in preserving open space and in creating a venue for public art. Hix’s leadership role in the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority helped to make this plaza possible after the earthen dam of Lawn Lake broke and caused a flood devastating the downtown and surrounding areas on the sunny morning of July 15, 1982. Three deaths and an estimated $31 million in damages resulted. As a Town Trustee, Mayor Pro Tem, and heading up positions on the Planning Commission, Recreation District, Chamber of Commerce, Land Trust and many others, Hix served the community with pride and countless hours. George’s passions were interwoven with the Estes Park Valley and the placement of this bronze saddle commemorates his love of western culture and encourages his desire for guests to ‘enjoy Estes Park and stay awhile’. Take time to sit in this saddle, smile and breathe in the fresh mountain air of Estes Park and remember that this part of Estes Park is here because of people like George who worked to create Riverside Plaza, to fund public art and to devote his time for everyone’s enjoyment of the Estes Valley. George J. Hix 1928 - 2010
Community Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Bo Winslow, Director
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: Purchase of Portable Stalls for Pavilion
Objective:
Purchase portable stalls for the Pavilion
Present Situation:
This is a new building and the Town does not own stalls to furnish the building.
Proposal:
Staff has budgeted in the construction budget money to purchase these stalls. See
price quotes below.
Company Specs Shipping included Quantity Price Per Total Price
Tarter
10x12
Galvanized Yes 95 $1,341.08 $127,403.00
Ramm
10x12
Galvanized No 95 $1,526.32 $145,000.00
Triton
10x12
Galvanized Yes 95 $1,252.63 $119,000.00
American
10x12
Galvanized Yes 95 $1,195.26 $113,550.00
Chinook
10x12
Galvanized
Product not
available
While American is the low bid, in a comparison of product used and quality of stall, staff
is recommending purchasing the Triton Stalls. Triton has a heavier product that will last
longer and hold up to the moving in and out. Triton also uses a latch system that is self-
contained and will save staff time in set-up. Staff has worked with the American Stalls
in the past and has concerns about how light duty they are.
Advantages:
Stalls can be paid for in 4 years if they are purchased.
Disadvantages:
Life expectancy of these is 15-20 years. There will be minor maintenance on the stalls
each year.
Action Recommended:
Approve purchase of stalls from Triton Barn Systems.
Budget:
The money for this purchase will come from the construction budget and is within what
was budgeted for this item.
Level of Public Interest
Staff feels there is minimal public interest in this purchase.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the purchase of stall from Triton Barn Systems.
Attachments:
Pictures of stalls attached.
Ordinance Amending Sections 2.08.010 and 2.28.020 of the Municipal Code
Town Attorney &
Administrator Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Greg White, Town Attorney
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: March 21, 2014
RE: Ordinance Amending Sections 2.08.010 and 2.28.020 of the Municipal
Code. Amend Policy Governance Sections 2.3 and 3.13
Objective:
Amend Section 2.08.010 Committees of the Municipal Code to reflect the current two
standing committees of the Town and delete (6) of Section 2.28.020 Functions and
Duties to remove the requirement of the Town Administrator to file an administrative
organization plan of the Town. Add a requirement to the Staff Limitations Section of
Policy Governance requiring the Town Administrator to maintain an Organizational Plan
and adding this new requirement to the periodic review schedule for the Town
Administrator.
Present Situation:
This Ordinance amends the Municipal Code to reflect the current appointment of two
standing committees and the determination of the Town Board to remove the
requirement of an administrative organization plan of the Town be presented by the
Town Administrator to the Town Board. The applicable Policy Governance provision
shall be changed to add the requirement of an organizational chart as part of Policy
Governance.
