HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2013-01-08The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable,
high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take
great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community
by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES -TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday,January 8, 2013
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing
strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators under C.R.S.24-6-402(4)(e) related
to Cornerstone Engineering.
REGULAR BUSINESS
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT.(Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated December 11, 2012 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated December 11, 2012, Town Board Joint Meeting with Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District Minutes dated December 4, 2012 and Town Board
Joint meeting with Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November
15, 2012.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, December 13, 2012.
B.Community Development/Community Services December 20, 2012.
1.2013 Road Closures.
4.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2012
(acknowledgement only).
Prepared 12/27/12
*Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves th e right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
5.Stanley Historic District Technical Review Minutes dated December 6, 2012
(acknowledgement only).
6.Resolution #01-13 -Public Posting Area Designation.
2.REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE.Superintendent Baker.
2.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE BRIEFING.Assistant Town
Administrator Richardson
3.ESTES PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED (EPIC) PERFORMING ART THEATER
PROJECT OVERVIEW.EPIC Officers.
4.VISITOR CENTER 2012 VIDEO SALES. Coordinator Winslow.
3.ACTION ITEMS:
1.ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.Director Chilcott.
2.LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS RECYCLING GRANT TOWN MATCH.Director
Zurn.
3.TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT.Director
Zurn.
4.ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 11, 2012
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 December, 2012. Meeting
called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst.
Present: 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: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Lowell Richardson, Assistant Town Administrator
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to
do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE AWARDS.
Police Chief Kufeld recognized Officers Greg Filsinger, Jr. and Shaun Bledsoe for a
lifesaving effort and both were awarded medals of accommodation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Vaughn Baker/RMNP Superintendent stated the Fern Lake fire was turned over to Park
staff today. He thanked all emergency personnel, the Town and the Fire District for the
support received during the increase in fire activity and evacuations of citizens.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Norris commented the community feedback was positive as it related to the
communication and coordination of the recent Fern Lake fire evacuations. There
continues to be some concern with the LETA system and need for testing the system
after any changes to the system. The Local Marketing District Board met and approved
their annual budget. The Economic Development Task Force has finalized a draft
report to be presented to the Town and other community organizations in January.
Trustee Koenig stated the Rooftop Rodeo was a contender for the medium size rodeo
again this year but did not win.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority would hold its monthly meeting
Wednesday, December 12th in Room 203 at 8:30 a.m. and the Public Safety, Utilities
and Public Works Committee would meet on Thursday, December 13th in the Board
Room at 8:00 a.m. He thanked the Town employees for the efforts during the Fern
Lake fire.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
• The coordination, cooperation and communication during the Fern Lake fire was an
improvement over the Woodland Heights fire this summer. He stated a debriefing
would be held to discuss areas of further improvement.
• The fire personnel brought in to help with the Fern Lake fire spent an estimated
$80,000 to $90,000 locally, which provided a boost to the economy in an off month.
Board of Trustees – December 11, 2012 – Page 2
• The regular study session held prior to the Town Board meeting on January 8th
would be moved to January 9th to accommodate the schedule of bond counsel Jim
Manire.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 27, 2012, and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated November 27, 2012.
2. Bills
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 6, 2012
(acknowledgement only).
5. Audit Committee Minutes dated August 24, 2012, September 25, 2012, and
October 5, 2012 (acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda Items
and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE – CABLES ESTES LLC DBA CABLES PUB AND
GRILL, 451 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR
LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson stated an application for a new Hotel and
Restaurant liquor license was filed with the Town Clerk’s Office on November 8,
2012 with a concurrent review by the State Liquor Division. All necessary
paperwork and fees were submitted with the application. The applicant owns
two other restaurants in Greeley and Fort Morgan. Keith Johnson/owner and
Nicole Ellis/Manager were present and stated the entire staff of Cables Pub and
Grill would be attending T.I.P.S. training on January 26, 2013. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Hotel and Restaurant liquor
license for Cables Estes LLC dba Cables Pub and Grill at 451 S. St. Vrain
Avenue, and it passed unanimously.
2. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM RAMS HORN DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY LLC DBA MARYS LAKE LODGE TO EP RESORTS INC. DBA
MARYS LAKE LODGE, 2625 MARYS LAKE ROAD. Town Clerk Williamson
stated EP Resorts, Inc. has completed the necessary paperwork to transfer the
Tavern liquor license from Rams Horn Development Company LLC. A
temporary liquor license was issued on September 28, 2012 to allow EP
Resorts to operate Marys Lake Lodge during the transfer. All necessary
paperwork and fees have been submitted. The owner and eleven staff
members completed T.I.P.S. training on November 12, 2012. Morgan
Mulch/owner was present and reconfirmed the Marys Lake Lodge staff has
completed training, including the manager and front of the house manager with
30 and 20 years of restaurant experience respectively. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the transfer of the Tavern liquor
license from Rams Horn Development Company dba Marys Lake Lodge to
EP Resorts, Inc. dba Marys Lake Lodge, and it passed unanimously.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland stated
revenues are at 75% and total expenditures are at 78% in the General Fund
and the Enterprise funds are at 83% of budgeted revenues and 77% for total
expenditures. Sales tax collection through September continues to trend ahead
of 2011 at 5.9% versus 2012 budget at 6.8%. Sales tax continues to
demonstrate positive growth at a rate of 5.1%. Sales tax growth has been seen
Board of Trustees – December 11, 2012 – Page 3
in the food and lodging category with a combined 17% over the past two years
and construction up over 20%. The sales tax gains are broad-based and reflect
increased activity in many areas of the Estes Park economy. With the recent
legislative change, the Town has begun to invest in government-back securities
at the advice of the Town’s investment counsel.
2. BRIEFING ON PERFORMING ART CENTER.
It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Norris) to move the report to an action
item in order to receive public comment on the report only and not on the
feasibility of the EPIC project, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst
voting “No”.
Action Item: Briefing on Performing Art Center. Director Chilcott provided a
brief review of Community Development’s meetings with EPIC regarding the
performing art theater on the Seeley property: met in July/August to discuss the
development review process and variance requests, and staff reviewed and
provided a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment regarding the height
and river setback variance on October 2, 2012. The project was presented as
a state of the art performing art theater with 760 seats and would contain
commercial and office space spanning the Fall River. The total development
area would be .622 acres. Other comparable local performing art theaters
include the Reusch Auditorium 800 seats, Assembly Hall at YMCA 1,300,
Hempel Auditorium 200, High School Auditorium 400, Lincoln Center 1,200 and
Rialto Theater 450. The proposed theater would accommodate performances
that are not able to use the current facilities. The height of the building would
accommodate the fly area and allow for quick changes of sets. Staff reviewed
the variance for use and fit as it related to the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan, which encourages the concentration of such facilities in the downtown
core area. The project would include a special review application and amended
plat application moving forward. The special review process would review
traffic impact analysis, assessing parking and traffic, pedestrian circulation,
mitigation to adjacent properties, utilities, etc. Alternately, the applicant could
submit a conceptual plan rather than a full development plan to receive staff
input prior to submitting and incurring the expense of a full development plan
application. Detailed drawings would not be required until a building permit
application is submitted. Town staff was aware of the need for Town property
in August in order to build the proposed building. Parking was mentioned to the
developers and would be an item for further discussion through the special
review process. Administrator Lancaster stated there was some discussion
with EPIC to contribute to additional parking during earlier discussions
regarding the project. The project does not currently propose any residential
uses as presented to staff.
Attorney White stated any land use application would be considered quasi-
judicial, and therefore, third party communications with the Board would be
prohibited. The development of the property has been quasi-judicial since the
application was submitted to Community Development.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to accept the report as
presented, and it passed unanimously
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUBDIVISION
1. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS, Wonderview
Village Townhomes (FKA Wonderview Village Condominiums), 141
Willowstone Drive; Steve Murphree/Applicant.
Board of Trustees – December 11, 2012 – Page 4
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve the Consent Agenda
subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley
Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
5 ACTION ITEMS:
1. TREE BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
Director Zurn stated two positions are being vacated by Sandy Burns and Mike
Richardson. The Town advertised for the positions and received applications
from Celine Lebeau and Apryle Craig. The two candidates were interviewed by
the Tree Board and staff. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Elrod) to
approve the appointments of Celine Lebeau and Apryle Craig for 4-year
terms expiring on December 11, 2016, and it passed unanimously.
2. PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT. Chief
Kufeld stated a School Resource Officer has served the School District since
2005. In 2010, the district requested the Town provided an SRO at now cost to
the district. The schedule for the SRO was reduced to 3 days a week. At the
beginning of 2012 school year a new School Superindendent has hired. The
district and the Police Department have developed and agreed to a new MOU
for the 2012-2013 school year providing $20,000 in district funding for the
position and reinstating the SRO to five days a week. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the School Resource Office
agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Park R-3 School
District for the 2012-2103 school year, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #17-12 - 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the supplemental
appropriation resolution allowing a municipality to authorize additional money
for a specific fund than was originally adopted. The requested supplemental
appropriations address both revenue and expenditure difference from the
approved 2012 budget. Examples include increase revenue to the General
Fund due to an increase in sales tax revenues forecasted; projected revenues
exceeded original forecast for business licenses, application fees, and building
permit fees; Light and Power revenues lagged expectations as well as a
decrease in demand; and Water revenues exceeded budget due to plant
development fees and water rights. There are six funds out of twelve that will
exceed budgeted appropriations for 2012 including the General, Community
Reinvestment, Open Space, Community Services, Information Technology and
Vehicle Replacement for an approximately $535,000 in additional funding. It
was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve Resolution #17-12,
and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst called for a recess at 8:37 p.m. and resumed the meeting at
8:45 p.m.
4. RESOLUTION #18-12 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
WITH BAJA. Attorney White stated Baja Broadband Operating Company, LLC
is the current Grantee under the Cable Television Permit agreement dated July
27, 1993, as amended. The Town hired River Oaks Communications
Corporation to negotiate a new agreement with Baja with the following terms:
10 year agreement; 5% of Grantee’s gross revenues; Town grants Baja a non-
exclusive right to Town ROW within Town limits to construct, operate and
maintain Baja’s cable system; Baja indemnifies and holds the Town harmless
for claims, actions, and injuries, customer services standards as outlined in the
agreement; Baja to provided one educational and government access channel
at no cost to the Town; construction standards for Baja facilities within Town
including restoration of surfaces and maintenance of facilities; underground
cable in areas where the electric and telephone are also underground at Baja’s
expense; and Baja to provided equipment and access for an emergency alert
Board of Trustees – December 11, 2012 – Page 5
system in compliance with FCC standards. The Town would be responsible for
the monthly cost of the phone line.
Bob Duchen/Vice President of River Oaks Communications Corporation stated
the agreement has been thoroughly reviewed and negotiated between the
Town and Baja. The proposed agreement is modern and favorable for the
community. He stated the license agreement is non-exclusive. The franchise
agreement would only affect the customers inside Town limits and a separate
agreement would be negotiated with Larimer County for the franchise in the
unincorporated portions of the valley. Each franchise agreement is unique
between the parties, for example, Baja has placed an umbrella coverage of $3
million not common to most franchise agreements.
Dave Johnson/Baja representative was present and reconfirmed the EAS
system will be added to provided additional avenues for communicating during
an emergency. Baja would be upgrading its system to allow for additional
programming and high definition channels. The upgrades would occur during
the 1st quarter of 2013 and would include improvements to the high speed data
for local customers. The upgrades would cost approximately $800,000. Baja
would be willing to discuss the process for ensuring the customer services
standards are meet and suggested a bill stuffer to explain the standards to the
Baja customers.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve Resolution #18-12
for a cable franchise agreement with Baja for 10 years effective December
14, 2012, and it passed unanimously.
5. RESOLUTION # 20-12 POLE ATTACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH BAJA.
Attorney White stated the proposed pole attachment agreement between the
Town and Baja was reviewed and negotiated between both parties. The non-
exclusive right of Baja to make attachments to the Town owned poles includes
a term of 10 years with built in escalator for costs; attach to Town owned poles
only and no other Town owned facilities without a separate agreement; the
usage rate would be $3.00 for 2012/2013, $3.25 for 2014, $3.50 for 2015 and
$4.00 for 2016-2022; Baja is responsible for costs incurred by the Town with
the use of the poles; and the agreement addresses safety, construction and
liability, indemnity and insurance. Baja assumes all risks to attaching to the
Town owned poles. The agreement would be updated to include all poles
owned by the Town both inside and outside Town limits and would be subject
to the fee for attachments. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to
approve Resolution #20-12, and it passed unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE #01-13 NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
XCEL ENERGY – FIRST READING. Attorney White stated Public Service dba
Xcel Engery holds the current franchise for natural gas within and through the
Town of Estes Park which expires on December 26, 2012. The state statute
requires Public Services to publish a Notice of Application for a new franchise
with the Town and such notice was filed and published to begin the process.
The statutory provisions require a franchise agreement for natural gas be
approved by ordinance and that such ordinance be read at a regular meeting of
the Town Board and then considered, and if appropriate, adopted at a
subsequent meeting. Ordinance #01-13 has been prepared for the Town
Board’s consideration of granting a new natural gas franchise to Public Service
Company of Colorado, and set a second public hearing for January 22, 2013.
Attorney White read Ordinance #01-13 into the record. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/Phipps) to continue the consideration of the franchise
agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel Energy) and
Ordinance #01-13 was continued to the January 22, 2013 Town Board
meeting, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – December 11, 2012 – Page 6
7. RESOLUTION #19-12 EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT WITH XCEL ENERGY. Attorney White stated the Resolution
would extend the current franchise agreement with Public Service Company of
Colorado (Xcel Energy) from December 26, 2012 to March 1, 2013 to allow the
review process and development of a new franchise agreement. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve Resolution #19-12, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 11, 2012
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION
of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th
day of December, 2012.
Board: Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig,
Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig,
Norris, and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Dir. Zurn, Town Attorney
White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Mayor Pinkham, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSPORTATION VISIONING COMMITTEE (TVC)
RECOMMENDATION.
Current transportation funding legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21), through the Federal Lands Access Program under the Office of
Federal Lands Highway has provided the Town with a grant opportunity for funding to
address transportation needs between the Town and Rocky Mountain National Park.
The program goal is to improve state and local transportation facilities that are within,
adjacent to, or that provide access to, federal land. Eligible projects under the program
would include, but are not limited to, geometry changes, moving highways, constructing
bypasses, as well as transit, parking structures, parking spaces, and trails. Dir. Zurn
stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has no plans within the
next 25 years to fund a project that would address the capacity and congestion issues in
Estes Park, and said a grant opportunity through MAP-21 could be pursued to improve
capacity by implementing recommendations from the 2003 transportation study and/or
suggestions of the Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC). A recommendation of
both the 2003 study and the TVC utilizes Riverside Drive to remove the state highway
through the middle of downtown and re-route westbound traffic. He stated that a Call
for Projects under the Federal Lands Access Program through the Office of Federal
Lands Highway is scheduled for January 2013, and asked if the Board had interest in
pursuing funding for a qualifying project.
Discussion among the Board related to interest in pursuing a MAP-21 grant is
summarized: a project would need to be identified as soon as possible to allow time to
prepare a competitive document for submission; the scheduled Call for Projects does
not allow time to obtain public input; the 2003 study and the TVC both had public input
components; the grant could fund the completion of trails and long-range planning for
the trail system has been discussed since the 1980s; the grant coincides with two major
Board objectives; the chosen project(s) must help reduce congestion; preferable to
choose one large project instead of numerous smaller projects; transit or parking
projects would affect only 2 to 3 per cent of the public, while re-routing the highway may
affect 80% to 90% of the public; re-routing the state highway could involve acquisition of
easements and eminent domain issues; highway alignment would need to fit state
standards; bigger question is does community want this; Elkhorn Avenue would revert
to being a Town road; support finishing trail system into RMNP and constructing parking
and transit improvements rather than focusing on a massive engineering solution that
will disrupt the community; this is a funding opportunity that may not happen again; and
other grants exist that could help with finishing the trail system and building parking
garages.
Town Board Study Session – December 11, 2012 – Page 2
Dir. Zurn said that hiring a consultant to look at a re-alignment project, and/or other
smaller projects, would cost in the neighborhood of $5,000 to $7,000 per project; and
would provide the Board with broad-brush details and rough cost estimates to aid in
making a decision as to whether to pursue the grant monies. He noted that funds
remain in the Public Works 2012 budget that could be used to pay the consultant fees.
The Trustees discussed identifying three projects for a consultant to study with Mayor
Pro Tem and Trustee Elrod disagreeing stating that the Board’s focus should be
projects that have already been identified and researched. Trustees Ericson, Koenig,
Norris, and Phipps said they would be willing to pay a consultant to gather additional
information to be used in making a decision related to this funding opportunity. Staff will
bring additional information to the Board related to pros and cons, benefits, risks,
uncertainties and costs of pursuing the MAP-21 grant monies.
DEFINE BOARD MEETING ITEMS VS. STUDY SESSION ITEMS.
Study sessions will be informational and educational sessions. Agenda items will be
complex topics, topics requiring in depth discussion, and/or topics on which staff will be
providing information and background to the Board. The study session will be used for
informal discussion and allow the Board to give direction to staff to be utilized to prepare
a final recommendation to be brought to the Trustees as an action item at a Town Board
meeting.
DEFINE BOARD DIRECTION VS. BOARD APPROVAL.
Attorney White said the Trustees have the opportunity to state their opinions at the
study session, and based on these opinions staff will make a determination as to
whether to move forward. He encouraged the Board members to state their opinions,
agreements, and/or disagreements on topics noting that silence can be misinterpreted.
In addition in regard to the open meeting laws, he reminded the Board that a single
email communication is not a problem and does not constitute a meeting. However
emailing multiple people can inadvertently become a meeting, and stated that
expressing an opinion or expressing support for a topic should be done in a public
meeting setting.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Addition to March 12, 2013, Study Session Agenda – Distribution of FOSH Funds.
There being no further business, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at
6:45 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 4,
2012
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado and the ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT BOARD. Meeting held in the Board
Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 4th day of December, 2012.
Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees, Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps
EVRPD Board: Ken Czarnowski, Benjamin Greer, Kathryn Asche, Ronald
Duell and Dave Kiser
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, EVRPD Executive Director Rorabaugh, RMNP
Land Use Specialist Gamble and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
STANLEY PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT – COMMUNITY CENTER
EVRPD has been awarded a $25,000 GOCO grant to design concepts for the Stanley
Park Master Plan project. EVRPD has identified the area as a good location for a
community campus. The School District has offered the practice field for the complex.
The Town would be invited to the table as a key stakeholder during the design
discussions to identify the philosophy, amenities, costs, fees, etc. It is important for the
entities to work together to eliminate duplication of efforts and costs, and to increase the
opportunities for funding mechanisms.
The proposed campus would provided an economic development driver and include
facilities such as a community center, the school campus, Stanley Park, senior center,
and active youth center. The campus would aid in retaining families, bring tourism, and
provide a sense of community. The project would be completed in phases and include
fundraising to support the build out of the complex.
EVRPD would request the Town consider incorporating a portion of the fairgrounds in
the development of the Stanley Park Master Plan project. The Town Board suggested
the consultant working with EVRPD be made aware of the deed restrictions associated
with the Stanley Park and fairground properties. It was also suggested both entities
reconvene to discuss the outcomes of the Master Plans being completed by both the
Town and EVRPD for the Stanley Park area and the Senior Center/Museum due back
in April/May 2013 as there may be some overlap of ideas.
Larry Gamble/RMNP commented the Park has identified a community campus with
alternative activities for families as a method for alleviating overcrowding in the Park
during peak usage of popular areas in the Park such as Bear Lake. Social media
methods could be utilized to advertise other community activities in order for families to
plan their visit to Estes Park and RMNP. The shuttle system could be tied into the
community campus and activities to make transportation convenient for visitors and
families.
MPEC CENTER
The Multi-purpose Event Center has been designed to replace 100 horse stalls at the
fairgrounds and used as a tradeshow hall during the remainder of the year. The center
would not incorporate elements of a community center (walking track, basketball courts,
ice rink, etc.) as discussed in the past. The Town is planning on organizing a
community visioning effort looking at the next 15-20 years and would include community
outreach to discuss
COMMUNITY CENTER
The community and local entities such as EVRPD, local governments, community
service groups, the hospital, school district, local businesses, and civic groups have
expressed an interest in revisiting a community center in Estes Park. The design of a
full-service center would be vital to the success of building a center, and would require
the facility provide recreation for all ages and interests for both locals and guests to our
community. A center would stimulate the local economy. EVPRD would like to
collaborate with the Town as key stakeholders in the process of bringing a center
forward.
The group discussed the location of a center and stated the public needs to be
educated on the actual purpose of the MPEC and a final decision needs to be
discussed on the future uses of the old primary school building. Areas that could be
considered for the center include Stanley Park, Stanley Fairgrounds, or the old primary
building. The public should be involved in the discussions prior to developing financing
options.
The center would provid additional business opportunities to local businesses that could
utilized the facility and/or offer programming at the center. A high altitude training
facility and activities could be encompassed in the center and provide funding to offset
the costs of running an aquatic center. The center would create jobs and could also
provide much needed daycare facilities for the community.
TRAILS SYSTEM
EVRPD Director Rorabaugh has meet with the Town Board and Estes Valley Planning
Commission to discuss the development of a comprehensive trails plan for the entire
Estes Valley. There are a number of organizations that have significant trail presence in
the Estes Valley including the YMCA, EVRPD, Town, County and RMNP. EVRPD
would like to work collaboratively with the area partners to develop a plan to connect the
different trail systems for the citizens and guests of the valley. The public should be
involved in providing input on the prioritization of the trails and the adoption of a
comprehensive trail plan for the entire Estes Valley.