Advantages:
Amends the Municipal Code to reflect the current practices of the Town for two standing
committees and removing the requirement of an administrative organizational chart from
Section 2.28.020 (6) of the Municipal Code to a more appropriate reference in Policy
Governance.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No 10-14 and the addition of Policy
Governance 3.13 and revision of Policy Governance section 2.3
Budget:
There are no budget implications resulting from the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-14 or
the revisions to the two sections of Policy Governance policies.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance No. 10-14 Amending Sections 2.08.010 and
2.28.020 of the Municipal Code.
I move to approve/deny the addition of Policy Governance Section 3.13, Town
Organizational Plan.
I move to approve/deny the revision of Policy Governance Section 2.3 to include
review of the new section 3.13 in the Town Administrator Performance Expectations
Review Schedule
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.08.010 AND 2.28.020
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees desires to update two Sections of the
Municipal Code to properly reflect the current number of standing committees and
duties of the Town Administrator.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.08.010 Committees of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read
as follows:
At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each
biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following
standing committees: Community Development/Community Service and Public
Safety/ Utilities/Public Works.
2. Sub-Section 2.28.020 (6) Functions and Duties shall be deleted in its entirety.
3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado
this _________ day of _______________, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
2
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2014 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2014.
Town Clerk
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: March 26, 2014
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: Draft 3/25/2014
Deleted: February 13, 2013
Deleted: 4/10/13
1. Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2. Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a. Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3. Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a. Assignments to Standing Committees: “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3)
Trustees to the following standing committees: community development, public
safety, public works and utilities.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.08.010)
i. Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
b. Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4. Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
Deleted: At their second meeting following the Board election
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: March 26, 2014
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: Draft 3/25/2014
Deleted: February 13, 2013
Deleted: 4/10/13
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
5. Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may appoint
trustees to serve on temporary committees, community groups, or in some other capacities
as a representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by
the Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall inform the entire board of any special
assignments and will make every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the
members of the Board.
6. Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7. Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
Deleted: and interview panels
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: March 26, 2014 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: Draft 3/25/2014 Deleted: February 13, 2013Deleted: 4/10/13Board Assignments Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force LiaisonStaff LiaisonType of CommitteeCreative Sign Design Review Board Alison Chilcott Decision Making Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Elrod Alison Chilcott Advisory/ Decision MakingEstes Valley Board of Adjustment Alison Chilcott Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Koenig Bo Winslow Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc.Derek FortiniOutsideAmbassadors Teri Salerno Outside Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group Parks Board Trustee Ericson Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Ericson Scott Zurn Advisory Senior Center Inc Lori MitchellOutsideEstes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Norris Outside Estes Park Housing Authority Trustee Blackhurst Outside Estes Park Board of Appeals Alison Chilcott Advisory/Decision Making Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Phipps Outside Deleted: Tree Deleted: Shuttle Committee... [1]
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: March 26, 2014 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: Draft 3/25/2014 Deleted: February 13, 2013Deleted: 4/10/13Sister Cities Trustee Koenig Working Group Economic Development Ad Hoc Task Force Trustee Norris Lowell Richardson Outside Committee or Board Appointed Member(s) Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson Steve McFarland Advisory Estes Park Housing Authority Trustee BlackhurstOutsidePlatte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Public Safety Committee Trustees Blackhurst, Koenig and Phipps Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Trustees Ericson, Norris, Elrod Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee PhippsOutsideCommunity Grant Review Committee Trustee Ericson, Trustee Koenig, Jackie Williamson Board Committee Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham, Frank Lancaster Outside Formatted: StrikethroughFormatted: Strikethrough
Page 3: [1] Deleted Frank Lancaster 3/12/2014 11:40:00 AM
Shuttle Committee Brian Wells Advisory
Adopted 6-11-2013
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL
Table of Contents
Category 2. Board/Staff Linkage
Policy 2.0 Governance - Management Connection
Policy 2.1 Delegation to the Town Administrator
Policy 2.2 Town Administrator Job Description
Policy 2.3 Monitoring Town Administrator Performance
Policy 2.4 Town Attorney
Adopted 6-11-2013
2
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.0 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNANCE - MANAGEMENT CONNECTION
The Board of Trustees’ official link to the operation of departments of Town Government and
staff is the Town Administrator.