Larry Gamble/RMNP stated the Park has been working on developing a multi-use trail
(non-motorized and non horse) trail system in the park to connect with Spur 66, Big
Thompson and Fall River. The Park has received funding to move the process forward
through public review and the NEPA process to complete an environmental
assessment. Once the planning is in place the Park would begin seeking funding for
the construct of the trail system. Funding may be provided through federal
transportation as they support multi-modal systems for accessing the National Park
system. Decisions on fee structure and surface type would be made during the final
design phase and have not been fully vetted at this time; however, there would be
opportunity for the public to comment on the trail system during the year long process
starting in early 2013.
The Board commented on the need to focus efforts on the Fall River trail and would
advocate for a cooperative review on how to complete the trail to the Park entrance as a
hard surface trail. It would also be prudent to consider carrying the fiber optics along
the trail system as it is built.
There have been concerns with the increased foot traffic on Spur 66. It was suggested
the Town and EVRPD should work jointly to address the trail needs in this area;
however, due to the lack of easements in the area it would be difficult to complete and
would require working closely with CDOT in building the trail.
Additional comments were heard: Lottery funds are a good funding source and
cooperative projects receive favorable review; Open Space funds could be utilize in the
future once the Bond Park Master Plan has been completed; consider coordination with
the YMCA for trail access and bike rentals; the Dry Gulch trail could tie into the Park
system at Lumpy Ridge; and a comprehensive sign plan for all trails should be
considered to provide cohesiveness to the system and user-friendly access to trail
information.
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATION
This item was not discussed.
MISCELLANEOUS
The two entities need to review financing options as a group. One source could be rural
development grants for funding improvements such as a community center.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 15, 2012
Minutes of a JOINT STUDY SESSION of the Estes Park Town Board of
Trustees and the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town
of Estes Park on the 15th day of November, 2012.
Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Planning Commission: Chair Klink, Commissioners Bowers, Hull, Wise, Hills,
Gresslin, and Tucker
Attending: Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Town Attorney Greg
White, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott,
Planner Dave Shirk, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks
District Executive Director Skyler Rorabaugh
Absent: Commissioners Gresslin & Tucker
Director Chilcott opened the study session at 3:30 p.m.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Director Chilcott gave an overview of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (the Plan).
The community began creating the Plan in 1992 and it was adopted in 1996. The Plan
is unique to Colorado, and possibly the entire United States, in that it incorporates both
the Town and the County in its guidelines. It has been 20 years since any public input
sessions were held. A task force (Town Trustees, Planning Commissioners, Staff) was
created in 2010 to review the Plan. The task force concluded the plan was still valid, but
some areas needed updating.
Director Chilcott stated the Planning Commission is the responsible party for
maintaining the Plan. After much discussion over several years with the Planning
Commission, staff has now drafted six options for updating the Plan:
Option 1 – No update in 2013.
Option 2 – Review and update facts, remove obsolete references, remove information
that is no longer relevant. Take public input at regular public meetings. No additional
outreach and public meetings. No change to the vision or concepts. No impact to
budget.
Option 3 – Develop Long-Range Neighborhood Plans. Take public input at regular
public meetings, community outreach meetings, and other facilitated community
meetings. Consulting fees and/or grants would be necessary.
Option 4 – Update/Validate the Vision. Take public input at regular public meetings,
community outreach meetings, and other facilitated community meetings. Consulting
fees and/or grants would be necessary.
Option 5 – Complete Update. This would require extensive public outreach by a third
party, and involvement both in regular public meetings and through facilitated
community meetings. Consulting fees could be in excess of $50,000.
Option 6 – Update as recommended by the Task Force. See May 17, 2010 Task Force
Recommendations and January 25, 2011 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Annual
Report to the Town Board. Costs may be similar to Option 5.
Director Chilcott stated the Planning Commission voted to recommend Option 2. Staff
would draft the updates to the Plan and the updates would be listed as action items on
the Planning Commission agendas. Cost would be minimal. Director Chilcott stated
staff could also modernize the plan by adding some strategic planning guidelines and a
Town Board/Planning Commission Study Session – November 15, 2012 – Page 2
trails plan. Collaboration could occur between the Town and the various Estes Valley
Districts to add additional guidelines.
Discussion occurred between the Town Board and the Planning Commission.
Comments included: It is important to have an updated baseline to move forward; staff
has been hesitant to move forward too quickly without adequate staff; and the logical
step is to update because of new census and survey information.
Director Chilcott shared information about how neighborhood planning works in areas
with potential for redevelopment. Possible uses, commercial versus residential, mixed-
use, etc. would be topics of discussion for this type of long-range planning. Neither staff
nor the Planning Commission have been directed to study this type of planning for the
Estes Valley to date.
Skyler Rorabaugh/Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Executive Director stated
he was interested in incorporating a comprehensive trails plan into the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. He stated it would be a huge advantage to the Estes Valley to
have an interactive and interconnected trail system. The YMCA and RMNP both
support an improved trail system. He stated grant applications would be better received
if the local government entities worked together for the betterment of the community. A
comprehensive plan would be a different document than the Master Trails Plan. Public
input would be received and other agencies would be involved (e.g. YMCA, RMNP,
Larimer County, etc.)
Planning Commission Chair Klink stated the Planning Commission voted to recommend
Option 2. After much discussion, it was decided to approach the update one chapter at
a time. Trustee Ericson suggested the update be completed and adopted by 2016, prior
to the 100th anniversary of Estes Park in 2017. He stated strategic and capital planning
are becoming important components for Town government. Community involvement in
2014-2016 would bring it full circle. Other comments included: Option 2 would provide a
baseline from which to move forward; the Plan would be a working document;
comprehensive plans are often too comprehensive; the task is to find areas of
agreement and build on those; a solid foundation needs to be in place before changing
or updating the vision; the more input received the greater the public ownership of the
Plan; important to have an informed public; Administrator Lancaster’s strategic planning
initiative would be helpful to review; the current Plan needs to be updated with current
data; the Plan is used as a resource for developers considering projects in the Estes
Valley; the longer you wait to make a considerable update the more it will cost; begin
allocating funds now for a complete update in the future; other local districts and
organizations should be included in a future update; and grant possibilities should be
researched.
Each Commissioner and Trustee provided their comments, as listed below:
• Trustee Phipps would support Option 2 as a first step.
• Trustee Koenig would support Option 2, would support Option 3 in the future.
• Trustee Ericson and Commissioner Bowers would support Option 2, and
suggested the Commission come up with a longer-term goal in 2017.
• Commissioner Hills stated some of the details could be left out.
• Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated active dialogue with the Estes Valley
Recreation and Parks District would be beneficial whether or not the Plan was
involved. Once the Bond Park renovations are complete funds would again be
allocated to trails.
• Trustee Elrod suggested considering economic opportunities with trail
discussions and guaranteed easements for utilities would be good.
• Director Rorabaugh stated parks and green space is important, and pocket parks
are good for families and economic development.
• Commissioner Wise stated concern with being able to complete the update in
2013; suggested an 18-month timeline. He expressed a desire to be realistic and
Town Board/Planning Commission Study Session – November 15, 2012 – Page 3
the ability to maintain credibility.
• Trustee Norris would support Option 2 with the possibility of Option 3 if funding
was received.
• Commissioner Hull would support Option 2 as a first step.
• Mayor Pinkham stated Option 2 is the most logical starting point; key is to
complete the update with some sense of urgency in order to move on to long-
range planning.
Trustee Elrod commented the County Commissioners should be involved in the
decision. Director Chilcott stated a meeting was scheduled to meet with County
Planner Russ Legg to discuss Larimer County input. The County Commissioners were
invited to the meeting and chose not to attend. Director Chilcott stated the County
Commissioners were happy to follow the lead of the Planning Commission and Town
Board in situations like this when money was not involved, as they tend to yield to the
knowledge and experience of the local municipality.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
_______________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 13, 2012
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 Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on
the 13th day of December, 2012.
Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir. Zurn, Supt. Fraundorf, and
Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Dir. Bergsten
Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. School Resource Officer Statistics Follow-Up – Statistics related to incidents
occurring on the Park School District campus for January through June of 2012 were
presented to the Committee. Incidents were broken down between the elementary,
middle, and high schools; categorized; and compared with data from previous years.
The data did not include situations that were handled by the School Resource
Officer, or events that were handled internally by the School District.
UTILITIES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Sungard Update – Consultant Don Widrig continues to identify and document the
business processes utilized by Town staff to streamline procedures and improve
customer service. Staff has been communicating with the Sungard Company
regarding software that the Town currently has on its servers and software that is in
development. Reports are provided to the leadership team on a regular basis and
meetings with the steering team are held when necessary.
2. Credit Cards – Staff is researching methods of accepting credit cards for services,
permits, and licenses provided at Town Hall. The Statewide Internet Portal Authority
(SIPA) has a program called PayPort that allows governmental entities to accept
credit cards through SIPA, which acts as a third party. Transactions are completed
on-line and customers are charged an additional 2.25% of the transaction amount
plus $.75. The SIPA PayPort program does not require the Town to enter into a
contract in order to utilize this service. The Committee requested staff investigate
PayPort’s security system to ensure protection for the consumer.
3. Update – Fern Lake Fire – L&P crews responded to a call at approximately 3:30
a.m. on Saturday, December 1st to shut off power to Caley Cottages in Moraine
Park, and a crew remained on standby at the Moraine Park Museum. As the fire
intensified all L&P crews were called to relocate equipment and take trucks to their
homes to give them the ability to respond instantly if necessary. Staff sectionalized
and isolated lines in the fire area in order to maintain power to the Town water plant
and a Rocky Mountain National Park water treatment plant in Moraine Park. Crews
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – December 13, 2012 – Page 2
were on standby at the L&P shop overnight in case the fire intensified during the
high wind event forecasted for Sunday night. Water crews were sent to monitor the
Glacier Creek water treatment plant and prepare it to be shut down if it became
necessary. At the same time, personnel at the Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant
were ready to switch facilities if Glacier Creek was shut down. Water crews were on
standby overnight to monitor winds and communicate with fire crews, the police
department, and incident command.
4. Filming – Bill McNamara will be filming the Committee and Town Board meetings
held in the Board room.
5. Streaming Video – The number of viewers increased dramatically during the Fern
Lake fire. Staff expects general usage to increase as knowledge of this website
feature becomes more widespread.
PUBLIC WORKS.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS REQUEST FOR RECYLING GRANT MATCH.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) and the Community Recycling Committee (CRC)
applied for, and were awarded, a Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) grant for recycling bins for downtown Estes Park. $18,350 was
awarded with $14,900 earmarked for the purchase of 24 recycling bins. The groups are
proposing that the bins be purchased from 2K Waste Industries in Loveland, Colorado.
The LWV and CRC are requesting that the bins be accepted into the Town’s existing
waste collection system and that the Town cover the expense of installing the new bins
at an approximate cost of $200 per bin. The terms of the grant require that the bins be
acquired and installed no later than June 30, 2013. Options for the Town range from
declining the grant, to accepting the grant and upgrading the bin design to better meet
the needs of the community. Staff reviewed the 2K Industries bin design and preferred
that an alternative bear-proof, dual trash/recycling bin be considered. This would
increase the cost to $37,000; requiring the Town to invest approximately $23,000 in
addition to the $14,900 in grant monies. Dir. Zurn was unable to provide the Committee
with information related to additional pickup schedules and the increased costs of
servicing the additional bins. The Committee concurred with the importance of bear-
proof bins and recycling, and voiced concern over finding $23,000 to put towards the
project. They requested information related to the costs associated with adding the bins
to the Town’s current inventory and recommended the topic be heard by the full
Board as an action item at the January 8, 2013, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Stall Barn & MPEC Bid Process Update – The project(s) went out to bid on
December 12, 2012. The bid package has three bid line items: 1. the stall barn; 2.
the MPEC; and 3. the stall barn and the MPEC projects together. Due to the
upcoming holidays, the bid opening has been re-scheduled for January 15, 2013.
The date to submit questions in writing has been changed to January 3, 2013, with
responses provided by January 9, 2013. Estimated numbers of days to complete
the projects are: stall barn – 175 days; MPEC – 200 days; or both buildings
constructed simultaneously at 240 days. By the second Town Board meeting in
January bid information, as well as the MPEC pro forma, will be available to the
Trustees. In addition, a study session is scheduled for Wednesday, January 9,
2013, to hear and discuss financing options.
Dir. Zurn reported that the earthwork and the extension of the sanitary sewer line are
underway with an estimated completion date of January 15, 2013.
MISCELLANEOUS.
• Dir. Zurn stated that when possible, project supervision and oversight is provided
by Town staff but, when necessary, firms such as the Farnsworth Group are
contracted to provide this service, such as on the improvements to Bond Park.
The cost of supervision is not included in the contract amount, however, it is
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – December 13, 2012 – Page 3
included in the overall project budget.
• Chair Blackhurst requested that budget reports be provided by Finance Officer
McFarland during his quarterly financial updates, or reported on when exceptions
exists, rather than to be included on the agenda for the monthly PUP Committee
meeting.
There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 20, 2012
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on
the 20th day of December, 2012.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Elrod and Norris
Attending: Chair Ericson, Trustees Elrod and Norris
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Director Chilcott, Coordinator Winslow,
Manager Mitchell, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Chair Ericson called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
2013 ROAD CLOSURES FOR EVENTS.
Coordinator Winslow presented a listing of proposed road closures for dates throughout
the year 2013, noting that there are no significant changes from the road closures that
took place in 2012. They are as follows:
Frost Giant Races January 27, 2013
Parade of the Years May 19, 2013
Art Market May 24-27, 2013
Wool Market June 8-9, 2013
Estes Park Marathon June 15, 2013
Scandinavian Festival June 21-23, 2013
Coolest Car Show July 4, 2013
Parade – Rooftop Rodeo July 9, 2013
Rooftop Rodeo July 9-14, 2013
Estes Park Midsummer Festival July 19-21, 2013
Estes Park Heritage Festival August 16-18, 2013
Parade – Scottish Festival August 31, 2013
Labor Day Arts and Crafts Show August 30-September 2, 2013
Fine Arts Guild Art Show September 13-15, 2013
Longs Peak Scottish-Irish Festival September 5-9, 2013
Autumn Gold September 20-22, 2013
Elk Fest September 27-29, 2013
Parade - Homecoming October 2013 – TBD
Parade – Catch the Glow November 29, 2013
Businesses directly affected are notified in advance of the scheduled road closures.
The Committee recommends the approval of the road closures for 2013 be
included on the consent agenda at the January 8, 2013, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Video Sales Report – The CVB retail sales policy was changed in June 2012 to
allow for the sale of DVDs that promote the Estes Park area and Rocky Mountain
National Park. The Town currently sells five different DVDs produced by Nick
Community Development / Community Services – December 20, 2012 – Page 2
Mollé Productions and receives 50% of the proceeds from these DVD sales. A
total of 121 DVDs were sold August through November for sales equaling
$2,545. In addition, postcards, books, and calendars from the Rocky Mountain
Nature Association and the Museum are also sold, with the Town receiving 25%-
45% of the proceeds from these sales.
• January Event Report – Staff is currently working with organizers of the Winter
Festival, to be held January 18 – 21, 2013, and the dog sled pull which is
scheduled for President’s Day weekend in February.
• Fairgrounds and Events Quarterly Report – During fourth quarter staff wraps up,
debriefs, and evaluates the summer and fall events. Evaluation criteria include
revenue generated, cost of the event, whether the event draws out-of-town
visitors, its uniqueness, and whether the event is a good fit for Estes Park.
Trustee Elrod suggested events should be evaluated on their value and benefit to
the residents of the Estes Valley, as well. Staff is also participating in trainings
and is working with contractors on the construction projects at the Fairgrounds.
Coordinator Winslow reported that the bid submitted in conjunction with the cities
of Fort Collins and Loveland for the Pro Cycle Challenge was accepted. The
race will bring bicyclists to Estes Park. A route is being finalized and a local
planning team will be formed to support this event. The Pro Cycle Challenge will
take place in August 2013.
• Senior Center Quarterly Report – The Senior Center continues to offer a wide
variety of programs, classes, presentations, educational, and social opportunities
to area seniors. A Red Cross emergency preparedness class for seniors is
scheduled in February 2013. Overall attendance at the center through
November 2012 totaled 24,584 visits which is 10% fewer than visits for the same
period in 2011. A meeting with the consultant group working on the Senior
Center/Museum Master Plan is scheduled in January 2013. The Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District, as well as other local groups are being included in
the planning process.
• Verbal Updates –
o Status of Event Cost Development – A full report will be available in
February 2013, when the 2012 end of year report is scheduled to be presented to
the Board. Coordinator Winslow and Finance Officer McFarland will work
together to compile the data related to event costs.
o Rodeo Award – The Rooftop Rodeo was recognized as one of the top five
medium-sized rodeos by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Community Development Monthly Report – The number of building permits has
increased by 5% through November of 2012; with year to date valuations
increasing by 24% indicating an increase in construction activity. Staff continues
to work on finalizing open building permits; and is also working with the new fire
marshal to help familiarize him with processes and the community. A deadline to
receive a change of use application from the owner of the Courtyard building has
been extended to January 15, 2013. If the deadline is not met the Board will
consider next steps at the January 22, 2013 Town Board meeting, which could
include red-tagging the property. Interviews to fill two positions on the Estes
Valley Planning Commission were held on December 17th, with
recommendations of the interview committee coming forward to the Town Board
on January 8, 2013. Don Widrig has developed a code compliance database to
address staff’s immediate needs and assist with the conversion to Sungard.
Community Development / Community Services – December 20, 2012 – Page 3
ADMINISTRATION.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Verbal Updates –
o Shuttle Trolley Update – A meeting of the shuttle committee is scheduled
for early 2013 to discuss shuttle options which include the purchase or
lease of a new or used trolley. The topic will be brought forward to the
Board in January or February.
o Update on Standard Policy Format – A standard policy format has been
developed which will identify the department responsible for the policy;
track review schedules, and tie back to policy governance and board
policy.
o Future Financial Updates by Department – The Committee requested that
budget information be provided by Finance Officer McFarland during his
quarterly financial reports to the Board rather than be included on the
agenda for the monthly Committee meeting. Town Administrator
Lancaster assured the Committee that the Board would be kept apprised
of exceptions to the budget needing to be elevated to the Board-level, if
and when they occur.
o Policy Review Update – Staff continues to work on policy review, currently
focusing on the personnel policy and a social media policy. Finance
policies will be reviewed after the first of the year.
o Ice Skating Rink – Administration has received positive feedback
regarding the ice rink. The hours of operation have been extended and
local accommodations businesses are including ice skating as part of
package deals being offered.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 20, 2012 - 1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners John Tucker, Betty Hull, Joe Wise,
Kathy Bowers, Tom Gresslin, Nancy Hills
Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Hull, Wise, Bowers, Gresslin, and Hills
Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording
Secretary Thompson, Town Board Liaison Elrod
Absent: Commissioner Tucker
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance.
Chair Klink stated that today’s meeting was being streamed live on the internet. This meeting
was the inaugural test run for the system. He introduced Commissioner Hills, who is
completing Commissioner Poggenpohl’s term.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, October 16, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Stanley Meadows Amended Plat, continue to December 18, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Hills abstaining.
3. WONDERVIEW VILLAGE TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION PLAT, 141 Willowstone Drive
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This was a request to create a townhome plat for
a previously approved condominium development plan. No additional development was
proposed. Planner Shirk stated the proposed plat complied with the approved
development plan. The property is zoned RM–Residential Multi-Family, and located on
the southwest corner of Wonderview and MacGregor Avenues. Planner Shirk stated the
original development plan was approved approximately five years ago for 17 units.
Currently, the project has four completed units that are part of the condominium
association. If the townhome subdivision is approved, the condominium association would
be dissolved and a homeowners association (HOA) would be created. Planner Shirk
stated the HOA declarations would be subject to the same laws as a condominium
association (e.g. responsibilities of the outlot, stormwater drainage, road maintenance,
etc.)
Planner Shirk explained the difference between townhomes and condominiums; namely,
condominium ownership includes airspace only, while townhome ownership includes the
real estate underneath the building. He explained there are also building code regulations
for wall structures between buildings with minimal lot lines.
Planner Shirk stated two outlots have been created on the property. One includes the
area in between the buildings, and the other contains all the road area, around the
perimeter of the property, and the area along Wonderview Avenue. Planner Shirk stated
the proposed townhome plat would have maximum lot coverage of 80%, with a
cumulative Floor Area Ratio of .30. (Floor Area Ratio is a ratio of building floor area to lot
area.)
Planner Shirk stated most of the building envelopes on this property require very minor
changes to keep them out of utility easements and setbacks. The applicant was notified of
those requirements. Planner Shirk stated staff and the applicant have agreed to address
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
November 20, 2012
the landscaping for the individual lots at the time each lot is developed. Other landscape
requirements would be contained within the outlots. There will be a note on the final plat
specifying landscaping on individual lots. Planner Shirk stated the landscaping for the
development was pushed into the northwest corner to provide maximum visibility to traffic
on Wonderview Avenue, while still being compliant with the development code. The
applicant will be relocating the original sidewalk to follow Wonderview Avenue as closely
as possible, working around the large existing drainage area. The final plat will vacate the
existing pedestrian easement on Willowstone and rededicate it on Wonderview Avenue.
Planner Shirk stated a fence would be built around the entire perimeter, while individual
unit fencing would not be allowed (except for dog runs). Trash would be required to be
inside the units until trash collection day.
Planner Shirk stated there would be a slight relocation of one of the units to the southeast
corner. The tall, slim design of the existing units would not work on the undeveloped lots;
therefore, future units will be lower in elevation than the existing units. The plans show
some units appear to be one-story unit from the south view and two-story from the north
view.
Planner Shirk stated he received one email from an adjacent property owner who was
concerned about the loss of views, privacy, the potential for renters, and decreased
property value. The Public Works Department and Estes Park Sanitation District
expressed concern about the building envelopes potentially encroaching into utility
easements.
Planner Shirk presented the following findings:
1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development
Code. Including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Rreview” and 10.3 “Review
Procedures.”
2. Per Section 10.5.K.1, sidewalk and district buffer landscaping shall either be
installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of plat.
3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and
comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff
relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
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.
5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board.