2.1 The Board of Trustees’ job is generally confined to establishing the broadest
policies; implementation and subsidiary decision making is delegated to the
Town Administrator.
2.2 As the Board’s primary link to the operations of Town government, the Town
Administrator’s performance will be considered to be synonymous with
organizational performance (within the scope of the Town Administrator’s
authority).
2.3 Monitoring Town Administrator performance is synonymous with monitoring
organizational performance against Board policies and Staff Limitations. Any
evaluation of Town Administrator performance, formal or informal, may be
derived only from these monitoring criteria.
Adopted 6-11-2013
3
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.1 POLICY TITLE: DELEGATION TO THE TOWN
ADMINISTRATOR
The Board of Trustees’ job is generally confined to establishing the broadest vision and
policies. Implementation and subsidiary decision making is delegated to the Town
Administrator as specified in the Estes Park Municipal Code 2.28.
2.1.1 Only decisions of the Board of Trustees, by majority vote, are binding on the Town
Administrator.
2.1.2 With the exception of the Town Attorney and the Municipal Judge, the Town
Administrator shall have line authority over all Town departments. This authority shall include
supervision and control over day to day functions and management decisions required to carry
out the objectives of the Board of Trustees.
2.1.3 The policies, goals and objectives of the Board of Trustees direct the Town Administrator
to achieve certain results; the policies permit the Town Administrator to act within acceptable
boundaries of prudence and ethics. With respect to the policies, the Town Administrator is
authorized to make all decisions, take all actions and develop all activities as long as they are
consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the policies of the Board of Trustees.
2.1.4 The Board of Trustees may change its policies, thereby shifting the boundary between
Board and Town Administrator domains. Consequently, the Board may change the latitude of
choice given to the Town Administrator, but so long as any particular delegation is in place, the
Board will respect and support the Town Administrator’s choices. The Board will not allow the
impression that the Town Administrator has violated policy when the Town Administrator
supports an existing policy.
2.1.5 No individual member of the Board of Trustees has authority over the Town
Administrator. Information may be requested by individual Board members, but if such
request, in the Town Administrator’s judgment, requires a material amount of resources or is
detrimental to other necessities, the Town Administrator may ask for majority Board action on
such a request.
2.1.6 It is understood that at times it may be in the best interest of the Town to waive or grant
exceptions to adopted Board policy. The Town Administrator shall request Board approval for
any policy waiver or exception prior to its implementation.
2.1.7 Should the Town Administrator deem it necessary to, or inadvertently, violate a Board
policy, he or she shall promptly inform the Board of Trustees. Informing is simply to guarantee
no violation may be intentionally kept from the Board, not to request approval. Board
response, either approving or disapproving, does not exempt the Town Administrator from
subsequent Board judgment of the action.
Adopted 6-11-2013
4
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.2 POLICY TITLE: TOWN ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
As the Board’s primary link to the operations of Town government, the Town Administrator’s
performance will be considered to be synonymous with organizational performance (within the
scope of the Town Administrator’s authority).
The Town Administrator’s job contributions can be stated as performance in two areas:
2.2.1 Board outcomes are met and policies are followed.
2.2.2 Town government operation within the boundaries established in Board policies on STAFF
LIMITATIONS.
2.2.3 The official job description for the Town Administrator shall be the as adopted by the Town
Board and as incorporated by reference in the Employment Agreement between the Town and the
Town Administrator.
Adopted 6-11-2013
5
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.3 POLICY TITLE: MONITORING TOWN ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE
The Board of Trustees will systematically and rigorously monitor Town Administrator job
performance to determine the extent to which goals are being achieved and whether operational
activities fall within boundaries established in management limitations policies. Accordingly:
2.3.1. The purpose of monitoring is simply to determine the degree to which Board policies
are being met. Information which does not do this will not be considered to be
monitoring. Monitoring will be as automatic as possible, using a minimum of Board
time so that meetings can focus on creating the future.