Staff recommends approval of the amended plat, with conditions listed below. The Town
Board is scheduled to hear this item on December 11, 2012.
Public Comment
Jes Reetz/Applicant representative stated the applicant agreed to change the building
envelopes so none are located in easements or setbacks.
Linda Quarantino/Town resident was concerned about the design of future homes, and
the potential for privacy issues. She was more accepting of the future floor plans. Director
Chilcott explained the development code did not include architectural design standards,
but did address height, density, and impervious coverage.
Dan Timbrell/Town resident questioned the ramifications of converting to townhomes from
condominiums. Planner Shirk stated Colorado law dictates HOA rules, property taxes are
based on the use of the property, and utility rates should remain the same. The individual
property owners had to agree to this conversion as part of the application process.
Kay Gillespie/Town resident echoed the issues of privacy. She was also concerned about
the increase in traffic on Wonderview and suggested a traffic light be installed at
Wonderview and MacGregor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
November 20, 2012
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Conditions
1. The final plat shall account for the revised sewer easement, as referenced in memo
from EPSD dated October 9, 2012.
2. Compliance with memo from Public Works dated October 29, 2012. Building
envelopes shall not encroach into easements.
3. Preliminary construction plans for the sidewalk shall be submitted prior to final plat
approval.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to recommend approval of the Wonderview
Village Townhome Subdivision Plat to the Estes Park Board of Trustees with the
findings recommended by staff and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent.
4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2012-05, Lots 16 & 17, QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION, 860
Dunraven St
Planner Shirk stated this was a special review to allow used vehicle sales. The existing
business at this location is an auto repair shop, which is an allowed use in the CH–
Commercial Heavy zone district. Vehicle sales are allowed in the CH zone district
following special review approval. Planner Shirk stated the area in question has been
used for outdoor auto storage for quite some time.
Planner Shirk stated the site was legally nonconforming, meaning the use pre-dated the
development code. Therefore, the development code standards for vehicle/equipment
sales and rentals should not be imposed on the outdoor storage use of this property. Staff
recommended the parking spaces fronting Dunraven Street be kept available for use by
customers and should not be used for vehicle storage. Additionally, all vehicles must be
stored on-site and not in public right-of-way.
Based on the foregoing, staff found the following:
1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development
Code, including Section 3.5 Special Review Uses.
2. The proposed special review use will not have potential adverse impacts on nearby
land uses, public facilities and services, or the environment.
3. Outdoor vehicle storage on this site is legally nonconforming, therefore Sections
5.1.L, 5.1.R, and 7.13 regarding outdoor storage do not apply.
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees.
Staff recommended approval with one condition, listed below. The Town Board hearing is
scheduled for November 27, 2012.
Public Comment
Blake Hornsby/applicant desires to expand the business to make it more profitable.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Condition
1. All vehicles shall be stored on site and not in public right-of-way.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Gresslin) to recommend approval of Special
Review 2012-05 to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
November 20, 2012
5. STANLEY PARK LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW/SPECIAL REVIEW 2012-06,
MULTI-USE STALL BARN AND MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER AT STANLEY
PARK, TBD Rooftop Way
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This was a request for a Location and Extent
Review and Special Review for two new buildings to be located at the Stanley Park
Fairgrounds; a multi-use stall barn and a multi-purpose event center. The multi-purpose
stall barn would be approximately 27,000 square feet and could accommodate 95 horse
stalls, which would be removable to allow for a variety of uses. The building would also
include restrooms. Community Development staff understand the Town Board desires to
begin construction on this structure within the next few months. This new barn would
replace nine of the old stall barns located in the southeast area of the fairgrounds. The
multi-purpose event center (MPEC) construction timeframe has not been determined. This
proposed structure would be approximately 35,000 square feet and could accommodate
several uses, including 140 additional horse stalls. Other uses could include trade shows,
conferences, sports tournaments, concerts, etc. Director Chilcott added a size comparison
would be the local Safeway grocery store, which is approximately 50,000 square feet. The
MPEC would be close to one acre in size. Because the timeframe for this building (and
adjacent parking lot) have not been finalized, the applicant requested an extension of the
approval period. Planner Shirk stated the applicant, Norris Design, has requested a five-
year vesting/approval period for the Special Review. This contrasts with the typical one-
year approval period for Special Review and three-year period for Location and Extent
Review. Staff recommended making two motions, one for the Location and Extent
Review/Special Review, and another for the time period extension. Planner Shirk stated
the Town Board was authorized to approve the requested extension.
Planner Shirk stated the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved height variances at
the November 6, 2012 meeting for the two buildings. The height variance for the stall
barns was to allow cupolas to be 31 feet tall (the main roof height will be lower than 30
feet, and in compliance with the development code). The height variance for the MPEC
would allow a clerestory (light well) to be 37 feet tall. Again, the main roof would comply
with the height limit. Planner Shirk stated recipients of variance approvals must pull the
building permit(s) within one year of approval or the approval would be null and void. An
extension of the variance approval is not allowed. If it expires, the applicant’s only option
would be to reapply.
Planner Shirk explained the size of the proposed project would typically require a
development plan, of which the Planning Commission would be the decision-making
body. However, the proposed use–Entertainment Event, Major–required Special review,
and the Planning Commission will present their recommendations to the Town Board for
the final decision.
Additionally, Planner Shirk stated because this was a publically funded project, the
development also required Location and Extent Review. This type of review is presented
to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Town Board. The Town Board is
the decision-making body.
Planner Shirk stated the request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies for
consideration and comment. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed, and indicated
several turn lanes would be required with additional development. Specifically, a
deceleration lane for westbound traffic turning left onto Community Drive; a deceleration
lane for eastbound traffic turning right onto Community Drive; and an acceleration lane off
of 4th Street and Highway 36 heading east. Any final decisions would be left to both the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the Public Works Department.
Planner Shirk stated Stanley Park Fairgrounds has been subject to a series of master
plans. In 2002, the Town Board set a goal to review the Stanley Park Master Plan, which
led to the Stanley Park Revitalization Plan Report being adopted by the Town Board in
July, 2003. This concept plan included four buildings to be located in the general location
of the proposed multi-use stall barn and MPEC. Since then, this plan has served as the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
November 20, 2012
guiding document in the redevelopment of Stanley Park, including stormwater design and
the new grandstands. In 2009, the Town contracted with Thorp Association to prepare
architectural design criteria for new and remodeled structures at the fairgrounds. Those
standards were followed for the grandstands, and would apply to the proposed stall
barn/MPEC buildings. In the summer of 2012, the Town Board adopted a modified
concept plan for this area, as outlined in the Statement of Intent, which can be viewed on
the Town website. Planner Shirk stated the proposed buildings and location comply with
the approved master plan.
Planner Shirk stated staff received public comment concerned about traffic and odor from
horses.
Based on the foregoing, staff found the following:
1. This proposal complies with applicable section of the Estes Valley Development
Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review”.
2. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum
extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services, and the environment. This finding is based on the assumption the
landscaping plan is implemented concurrent with construction.
3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and
comment.
4. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of
Estes Park.
Public Comment
Elena Scott/Applicant gave an overview of the project, which began partly out of concern
about the condition of some of the existing stall barns. In addition to replacing stall barns,
the goal was to add more stalls to get to build out, thus allowing Estes Park to host major
events. The main goal was to build multi-use buildings. She briefly explained the history of
Stanley Park. Ms. Scott stated she met with a wide variety of people to find out the needs,
likes, dislikes, etc. Additionally, there was a neighborhood meeting on July 23, 2012. Ms.
Scott stated the existing stall barns were designed that way because of the significant
slope of the land. This slope was a major factor in the decision to locate the proposed stall
barn further west, in a relatively flat area and close to existing parking. Detention ponds
would be located to the east of the Senior Center. The view from the grandstands would
be protected. Ms. Scott explained the main considerations for the proposed locations
were animal and visitor safety, circulation, flexibility, efficiency for operations and
maintenance, parking and access, and utilization of existing infrastructure. During
interviews with stakeholders, the following arose: the desire to attract more guests to
Estes Park during all times of year, the need of a multi-use space in the community,
desire to attract additional events, trade shows, conferences, fairs; and desire to attract a
higher echelon of events with the addition of improved facilities. Ms. Scott stated there is
on-going discussion as to how to work with the Senior Center to potentially integrate the
buildings. The main thoroughfare would remain through the middle of the parcel, as that is
the most efficient location. The detention ponds and RV parking would remain, the feed
barn currently west of the arena would be relocated to an area north of the proposed stall
barn.
Ms. Scott stated the proposed buildings would follow the adopted design guidelines, using
common materials and colors. The stall barn would be built first. The Town has set aside
funding for a master irrigation plan; therefore, the landscaping would not be added until
irrigation is installed.
Ms. Scott stated the stall barn would be 4,000 square feet larger than the existing barn W.
It would have a concrete floor, removable stalls, and some interior finishes to make it
more attractive for events. The main loading area for semis and trailers would be on north
and south ends, allowing the ability to clean out the barn on a large-scale process. A
proposed porch on the east side could serve as a location for vendors. Mr. Scott stated
the proposed MPEC would contain more amenities than the stall barn: kitchen, office
space, storage, conference space, etc. to attract higher quality events. Up to 140 10 x 10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
November 20, 2012
stalls could be added and removed as needed. This building would serve a larger
purpose than the stall barn.
Commissioner Hills questioned the location and whether or not it could be moved further
east to create a larger buffer for the neighbors on Fourth Street. Commissioner Wise
questioned the demand for stall barns. Ms. Scott stated the prevailing winds would be
blowing away from the neighborhood. Bo Winslow, Coordinator of Community Services,
stated some events require portable/temporary stalls, so the demand for additional stalls
is certainly there.
Public Comment
Kay Norton-Haughey/Town resident was concerned about the size, odor, flies, traffic, and
safety with the proposed development being so close to the homes on Fourth Street. She
opposed the project, stating negative impact to the Reclamation District Subdivision in a
variety of ways. She would like to see more discussion on the project.
Ms. Scott stated the grade of the land (25 foot drop in 600 feet), drainage issues, and
inefficient location for maintenance and operations made it impractical to locate the
proposed stall barn on the southeast corner of the fairgrounds. She stated signage would
direct traffic away from Fourth Street on to Community Drive and Manford Avenue. More
signage would be considered if deemed necessary. Mr. Winslow stated Town Board gave
staff the leeway to open or close the Fourth Street access to the fairgrounds, and
decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Bowers sympathized with the homeowners. She stated the designers took
everything into consideration. Mr. Winslow stated the number of parking spaces would be
increased as the old stall barns were removed, manure would be hauled off immediately,
and they have already begun steps to address the fly issue. He stated dust comes from
the shavings used in the bedding, not from the arenas. The equine season is June
through mid-September, with actual event days less than that. He pointed out that the
MPEC and Grandstands would not be holding separate events at the same time. During
grandstand events, the MPEC would be used for horse stalls.
Town Attorney White stated staff would determine the one-year issue that is in the code
for special review. However, it may be that because this is a Location and Extent Review,
and the special review portion is merely the process because of the size and use, the
Location and Extent Review three year timeframe can be extended to five years if the
Planning Commission votes and approves that, or if the Town Board accepts that
recommendation.
Conditions
1. Location and Extent/Special Review Approval shall expire November 27, 2017 if no
building permits have been applied for.
2. Compliance with recommendations outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis
3. Compliance with the Architectural Design Criteria for New and Remodeled Structures
at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds prepared by Thorp Association in 2009.
4. Compliance with memos from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated October 23
and September 13, 2012.
5. Landscaping shall be installed concurrent with building construction.
6. Compliance with memo from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated November
19, 2012
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Bowers) to recommend approval of extending the
expiration date of the Location and Extent/Special Review to five years from the
approval date in lieu of the standard three-year approval period, and the motion
passed 5-1 with Commissioner Gresslin voting against the motion and one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to recommend approval of the Location and
Extent/Special Review with findings and conditions recommended by staff
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
November 20, 2012
including conditions 2 through 6 and the motion passed 5-1, with Commissioner
Gresslin voting against the motion and one absent.
6. REPORTS
Director Chilcott reported on the Joint Study Session between the Town Trustees and the
Planning Commissioners. The general consensus was to move forward with updating the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by using Option 2; updating facts and removing
obsolete references. Staff is hoping to have drafts of some chapters by January. She
suggested establishing a subcommittee to assist with drafting updates. Chair Klink stated
more could be discussed at the December meeting.
Planner Shirk reported on two pre-application meetings: 1) The owner of Park Flooring on
Highway 7 is considering purchasing the parcel directly behind the business to provide
storage space for local contractors; 2) The owner of property on Elm Road desires to
develop the property with a Bus Barn/Warehouse/Storage area. This project will most
likely be heard by the Planning Commission in January.
Planner Shirk reported the height variances for the proposed Stall Barn and MPEC were
approved by the Board of Adjustment, as well as a setback variance for O’Reilly
Automotive at the former Mountaineer Restaurant site.
Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved the Amended Condominium Map for
Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Unit 14.
Planner Shirk reported the meeting on Enhancing Planning and Building Services brought
forth comments encouraging simplified review processes. Staff will be studying the
process for supplemental condominium map review and approval, as well as minor
amendments to condominium maps.
Planner Shirk reported the Booth Resubdivision Amended Plat and the Location and
Extent Review for the Stall Barn and MPEC at Stanley Park Fairgrounds would be heard
by the Town Board November 27, 2012.
Planner Shirk reported Stonewood Townhomes Final Subdivision Plat was approved by
the County Commission November 19, 2012.
Planner Shirk reported the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) has
proposed the dedication of public trail easements go directly to the EVRPD instead of the
Town Board of County Commission. Additional discussion would be needed prior to any
decisions. The EVRPD is the main repository of trail easements in the Estes Valley.
Planner Shirk reported the Community Development Department has held the first of two
meetings on Enhancing Planning and Building Services. The first meeting was well
attended, with both positive and negative comments provided. He encouraged Planning
Commissioners and the public to attend the next meeting on December 4th at the
Museum. All information will be analyzed after the first of the year.
Commissioner Hull commented on the joint study session, stating that future study
sessions should also include the Board of Adjustment.
There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Doug Klink, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion
December 6, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Committee: Chair Frank Lancaster, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott,
Public Works Director Scott Zurn, Practicing Engineer Don Taranto,
Practicing Architect Ginny McFarland
Also Attending: Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Town Attorney Greg White, Recording
Secretary Karen Thompson
Chair Lancaster opened the meeting at 6:08 and introduced the committee. There were
26 people in attendance.
Chair Lancaster stated an Architectural Review Committee and a Technical Review
Committee (TRC) was required in the Development Agreement for the Stanley Historic
District to review proposed projects within the District. The Architectural Review Committee
has reviewed the plans and submitted comments to the TRC. The agreement calls for the
TRC to consist of three town staff appointed by the Town Administrator and two others that
are either practicing architects, engineers, or landscape architects.
Chair Lancaster reviewed the format of the meeting. He stated today’s meeting was to review
the preliminary package, and additional meetings would take place prior to any decisions
being made.
Al Aspinall/Special Projects Coordinator for Stanley Hotel owner John Cullen stated his
position was to coordinate planning, development, and building projects within the Stanley
Hotel complex. He briefly reviewed the ownership history of the Stanley Hotel. He stated Mr.
Cullen would like to add a pavilion for weddings, corporate conferences, etc. for up to 200
people. He explained the need for a private facility that is scenic, exclusive, and away from
the regular hotel traffic. Location options are limited due to the conservation easement on the
property. The proposed facility would serve primarily guests that are staying at the hotel. It
would not be a public facility. Parking spaces at the proposed pavilion have been reduced in
number because most of the guests would either walk or ride in transportation provided by
the hotel. Mr. Aspinall stated the proposed location is at the existing but currently unused
pond on the southwest corner of the property.
Roger Thorp/Thorp Associates (applicant), stated Mr. Cullen has very strong feelings about
the proposed project at this site. There is a natural bowl that is protected from the wind by
rock outcroppings on two sides. The pond would be improved and sealed, and a proposed
man-made recirculating waterfall would fall from the rocks to the north. He explained there
was a natural ridge that separated the area from the south side, which would make it private
and exclusive. Mr. Thorp stated additional landscaping and a parking area are proposed for
the existing swale to add a buffer between the pavilion and the neighboring condominiums. He
acknowledged the concerns from the Mountain Creek Townhome Condominium owners about
increased traffic, noise, etc. He stated the event center would be serviced from the hotel, and
very few people would be coming to the site from the main street. The hotel would improve
signage in the immediate area to avoid conflict with neighbors. The proposal includes two
structures to the southeast of the pond; a reception area and a small amphitheatre. The
service area would be located close to the main access road and would contain a caterer’s
kitchen. The existing pet cemetery would remain untouched.
Mr. Thorp stated while responding to neighbor concerns, several parking spaces on far
southwest corner of the proposed parking area have been removed. A wall would be placed at
the same level as the parking lot so headlights would not disturb neighbors below. This wall
would also block sound from those neighbors. The main amphitheatre is meant to be a roofed
outdoor space. Concern for sound levels led to enclosing the back (south) of the
amphitheatre. Mr. Thorp stated the hotel may host string ensembles or other high-quality
events that would be in line with the amenities of four-star facility. He stated 125 feet
separated the nearest condominium from the southern edge of the amphitheatre. The
buildings would blend architecturally with the rest of the complex. Mr. Thorp stated his firm
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 2
December 6, 2012
has worked hard to take the elegant architectural character of the Stanley Hotel complex and
set it softly and quietly within this existing site, doing as little damage to the site as possible.
Mr. Thorp stated there were some drainage concerns, and he was prepared to respond to
those.
Concern: The drainage report was suspect in many respects.
Response: The drainage analysis was completed by a qualified engineer using standard
engineering practices. His firm and the engineering firm responsible for the analysis would
have no objections to having the report reviewed by an independent third-party.
Concern: Size of detention basin appears too small to handle the runoff.
Response: The basin was sized according to standards specified in the Denver Urban
Drainage Manual, which is the standard accepted for use in stormwater design in Larimer
County. The detention basin is not intended as retention for volumes of water, but rather for
water quality purposes.
Concern: Detention basin’s top edge would be about four feet above the level of the Mountain
Creek Condominiums and specifies a stone wall on its back edge to prevent the eastern slope
from encroaching onto the Mountain Creek Condominiums, and it appears inadequate.
Response: Rock walls much higher than four feet are commonplace and adequate in this
region. The design specifications would include a 20 mil PVC curtain to prevent stormwater
from seeping through the rock wall.
Concern: The water flowing into Black Canyon from the site would be polluted.
Response: According to Section 5.3.3 of the Denver Urban Drainage Manual, the amount of
pollutant removal by this best method practice is sufficient and should be equal or exceed the
removal rates provided by sand filters, extended detention basins, or wetland basins. In
addition to settling, porous landscape detention provides for filtering, absorption, and
biological uptake to constituents in the stormwater. Because it provides for some infiltration
and evaporation, the volume of runoff is also reduced, which translates into a reduced
pollutant load leaving the site.
Concern: The detention basin is likely to provide a breeding area for mosquitoes.
Response: Mosquito breeding problems arise from days of standing water. This basin is
designed to drain within 12 hours. It is not designed to permanently retain water, but to
provide water quality prior to release into Black Canyon Creek.
COMMITTEE AND APPLICANT DISCUSSION
The following statements are in reply to questions asked by the committee:
Mr. Thorp stated no alternative locations were considered for the parking area. The small
parking lot would be provided as a convenience to those guests that may not be staying at the
hotel. The pond would be used as an ice-skating rink during the winter months. His firm did
not conduct a parking study, stating 90% of the attendees at the site would be guests at the
hotel.
Mr. Aspinall explained the traffic patterns for the street adjacent to the site. Although signage
indicates the street is for service delivery, many local residents try to use it as access to the
hotel. The hotel added a keypad gate to limit access, which inadvertently caused many
vehicles to turn around at the entrance to Mountain Creek Townhome Condominiums. He
stated he would not be opposed to adding a security gate farther down the street, and was
open to other suggestions. Limiting the number of vehicles with access to that portion of the
hotel is still a work in progress.
Mr. Thorp stated the restrooms proposed at the back of the amphitheatre are meant to be
temporary, as part of Phase I. He is hopeful Phase I would be completed and ready for use in
May, 2013. After Phase II was completed, the restrooms in question would eventually become
a garden shed to assist in maintaining the grounds at the site.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 3
December 6, 2012
Mr. Aspinall stated the event tentatively scheduled for May 2-5 is a film festival, and every
venue at the Stanley would need to be considered for this event. Most of the events would be
weddings, corporate meetings or functions, and possibly small musical ensembles. Mr.
Aspinall stated the hours of operation could possibly run until midnight, if the event was an
evening wedding with a meal and reception afterwards. He would be willing to consider a
reasonable hour.
Mr. Aspinall stated the proposed security wall would begin at the top right corner and include
rolling gates at the driveway and parking lot, then following the perimeter around the parking
area until it meets the rock outcropping. Construction would be similar to what is at the top of
the parking lot adjacent to the outdoor patio at the back of the hotel.
Mr. Thorp stated the elevation of the caterer’s kitchen has not been determined. It is intended
for this building to have similar architecture as the hotel. It was his opinion that the
architecture of the entire proposal be consistent with the existing structures. It has been
designed to look like it has been there for many years.
Mr. Thorp explained tests would be done to determine the bedrock level. Any requested
changes to the proposed security wall would be a question for Mr. Cullen.