2.3.2. A given policy may be monitored in one or more of three ways:
(a) Internal Report: Disclosure of compliance information to the Board of Trustees
from the Town Administrator.
(b) External Report: Discovery of compliance information by a disinterested party
who is selected by and reports directly to the Board of Trustees. Such reports
must assess executive performance only against policies of the Board, not
those of the external party unless the Board has previously indicated that
party’s opinion to be the standard.
(c) Direct Board Inspection: Discovery of compliance information by a Board
member or the Board of Trustees as a whole. This is a Board inspection of
documents, activities or circumstances directed by the Board which allows a
“prudent person” test of policy compliance.
2.3.3 In every case, the Board of Trustees will judge whether (a) the Town Administrator’s
interpretation is reasonable, and (b) whether data demonstrate accomplishment of, or
compliance with, the Town Administrator’s interpretation.
2.3.4 In every case, the standard for compliance shall be “any reasonable Town Administrator
interpretation” of the Board of Trustees’ policy being monitored however, the Board of
Trustees is the final judge of reasonableness, and will always judge with a “reasonable
person” test (what a reasonably prudent person would do in that context). Interpretations
favored by individual board members or by the Board of Trustees as a whole do not
constitute a “reasonable person” test.
2.3.5 Actions determined to be not compliant with a reasonable interpretation of Board of
Trustees’ policies will be subject to a remedial process agreed to by the Town Board.
Adopted 6-11-2013
6
2.3.6. The Board of Trustees will conduct an annual formal evaluation of the Town
Administrator which will include a summation examination of the monitoring data
acquired during that period.
Town Administrator Performance Expectations Review Schedule
Policy Metho Frequen Schedule
3.0 General Executive Constraint Internal Annually March
3.1 Customer Service Internal Annually March
3.2 Treatment of Staff Internal Annually March
3.3 Financial Planning/Budgeting Internal Quarterly Apr., July,
Oct., Jan.
3.4 Financial Condition & Activities Internal Annually March
External Annually June
3.5 Asset Protection Internal Annually March
3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup
and replacement
Internal Annually March
3.7 Emergency Preparedness Internal Annually April
3.8 Compensation and Benefits Internal Annually September
3.9 Communication and Support to the Board Internal Annually March
3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Internal Annually March
3.11 Quality of Life Internal Annually March
3.12 Internal Procedures Internal Annually July
3.13 Town Organizational Plan Internal Annually July
Revised 3-25-2014
Adopted 6-11-2013
7
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.4 POLICY TITLE: TOWN ATTORNEY
The Town Attorney represents the Board of Trustees as specified in the Estes Park Municipal Code
2.24.020 (3) and anyone acting on its behalf so long as they are not acting in conflict with the Board of
Trustee or its policies.
2.4.1 Ethical Obligation of Town Attorney
2.4.1.1 The Town Attorney at all times will be guided by, and subject to, the Colorado Rules
of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and specifically Rule 1.13 Organization as Client
2.4.2 Accountability of the Town Attorney -
2.4.2.1 The Town Attorney shall report directly to the Town Board. The purpose of the
Town Attorney is to ensure that the Board’s actions take place with competent and
prudent legal counsel and representation.
2.4.2.2 The Town Attorney is accountable to the Board acting as a body, never to any
individual Board member or group of members, nor to the Town Administrator.
2.4.2.3 If individual Board members request information or assistance without Board
authorization, the Town Attorney may refuse such requests that require, in his/her
opinion, an inappropriate amount of staff time or funds or is disruptive. In such a
case, the requesting member may choose to bring the request to the Board.
2.4.2.4 Town Attorney accountability is for all resources, including personnel, under his or
her control. Therefore, any accomplishments or violations due to actions of a
subordinate of the Town Attorney are considered to be accomplishments or
violations by the Town Attorney.