The committee took a five-minute recess and reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
Planner Shirk reviewed the history of the Stanley Historic District, and pointed out the specific
lots that have either been developed or remain as open space. In 1991, the Stanley Historic
District (SHD) was created to: 1) Administer the historic resources of the SHD in a manner
that will preserve the integrity of its location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and
visual character; 2) Ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex
does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an
economically viable operation; and 3) Establish certain requirements that must be met before
development within the SHD is to be permitted. Planner Shirk stated at the time the SHD was
created, many of the lots were undeveloped and much has changed in 20 years. He explained
the review process, as outlined in the SHD Master Plan, Section I.C, and reviewed the
timeline of the submitted application. Planner Shirk stated the outcome of this meeting could
be approval, denial, or continuance. Upon approval of the preliminary package, the applicant
would submit a final revised package for review and decision by the TRC. Planner Shirk
stated the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Park III states “…The specific guidelines and
standards which are incorporated into Part III of this document shall be used in the review
process to direct the character of design for all development within the Stanley Historic
District.” He explained the TRC has the right, by majority vote, to grant variances or modify the
Guidelines based on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate innovative approaches, design
solutions, or future market conditions, which the Committee feels is advantageous to, and in
conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and the guidelines.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies. Also, notification was
mailed to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of Lot 1. Neighbor
notification was not a requirement of the regulations, but a goodwill effort to inform the
neighbors of the application. All documentation, plans, and public comment received by the
Community Development Department are available to the public through the Town website at
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Planner Shirk stated comments were received from the Colorado Department of
Transportation, the State Historic Preservation Office of the Historical Society of the State of
Colorado (an indirect email sent to Mr. Aspinall), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. All
documents can be viewed on the Town website. Staff has received numerous written public
comments from adjacent property owners, most of whom expressed concern about the
impacts of the development on their property.
Planner Shirk briefly explained the Staff Analysis, stating that staff reviewed the Master
Planning Guidelines and Development Standards. More specifically, staff considered the
following: Overall Site Organization Guidelines; Overall Architectural Character; Site Planning,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 4
December 6, 2012
Building Placement, Building Design, Site Development Considerations, Special Conditions,
and Development Standards (consisting of land use, maximum allowable development and
building floorplate, building height, off-street parking, and minimum setbacks). All can be
viewed in more detail in the Staff Report on the Town website.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Shana Foster/Town resident recognized the importance of the Stanley Hotel to the economy
of Estes Park. While wanting to be good neighbors, the HOA for Mountain Creek Townhome
Condominiums thinks the location of the proposed pavilion is not in their best interest. There
are several condominiums that are in very close proximity to the proposed development. She
summarized the memo dated December 3, 2012 from the Board of Directors, Mountain Creek
Townhome Condominiums by Gary Eberhardt that outlined concerns about the proposed
Stanley Pavilion Project. The entire document is included in the public comments which can
be viewed on the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. The major points of the
memo are: 1) The apparent project approval process of the TRC and an Architectural Review
Committee is no longer lawfully authorized; 2) There are many serious potential problems
which this project will cause for the owners of the Mountain Creek Townhomes; 3) The Site
Planning Guidelines from the SHD Master Plan provide numerous requirements and/or
recommendations which have not been followed per their project’s plans; 4) The extremely
fast track for project approval under the apparently intended review process and the
November-December timing chosen by the Developer when many effected parties are
unavailable is of serious concern to those who would very much like to be present to review
and if appropriate object to the offensive elements of this project.
Greg VanSkiver/Town resident appreciated the committee taking public comment. He stated
he reviewed the master plan prior to purchasing his property, which showed the area as open
space. Since that plan had been followed for 18 years, he was reassured that the proposed
location would remain as open space. He mentioned several concerns about grading,
drainage, parking, lighting, and close proximity to the adjacent properties. These concerns can
be viewed in detail in his letter dated December 1, 2012 to the members of the Architectural
Review Committee located in the public comment on the Town website. Mr. VanSkiver
expressed concerns about the future of the facility under different ownership, and how it would
affect the adjacent properties.
Judy Fontius/Town resident submitted written comment dated December 2, 2012. She
expressed concern about the potential for noise from events at the proposed location, in
addition to lighting, traffic, and signage concerns. After reviewing the proposal, she was not
confident that adjustments would be made to appease the neighbors. She expressed concern
about the rock outcroppings not being acoustically-friendly, and requested a noise or sound
study be conducted. Although the parking lot lighting would be required to be downcast, she
believes the lighting would remain an issue because the Mountain Creek Townhomes are
several feet below the proposed parking area.
Blake Robertson/Town resident was concerned about the noise. His property is on the west
side of MacGregor Avenue, yet the noise from the Stanley Hotel carries to his property during
the summer. He welcomed the use of his property for any sound/noise studies of the
proposed pavilion.
Darren Foster/Town resident was concerned about the fast-tracked approval process. He also
expressed concerns about the environmental impact of construction to the Mountain Creek
Townhomes, specifically blasting, wildlife habitat, the removal of natural vegetation and trees.
He stated the proposed project would devalue properties in the area.
Harry Hutcherson/Town resident supported the project, as long as the project met the town
requirements and building codes. He stated it was unfortunate that the Mountain Creek
Townhomes were so close to the proposed site. He stated noise from events was relative, to
some extent.
Public comment closed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 5
December 6, 2012
Mr. Aspinall, an independent employee of owner Mr. Cullen, commented Mr. Cullen had
chosen the timing of the project with the objective to complete it during the off-season. He
stated the Stanley Hotel employees were unaware of the proposal until mid-October.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Town Attorney White stated the volume of material is substantial. The letter from Mr.
Eberhardt dated December 3, 2012 is lengthy and the committee needs to look deeper at the
concerns and what has been brought forth in today’s meeting. It was his opinion to continue
the meeting to allow the committee to further review the materials presented.
Director Chilcott agreed with Mr. White. Member Taranto stated there were a number of
technical issues that would require a more in-depth study. Chair Lancaster stated there was
general consensus to reconvene the group next week for more discussion. He appreciated the
public comment received. He stated written public comment would be accepted prior to the
next meeting. The next meeting will be open to the public, but public comment would not be
taken. The next meeting will allow the applicant to review the concerns and make revisions
to the proposal. Mr. White commended the Mountain Creek Townhome HOA for their public
comments. He emphasized the Technical Review Committee process was agreed to when the
Development Agreement was adopted in 1994. The developer gave up significant
development rights in order to enter into this agreement with the Town. In return, they were
allowed other processes in order to be allowed some development of the property.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
____________________________________
Frank Lancaster, Chair
____________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 01-13
WHEREAS, Section 26-6-402(2)(c) of the “Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972” as
amended, requires a municipality to designate a public place to post notices of its
meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
1. That the lobby area immediately adjacent to the Administrative Offices in
the Estes Park Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park,
Colorado, is hereby designated as the Public Place for Posting Notices of
Town Meetings.
DATED this day of , 2013.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park
FROM: James H. Pickering
Estes Valley Economic Development Task Force
DATE: January 8, 2013
SUBJECT: The Estes Valley’s Economic Future: The Path Forward.
Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees. Thank you for your invitation. Our draft document
The Estes Valley’s Economic Future: The Path Forward was delivered to each of
you on December 28th.
This evening, on behalf of my colleagues on the Estes Valley Economic
Development Task Force, I would like to offer the following five comments:
First. This document sets forth a seven-part Action Plan for an economic
initiative for the Estes Valley. Its adoption and implementation requires four
critical steps. The first is to obtain feedback in the form of comments, ideas and
suggestions from potential participants as well as an indication of future
participation and support.
As you will note, The Path Forward envisions a broad-based, inclusive, public-
private collaborative partnership of organizations, taxing entities, and individuals.
But all of the economic development experts we have interviewed, and all the
economic literature we have read, tells us one thing: it tells us that without the
commitment and support of local elected officials the chances for the success of
this plan, or any plan, are slim.
That is why we are here this evening—we begin with you.
This occasion is a timely one. We know that you plan to develop and adopt a
policy defining the Town’s role in economic development by the end of March of
this year. We also know that you have asked for the completion by June of an
internal audit of Town services and information that impact and support business
attraction and expansion.
Second. Copies of our draft document are in your hands. They are also in the
hands of more than 70 others. It has also been posted on-line. Tonight marks
the important first step in a very open and very deliberate process. It precedes a
series of meetings in which we will take our draft document to the Estes Park
community. Those meetings begin this week.
Public input is vital. Only after we have listened and digested what we hear will
we be able to present a final action plan for adoption and implementation by
those who must become the key stakeholders.
Third. The final report of the Task Force will be more comprehensive. On the
basis of the recommendation of the experts we interviewed, we have asked
Downtown Colorado, Inc. to provide us with a current, objective, and independent
third-party economic assessment of this community. Such an assessment, we
have been assured, is the vital first step in undertaking an economic
development initiative.
Downtown Colorado Inc. is a highly regarded nonprofit membership organization
that specializes in offering technical assistance to communities like our own in
the areas of downtown revitalization and economic development. Downtown
Colorado, Inc. will hold meetings with members of the Estes Park community in
late February. Its written assessment should be ready by early spring. What it
has to tell us will inform and become part of the final document we will present to
the community for action.
However, we have also decided that our public discussions with the Estes Park
community should not wait upon its completion.
Fourth. As noted above, the core of our document is a seven-part Action Plan.
It calls for the creation of the Estes Park Office of Economic Development that
will develop and implement a five-year strategic program focusing on both the
recruitment of new businesses and the retention and expansion of those that
already exist.
It also calls for the establishment of the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council. The purpose of this broad-based public-private partnership of
organizations and individuals is to provide the Office of Economic Development
with on-going direction and oversight.
Once that Council has been established, the Estes Valley Economic
Development Task Force will be dissolved. Our Task Force is a facilitator—
nothing more.
Fifth. Our message going forward—this evening and in the meetings that are to
follow—will be the same. For more than 35 years Estes Park has talked about
the need for economic development and the need for a comprehensive economic
development strategy. Our bibliography lists more than 25 published Town of
Estes Park documents and reports, from 1979 to the present, that specifically
deal with that subject and that need.
Over the years steps have been taken in support of our tourism-based economy.
What has not been addressed is the need to provide technical support for
existing businesses to help them grow and diversify their economic bases and
the need for initiatives and strategies that recruit new businesses and provide
new primary jobs.
Without sustained intervention of the kind envisaged in this report, we willingly
and knowingly abandon the economic future of Estes Park, this unique and
special place, to well-established trends that do not bode well for this community.
To cite but one: In just 10 years—between 2000 and 2010—Estes Park residents
in the 35 to 44 age bracket have declined by 28 percent. At the same time the
general population of Estes Park has grown greater than 6 percent. Those facts
should give all of us pause.
Put more bluntly: inaction—like action—has real consequences.
The decision to act to broaden and diversify our economy, and to strengthen our
year-round business community is in the end a decision to protect and improve
the tax base of the Estes Valley and of every one of our public taxing entities.
Sixth, and finally. Tonight marks the important first step in the path forward. Our
draft document is in your hands.
We ask you to do the following. We ask that individually and collectively
embrace its crucial first step by providing the Task Force with your suggestions,
ideas, and comments on each of the seven parts of our Action Plan. Your
consideration and guidance is critical. So too is your support.
We look forward to receiving your feedback in whatever manner you feel is most
appropriate.
Economic Initiativefor the Estes ValleyEstes ValleyTHE THE 77POINT POINT ACTION PLAN
Critical Steps for Adoption and Implementation of Plan1.Submit preliminary draft to key groups & individuals to py ygpobtain feedback, suggestions, ideas, and indication of future participation2.Prepare a Final Document using the feedback3.Release Final Document in the form of a report to the Estes Park Community4.Convene the 1stEstes Valley Economic Development Council meeting
Tonight marks the 1stStep in public process l d ft d t h b di t ib t d t y70 plus draft documents have been distributed to a targeted list of Estes Valley taxing entities, area associations, private sector individuals A l t i f Pth F d d t h yAn electronic copy of Path Forward document has been placed on the Web ySeries of meetings with the Community begins this k t i th i i tweek to receive their input
The Final ReportA. Comprehensive Community Economic Assessment B. Input from Task Force interview process
Core of Path Forward Action Plan1)Adopt an “Investor Model”1)Adopt an Investor Model2)Create Estes Park Office for Economic Development3)Hire an Executive Director4)Provide a sufficient budget4)Provide a sufficient budget5)Consider sources of funding6)Pursue recommended sources of funding7)Establish the Estes Valley Economic Development Council 7)Establish the Estes Valley Economic Development Council
Establishment of the Estes Valley Economic Development CouncilEstes Valley Economic Development CouncilyCouncil is broad-based public-private partnershipppp pyCouncil provides on-going direction and oversight Council provides ongoing direction and oversight of the Office of Economic Development
Future of EVPC Task ForceTask Force will be dissolved with establishment of Estes Valley Economic Development ypCouncil
The MessageEconomic Development and Economic Development Strategy has been discussed for the last 35 yearsStrategy has been discussed for the last 35 yearsExample: 25 blish d T d ts s ifi ll d l ith 25 published Town documents specifically deal with this subject
Economic Development these past 35 yearsWhat has notbeen dd dWhat has notbeen dd daddressedaddressedWhat has been addressedWhat has been addressedSupport for existingSupport for existingbusinessesSupport for our Recruitment of businessesthat will provide thecommunity with Primarytourism economic basecommunity with PrimaryJobs
Result of Inaction ExampleyPopulation change and age dhifidb ddemographics for period between 2000 and 2010{Growth - Community populationÙ+6.2 % (growth){Decline - For age bracket between 35 and 44Ù-28% (decline)
Inaction—like action—has real consequencesThe decision to act to broaden and diversify our economy andstrengthenouryearroundbusinesscommunityisadecisionstrengthenouryear-roundbusinesscommunityisadecisionto protect and improve the tax base of every public taxingentity in the EstesValley.
The Estes Valley’s Economic Future:The Path ForwardObtain your own copy at: Obtain your own copy at: 1.Go to: www.estesvlleypartners.comyp2.Look for ‘Economic Development’ under ‘Departments’ on left sideF ll th li k f f THE 3.Follow the links for your copy of THE PATH FORWARD
The Estes Valley’s Economic Future:
The Path Forward
Estes Valley Economic
Development Task Force
December 2012
Design & Layout by BAS S1
All photos courtesy Estes Park Museum
DRAFT
Greg Rosener
Task Force Chair and Estes Valley Partners for
Commerce (“EVPC”) Board Member
Peggy Campbell
President & CEO, Visit Estes Park
Charley Dickey
EVPC Board Member
Elizabeth Fogarty
Vice-President, Estes Park Lodging Association
Jerry Miller
Vice-President, Estes Park Museum Friends &
Foundation, Inc.
Paul Mueller
EVPC Board Member
Jon Nicholas
Business Resource Coordinator, Estes Valley Library
Jim Pickering
Director, Association for Responsible Development
Lowell Richardson
Assistant Town Administrator, Town of Estes Park
Ron Norris
Town Trustee, Liaison to Town of Estes Park Board
and as advisor
Julie Phares
President, EVPC Board of Directors, as advisor
On behalf of the Task Force, I wish to thank the following
local organizations for their extra level of support for this
effort. The Rocky Mountain Park Inn and Conference
Center, EstesValley Library and Estes Park Visitors Center
provided meeting space, frequently on short notice. The
Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Library both
contributed to the costs for graphic design work and the
Town provided for the printing of this report.
The Task Force also wants to thank the eleven economic
development professionals who took the time to visit with
us for in-depth one to two-hour interviews by phone or in
person. Their names and organizations are listed in detail
in Appendix 1.
I want to thank all of the Task Force members for
contributing their time and expertise to this endeavor.
This report would not have been possible without the
participation and support of every Task Force member who
collectively devoted hundreds of hours to our interviews and
Acknowlegements
meetings. Jim Pickering and Jon Nicholas both deserve
special acknowledgement for their contributions to the
written report. Jim researched and wrote the initial
draft that became the framework for our meetings and
deliberations. Jim also wrote the Historical Background
appendix and devoted time to the research necessary to
place this Action Plan in context. Jon and Jim together
were responsible for much of the research and editing
that resulted in the current version of this document.
Jon also served as secretary, providing minutes of
meetings and notes of interviews for reference by the
Task Force.
I also want to thank the board members of Estes Valley
Partners for Commerce. They supported creation of the
Task Force and gave us the freedom to move forward as
we deemed best.
Greg Rosener
December 2012
Ta sk forc e
Members
i
DRAFT
In the spring of 2012 the leadership of Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, concerned about the present vitality and
future viability of the economy of the Estes Valley, appointed an Economic Development Task Force. Its task was to
suggest ways of broadening and strengthening our current economy in ways that complement and sustain the current
vision statement of the Town of Estes Park and its Board of Trustees to enhance our position as a premier mountain
community.
The Task Force held its initial meeting in May 2012. It then met on a regular basis throughout the summer and fall.
Minutes were taken. The Task Force first made use of documents produced by the “Vision 21” initiative organized by
Estes Park Mayor William Pinkham in 2005, and the ideas and recommendations found in its two public documents:
2017 Facing the Future: An Economic Vision for a Sustainable Community, a 52-page power point presentation, and
2017 Vision Committee, Final Recommendations. The Task force then conducted in-depth phone and in-person
interviews with twelve individuals who are either leading or directly involved with economic development efforts on
behalf of communities across Colorado. It also reviewed studies and current literature on economic development and
studied past Town reports.
After assembling this document, the Task Force will hold meetings with organizations, businesses, and individuals
interested in the Estes Valley’s long-term economic vitality.
Estes Park has been talking about the need for planned, systematic economic development for at least 35 years. For
much of that time, as the history offered in the Appendix shows, the Town has been paying outside consultants to do
the thinking. However well intended, the consultants’ recommendations came from outside the community. They
did not originate from the local groups and organizations most directly affected and concerned—
from those most necessary for success.
Moreover, time and again recommendations were delivered without a plan of action-- consideration of how the
desired results were to be practically achieved. The EVPC Economic Development Task Force is convinced our plan
achieves that end. We offer a path forward.
Preface
Painting courtesy Cydney Springerii
Executive Summary
The need for an economic development
strategy has long been recognized.
Accordingly, the Task Force has developed an
action plan for economic development. The
plan is based on a study of successful models
used in other Colorado communities as well as
on a consideration of features that are unique
to the Estes Valley.
Building on the work begun by Estes Park
Mayor William Pinkham and his “Vision
2017” initiative, the plan calls for creating an
independent Estes Park Office of Economic
Development, which will develop and
implement a five-year strategic program
for business recruitment as well as business
retention and expansion.
Strategic direction for the office will come
from a board called the Estes Valley Economic
Development Council. Broad-based public
and private financial support will ensure
accountability to the community. The
organization will require the support of
investors—both individuals and organizations
— from throughout the Estes Valley.
To have a meaningful positive impact, the
office will need to be funded and staffed. To
begin implementation, the Council should be
in place no later than July 1, 2013.
Specific recommendations and their
supporting rationale are contained in the
action plan that follows.
The Estes Valley’s Economc Future:
The Path Forward
iii
DRAFT
Table of Contents
DRAFT
Acknowledgements
Preface
Executive Summary
Need for an Economic Development Strategy
An Economic Assessment of the Estes Valley:
1. Tourism is our Economy
2. There has been a Dramatic Decrease in Working Age Residents
3. Estes Valley’s Highly Educated Residents are a Business Resource
4. Labor Force Participation is Affected by Seasonality
5. Housing Costs are a Concern
6. Estes Park Experiences Retail Sales Leakage
Estes Valley’s Economic Strengths and Weaknesses
Areas of Greatest Local Need
Consequences of No Economic Strategy
Principles for a Successful Economic Development Program
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
Action 1: Adopt an “Investor” Model for Community Support
Action 2: Create the Estes Park Office for Economic Development
Action 3: Hire an Executive Director
i
ii
iii
1
2-4
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-16
9
9-10
10
iv
DRAFT
Action 4: Provide a Sufficient Budget
Action 5: Consider Possible Sources of Funding
Other Potential Funding Mechanisms
a. Business Improvement District (BID)
b. Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
c. Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
d. Fundraising Differences: BID, DDA or URA
e. Creative Arts District
f. Special Districts and Improvement Districts
Action 6: Pursue Recommended Sources of Funding
Action 7: Establish the Estes Valley Economic Development Council
Composition of the Economic Development Council
Steps for Adoption & Implementation
Conclusion
Appendices
1. Individuals Consulted
2. Economic Development in Estes Park: Historical Background
3. Economic Development Organization: Sample By-laws
4: Bibliography of Useful Documents and Sources of Information
11
12
13-15
13-14
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
17
18
19-32
19
19-25
25-28
28-32
v
for an Economic Development StrategyNEED
The DRAFT
communities, retail jobs are considered secondary jobs,
because the demand for retail goods depends largely upon
the incomes of local residents. The same thing is true for
government services and a host of other jobs that exist to
support a local community.
For the Estes Valley, tourism-related jobs can be
considered at least partially primary.
Accommodations serve customers
almost entirely from outside the
community. Restaurants and retail
shops, however, serve local residents
and visitors alike.
Generally, our tourism-related jobs
also do not provide the high, year-
round pay that drives local demand
for retail and restaurant consumption.
As local officials are very much aware,
dependence on a single primary
industry leaves us more vulnerable to
any sudden and unexpected economic disruption.
We recognize that the Town of Estes Park, Visit Estes Park
and other existing taxing districts are already positioned
to address issues such as infrastructure, utilities, provision
of public safety and the promotion of tourism. Our plan
focuses on those areas of greatest need, as revealed by
the Estes Park Citizen Survey. As set forth later, we see
business recruitment and business retention/expansion
as the two main activities that must be undertaken for the
benefit of the Estes Valley.
In 2011, Estes Park conducted a citizen survey that
included comparison of resident opinions to those of
hundreds of cities and towns across America. The Town
of Estes Park’s 2011 Citizen Survey compared 22 areas
of service to national benchmarks. The results revealed
that Estes Park ranked 178th out of 225 jurisdictions
for economic development services, well below the
national benchmark. The survey
also ranked Estes Park well below
national benchmarks in four
categories of economic sustainability
and opportunity: employment
opportunities, Estes Park as a place
to work, shopping opportunities, and
overall quality of business and service
establishments in Estes Park.
For 2013, the Town Board adopted
an objective to “develop and adopt
a policy defining the Town’s role in
economic development by the end of
the first quarter.” Our plan is therefore timely.
The purpose of economic development in any community
is to positively influence local economic change. The
objectives of an economic development program include
generating wealth, diversifying the local economy,
creating or preserving jobs, and expanding the local tax
base.