2.4.2.5 The Town Attorney may accomplish the “Job Products” of the position in any
manner not imprudent, unethical, or in violation of the prohibitions listed below
under “Limitations on Town Attorney Authority.”
2.4.2.6 The Town Attorney may use any reasonable interpretation of Board policies as
they pertain to his/her authority and accountability. The Town Attorney is
authorized to establish all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions and
develop all activities as long as they are consistent with any reasonable
interpretation of the Board’s policies.
2.4.3 Job Products of the Town Attorney
Adopted 6-11-2013
8
2.4.3.1 Timely opinion on documents and contemplated decisions or actions of the Board,
the Town Administrator or other Town Officials holding the authority to make such
decisions. Requests to the Town Attorney to provide opinions about the wisdom of
policy of decisions shall be discouraged.
2.4.3.2 Timely opinion on the legal ramifications of pending or actual laws, regulations,
court decisions, and pending or threatened litigation.
2.4.3.3 Timely opinion on the legality or propriety under the law of the Board’s processes.
2.4.2.4 Timely opinion on the legality or propriety under the law of pending or actual acts
or omissions of any Trustee, Board, Committee, Commission, the Town
Administrator or other Town employee or official.
2.4.3.5 When requested or appropriate, alternate language or action to achieve Board or
Town Administrator intentions in a lawful manner.
2.4.3.6 Timely and thoughtful advice and recommendations on the range of legal options
available.
2.4.3.7 The Town Attorney shall endeavor to provide professional advice based upon the law
as determined by the Town Attorney and also other considerations as may be
appropriate to the decision. The Town Attorney should refrain from influencing
policy based upon the personal belief of the attorney.
2.4.3.8 Litigation:
(i) Advice regarding avoidance of litigation or settlement of potential litigation.
(ii) Timely provision to the Board and the Town Administrator on the status of
settlement negotiations and all threatened/actual litigation.
(iii) Settlement of litigation, with authority as obtained from the Board.
(iv) Diligent and competent representation of the Board, the Town, and the Town’s
officer’s agents and employees in litigation.
(v.) The Town may carry out its obligation to defend Town officials and employees
from third party claims by using the services of the Town Attorney’s office. The
Town Attorney will be responsible for determining conflicts of interest in such
defense and advise the Board and individuals involved. The Town Attorney may
advise the Board to retain separate counsel to represent the Town, its individual
officials, and/or employees.
2.4.3.9 Adequately brief the board on emerging legal issues and trends affecting the Town.
2.4.4 Limitations on Town Attorney Authority. The Town Attorney shall not:
2.4.4.1 Exercise authority over Town Administrator or staff.
Adopted 6-11-2013
9
2.4.4.2 Violate applicable codes of professional ethics and conduct.
2.4.4.3 Treat the public or staff in a disrespectful or unfair manner.
2.4.4.4 Incur expenditures or fiscal encumbrances beyond those authorized under Board
Policy.
2.4.4.5 Unreasonably withhold information from the Town Administrator, nor shall the Town
Attorney fail to cooperate with the Town Administrator in the performance of his/her
official functions.
2.4.5 Evaluation of Town Attorney performance.
2.4.5.1 Town Attorney accountability is only for job expectations explicitly stated by the Board
in this document. Consequently, the provisions herein are the sole basis of any
subsequent evaluation of Town Attorney performance, though he or she may use any
reasonable interpretation of the Board’s words.
2.4.5.2 The Board of Trustees will monitor the Town Attorney’s performance with respect to
these expectations on a routine basis.
2.4.5.3 Any modification to the compensation paid the Town Attorney shall be as specified in
the Estes Park Municipal Code, section 2.24.030.