Creating and retaining primary jobs is crucial to the
success of any local economy. Primary jobs are defined
as jobs that sell products or services to buyers outside of
the local community. Primary jobs result in new money
entering the local economy—money that would otherwise
never reach local businesses. In other words, primary
jobs export goods or services and import new dollars into
the community’s economy. In the modern era, primary
jobs include services such as software development or
web-based businesses that can generate wealth from
outside the community.
Primary jobs increase a community’s wealth and create
secondary jobs. Wealth brought into a community
drives demand for local goods and services. In most
“(Estes Park) is
one lightning strike
away from economic
disaster.”
John Cody, CEO, Longmont Area
Development Council, June 2012
“Throughout nearly six months
of meetings, it was clear that we
shared a concern for the nature of
our fragile economy, the need to
attract and retain working families
and professionals, and the need to
strengthen our business community to
create jobs.”
Mayor William Pinkham, March 11, 2009
1
6.2%Estes Park PopulationMedian Age9.9%45-64 years old10.3%35-44 years old-28.3%
50
40
30
20
10
%
-10
-20
-30 65 and over41.4%
DRAFT
Assessment of the Estes Valley
An
A review of prior studies and demographic and economic data for the Estes Valley
yields the following information:
1. Tourism is Our Economy
Estes Park’s economy depends upon tourism. In an
August 2012 report prepared for Visit Estes Park entitled
“The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Tourism on the Estes
Park, Colorado Economy”, Summit Economics estimated
that 49 percent of all Estes-area jobs are directly due to
tourism, about 1,300 jobs.
Summit Economics estimates that “there were almost
1.9 million non-local visitor days (based on one visitor
for one day) to the Town of Estes Park in 2010 and just
over 2.0 million in 2011.” The Summit Economics study
concludes that those non-local visitors account for 59.8
percent of the Town of Estes Park’s general fund revenue,
and 54.6 percent of Town of Estes Park special fund
revenue.
Other taxing districts in the Estes Valley rely largely
upon property taxes for their revenue. Visitors afford
commercial properties the ability to pay property
and specific ownership taxes. For example, Summit
Economics estimated that 53.6% percent of the Town
of Estes Park’s property & specific ownership taxes were
attributable to tourism. Other taxing districts therefore
depend upon tourism as well.
Tourism will continue to be the main economic driver
in Estes Park, but recruiting other types of businesses
that create primary jobs can reduce our overwhelming
dependence on tourist dollars. Business recruitment can
also reduce the inevitable volatility of Town revenues
from month-to-month caused by a tourism-driven
economy.
2. There has been a Dramatic Decrease in
Working Age Residents
Estes Park is becoming a community of retirees, with
significantly fewer residents in the 35 to 44 year old age
bracket. From 2000 to 2010, that shift was pronounced.
Comparison of the Census Bureau data for the Estes Park
CCD1 reveals the following:
The decade-long arrival of more retirees was offset by
the decline in those residents age 35-44, an age bracket
marked by high workforce participation and households
with school-aged children.
1A CCD is a county subdivision used by the Census for data tracking and analysis. The Estes Park CCD is similar to the Park R-3 School District
in size and area, but follows natural features such as ridgelines rather than existing political boundaries. The Estes Park CCD roughly encompasses
Estes Park, Drake, Glen Haven and Pinewood Springs as well as the Larimer County portion of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Population
Change: 2000-2010
2
An Economic Assessment of Estes Valley
Es t e s P a r k
U .S .
37.4%
50
40
30
20
10
%
No High
School Degree
Bachelors Degree
or Higher
5.8%
44.6%
Estes Park
15%
27.9%
U.S.
Educational Attainment, 2010*
Percentage that Pay 30%+ of income on Mortgage
Es t e s P a r k
U .S .
46.1%
DRAFT
3. Estes Valley’s Highly Educated Residents are a
Business Resource
Intellectual capital is crucial to success in today’s global
economy. Our community has such capital to draw
upon. Estes Park residents far exceed the national average
for residents 25 and over with college degrees: 44.6
percent of local residents possess bachelor degrees or
higher, compared to the national average of 27.9 percent.
Similarly, 18.5 percent of local residents possess graduate
or professional degrees, versus a national average of 10.3
percent. Retirees account for a large portion of our most
educated residents. They provide a potential resource of
experience and expertise for emerging businesses.
4. Labor Force Participation is Affected by
Seasonality
Dependence upon tourism is reflected in our workforce
participation, with weeks worked per year reflecting
our seasonal economy. For residents aged 16 to 64,
labor participation varies significantly from national
averages. The percentage of residents who did not work
is significantly lower (15.5 percent versus a national figure
of 22.4 percent), but the percentage of local workers who
worked just 1 to 26 weeks exceeds the national average
(14.1 percent of locals, versus the 10.3 percent national
figure).
5. Housing Costs are a Concern
According to the 2010 Census, there were 8,404 housing
units in the Estes Park CCD. Only 63.9 percent were
occupied as of the April 1, 2010 census date. The vast
majority of vacant units (30.4 percent) were for seasonal
or recreational use. The 2010 national percentage of
seasonal or recreational homes was 3.6 percent. As
revealed by a USDA Forest Service study, second homes
can be a prime economic driver for mountain resort
communities. Second homes also create a greater
demand for infrastructure, and can result in higher
housing costs for year-round residents.
As a result, affordable housing presents a challenge for
many residents. According to the 2010 Census, 50.9
percent of Estes Valley households with mortgages
spend more than 30 percent of their household income
on housing costs. At the national level 37.4 percent
of households with mortgages spend more than 30
percent of their household income on housing costs. By
comparison, for renters the difference is less stark: 46.1
percent of local residents pay gross rent that exceeds 30
percent of their household income. Nationwide, 47.0
percent of households pay gross rent that exceeds 30
percent of their household income.
The difficulty local residents face in finding affordable
housing in part explains the decade-long exodus of Estes
Park residents aged 35 to 44.
*Data Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C.
3
An Economic Assessment of Estes Valley DRAFT
Dependence upon tourism is exacerbated by local
resident spending patterns. The 2012 study by Summit
Economics reveals significant leakage of retail sales from
the Estes Valley. According to that study:
“Using data from the U.S. Census and BLS household
expenditure profiles, we estimate that of the $270
million in annual household income in Estes Park in
2010, about $99 million will be spent on taxable goods.
That figure is then reduced for two reasons: Data on
commuting patterns show that 18%-24% of all Estes
Park workers do not work in Estes Park. Anecdotal data
indicate that residents who live and work in Estes Park
find many items they need aren’t available locally. This
means that retail sales leakage to Loveland and other
areas is significant. We therefore made the conservative
assumption that 1/3 of all local resident retail sales are
lost from Estes Park.”
Similarly, the Town of Estes Park’s government states that
22 percent of its workers live outside of the 80517 zip
code and estimates that as a result, $1.3 million (21%) of
total Town salaries are spent elsewhere.
6. Estes Park Experiences Retail Sales Leakage
4
DRAFT
Valley’s Economic Strengths & WeaknessesESTES
Like all communities, Estes Park has identifiable
strengths and weaknesses. These must be considered in
any discussion of economic development. Estes Park is
a mountain town whose tourist-driven economy faces
serious economic development issues and challenges with
identifiable long-term consequences. While it shares
certain characteristics with a number of other Colorado
resort communities, and with those found in other states,
Estes Park has its own set of cultural and social dynamics
that must be considered.
STRENgTHS
• Mountain location with a high quality of life
• Location that provides easy access to leading
Front Range business communities: Boulder,
Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland
• Located between two world-class research
universities: the University of Colorado,
Boulder and Colorado State University
• 75 miles from Denver International Airport; 38
miles from Fort Collins/Loveland Airport
• Highly-educated resident population
• Local retirees who bring from their past
careers a wide array of intellectual capital and
experience upon which to draw
• Relatively low property tax burden
• Affordable municipal utilities
• Installed fiber optic communications ring
available for information tech companies
• Well-equipped and well-staffed hospital and
medical center
• Long history of volunteerism and community
participation in achieving agreed-upon
civic ends
WEAk NESSES
• Local tax base that is vulnerable to declines in
discretionary spending on travel and tourism
• Seasonal tourism economy results in seasonal
residents and seasonal workforce
• Local demand for products and services is
tourist-driven
• Front Range communities have closer access to
interstates, rail and air transportation, which is
desirable for business site relocation
• Local labor force is limited in size and skills for
certain industries
• Lack of economic diversity impedes employment
opportunities for younger residents
• Visitors perceive a need for improving local
retail and restaurants
• Fewer of the business support mechanisms that
are present in other Colorado communities,
such as a business recruitment and expansion
program
• Fewer support systems for families with limited
child care, educational and recreational options
for children
5
The DRAFT
of greatest Local NeedAREAS
The areas of greatest local need are for economic
diversification and the improvement of existing local
businesses. Our focus must be upon addressing business
recruitment as well as business retention and expansion.
Estes Park’s economy is driven by one economic engine –
tourism. To rely on only one economic driver is neither
prudent nor wise. To correct this economic weakness, the
community needs to implement a program of economic
diversification. A well-conceived business recruitment
program can attract new primary jobs to the area.
Our research confirmed that Colorado communities
interested in their economic future are actively engaged
in business recruitment and attraction. Given our heavy
economic dependence on tourism, business recruitment
will be a key element in diversifying our local economy.
Currently there is no central point of contact for a
business wanting to relocate to Estes Park. There is no
website specifically aimed at prospective businesses.
For example the Town of Windsor has an economic
development department. In Sterling, businesses receive
information and assistance from the Logan County
Economic Development Corporation.
Estes Park also has
not been active in the
Northern Colorado
Economic Development
Corporation (NCEDC).
NCEDC therefore
focuses its business
recruitment efforts on
other communities in
Larimer County—and not
Estes Park. Assuming our
community establishes
a local economic
development program,
increased participation
and collaboration with NCEDC may well be a key
component of success.
Another area of need is business retention & expansion
programming. In 2010, the Estes Valley Library
recognized that local businesses were being underserved
concerning access to market research, demographics,
and business training. In 2012, the Library undertook
a pilot economic gardening program to provide service
to local businesses. Economic gardening provides
research services to support local business retention
and expansion. Initial funding for the program
depended upon grants from Larimer County,
the Friends of the Library and the Town of Estes
Park. The reliance on external grant funding to
underwrite such programs on a long term basis
is unrealistic.
Many economic development corporations
include business retention & expansion in their
core activities. Libraries partner with such
programs by providing research assistance and
access to databases.
A new economic development program in
Estes Park must focus on those areas currently
not being addressed. There are existing
organizations with substantial resources that continue
to address their areas of responsibility. Two examples
come readily to mind. Visit Estes Park is a destination
marketing organization with a professional staff and
a robust revenue stream from the 2 percent lodging
tax. The Town of Estes Park is engaged in addressing
infrastructure issues and also continues to support
tourism with specific projects.
“Broadening the revenue
base to keep pace with
population growth and its
accompanying demand for
services is one of the major
challenges facing the Town
of Estes Park.”
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, 1996
6
of No Economic StrategyCONSEquENCES
The DRAFT
• There will be insufficient year-round, well-paying
jobs to attract younger workers and families.
More such workers will depart.
• The average age of community residents will
continue to rise.
• Estes Park will increasingly become a community
of retirees and second home owners.
• The school population—the life-blood of the
future—will continue to decline. For the fall of
2012 there are 66 enrolled kindergartners and
76 graduating seniors. “Enrolled students down.
Could be crunch time soon, if trend continues,”
Estes Park Trail-Gazette October 24, 2012.
• Sales tax revenue will not keep pace with the
needs of the community, including the upgrading
of decades-old infrastructure.
• The cost of housing will keep rising, with more
second homes—forcing many of those who work
in Estes Park to live elsewhere.
A vibrant community is an intergenerational community
where people work where they live. When working-
age people live elsewhere, that is where they shop,
educate their children, and participate as volunteers in
community activities. That in turn will make Estes Park
less of a community and more of a seasonal resort.
Taken together, the trends identified herein suggest that to create a sustainable future for our community, we must find
ways to broaden and diversify our economy. Inaction—like action—has very real consequences. Without planned
intervention, the following is likely to occur:
7
for a Successful Economic
Development Program
DRAFT
Based upon our interviews and study, we believe that the following specific principles should govern and guide any long-
range economic development plan for the Estes Park community.
The Action Plan should help secure the Town of Estes Park’s current stated Vision: “The Town of Estes Park will enhance our
position as a premier mountain resort community.” The second of the Town’s stated goals for 2012 specifically mentions the
need for economic development. The Town is also committed to defining its role in economic development in early 2013.
The linkage is clear: the Town’s vision is unlikely to be achieved unless the community adopts and embraces a well-thought-
out program of economic development.
The plan should be Estes Park’s own. It must not attempt to simply adopt the economic development plans of other
communities. While it should reflect “best practices,” Estes Park’s plan should be unique to Estes Park.
The Task Force conducted ten interviews with eleven economic development officials from nine communities as well as
the state of Colorado and the U.S.D.A. Each interview was scheduled for at least an hour, but Task Force members also
devoted time to interview preparation, internal discussions after each interview, comparison of notes and finally, extended
deliberations concerning what we learned. The Task Force therefore devoted hundreds of person-hours to the interview
process. These interviews provided us access to expertise gained from many years of economic development experience,
and provided valuable insights that greatly assisted us in our findings.
The interviews reinforced the principles set forth above. Our deliberations suggested that Estes Park should be guided by
the following principles for a successful economic development program:
1. Reflect, protect, and strengthen what is unique
about Estes Park.
2. Have the buy-in and support of the broad
community by creating and sustaining a broad
culture of cooperation.
3. Focus on the retention, improvement, and
expansion of existing businesses while actively
seeking to broaden the economy by attracting
and nurturing new ones.
4. Be a public-private partnership in terms of
organization, governance, and funding.
5. Be guided by a well-designed and realistic five-
year strategic plan that allows for a five-year
window for success.
6. Be headed by a full-time executive director,
with the necessary skills and experience.
7. Be governed by a policy-making board or
council operating under its own bylaws and
accountable to its various constituents and
constituent groups.
8. Be adequately funded in terms of the goals to
be achieved.
9. Be transparent in its operation, accountable
in its decisions and actions, and responsive
through on-going communications with the
community.
10. “Go slow to go fast.” Be deliberate and results-
oriented.
8
DRAFT
We call for the formation of an independent non-profit
economic development corporation called the Estes Park
Office of Economic Development. The organization will
be a public-private partnership with broad support from
the community to ensure accountability and adequate
financial resources. The organization will receive strategic
direction from a board of directors called the Estes Valley
Economic Development Council and will be managed by
an executive director.
To implement a successful economic development effort,
the following actions should be undertaken:
Action 1
Adopt an “nvestor” Model for
Community Support
Interviewees uniformly agreed that a successful
economic development program must be broadly
inclusive and offer an opportunity for participation on
a community-wide basis.
We recommend that the economic development
effort for the Estes Valley be anchored by an
organization that includes businesses, taxing districts
and individuals as both financial supporters and
participants. The organization should be formed as a
private non-profit.
We further recommend that to encourage maximum
participation by local businesses: (1) minimum annual
sponsorships be kept as low as feasible, and (2) that
the minimum level of financial support collected not
be viewed as a major funding source for the Estes Park
Office of Economic Development.
Investors should be called together at least once a year
for an informational meeting. We also recommend
that a mechanism be established at an early date to
keep all investors fully updated (monthly newsletter,
website, e-mail updates, etc.).
Based upon our interviews, we recommend adopting
an “investor” model (described below) rather than
become a membership-based organization.
The tax code recognizes a large number of different
types of non-profit organizations. Non-profits have
a number of legal methods to undertake economic
development activities. The most common forms of
economic development corporations are the 501(c)(3)
(which can accept tax-deductible donations) the (c)(4)
social welfare organization (donations are tax-exempt
but not deductible) and the (c)(6) (membership-based
business leagues).
In general, 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations exist
to serve a community purpose. The 501(c)(3) allows
tax deductibility, but is also subject to more stringent
requirements. For example, political advocacy is
strictly limited.
The organization’s mission should focus upon the
betterment of the entire community. In general,
501(c)(6) membership organizations such as business
leagues, chambers and trade associations exist to
promote a common business interest on behalf
of their members. In addition, such membership
organizations tend to rely much more on dues as their
base of financial support. A dues-based model is
unlikely to provide sufficient financial resources.
The final decision concerning the form of organization
should be made with the benefit of professional advice.
Action 2
Create the Estes Park Office for
Economic Development
We propose that the new non-profit economic
development corporation become the Estes Park
Office for Economic Development. The office will
undertake business recruitment as well as business
retention and expansion activities.
The region served by this organization will initially
follow the boundaries of the Estes Valley Planning
Area, which includes all land within the Town limits
as well as areas governed by Larimer County.
There are a number of models for undertaking
the proposed activities other than forming an
independent office. In some communities, a
municipal employee or department conducts business
The
Our Action PlanPATH FORWARD
9
DRAFT
recruitment and business retention & expansion
activities. Functioning as a Town department would,
however, impair the ability of the office to enlist support
from the broader community.
Another option would be to establish business
recruitment as a function of Visit Estes Park and to also
add business recruitment and expansion services to
Visit Estes Park’s mission. We recognize, however, that
such a program might detract from Visit Estes Park’s
focus on funding marketing activities aimed at tourism.
Action 3
Hire an Executive Director
By universal agreement no economic development
initiative can be successful without the leadership of
an executive director hired on the basis of his or her
expertise. An all-volunteer effort cannot hope to be
as responsive to the needs of potential and existing
businesses as a staffed office.
Our informational interviews persuaded us that an
Executive Director should have the following attributes:
• the interpersonal skills necessary to work with a
broad constituency
• imagination and the capacity to think outside
the box
• the managerial ability to put together and direct
the work of a qualified staff
• exceptional speaking and writing skills
• prior experience in economic development
• grant writing experience
• a willingness to listen and to learn
It will be a key responsibility of the Executive Director
to work with the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council (described in Action 7) to develop a five-year
strategic development plan for the Estes Valley and
then put together with the resources available a staff to
implement that plan.
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
10
DRAFT
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
Action 4
Provide a Sufficient Budget
No community-wide long-term economic
development plan can succeed without sufficient
funding. An early task for the Economic Development
Council will be to establish an annual operating
budget. During our phone interviews, we spent time
discussing the level of expense required as reflected in
Estimated Annual Expenses:
$113,700-165,000Estimated Total
$70,000-90,000
$21,000-29,000
$4,000-6,000
$1,000-1,200
$ 200-300
$1,000-5,000
$1,000-3,000
$4,000-7,000
$4,000-8,000
$ 500-1,000
$2,000-5,000
$5,000-10,000
Salaries
Benefits
Rent
Supplies
(in year 1 $2,400 in year 2 and later)
Postage
(in year 1 $500 in year 2 and later)
Insurance
Professional Services
Marketing
Meeting/Conference Costs
(EDCC, other groups and conferences)
Dues
Travel
Website Maintenance
separate budgetary categories.
Our research indicates that for Estes Park the level of
annual budgetary support reasonably necessary will
be between $113,700 and $165,000, broken down into
categories as follows.
Estimated Year-One
Startup Costs:
$17,000 to $32,000
Website
Development
$5,000 to $15,000
(over more than 1 year)
Furniture, Fixtures,
Equipment
$12,000-$17,000
The start-up period
for the office will incur
additional costs.
*This preliminary budget provides some guidance. Creating a formal budget for the organization will
require additional research of each budget line. We nonetheless consider this estimated budget to be a
reasonable forecast of the resources necessary.
*
11
DRAFT
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
Action 5
Consider Possible Sources of Funding
An economic development initiative must be paid
for, and there are a number of models that may
be considered. Those interviewed who were least
satisfied with their progress and results most often
cited inadequate and/or piece-meal funding as the
reason. One interviewee indicated that to the extent
they were asked to raise their own salaries and yearly
operating budgets through grant writing, they did so
at the expense of the very efforts they were hired to
implement and promote.
The Economic Development Council will need to
establish the target percentage of funding to come
from different sources. Both the public sector and
Castle Rock EDO
City County Program Fees Grants
Longmont Area EC
Northern Colorado EDC
Pagosa Springs CDC
Rifle EDC*
Roaring Forks BRC
30%5%5%
Private
60%
31%
85%
22%
24%
20%
55% City + County
15% City + County
53%25%
26%25%15%
10%4%
7%
41%20% 19% City + County
the private sector will provide substantial support,
with the understanding that those percentages can
change over time, as has been the experience of the
communities we studied.
From our phone interviews we were able to learn
about the relative percentages of the operating budget
spread across funding sources in several of those
communities. We offer them below for the purpose
of illustration. They are also offered with a caveat:
what is right for other communities is not necessarily
right for Estes Park. Just as Estes Park’s economic
development plan must be tailored to Estes Park, so,
too, must be the sources of its funding.
Examples of Colorado Economic Development Funding Sources
12
DRAFT
Other Potential Funding Mechanisms
Though as our chart on page 12 suggests, most
community economic development efforts rely on
public/private funding, there are also a number of
development tools available in Colorado that may
prove relevant to the work of the Council. None of
these entities serve the same function as an economic
development corporation.
Colorado statutes provide for the creation of Business
Improvement Districts (“BIDs”), Downtown
Development Authorities (“DDAs”) and Urban
Renewal Authorities (“URAs”). Each of these
potential entities can play a role in economic
development, but the role of economic development
corporations remains unique. Investigating and
then deciding whether to integrate one of these tools
into economic development must be a longer-term
consideration for the Council.
a. Business Improvement District (BID)
BIDs are used for economic development. The
powers of a BID include paying for a variety of
public improvements, and engaging in business and
economic development. BIDs are generally used to
perform economic development functions that are
outside the scope of powers for a DDA or URA. Such
development activities might include: consulting;
promotion or marketing; organization and promotion
of public events; activities in support of business
recruitment, management and development; security;
and design assistance.
A BID is initiated by a petition containing signatures
from property owners who own at least 50% of the
assessed value of property in the proposed district. A
BID consists solely of commercial property and must
be entirely within a municipal boundary. A board of
directors governs a BID. There is flexibility concerning
whether that board is elected, appointed or ex officio.
Funding sources for a BID include a property tax
(subject to voter approval), rates and charges for
services or improvements, or special assessments
through a special improvement district (which could
be governed by a BID or municipality).
Each Economic Development Corporation develops
a funding profile that reflects its own community.
We interviewed a number of economic development
organizations, each of which had different funding
profiles. Those we interviewed reflected this fact.
Our interviews with various economic development
organizations revealed that smaller communities relied
much more heavily on government funding. For
example, municipal government provides 53 percent
of the funding for the Pagosa Springs Community
Development Corporation. County government
provides an additional 25 percent, with just 22 percent
derived from the private sector.
The Roaring Fork Business Resource Center serves
a region of small communities. It receives about 19
percent of its funding from municipal and county
government. Roaring Fork relies much more on
fees for service to existing businesses (20 percent)
and grants (41 percent). As a result, pursuing and
complying with grants consumes about one-third of
the Executive Director’s time.
The Northern Colorado Economic Development
Corporation (NCEDC) encompasses all of Larimer
County. It has a larger budget and serves a much larger
community. NCEDC derives only 12% of its support
from government entities.
Longmont is a sizeable community with a number of
large primary employers who serve as investors in the
Longmont Area Economic Council (“LAEC”). LAEC
derives nearly half its support from the private sector,
and about 55 percent from the City of Longmont and
Boulder County combined.
Estes Park and the surrounding area do not compare
easily to any of these communities with respect to
funding opportunities. One key message derived from
our interviews was that successful organizations rely
upon a mix of funding sources. One interviewee told
us emphatically that an organization that relies entirely
upon private funding has an expected life span of
three years. Conversely, an organization that relies too
much on government funding will not be as connected
to the local business community.
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
13
DRAFT
11 blight factors are present (or 5 factors to justify use
of eminent domain).
URAs are the one tool that allows the use of eminent
domain for economic redevelopment. URAs are the
most common tool for tax increment financing (TIF),
described below in more detail.
A January 2010 special election ended the Estes Park
Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) and the adopted
ordinance requires an election to approve formation
of a new urban renewal authority. Any future use of
a URA therefore would require as much community
support as the formation of a DDA, which is subject by
state statute to an election.
d. Fundraising Differences: BID, DDA or URA
A BID can impose ad valorem property taxes, with
voter approval. A BID also has the power to charge for
services or improvements. BIDs therefore have more
limited funding options.
Both DDAs and URAs can use tax increment financing
(TIF) based on property and/ or sales taxes. A base
property valuation or base sales tax level is determined
for the DDA or URA areas as of a specified date. The
tax revenues from these areas are divided between
the TIF entity (the DDA or URA) and all the other
taxing jurisdictions that overlap the DDA/URA area as
follows. The taxing jurisdictions receive the revenue
in the base (and increases to the base) and the TIF
entity collects the revenue generated by the levy on the
incremental increase above the base.
A DDA has the added power to impose a mill levy
of up to 5 mills to support its operations, subject to
voter approval. A DDA therefore has more funding
flexibility than a BID or URA, but is probably more
restricted in its boundary formation than the other
mechanisms.
Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) generally
requires an election to approve the issuance of bonds,
including those issued by BIDs or DDAs. URAs can
issue bonds and are not subject to a TABOR election
concerning the issuance of bonds. From a municipal
perspective, the URA’s power to bond without an
election is one of its most important strengths.
According to a Denver-based consultant, Progressive
Urban Management Associates, Colorado BIDs have
been established in downtowns and commercial
districts that include Havana Street in Aurora,
Downtown Denver, East and West Colfax in Denver,
Cherry Creek North, South Broadway in Englewood,
Downtown Boulder, Grand Junction, Durango,
Manitou Springs and Colorado Springs.
b. Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
DDAs are for use in a Central Business District
(“CBD”), as defined by statute.
The governing body of a DDA (a municipality)
submits the question of forming a DDA to the voters
by ordinance. TABOR issues can be included in the
same election. DDA powers include to: analyze
economic changes; study impacts of growth on the
CBD; plan and propose development plans; implement
development plans; develop long range plans in
cooperation with the planning commission and staff of
municipality; and to promote economic growth.
The governing board of a DDA consists of 5-11
members, which are selected by a governing body. At
least one member must come from that governing
body. Members must reside, own property, or be a
business lessee within the boundaries. DDAs have a
30-year life, followed by a “rolling” 20-year extension.
According to Progressive Urban Management
Associates, DDAs have been established in downtown
Brighton, Colorado Springs, Crested Butte, Denver,
Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction,
Greeley, Longmont, Nederland, Rifle, Thornton, and
Woodland Park.
c. Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
URAs were originally intended to address urban
blight. In practice, the Colorado statutes are broad
enough that URAs are used for redevelopment, new
development (subject now to greater restrictions) and
improvement of a broad array of infrastructure.
A municipal government can form a URA after a
petition from 25 registered electors. The municipality
must complete a blight study and find that at least 4 of
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
14
DRAFT
State, local and non-profit grants as well as private
donors could fund a Creative Arts program. Like the
tools described above, such a project would only be
part of a larger, long-term economic development
program. It also would not provide as direct a focus
on business recruitment, retention & expansion as a
traditional economic development corporation.
f. Special Districts and Improvement Districts
There are a number of other special districts and
improvement districts that can be used to finance
infrastructure. Such districts are outside the scope of
our focus on business recruitment, development, and
retention programs.
Action 6
Pursue Recommended
Sources of Funding
While as indicated previously a wide variety of
funding mechanisms for economic development are
available to Colorado communities, this document
and its recommendations are premised on a public-
private partnership whose participants share the cost.
This is the case in the communities that we studied.
The decision on how costs are to be equitably shared
is one that the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council will have to decide at an early date. It is clear
that both municipal support and private support will
be necessary to success. Estes Park, however, lacks
the number of large private employers that support
regional efforts in Northern Colorado as well as other
Colorado communities. That reality suggests that the
percentage of private support available will resemble
that of other small communities.
There are high stakes for other taxing districts as well.
Other districts have recognized the need for action
and should provide both financial and organizational
support.
e. Colorado Creative Districts
Colorado Creative Districts are a new program that
began in 2012. The Colorado Creative Industries office
selected 15 communities to receive varying levels of
grants plus technical assistance. Two communities
were designated as state-recognized Creative Districts,
with 13 designated as emerging districts. Five of
those 13 will likely be designated as Creative Districts
in May 2013. More than 40 Colorado communities
applied for the program.
The Creative Districts program reflects the national
effort to engage in economic development through
promotion and redevelopment of creative spaces.
According to the National Endowment for the Arts,
“economic development quickens because arts and
cultural investments help a locality capture a higher
share of expenditures from local income. Instead of
traveling elsewhere for entertainment and culture, or
going to a big-box retailer or shopping mall, residents
are patrons of local talent and venues, earnings that
re-circulate at a higher rate in the local economy.”
Among the purposes of the Colorado Creative District
program are to:
• Attract creative entrepreneurs and artists
to a community
• Create hubs of economic activity, thereby
enhancing the area as an appealing place to live,
visit and conduct business
• Attract visitors
• Revitalize and beautify communities
• Provide a focal point for celebrating and
strengthening a community’s unique identity
• Showcase cultural and artistic organizations,
events, and amenities
The Colorado Creative District program offers selected
districts access to:
• Grant funding
• Tailored technical assistance through a
professional advisory network
• Two networking and training programs
• Access to advocacy tools
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
15
DRAFT
Estes Park Board of Realtors; Estes Park Wedding
Association; Estes Valley Contractors Association; and
Estes Valley Partners for Commerce.
The two Ex-Officio Charter members shall consist of one
each from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and
Rocky Mountain National Park. [to discuss whether ex
officio status appropriate with those organizations]
The Charter Members of the Council will select seven
(7) at-large members of the Council on the basis of their
experience, skills, and interest.
Action 7
Establish The Estes Valley Economic
Development Council
We recommend that the policies of the Office for
Economic Development be directed by an independent
but accountable board of directors, called the Estes Valley
Economic Development Council. The duties of the
Council will include adopting, monitoring and annually
revising a five-year strategic plan for the organization,
adopting annual budgets, and serving as the policy board
for the Estes Park Office for Economic Development.
Composition of the Economic Development Council
The exact size and membership of the Economic
Development Council will be determined by the level of
commitment of the investors. For the purposes
of discussion we recommend on-going
direction, support, and oversight
be provided by a twenty-one
(21) member Council. We
recommend the Council be
composed of twelve (12)
Charter Members, [two
(2) Ex-officio Charter
Members,] and at least
seven (7) At-Large
Members, each to
serve for a three (3)
year term.
Assuming each of
the organizations
wish to support an
Office of Economic
Development, Charter
Members will consist of two
from the Town of Estes Park
and one each from the following
taxing entities, associations, and
organizations: Estes Valley Library District;
Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District; Park Hospital
District/Estes Park Medical Center; Park R-3 School
District; Visit Estes Park; Estes Area Lodging Association;
Membership at Large
Estes Valley Economic Development Council
Board of Directors
Executive Director
Recruited by Executive Director
Formed First. Charter Members Recommended
by Economic Development Task Force
Chosen by Economic Development Council
from Economic Development Council Members
Chosen by Board of Directors in Consultation
with Estes Valley Economic Development Council
The Path Forward: Our Action Plan
16
The
STEPS DRAFT
Step 3
Release this final draft in the form of a report to the
Estes Park community.
Step 4
Convene the first meeting of the Estes Valley Economic
Development Council so that it can begin organizing
itself for the work ahead.
With that initial meeting and the formal transmittal
of its report, the EVPC Task Force will cease to exist,
though individual members of the Taskforce will make
themselves available as consultants to the extent the
Development Council wishes to call upon them.
As noted previously, for any economic development
initiative to be successful, there must be community-
wide discussion and support. This is the reason that
we envision a four-step process for adoption and
implementation:
Step 1
Submit this preliminary draft proposal to key
constituency groups and individuals to obtain their
feedback, suggestions and ideas, and an indication of
their future participation and support.
Step 2
Prepare a final draft proposal using the feedback received.
17
DRAFT
potential “synergies” achievable within a broad-based
comprehensive economic development effort—one that is
focused both on bringing new business to the community
and, equally, on helping existing businesses to reach their
full potential. That message is as viable today as it was
two decades and more ago.
The Time for The communiTy To AcT is
now—not when some new and unforeseen crisis is
upon us.
The EVPC Economic Development Taskforce offers this
report and the action plan it contains to the community.
This action plan is in no way binding upon anyone. What
our research provides is a roadmap. We have set forth
the how, when, what and why for a successful effort.
Still, it is the Economic Development Council that will
undertake the journey. Once adopted, this action plan
can be modified and changed by the Council as necessary
during implementation. We fully expect that the Council
will improve upon our efforts as it pursues “The Path
Forward.”
The action plan requires concerted and deliberate action
by community leaders, both private and public. Securing
the economic and social vitality of our community
depends upon it.
For over thirty-five years the Town of Estes Park has
talked about the need to diversify and broaden its
economy, and to do so in ways that keep faith with the
traditional values that distinguish this very special place.
For the most part these discussions have been focused
upon Town government and the Town Board of Trustees.
The 2011 Citizen Survey for Estes Park identified
economic development as the most under-performing
Town service among the 21 municipal services for
which national benchmarks were available. The Survey
recommends that “By targeting improvement in key
services, the Town of Estes Park can focus on the services
that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’
opinions about overall service quality.” Economic
development is now a clearly stated goal of the Town
Board.
Despite the clear message of the 2011 survey, the
responsibility for our future cannot rest with Town
government alone. We have learned from studying
other communities that economic development must
be a public-private partnership in which everyone has
a role to play and in which everyone shares. Several of
the past reports commissioned by the Town speak to the
18
DRAFT
2. Economic Development in Estes Park:
Historical Background and Overview
The Early Years:
The Town of Estes Park has been in the
economic development business, with varying
degrees of success, almost from the date of
its incorporation in 1917. In fact, concerted
efforts by early residents to improve Estes Park’s
competitive position as a tourist destination—
such as the one that funded and built the fish
hatchery on Fall River in 1906—predate that
event by a decade and more. The laissez-faire
climate in which the new town was created
certainly helped, encouraging would-be
entrepreneurs to purchase land, erect buildings,
and open up new businesses. Many of these
businesses were, of course, seasonal and had
to do with meeting the demands of tourism,
demands that expanded with the creation of
Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915. In
one sense, such activities simply mirrored and
built upon the economic development efforts
that had been taking place throughout the
Estes Valley since the mid to late 1870s when
pioneer ranchers and farmers like Abner Sprague
discovered that catering to tourists was more
lucrative than ranching and farming.
The Town of Estes Park was platted in the
spring of 1905. Incorporation did not follow
for another twelve years. In the interim many
of the responsibilities associated with growing
municipalities were handled by groups such
as the Estes Park Business Men’s Association,
whose leaders, men like Sam Service, Ed
Macdonald, and Pieter Hondius, represented the
year-round commercial interests of the Town.
It was the Business Men’s Association, whose
membership quickly reached 40, that in 1911
took it upon itself to produce and nationally
distribute 10,000 copies of a “booklet designed
to acquaint the public with the many advantages
of a visit to the Park in the fall, and so prolong,
in the interests of our hotels, stores and liveries,
the usually very short tourist season.” In 1920
the Business Men’s Association, having decided
1. ndividuals Consulted
After preparing a tentative draft of this document, the
Taskforce reviewed it with a number of organizations
and individuals in the Estes Park. There feedback,
ideas, and suggestions will be reflected in the final
draft released to the community. The Taskforce would
like to thank each of the following individuals for
generously giving us their time and their expertise.
nterviews Beyond Estes Park:
Julie Bjurstrom, City of Rifle (July 25, 2012).
Josh Burks, City of Fort Collins (August 1, 2012).
Tom Clark, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (September 26, 2012).
John Cody, Longmont Area Development Council (July 18, 2012).
Frank Gray, City of Castle Rock (July 18, 2012).
Walter Elish, Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation (July 25, 2012).
Richard Lindblad, Town of Pagosa Springs (July 25, 2012).
Randi Lowenthal, Roaring Forks Business Resource Center (August 1, 2012).
Kelli McDonald, Town of Vail (July 31, 2012).
Cheryl Scofield, Northeast Area Director, U. S. Department of Agriculture (August 30, 2012).
Stephanie Troller, Economic & Community Specialist, State of Colorado (August 30, 2012).
19
DRAFT
that it should concentrate its efforts on the
downtown area, became the Estes Park Chamber
of Commerce.
By the early 1920s, however, it was clear to
the town fathers, the Chamber, and interested
onlookers like F.O. Stanley that volunteerism
had its limits—that a measure of control
and regulation was needed if Estes Park’s
reputation as “an ideal summer resort” was to be
maintained and enhanced. Yet as late as 1921,
the year the Estes Park Trail was established
as a year-round paper, the downtown area
contained only four buildings of permanent, or
semi-fireproof, construction: the original Hupp
Hotel, the Estes Park Bank, Fred Clatworthy’s
studio-workshop, and the Patterson Garage.
Along Elkhorn, which had no curbing, short
stretches of concrete sidewalk still competed
with uneven wooden boardwalks; the post office
and schoolhouse, all agreed, were much too
small; and the library’s patchwork collection
of books was still being shuttled from place to
place looking for a permanent home. South
of the post office on Riverside an unsightly,
ramshackled bridge spanned the Big Thompson.
By mid-decade all of this had begun to change.
Multi-store, brick-faced buildings began to
appear: the Hall block on west Elkhorn; the
Boyd block at the corner of Riverside and
Elkhorn, the Hayden block across Riverside to
east. The Town passed ordinances establishing
uniform standards for building setbacks, curb-
lines, gutters, and sidewalks and regulating
signage and awnings, installed ornamental
lighting along Elkhorn, and had unsightly (and
dangerous) telephone and power poles relocated
to rear alleys. These improvements cost money,
and on September 26, 1927, the Town passed an
ordinance establishing “Estes Park Improvement
District Number One,” giving it authority to
assess the owners of some 50 properties to pay
their prorated share of the costs. In February
1928, in order to widen an already congested
Elkhorn Avenue, the Town notified 11 existing
property owners that they would have to move
their buildings back approximately 8 feet.
Appendices
Though these changes took several years to
implement, by the summer of 1928 Elkhorn
Avenue had a new and decidedly different look.
The Estes Park Trail applauded the changes
in an editorial.
Though there have since been some additions
(for example Dr. James Durward’s 1975
Centennial Plaza at the head of Elkhorn), and in
many cases new facades have replaced the old,
Estes Park’s downtown of 1928 is substantially
the same downtown that residents and tourists
engage today.
In discussing economic development in Estes
Park one must not, of course, overlook the
contributions over four decades of F.O. Stanley.
Stanley provided his adopted town with
perhaps the finest hotel in northern Colorado,
11 buildings in all, powered by a hydro-plant,
which the rest of the town quickly adopted as its
own. He was responsible for Estes Park’s first
water and sewerage companies, its first bank,
its major automobile transportation company,
and its own refuse dump. Later he would donate
land for the building of the Estes Park Country
Club, for the Estes Park High School (for which
the Bureau of Reclamation also contributed
funds), and, of course, for Stanley Park. Estes
Park would, over time, have developed much
of this economic infrastructure on its own—
indeed it would have had to. But thanks to the
generosity of Mr. Stanley that infrastructure
came sooner, and was of higher quality, than
the town fathers could have provided with the
economic resources at their disposal.
The 1930s and the Great Depression:
Estes Park largely escaped the worst of the Great
Depression. This was not due, however, to local
business establishments or the local government,
whose largely harmonious collaboration had been
responsible for the improvements of the 1920s. What
helped indeed saved, Estes Park from the kind of
prolonged austerity felt by the rest of the country
was the federal government and the economic
development activities its largesse made possible.
20
DRAFT
hardly surprising. The average age of residents in
1990 was 42.6 years (10.1 years older than the average
Coloradoan); it rose to 45 years in 2000. The 2008
Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment found 61% of
the Valley’s population older than 50.
It is also interesting to note that while the number of
visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park reached two
million visitors in 1968, and reached three million in
1977, the number has remained almost constant for
the past 35 years. The 2011 total of 3,335,862 people
was 1.3% less than the record set 11 years earlier
(3,380,044). By contrast, during the period between
1977 and 2010, America’s population as a whole grew
by more than 34%, yielding the hypothesis that Rocky
Mountain National Park, like its celebrated elk herds,
has now outstripped its carrying capacity. The recent
revision of these numbers in the report released by
Visit Estes Park does not change the underlying point:
visitation to RMNP appears to have peaked.
Though the post-World War II pages of the Estes Park
Trail are filled with stories about the Town’s growth
and development, and about various needs and
problems, there was no systematic study about how
to address such issues until 1979, when a Downtown
Study was conducted for the Estes Park Planning
Commission by Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, & Lamont,
a Boulder consulting firm, specializing on ways of
managing growth in small communities. Though
limited by “time period and budget,” which prevented
“a detailed plan for downtown,” the study concluded
that if “the problems of the downtown area are to be
resolved decisive actions are necessary.” Among
those identified were the need to “strengthen the
Central Business District as a major focus and activity
center of the Town,” the need “to promote increased
opportunities for pedestrian activities, “and the need
“to promote the development of year round economic
activity”—all to be accomplished while enhancing and
preserving “the image and character of the Town.”
Though the only concrete economic development
project mentioned was “a major convention/
conference center,” the 1979 report did speak to the
need for downtown “revitalization” through public-
private partnership activities. It also, included a
series of recommended “actions,” including the
Rocky Mountain National Park was, of course, a
federal enterprise, and throughout the decade of the
1930s summer tourists continued to arrive, and in
increasing numbers, bringing their dollars into the
local economy. There were, moreover, major new
sources of federal funds. The 1930s saw the beginning
of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (which lasted
into the early 1950s, creating two power plants and
the new recreational activities made possible by Lake
Estes) and the building of Reclamation Village (the
subdivision that is today’s 1st to 4th street). It also
saw the creation of five Civilian Conservation Camps
within the national park. Those camps hired local
workers, bought supplies locally, and one night a
week sent their recruits to town with money in their
pockets. In the mid to late 1930s the state and federal
government substantially upgraded and improved all
three roads into the Estes Valley, giving us the modern,
dust-free highways we know, and take for granted,
today. Additional monies were brought into the local
economy through other make-work programs funded
by Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Since World War II:
Other than the implementation of zoning in the years
immediately after World War II, in part to protect
and stimulate the local economy, in the second half
of the twentieth century the Town of Estes Park
relied almost exclusively on private enterprise for
economic development, trusting that expanding sales
tax revenues, resulting from an annual increase in
tourist visitors, would take care of municipal needs
while keeping local taxes as low as possible. There
were, however, problems, most of them having to do
with population growth in town, and valley and the
rising number of visitors to the national park, most of
whom either stopped in, or at least came through, the
Town of Estes Park. In 1950 the population of Estes
Park was 1,617; by 1996 it had reached 5,038 with an
additional 9,861 residents living in the Estes Valley.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century that
growth moderated. By 2010 the Town had added 775
new residents (for a total of 5,858), a modest increase
of 8.2% (a rate of growth, interestingly enough,
below the national average). School enrollments
reflected the Town’s growth into the 1990s, but then
declined, leading to the closing, and mothballing,
of the elementary school building. This fact was
Appendices
21
DRAFT
The analysis conducted in support of
recommendations was thorough and detailed. One
of its tables, listing the advantages and disadvantages
of the Estes Park area in terms of future business
expansion, is noteworthy for its continuing relevance:
ADVAnTAGes:
• Attractive location and setting. Proximity to
mountain recreation areas
• Comparative lease cost advantage over competing
areas
• Proximity to major Colorado Front Range markets
• Access to labor markets in certain frontier cities
• Low crime rate
• Large summer trade. Repeat visitor loyalty
• Large, competitive and improving lodging base
• Progressive business attitude of certain individuals
• High level of interest for business improvements
by certain businesses and public agencies
• Relative fast growing market area population
base.