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL
Table of Contents
Category 3. Staff Limitations
Policy 3.0 General Town Administrator Constraint
Policy 3.1 Customer Service
Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff
Policy 3.3 Financial Planning
Policy 3.4 Financial Condition and Activities
Policy 3.5 Asset Protection
Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
Policy 3.7 Emergency Preparedness
Policy 3.8 Compensation and Benefits
Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board
Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming
Policy 3.11 General Town Administrator Constraint – Quality of Life
Policy 3.12 General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures
Policy 3.13 Town Organizational Plan
2
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.0 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
CONSTRAINT
Within the scope of authority delegated to him/her by the Board of Town Trustees, the
Town Administrator shall not cause nor allow any practice, activity, decision or
organizational circumstance that is either unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly
accepted business and professional ethics.
3.1 The quality of life in the Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership
between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the
scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high
standards regarding the treatment of our citizens.
3.2 With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town
Administrator may not cause or allow conditions that are unsafe, unfair or
undignified.
3.3 With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a
fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the
operational or fiscal integrity of Town government.
3.4 With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s
financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the
development of fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance
with Board Objectives.
3.5 Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town
Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected,
inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked.
3.6 In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator
services, the Town Administrator may have no less than two other member(s)
of the Town management team familiar with Board and Town Administrator
issues and processes.
3.7 The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for
the coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local
governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet
basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster.
3
3.8 With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity.
3.9 The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be
uninformed or unsupported in its work.
3.10 With respect to planning for and reporting on Capital Equipment and
Improvements Programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either
operational or fiscal integrity of the organization.
3.11 With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community the
Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the
Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility and
community interests.
3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will
insure that the Town may not fail to have internal procedures for the well
being of the Town to promote effective and efficient Town operations.
4
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.1 POLICY TITLE: CUSTOMER SERVICE
3.1 The quality of life in The Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership
between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the
scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high
standards regarding the treatment of our citizens.
3.1.1 The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic attitudes
in employees:
3.1.1.1 The Citizens of The Town of Estes Park deserve the best possible
services and facilities given available resources.
3.1.1.2 Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues.
3.1.1.3 Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that
demonstrates a high level of professionalism.
3.1.1.4 Each employee represents excellence in public service.
3.1.1.5 Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public.
3.1.2 The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the partnership between
citizens, , elected officials and Town employees. Accordingly, regarding the treatment of
citizens and customers, the Town Administrator shall not:
3.1.2.1 Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to due process.
3.1.2.2 Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make material decisions
affecting the community in the absence of relevant community input.
3.1.2.3 Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an untimely basis)
about relevant decision making processes and decisions.
3.1.2.4 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the community.
3.1.2.5 Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to address them in
a timely manner.
5
3.1.2.6 Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment from Town
employees.
3.1.2.7 Unduly breach or disclose confidential information.
6
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.2 POLICY TITLE: TREATMENT OF STAFF
AND VOLUNTEERS
With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town Administrator may not
cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or undignified.
Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority, the
administrator shall not:
3.2.1 Operate without written personnel policies that clarify personnel rules
for employees.
3.2.2 Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy upon
employment.
3.2.3 Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal Employment
Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act.
3.2.4 Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working environment
for employees, volunteers and citizens utilizing Town services
3.2.5 Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the
responsibilities of volunteers and of the Town for all volunteers.
7
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.3 POLICY TITLE: FINANCIAL PLANNING
With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact,
the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town
government. Accordingly, the Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which:
3.3.1. Deviates from statutory requirements.
3.3.2. Deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among
competing budgetary needs.
3.3.3. Contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of
revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items,
cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning
assumptions.
3.3.4. Plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are
conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are
otherwise available.
3.3.5. Reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that
established by the Board of Town Trustees.
3.3.6. Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to
significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
3.3.7. Fails to provide for an annual audit.
3.3.8. Fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the
current or future bond ratings of the Town.
3.3.9. Results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of
the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve
positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to
the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for
which existing budgeted funds are allocated.
8
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.4 POLICY TITLE: FINANCIAL CONDITION AND ACTIVITIES
With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s financial health, the Town
Administrator may not cause or allow the development of fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting
integrity in accordance with Board Objectives. Accordingly, the Town Administrator may not:
3.4.1. Expend more funds than are available.
3.4.2. Allow the general fund and other fund balances to decline below twenty-
five percent of annual expenditures as of the end of the fiscal year,
unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
3.4.3. Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle payroll and debts
in a timely manner.
3.4.4. Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately filed.
3.4.5. Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent protection has not
been given against conflict of interest and may not engage in purchasing
practices in violation of state law or Town purchasing procedures.
3.4.6. Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund was
established.
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
9
POLICY 3.5 POLICY TITLE: ASSET PROTECTION
Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town Administrator
shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected, inadequately maintained or unnecessarily
risked.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.5.1. Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which insures against
property losses and against liability losses to Board members, staff and the
Town of Estes Park to the amount legally obligated to pay, or allow the
organization to be uninsured:
3.5.1.1 Against theft and casualty losses,
3.5.1.2 Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the town itself in
an amount equal to or greater than the average for comparable
organizations,.
3.5.1.3 Against employee theft and dishonesty.
3.5.2. Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear and tear or
insufficient maintenance (except normal deterioration and financial
conditions beyond Town Administrator control).
3.5.3. Receive, process or disburse funds under controls insufficient to meet
the Board-appointed auditor’s standards.
3.5.4. Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or
staff to claims of liability.
3.5.5 Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files from loss or
significant damage.
3.5.6 Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property except as
expressly permitted in Town policy.
3.5.7 Allow internal control standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy
generally accepted accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the
cost of internal control should not exceed the benefits expected to be
derived.
10
11
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.6 POLICY TITLE: EMERGENCY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPLACEMENT AND BACK UP
In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services, the Town
Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the Town management team
familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town Administrator issues and processes.
3.6.1. The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity of Town
Administrator in his/her absence. In the absence of the Town
Administrator and Assistant Town Administrator a Town Department Head
previously designated by the Town Administrator will act in the capacity
of Town Administrator.
3.6.2. The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training needed to
enable successful emergency replacement.
12
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.7 POLICY TITLE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination
of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster
relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential
government services following a disaster.
3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned
responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency
Operations Plan
3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan for
the Town.
3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to take
appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public and public
and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by Town staff and
declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town Trustees
13
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.8 POLICY TITLE: COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract
workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity
of the Town. Accordingly, pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not:
3.8.1. Change his or her own compensation and benefits.
3.8.2. Promise or imply permanent or guaranteed employment.
3.8.3. Establish current compensation and benefits which deviate materially
for the regional or professional market for the skills employed:
3.8.4. Establish deferred or long-term compensation and benefits.
14
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.9 POLICY TITLE: COMMUNICATION AND SUPPORT TO THE BOARD
The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be uninformed or unsupported in its
work.
Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.9.1 Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant trends, anticipated adverse
media coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly changes in
the assumptions upon which any Board policy has been previously established.
3.9.2 Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see policy on Monitoring Town
Administrator Performance in Board/Staff Linkage) in a timely, accurate and
understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions of Board policies being
monitored.
3.9.3 Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town Trustees as many staff
and external points of view, issues and options as needed for informed Board choices
on major policy issues.
3.9.4 Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy form.
3.9.5 Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees activities or
communications.
3.9.6 Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole except (a) when fulfilling
individual requests for information.
3.9.7 Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated noncompliance with any
policy of the Board of Town Trustees.
15
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.10 POLICY TITLE: CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING
With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and improvements programs, the
Town Administrator may not jeopardize either operational or fiscal integrity of the organization.
Accordingly, he or she may not allow the development of a capital program which:
3.10.1 Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’ stated priorities.
3.10.2 Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be available during that period.
3.10.3 Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of capital and operational
start-up items, cash flow requirements and subsequent audit trail.
3.10.4 Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and replacement/perpetuation
expenses.