DisADVAnTAGes:
• Strong competition from Colorado Front Range
metropolitan areas
• Distance from complementary businesses and
client base in Front Range
• Small local year-round business and population
base (low local demand)
• Extreme seasonality of local business base
• Highways only means of access; no rail or air
traffic
• Transportation links to major markets can be
limited, especially in winter
• Traffic congestion of summer
• Business attitudes and practices
• Substantial market leakage of population base
• Small labor force with limited industrial skills at
present
• Lack of economic base diversity impacting the
opportunities for younger residents
Of these 1983 characteristics, one might remark that
under “advantages” there is no mention of quality local
education; and that 30 years later a number of the
perceived “disadvantages” cited can now be remediated
or solved by the use of high speed internet and other
forms of electronic communication. The replacement
of Stapleton by DIA, of course, has also brought a first
rate international airport closer to Estes Park.
establishment of “an improvement district” through
the creation “of desired revenue sources, ” most
specifically an additional one-cent sales tax. Taken
as a whole the 44-page report can be considered the
Town of Estes Park ’s first organized and systematic
attempt to address economic development. As such it
was, and is, a landmark document.
The 1980s and Beyond:
Though several increases in the sales tax did occur
during the 1980s and the groundwork was laid for the
opening in August 1991 of the Estes Park Conference
Center a joint public-private partnership with Holiday
Inns, Inc., little more was heard about the need for a
comprehensive economic development effort, focused
on the Downtown area, until July 1982 and the Lawn
Lake Flood.
That event brought into being the Downtown
Redevelopment Task Force and a full-scale economic
market analysis by principals from Browne, Botz &
Coddington of Denver. Their analysis was intended
to support “a realistic, achievable redevelopment
of the downtown area.” It was predicated on two
assumptions: (1) that Estes Park’s economy is
“primarily dependent on tourism” and (2) that
“moderate growth is anticipated in the near term.” It
also included a number of concrete suggestions for the
future.
The approach taken was a common sense one.
The consultants offered the Town three different
scenarios for its future: (1) a “Baseline scenario—a
continuation of past trends with little or no effort
on the part of Estes Park to improve the business/
tourist environment; (2) Medium scenario—
moderate physical improvement efforts and relatively
inexpensive changes designed to attract tourists
are successfully implemented by the community,
including intensive marketing programs; and (3) High
scenario—in addition to the strategies implemented
under the medium scenario, broad structural
aesthetic and functional changes, including attracting
new industry and major changes downtown, so
that market leakage is improved and the tourism
market is substantially enhanced. A range of ‘high’
development potential was eventually defined to
reflect the synergistic influences of the comprehensive
redevelopment program.”
Appendices
22
DRAFT
activities, it offered few concrete suggestions on how
such synergy could be achieved, let alone sustained.
The most glaring deficiency of the 1983 study, in
short, was its failure to address the political nature of
it all: who was to do what, with what resources, on
the basis of what kind of planning, and for how long?
EPURA, for a time, answered some of these questions.
Visit Estes Park has since answered others. But the
sun-setting of EPURA by voter decision, most now
realized, has left us with a void where an important
aspect of economic development is concern—a void
yet to be filled.
In a very real sense beyond the private business sector,
Estes Park today relies for economic activity on the
six taxing entities that have money—Town, School
District, Library District, Hospital District, Recreation
District, and Fire District. All six are employers and as
such are drivers of the local economy. One could also
add Rocky Mountain National Park, Visit Estes Park,
and the Estes Park Housing Authority, each of which
is also supported, at least in part, by tax dollars. Each
tax-based entity deals with its own problems in its
own ways, many of which relate directly to economic
development, and, interestingly enough, also to the
success of one another. Given the independence
and the perceived differences in mission of these
governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, it is
hardly surprising that when it comes to the activities
that contribute to economic development there is little
evidence of the kind of “synergy” achievable through
coordinated efforts that the consultants of 30 years
ago spoke about so optimistically. Nothing exists to
encourage such synergy and make it happen.
Other Studies and Reports:
The 1983 Economic Market Analysis did, however,
open discussion in a convincing and well-documented
way about the need for basic long-term economic
development in Estes Park. Since that time the
Town, the National Park, and local organizations such
as the Forward Estes Park and the Association for
Responsible Development (ARD), as well as the other
taxing entities noted above, have taken up the subject
of economic development in a variety of documents,
often, tangentially, in connection with other issues or
problems (see Appendix 6, Bibliography).
The “high scenario” recommendations offered by the
Denver consultants are particularly interesting in view
of what many consider the present-day needs of Estes
Park. They include:
• Construction of a community event/convention
center with meeting facilities, indoor horse arena,
and major parking and traffic improvements.
• Successful attraction of 100 new jobs in a basic
industry other than tourism.
• Increase off-season use (“overall redevelopment
for downtown Estes Park must be successful in
order the expand the ‘shoulder season’”--five new
events were suggested).
• Improvements in business appearance, quality
and operations with complementary public
investments.
• Substantial new investment for retail development
for which the potential is “excellent.”
Seen in retrospect, the outcomes of the 1983 study
were decidedly mixed. Thanks to the establishment
of the Estes Park Urban Renewal District (EPURA),
the aesthetics of the downtown area were dramatically
improved, in a way that pleased both residents and
visitors. Many of Estes Park’s most pressing brick-
and-mortar needs were systematically addressed and
paid for on a progressive, on-going basis until EPURA
was sunset by voters in 2011. With improvements
like the River Walk and Performance Park few today
would argue that Estes Park is not aesthetically a better
community. Thanks too to the establishment of Visit
Estes Park (formerly the Local Marketing District),
which took over the responsibilities of a poorly funded
and poorly supported Chamber of Commerce, many
if not most of the marketing issues underlined in the
1983 document have been, or are being, addressed.
Bricks-and-mortar and marketing needs were, in one
sense, the easiest things to fix and improve, and the
Town and its leadership deserves credit for having
fixed many of them. What was clearly not addressed
in the years after 1983 was the need for an adequately
funded broadly supported entity capable of dealing
with the consultant’s various recommendations
regarding economic development and of doing so
in systematic way on a long-term basis. Though
team members spoke throughout the document of
the “synergistic” nature of economic development
Appendices
23
DRAFT
that the Comprehensive Plan as a whole required
no updating or revision.
3. Economic Growth and Its Sources in Estes Park
(1996). This 59-page August 1996 study by Jeffrey
S. Zax, an economics professor at the University of
Colorado, and his assistant, Nellie M. Hester, was
funded through an economic development grant
from the Platte River Power Authority solicited
by Forward Estes Park. It represented an attempt
to understand the nature, extent and sources of
growth in Estes Park between 1986 and 1995.
Among its findings: “Economic growth has been
modest over the past decade;” “Inflation adjusted
sales tax revenues have grown 2.93% per year”:
“Inflation-adjusted sales tax revenues have grown
much more quickly in Steamboat Springs” [the only
other municipality studied].
In Recent Years:
Since that date there has been only one community-
wide effort to build on the suggestions in the 1996
Comprehensive Plan with respect to economic
development and to address the findings of earlier
studies. This came in 2005 with a proposal to
create Economic Development Council to assist in
developing an economic development strategy as
part of a project titled “Estes Park 2017” (so named
in anticipation of the hundredth anniversary of the
Town’s incorporation). To forward this effort a diverse
group of 16 business people, together with citizens
and Town staff, met over a period of five months
with a group called “Town Goal Team #1” for the
announced purpose of “understanding the Town’s
current economic status and emerging challenges
and opportunities, and to establish a realistic vision
that will ensure a healthy, sustainable economy.”
This group adopted a Vision Statement embodying
a small set of recommendations having to do with
“Community Character,” “Economic Sustainability,”
“Transportation and Parking,” and “Cultural
Resources.” The principal work product of the 2017
group was a 52-page power point presentation that
recommended the “creation of an overriding plan or
strategy for a future economic development.”
Related to this effort were discussions held by the
Intergovernmental Agency Sustainability Group.
This group, which contained representatives from
The major studies and reports produced include the
following:
1. Estes Park Directions: Gateway to the Future:
Draft Comprehensive Plan (Denver: Design Studio
West, 1995). This three-year study, buttressed by
a great deal of statistical information about town
and valley, was designed “to serve as a guide for
the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County in
addressing future development issues in the Estes
Valley. One of its stated concerns was “for the
future growth and vitality of the local economy.” In
Section Six, the consultants recommended eight
policies to help achieve that goal. Unfortunately,
the report’s section on “Recommended Actions”
makes no mention of how those eight policies were
to be implemented and/or achieved. The chief
outcome of this study was the Estes Valley Planning
Commission, made possible through what was at
the time considered a unique intergovernmental
agreement.
2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (Denver,
CO: Design Studios West, 1996). This document,
which makes use of its 1995 Design West Studio
predecessor, devotes an entire chapter to an
“Economic Overview” which directly raises
the issue of economic development. “It is . . .
important for the community,” it notes, “to plan
for a sustainable economy.” The plan discusses
the need for broadening the revenue base beyond
the sales tax, a need confirmed by an August 1996
study that indicated that, even with EPURA, sales
tax revenues “over the past decade have grown less
quickly than the effective residential population.” It
also lists and briefly discusses a series of “Potential
Economic Development Strategies,” noting that
the plan proposed (and subsequently adopted)
“addresses the need for increased sales tax revenue
by classifying 360 acres for commercial activity,
including retail and banks.” It also notes, to the
same end, that there is “potential for development
of an additional 588,000 square feet [of commercial
space], with potential expansion of 386,000
square feet.” Like previous reports, the 1996
Comprehensive Plan suggests no coordinated
method of achieving its goals. Though Planning
Commissioners updated the statistical component
of the plan in 2008, they recently (in 2012) decided
Appendices
24
DRAFT
3. Economic Development Organization
Sample By-laws
Sample by-laws for the organization are below. It
should be noted that it will need to be additionally
tailored to the pattern of organization that the Estes
Valley Economic Development Council decides to
ratify and adopt. For, example, the Council will need
to decide whether or not it wishes to vest leadership in
an executive committee. This should be considered a
starting point for revision with expert advice.
Article i: name
“Estes 21” is an economic development organization
for the Estes Valley, Estes Park Colorado incorporated
under State of Colorado as [here the entity must be
named, for example 501 (c)(3)]
Article ii: Purposes
To plan for and promote on a sustainable basis the
economic development of the Estes Valley in ways
that are compatible with those qualities which make
Estes Park a unique mountain community. To build
a stronger and more broadly-based economy and tax
base; to advise and assist existing local businesses to
reach their full economic potential; to attract new
businesses and create new employment opportunities.
To use the tools of economic development to create a
more dynamic, multi-generational community to the
benefit of all citizens.
Article iii: membership
section 3. 1. eligibility
Membership in “Estes 21” shall be open to any
individual, business, or organization residing in,
employed in, or conducting business in the Estes
Valley, and any individual or entity possessing an
interest in the purposes of the organization, regardless
of place of residence.
section 3. 2. Admission
Membership in “Estes 21” shall be granted upon
receipt of a completed application and the payment of
the required membership fee.
section 3. 3. Termination
Membership in “Estes 21” may be terminated at any
the Town, the local taxing districts, the Chamber
of Commerce, Rocky Mountain National Park, and
the Y.M.C.A, was convened by Mayor Bill Pinkham
in September 2008 and sat together for a series of
10 meetings that lasted until March of 2009. One
of its recommendations was to establish “a business
development manager position.” Neither this
recommendation, nor the 2005 proposal to create an
Economic Development Council (see Board of Trustee
Minutes, August 2005), the stated goal of the 2017
Vision project, has to date been adopted. However,
the Vision Statement that this initiative produced and
the insights included in its other documents proved
helpful to the 2012 Taskforce as it pursued its work.
Conclusions:
Seen in the context of earlier economic development
initiatives, the two most recent would, however, seem
to signal a new understanding and awareness about
the requirements for successful economic development
effort—one that has been confirmed by the interviews
of the EVPC Taskforce. Estes Park has been talking
about the need for planned, systematic economic
development for nearly 35 years. For much of the time
the Town has been paying outside consultants to do
the thinking. Between October 1979, the date of the
Estes Park Downtown Plan and 1996, the date of the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, both the analyses
conducted, and the recommendations offered, came
in the form of documents put together from the top
down. They did not come from the bottom up, that
is, from the local groups and organizations most
directly effected and concerned—from those most
necessary for success. Moreover, as noted above, time
and again those recommendations were delivered
without consideration of just how, in an increasingly
complex community of diverse and competing social,
economic, and political interests, the desired results
were to be achieved. The 2012 EVPC Economic
Development Taskforce, from the beginning, in its
discussions and in its recommendations has sought to
address such deficiencies.
Appendices
25
DRAFT
section 4. 3. Permanent charter members
Permanent Charter Members shall consist of two
from the Town of Estes Park and one each from
the following taxing entities, associations, and
organizations: Estes Valley Library District; Estes
Valley Recreation and Parks District; Park Hospital
District/Estes Park Medical Center; Park R-3 School
District; Visit Estes Park; Estes Area Lodging
Association; Estes Park Board of Realtors; Estes
Park Wedding Association; Estes Valley Contractors
Association; and Estes Valley Partners for Commerce.
4. 1a. selection of Permanent charter members
from the Town
One Town Permanent Charter Member shall be the
Mayor or a member of the Board of Trustees; the other
Permanent Charter Member from the Town shall be
the Town Administrator or his or her nominee.
4. 2b. selection of Permanent charter members
from Taxing entities, Associations, and
organizations
Members from Estes Park taxing entities, associations,
and organizations shall be selected by those entities for
three-year terms and may be re-appointed.
section 5. Permanent ex-officio charter members
Permanent Ex-officio Charter Members shall include
one each from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District;
and Rocky Mountain National Park.
5. 1. selection of Permanent ex-officio charter
members
Permanent Ex-officio Charter Members from the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District and Rocky Mountain
National Park shall be selected by those entities for
three-year terms and may be re-appointed.
section 6. non-Voting members
The Executive Director of the Estes Park Office of
Economic Development shall serve as a permanent
non-voting member of the Council.
section 7. selection of At-Large members
The seven (7) At-Large Members shall be selected by
the Permanent Members of the Council from among
the general membership of “Estes 21”
time by tendering a written request to the Executive
Committee of the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council (EVECD)(forfeiting any dues already paid);
membership may be terminated by the Executive
Committee of the EVECD for non-payment of dues
or for actions which are deemed detrimental to the
purposes of the organization and the welfare of the
general membership. A member to be terminated will
be notified in advance of any action in writing by the
Executive Committee of the EVEDC and be given the
opportunity to appeal in writing or in person.
section 3. 4. Dues
Each member shall pay an annual dues as
recommended by the Estes Valley Economic
Council and approved by the membership at the
annual meeting.
section 3. 5. meetings of the membership
Members of “Estes 21” shall meet at least once
annually and at such other times as determined by
the Estes Valley Economic Development Council. At
such meetings each “Estes 21” member shall have one
vote.
section 3. 6. Leadership and Governance
Leadership and governance of “Estes 21” shall be
vested in the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council whose membership, composition, and
functions are described in Article III, below.
Article iV. The estes Valley economic Development
council
section 4. 1. General
The affairs and activities of “Estes 21” and the
Office of Economic Development shall be managed,
controlled and conducted under the supervision and
direction of the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council.
section 4. 2. composition
The Estes Valley Economic Development Council shall
be composed of twenty-one (21) members: twelve
(12) Permanent Charter Members, two (2) Permanent
Ex-officio Members, and seven (7) rotating At-Large
Members. Members of the Council must also be
members of Estes 21.
Appendices
26
DRAFT
11. 3. Treasurer
It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to ensure that
all funds are properly and accurately managed and
accounted for and to provide oversight responsibility
on financial matters for Office of Economic
Development. The Treasurer may disburse funds
in accordance with the approved budget or at the
direction of the Chair with the concurrence of the
Executive Committee.
11. 4. secretary
It shall be the duty of the Secretary to ensure that
attendance is taken at all meetings and the minutes
of proceedings are kept and properly distributed and
stored. In the absence of the Secretary, the Chair shall
appoint someone to take minutes.
11. 5. election of officers
The members of the Executive Committee shall be
elected according to procedures established by the
Council.
11. 6. Term of officers and members of the
executive committee
Officers and Members of the Executive Committee will
be elected to two-year terms; they may be re-elected.
11.7. Vacancies
In the event of a vacancy, a new officer shall be elected
at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council.
section 12. executive committee
The Estes Valley Economic Development Council
shall have an Executive Committee composed of the
Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Treasurer, Secretary,
two other members chosen the members of the
council, and the Executive Director of the Estes Park
Office of Economic Development. The Executive
Director shall serve as a permanent member of the
Executive Committee but without vote.
12. 1. meetings of the executive committee
The Executive Committee will meet as called by the
Chair. Notice of the time and place of meetings shall
be given at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. All
meetings shall be open to the public, except when
personnel matters regarding the Office of Economic
Development are to be considered.
upon the recommendation of the Council’s
Nominating Committee.
section 8. Qualifications of At-Large members
At-Large Members will be selected on the basis of
their perceived experience, skills, and interest and in
order to ensure balance on the Council with respect to
matters of economic development and with respect to
the its public and private sector composition.
section 9. Term of At-Large members
At-Large members shall serve staggered three-year
terms; and may be reappointed.
section 10. Duties and responsibilities of the estes
Valley economic Development council
The duties and responsibilities of the Estes Valley
Economic Council include the following: preparing
and periodically updating the job description for
the Executive Director of the Office of Economic
Development; hiring and periodically evaluating
the Executive Director; working with the Executive
Director to develop an initial five-year economic
development plan for the Estes Valley, and approving
and monitoring that plan; providing on-going advise
and counsel to the Executive Director.
section 11. officers
The Estes Valley Economic Development Council shall
have a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Treasurer, and
Secretary.
11. 1. chairperson
It shall be the duty of the chairperson to establish,
in consultation with the members of the Executive
Committee, the agenda for meetings of the Council;
conduct meetings, ensure that minutes are kept, and
distributed and ensure that budgets and funds are
properly accounted.
11. 2. Vice chairperson
It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to fulfill
the duties of the Chairperson in his or her absence or
disability. The Vice Chairperson will also chair the
Nominating Committee. The Vice Chairperson shall
serve as Chair Elect and succeed to that office upon
the expiration of the Chairperson’s term.
Appendices
27
DRAFT
Article Vi. code of conduct/conflict of interest
Members and officers shall refrain from voting on, or
taking part in an action or decision, if the member
or officer has, or reasonably expects to have, a direct
interest in the outcome of that action or decision.
No member, officer or employee shall use his or her
membership for private gain or engage in any activity
that gives preferential treatment to any individual
or organization.
Article Vii. conducting of meetings
All meetings are to be conducted according to the
current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.
Article Viii. Amendment to By-laws
These by-laws may be altered, amended, or repealed
by majority vote of the Council with written notice to
the general membership thirty (30) days prior to the
taking of any such action.
section 13. other committees
The Council shall have a three (3) member
Nominating Committee chaired by the Vice
Chairperson to facilitate the election of At-
Large Members and such other committees or
subcommittees as it may deem necessary to establish.
The Nominating Committee shall operate under
procedures suggested by that committee and approved
by the Council.
section. 14. meetings
The of the Estes Valley Economic Development
Council shall meet at least bi-monthly at a time and
place to be determined annually each July 1 and at
other times upon the call of the Chair. Notice of the
time and place of meetings shall be given at least five
(5) days prior to the meeting. All meetings shall be
open to the public, except when personnel matters
regarding the Office of Economic Development are to
be considered.
section 15. Alternates
Charter Members of the Council may send alternates
as necessary for the purpose of providing continuity;
such alternates, however, may not vote.
section. 16. Quorum for meetings
Fifty percent of the members of the Council shall be
necessary for the conducting of any business.
section 17. indemnification
Members of the Council, its officers, and its employees
shall be indemnified against expenses actually and
necessarily incurred in connection with the defense
of any action, suit, or proceeding in which they are
parties, by reason of having been Council members.
Exception shall be made, however, in relation to
matters involving fraud or criminal misconduct in the
performance of duty.
Article V. executive Director of the estes Valley
economic Development office
The Executive Director shall be responsible for the
day-to-day operation of the Estes Park Office as
defined by the job description established by the
Estes Valley Economic Development Council. The
Executive Director shall be appointed by the Council
and serves at its pleasure.
Appendices
28
DRAFT
Colo Rev Stat § 31-25-1201 (Business Improvement
Districts).
County of Arlington. Arlington’s Framework for
Prosperity: Economic Development Strategic Plan
(Arlington, VA: n.d.).
“Economic Overview,” Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan,
3-1, 2008 Statistical Update, Adopted July 15, 2008 (Estes
Park, CO: 2008).
Elrod, Mark. “Proposal: Economic Development
Council,” From the Town Board Study Session, August 24,
2011 (Estes Park, CO: January 2011).
Estes Valley Housing Authority. Estes Valley Housing
Needs Assessment, March 2008 (Boulder, CO: RRC
Associates, 2008).
Forward Estes Park Foundation. Estes Park Area Housing
Study, Summer 1999. Final Report (Boulder: RRC
Associates, 1999).
Forward Estes Park Foundation. Gibbon, Dave, Summary
of Survey Results (Estes Park State Attention Figures), July
1, 1982 (Estes Park, CO: Forward Estes Park, 1982).
Geary, Caitlin. “Sustainable Connections: Linking
Sustainability and Economic Development Strategies”
(Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2011).
Gordon, Jennie. “Grand Thoughts: Economic
Sustainability in Arlington,” Economic Development
Research Paper (Arlington, VA: July 2011).
Homeier, Richard. “Estes Park Economic Vision For A
Sustainable Community” (Estes Park, CO: n.d.).