3.10.5 Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the budget and on the progress
of each active project, including data such as changes and the financial status of
each project, including expenditures to date.
16
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY 3.11 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONSTRAINT-QUALITY OF LIFE
With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, the Town Administrator shall not
fail to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding economic health, environmental
responsibility, and community interests.
17
POLICY 3.12 POLICY TITLE: GENERAL TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONSTRAINT –INTERNAL PROCEDURES
With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will ensure that the Town has
internal procedures to promote effective and efficient Town operations.
18
POLICY 3.13 POLICY TITLE: Town Organizational Plan
With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the Town Administrator will maintain a
current organizational plan (organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through
the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be
included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and presented to the Board of
Trustees at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
Revised 3-25-2014
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Expanded by 0.05 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Tahoma, Character scale: 98%
Formatted: Character scale: 98%
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: Event Center & Pavilion Construction Update
Objective:
To update the Town Board and public on the progress of the MPEC and Stall Barn
project at the Stanley Fairgrounds.
Present Situation:
More favorable weather conditions continue to produce improved progress on the
project. The MPEC main structural elements are completed and the grain silo
architectural features will begin to be installed. As the MPEC nears it final structural
elements the scale and architecture is now evident. Public Works will hosting a site visit
for the Town Board and press to witness the scale and progress of the two buildings.
The topping out ceremony will be scheduled later in the month as the timber truss
feature is placed over the main entrance of the MPEC. Mechanical systems and
electrical systems are underway now that the MPEC has areas enclosed and the
exterior and interior elements such as stairs ramps and retaining walls are underway.
The Pavilion project is now nearing 95% completion and the concrete floor will be
poured next week as final elements, such as HVAC control systems, are completed.
Regarding the civil site construction, the underground water mains are in service as is
the sewer systems for the two buildings. Gas and electrical services are complete and
functioning to the Pavilion building and these utility services are being installed currently
for the MPEC. The exterior retaining walls are being installed around the exterior
concession area of the MPEC. Landscaping elements have been designed by Public
Works and coordinated with the hard elements of the project. The Public Works Parks
division is designing and installing the landscaping and irrigation system’s in-house and
will be working in concert with the contractor over the next several weeks.
The delivery date for occupancy of the Pavilion is scheduled for mid-April and the
MPEC is scheduled for mid-May.
Budget:
Community Reinvestment Fund - $5,682,050. The project remains within budget.
Level of Public Interest
This project has a very high level of public interest.
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 25, 2014
RE: Visitor Center Parking Structure Update
Objective:
To update the Town Board and public on the progress of the Visitor Center Parking
Structure project located just east of the Visitor Center at the existing parking lot.
Present Situation:
The parking structure is a grant funded project. Three different grants from Federal and
State programs make this transit hub parking structure possible for the Town. Last year
the final grant was awarded bringing the project to a $4.6 million budget. Town Board
authorized staff to begin the project and staff is currently in the design phase of the
project; construction is on hold pending sales tax analysis later in the year due to flood
impacts. A three day design charrette and conceptual design was held last September
and these preliminary designs were approved last week by the Planning Commission.
The design of the project will now proceed and be finalized for bidding when the Town
Board decides adequate funding is available to proceed with construction. Minor
exceptions to the code are scheduled to go to the Board of Adjustments for
consideration in May.
Advantages:
This project is supported by Federal, State, County and the Town. This project is
supported because it is recognized to be needed to add capacity and efficiency for the
transit program. This additional capacity will make the transit options more convenient
and a better guest experience on the transit systems in Town and to RMNP. These
increased capacities reduce congestion and pollution and help manage visitor
destinations, thus reducing impacts on our natural resources.
Disadvantages:
Some disadvantages include additional facility maintenance costs with a new facility
and an additional vertical element in the downtown area.
Budget:
$4.6 million from Federal, State and Local funding.
Level of Public Interest
This project has a very high level of public interest.