Howe, Jim, Ed McMahon, and Luther Probst. “Case
Study: Estes Park, Colorado,” Balancing Nature and
Commerce in Gateway Communities (Washington, D.C.
Island Press, 1997), pp. 101-105.
International Economic Development Council.
Introduction to Economic Development (Washington, D.C.:
International Economic Development Council, 2006).
Appendices
4. Bibliography of Useful Documents
and Sources of Information on
Economic Development
Adams, Tucker Hart & Rochette, Paul. The Economic
and Fiscal Impact of Tourism on the Estes Park, Colorado
Economy, (Colorado Springs, CO: Summit Economics,
LLC, August 29, 2012) online at http://estesparkcvb.com/
pdf/textboxes/Economic%20Impact%20Study%208-29-
12.pdf
Adams, Tucker Hart, and Paul Rochette. Economic
Market Analysis: Estes Park (Colorado Springs, CO: The
Adams Group, Inc., September 1993).
City of Boulder. Strategic Plan for Economic Development
(Boulder, CO: February 17, 1987).
City of Englewood. City of Englewood Business and
Employment Strategic Plan
Element (Englewood, CO: n.d.).
City of Fort Collins. Innovation Economy (Fort Collins,
Co: 2011) (http://www.fcgov.com/business/pdf/
innovation-economy-clusterq42011.pdf?1343240784).
City of Golden. Economic Development Commission By-
laws (np, nd.)
City of Longmont. Economic Development Strategic Plan
(Economic Development Department, City of Loveland,
CO: August 29, 2011).
City of Longmont. (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,
Denver, CO: April 2006).
City of Wauwatosa. City of Wauwatosa Economic
Development Vision, Structure, and Implementation Plan
(Wauwatosa, WI: 2009).
Cody, John. ED 101, CML Presentation (Longmont, CO:
2011).
Colo Rev Stat § 31-25-104 and § 38-1-101 (Urban
Renewal Authorities).
Colo Rev Stat § 31-25-801 (Downtown Development
Authorities).
29
DRAFT
National Endowment for the Arts, Creative
Placemaking, 2010 online at http://www.arts.gov/pub/
CreativePlacemaking-Paper.pdf.
National League of Cities. Economic Development 2009
Survey Summary (Washington, D.C. National League of
Cities, 2009).
National League of Cities. Retail Redevelopment: A City
Practice Brief (Washington, D.C. National League of
Cities, May, 2008).
National League of Cities. The Role of Local Elected
Officials in Economic Development; 10 Things You Should
Know (Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities,
2010).
Norris, Ron. “Notes from April 2012 EDCC Meetings,” 2
page typescript (Estes Park, CO: n.d).
Northern Colorado Economic Corporation: Fourth
Amended and Restated Bylaws, August 28. 2012.
Pinkham, William. “Intergovernmental Agency
Sustainability Wrap Up,” Memorandum to
Intergovernmental Sustainability Group (Estes Park,
March 11, 2009).
Progressive Urban Management Associates (“PUMA”),
“What is a Colorado Downtown Development Authority
(DDA)?” (July 2010) online at http://www.pumaworldhq.
com/documents/PUMA_DDA_FactSheet8-10.pdf.
PUMA, “What is a Colorado Business Improvement
District?” (July 2010) online at http://www.
pumaworldhq.com/documents/PUMA_CO-BID_
FactSheet8-10.pdf.
Rocky Mountain National Park. Economic Feasibility
Study Concessions Operation: Ski Estes Park, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Colorado (Denver,
CO: U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park
Service, 1989).
Rocky Mountain National Park. Rocky Mountain
National Park Visitor Study/Summer 2010 (Fort Collins:
U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service,
2011).
Appendices
Internet Access Task Force. An Internet Survey of the
Estes Valley, Citizens and Businesses: A Report to the Town
Board (Estes Park, CO: April 1, 2001).
Ireland, Mick. “Understanding and Adapting to Change
in Mountain Resort Communities: A White Paper”
(Boulder, CO: Center for Sustainable Tourism, Leeds
School of Business, University of Colorado at Boulder,
2006).
Larimer County. Community Assessment Survey for Older
Adults. Larimer County Report for Estes Park, C0, 2010
(Boulder, CO: National Research Center, 2010.)
Larimer County. Estes Park Transportation Alternatives
Study (Fort Collins, CO: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig; URS
Corp.; Design Studio West; Entranco; Hammer Siler
George Associates, c. 2001).
Larimer County. Summary Report: County Economic
Development Self-Assessment Survey (Fort Collins, CO:
March 2011).
Lewis, Andrew. Community Economic Development
Preparedness Index (CEDPI), Center for Community
Economic Development, (Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin-Extension, ND) (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/
cced/).
Louthian, Robert & Friedlander, Marvin. Economic
Development Corporations: Charity Through the Back
Door (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.) online at http://
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg92.pdf
McConnell, Kathleen. Workforce Development for
Economic Competiveness: Municipal Action Guide
(Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2010).
“Meet the Pueblo Creative Corridor,” Colorado Springs
Independent, October 4, 2012 online at http://www.
csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2012/10/04/meet-the-
pueblo-creative-corridor
“Meetings Set to Continue Creative District Process,”
Trinidad Times, September 28, 2012 online at http://
trinidad-times.com/meetings-set-to-continue-creative-
district-process-p4139-1.htm
30
DRAFT
Town of Estes Park. Economic Market Analysis:
Downtown Estes Park/Prepared for Downtown
Redevelopment Program, Town of Estes Park (Denver, CO:
Browne, Bortz and Coddington, April 1983). See also
Larry Melton, “Economic Market Analysis: Downtown
Estes Park. Executive Summary, July 14, 1983)” (n.p.:
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments, 1983).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan,
Phase One: Community Issues (Boulder, CO: R. V. Lord
and Associates, Inc., 1974).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan:
Report 2. Research and Analysis (Boulder, CO: R. V. Lord
and Associates, Inc., 1975).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan:
Phase Three, 1977 (Boulder, CO: R. V. Lord and
Associates, Inc., 1977).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Directions: Gateway to the
Future. Phase 1. Planning the Valley’s Future (Estes Park,
CO: Design Studios West, Inc., 1992).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Directions: Gateway to the
Future. Phase 2. Developing Strategies & Plan of Action
(Estes Park, CO: Design Studios West, Inc., 1992).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Directions: Gateway to the
Future: Draft Comprehensive Plan (Denver: Design Studio
West, 1995).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Downtown Study, October
1979 (Boulder, CO: Briscoe, Maphis, Murray and Lamont,
1979).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Summer Visitor Survey
2006 (Boulder, CO: RRC Associates, Inc., 2006).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park’s Tourism Development
Advertising Program: Evaluation of Advertising Program
and Recommendations for Enhancement and Improvement
(Castle Rock, CO: Intelli Stats, September 9, 2002).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Park Vision for a Sustainable
Community (Estes Park, CO, n.d.).
Appendices
State of Colorado. Colorado Blueprint: A Bottom-up
Approach to Economic Development (Denver, CO: Office
of Economic Development and International Trade,
2011). See Appendix I, “Weld and Larimer Counties,” pp.
38-41.
State of Colorado. Colorado Assessment Program
Overview (Denver, CO: Office of Economic Development
and International Trade, n.d.).
State of Colorado. Creative Industries Division, Office
of Economic Development and International Trade,
“Economic Development Creative Districts” online at
http://www.coloarts.state.co.us/programs/economic/
creativedistricts/index.htm
State of Colorado. Economic Development Funding
Resources (Denver, CO: Office of Economic Development
and International Trade, October, 2011).
State of Colorado. Financial Management Assistance,
Dept. of Local Affairs, “Districts and Alternate
Government Financing Mechanisms” (February 12,
2012) online at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?
blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Dispo
sition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheade
rvalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Districts+and-
+Alternate+Financing+Mechanisms.pdf%22&blobheader
value2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=Mun
goBlobs&blobwhere=1251772441308&ssbinary=true
State of Texas. Economic Development Handbook 2008
(Austin, TX: Attorney General of Texas, 2008).
Town of Estes Park. 2017 Facing the Future: An Economic
Vision for a Sustainable Community, 52-page power point
presentation (Estes Park, CO: n.d.).
Town of Estes Park. 2017 Vision Committee, Final
Recommendations, Estes Park Economic Vision for a
Sustainable Community (Estes Park, n.d.).
Town of Estes Park. Community Profile (Estes Park, CO:
June 2011).
Town of Estes Park. Conversion Study, 1993 to present
(Boulder: RRC Associates, 1993- ).
31
DRAFT
Town of Vail. Vail Economic Strategic Plan
(Vail, CO: 2008).
Town of Windsor. “Community Economic Development
Assessment” (Denver, CO: Office of Economic
Development and International Trade, October, 2010).
See also Town of Windsor, Resolution No 2005-39
(“Being a Resolution Approving and Adopting
Revised Economic Incentive Guidelines for the Town of
Windsor).
USDA Forest Service, Region 2 & The Region 10 League
for Economic Assistance and Planning, Inc. Second
Homes and the Economic Base of Four Counties in
West Central Colorado: An Economic Drivers Study for
Gunnison, Hinsdale, Ouray and San Miguel Counties
(September 2006) online at http://www.region10.net/
documents/Reg10_Second_Home_Economic_Drivers_
Study_06.pdf
Visit Estes Park. 2011 Annual Report (Estes Park, CO:
2012). See also, Estes Park 2010 Visitor’s Study Highlights
(Guest Research for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District, June 2011); 2010 Annual Report (Estes Park
Local Marketing District, June 2011).
Visit Estes Park. 2012-2013 Marketing Plan (Estes Park,
Co. 2012).
White, Carolynne, “BID, DDA or URA: How to Decide?”
Presentation to CCRA Annual Conference, September
18, 2008 online at http://www.gura.com/011209/BID-
DDAorURAppt.pdf
Woodwell, William H., Melissa Germanese, and Katie
Seeger. Building on Your City’s Economic Strengths:
Municipal Action Guide (Washington, D.C.: National
League of Cities, December 2006).
Zborel, Tammy. Sustainable Connections: Strategies to
Support Local Economies: A Municipal Action Guide
(Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2011).
Appendices
Town of Estes Park. Feasibility of Proposed Indoor Arena
and Multi-Purpose Building; Estes Park, Colorado (Los
Angele: Economics Research Associates (April 1988).
Town of Estes Park. Vision, Mission and Goals (Estes
Park, C0: 2012).
Town of Estes Park. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
(Denver, CO: Design Studios West, 1996). See also
“Economic Overview,” Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan,
3-1, 2008 Statistical Update, Adopted July 15, 2008 (Estes
Park, 2008).
Town of Estes Park. Feasibility of Proposed Indoor Arena
and Multi-Purpose Building, Estes Park, Co. (Los Angeles,
CA: Economic Research Associates, n.d.).
Town of Estes Park. “Fiber Optic Infrastructure,”
Memorandum from Alan Fraundorf to Mayor William
Pinkham and the Board of Trustees (Estes Park, CO: May
8, 2012).
Town of Estes Park. Future Development Plan, Estes Park,
Colorado (Estes Park, CO.: Town of Estes Park, 1973).
Town of Estes Park. The National Citizen Survey, Town of
Estes Park, Colorado, 2011 Results Summary (Estes Park,
CO.: 2011).
Town of Estes Park. Stanley Fairgrounds Capital
Improvements: A Community Survey, 2008 (Estes Park,
CO: Town of Estes Park, 2008).
Town of Estes Park. Stanley Park Horse Show and
Rodeo Complex Master Plan, 1984 (Denver, CO: BRW
Inc., 1984).
Town of Estes Park. “Town Explores New Strategies
for Economic Development,” The Town Bugle, 4
(Fall 2004): 1.
Town of Estes Park. Transportation Visioning Committee’s
Roadmap to the Future (Estes Park, CO: Town of Estes
Park, April 24, 2012).
Town of Rifle. Bylaws of Rifle Regional Economic
Development Corporation (Rifle. CO: n.d.)
32
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Bo Winslow, Community Services Coordinator
Date: January, 8, 2013
RE: Visitor Services Special Report: Video Sales in July – November, 2012
Video Sales at the Visitor Center:
In response to a Town Board directed retail policy change at the end of June 2012, the
Visitor Center now sells and displays DVDs that promote Rocky Mountain National Park
and the Estes Park area. Installed in July of this year, an 80-inch TV screen continually
plays the DVD Rivers of the Rockies without the soundtrack. The Visitor Center
currently sells five different DVDs produced by Nick Molle’, with 50% of the proceeds
coming to the Town:
• Rivers of the Rockies – Blue Ray and regular version: $24.95 & $19.95
• Climb Longs Peak - $19.95
• Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park - $19.95
• Footprints on the Rockies - $19.95
• Real Rocky - $19.95
The Visitor Center also sells post cards, calendars and books from both the Rocky
Mountain Nature Association and the Estes Park Museum. The Town receives 50% of
the proceeds on the sale of post cards and calendars and nets 25-45% from the sale of
books.
The table below illustrates the total collected and percentage of sales attributed to video
sales per month since the start of these sales on July 20 (July stats were not calculated
since DVD sales began late in the month). On average, approximately 15% of the total
sales August through November are from DVD sales, with a total of 121 videos sold and
sales equaling $2,545.
Community Services Memo
Month Total DVDs
sold + $
% of Monthly
Sales
Postcards: %
of Monthly
Sales + $
Calendars: %
of Monthly
Sales + $
Books: % of
Monthly
Sales + $
Total
Monthly
Sales*
July 7 / $140 Not calculated due to partial month … $5,464
August 31 / $643 14% 17% / $805 56%/$2,659 13% / $642 $5,588
September 47 / $1,019 16% 12% / $764 62%/$3,842 10% / $624 $6,860
October 31 / $638 19% 14% / $483 58%/$1,952 9% / $302 $3,876
November 5 / $105 7% 14% / $199 68% / $988 11% / $168 $1,611
TOTAL: $23,399
* Total monthly sales deposit includes sales tax collected and post card stamp sales (sold at face value with no income to the town).
The percentage of sales was calculated without including these totals.
For comparison, the table below is provided to depict retail sales per month for the
same months DVDs have been sold in 2012.
Month 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
July $8,691 $6,197 $7,977 $7,546 $7,414
August $7,562 $6,134 $7,750 $6,249 $6,471
September $7,014 $6,426 $7,074 $6,796 $6,917
October $4,086 $4,192 $4,434 $4,357 $5,025
November $1,522 $1,527 $1,575 $1,635 $1,337
TOTAL: $28,875 $24,476 $28,810 $26,583 $27,164
Note: The years 2005 and 2006 have been omitted in the table above because sales records from those years include income from
stakeholder sales and services. The division of Stakeholder Services was managed by Visitor Services until a Stakeholder Services
Manager was hired by the CVB in January of 2007. Going forward from that time, proceeds from the sale of stakeholder services
was recorded separately, allowing for separate retail records in Visitor Services.
As illustrated in the tables above, total sales July – November were down over the same
time-period since 2007. It is not surprising total sales are down, given the significant
decrease in foot traffic in the Visitor Center in 2012. Retail sales could have potentially
been even lower without the addition of the sale of DVDs that began in July.
The table below illustrates the total retail sales each year since the creation of the
Convention and Visitors Bureau in 2004. There were no retail sales until 2005; at that
time, the Visitor Center was stationed in the old information building while the new
Visitor Center was built. Visitor Services commenced operations at the new Center in
April, 2006.
2005 $17,675
2006 $39,299
2007 $43,554
2008 $36,485
2009 $42,582
2010 $40,175
2011 $39,192
2012 thru 12-8-12 $33,720*
*Estimate for year-end 2012 total = $34,200
Budget: N/A
Recommendation: N/A
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Date: January 8, 2013
RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointments
Background:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission is a joint Town/County commission that reviews
land use applications within the Estes Valley and is responsible for comprehensive
planning. The commission consists of seven volunteer appointed members.
Two positions are open. Staff posted the positions in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and
received four applications. An interview team consisting of Trustee Blackhurst, Trustee
Elrod, Planning Commission Chair Klink, and Community Development Director Alison
Chilcott interviewed the applicants. The team recommends appointing:
John Tucker for a four-year term expiring December 31, 2016. John Tucker has
served on the Estes Valley Planning Commission since his appointment on December
12, 2006. He retired from marketing and sales at Sun Microsystems (Hygiene, CO),
moved to Estes Park in 2004 and purchased Sunnyside Knoll, an accommodations
property on Fall River Road. He has since sold Sunnyside Knoll and purchased and
remodeled accommodations units at Stonebrook Resort on Fall River Road.
Steve Murphree for a four-year term expiring December 31, 2016. Steve Murphree
is a long-time Estes Park resident. He serves on several boards, including Habitat for
Humanity. He has 24 years experience as a local builder/developer, has recently
retired, and has a desire to give back to the community.
Budget:
N/A
Interview Team Recommendation:
The team recommends appointing John Tucker and Steve Murphree.
Sample Motion:
I move to appoint (or not appoint) John Tucker to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for
a four-year term expiring December 31, 2016.
I move to appoint (or not appoint) Steve Murphree to the Estes Valley Planning Commission
for a four-year term December 31, 2016.
Community Development Memo
Public Works Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: January 8, 2013
RE: League of Women Voters Recycling Grant Town Match
Background:
The League of Women Voters has received a grant of $14,900 from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, awarded for the purchase of new recycle
bins. If the Town determines to accept these containers, the Town would prefer to put
them in existing trash container locations and have a combination unit of both trash and
recycling. Because of this, the League requests the Town provide additional funding for
the trash portion of the combination unit and the cost of installation. Under this scenario,
it is proposed that existing trash containers be replaced with 24 new bear-proof
combination units, at a cost to the Town of $19,500. Please see attached information
materials provided by the League.
Budget:
This is currently an unfunded budget item.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to provide $19,500 to the League of Women Voters for
purchase and installation of 24 Town-approved bear-proof trash and recycling
combination containers, to be place in locations where existing trash containers are
located.
Funding
Request
for
Dual
Trash/Recycle
Bins
in
Downtown
Estes
Park
Proposal
• Request
Town
Board
approval
to:
–
Add
$19,500
in
town
funds
to
$14,900
CDPHE
grant
to
purchase
and
install
24
bear-‐proof
trash/recycling
bins
– Incorporate
new
bins
into
exisOng
town
waste/recycling
removal
contract
• New
bins
would:
– Offer
residents
and
visitors
increased
opportunity
to
recycle
rather
than
send
reusable
waste
to
landfill
– Show
visible
progress
in
protecOng
local
bear
populaOon
by
reducing
access
to
waste
as
a
food
source
AcquisiOon
Costs
Itemization Cost
Purchase 24 bins @ $1,124 each $26,976
California Sales Tax @ 7.75 percent $0
Shipping (BearSaver estimate) $2,396
Signage/Decals $0
Installation $4,800
Subtotal $34,172
Less CDPHE Grant Funds $14,900
Total $19,272
Bin
Design:
BearSaver
CE232-‐CHR
(Ontario,
CA)
Bin
SpecificaOons
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION:
The
CE
Series
receptacle
is
a
Universally
Accessible,
ADA
compliant
unit
that
is
used
widely
by
the
NaOonal
Park
Service
and
US
Forest
Service.
The
CE
Series
is
available
with
loading
chutes
for
trash
(-‐
CH),
loading
tubes
for
recyclables
(-‐R)
or
a
combinaOon
with
a
chute
on
one
side
and
recycle
tube
on
the
other
(-‐CHR).
They
are
available
in
single
(40
gal
capacity)
or
double
configuraOons
(80
gal
capacity).
Rigid
40
gal
plasOc
liners
are
included
or
can
be
subsOtuted
with
standard
32
gal
cans.
The
recycling
configuraOon
is
standard
with
5”
loading
tubes
that
are
slanted
slightly
downward
to
prevent
removal
of
the
contents
and
prevent
moisture
from
entering
the
container.
The
trash
configuraOon
has
self-‐closing
chute
doors
similar
to
a
mailbox.
The
CE
receptacle
is
a
rugged,
low
maintenance
unit
made
with
corrosion-‐resistant
material
and
components
to
ensure
years
of
trouble-‐free
performance.
If
requested,
opOonal
locking
hasps
are
available
at
no
extra
charge.
All
CE
configura9ons
are
cer9fied
bear-‐resistant
with
a
5-‐star
ra9ng
from
the
Interagency
Grizzly
Bear
CommiIee.
This
tes9ng
was
done
in
conjunc9on
with
the
USFS.
MATERIALS
AND
CONSTRUCTION:
All
latches,
hinges
and
handles
are
made
of
stainless
steel
or
zinc
plated
steel.
The
housing
and
doors
are
fabricated
of
rust-‐resistant
12
and
14,
gauge
galvanealed
steel.
The
receptacle
is
finished
inside
and
out
with
powder
coaOng.
The
finish
is
resistant
to
humidity,
salt
spray,
fog,
ultraviolet
light,
abrasion
and
chemicals.
The
receptacle
is
assembled
with
welds
and
3/16”
rivets.
Recycled
content
of
the
galvannealed
steel
is
a
minimum
of
25%
-‐
30%;
with
a
15.4%
post
consumer
recycled
content
(Steel
Recycling
InsOtute,
BulleOn
IRC-‐100
4/98).
MEASUREMENTS:
Accessibility:
Height
to
opening
41”
Weight
of
lid
5
lbs.
Capacity:
40
Gallons
per
opening.
Back-‐up
Slides
ExisOng
Trash
&
Recycle
Bins
Background
• Estes
Park
has
historically
low
recycling
rates
• LWV&CRC
has
worked
to
improve
recycling
opportuniOes
and
awareness
since
2007
• In
Nov
2011,
the
LWV&CRC
began
exploring
the
need
for
more
recycling
bins
downtown
• In
January,
began
discussions
with
Town
staff
• In
February,
LWV&CRC
brought
iniOal
sponsorship-‐model
proposal
to
PS/U/PW
commihee
Background
• In
February,
LWV&CRC
applied
for
Colorado
Dept
of
Public
Health
&
Environment
recycling
grant
• In
April,
the
CDPHE
awarded
Estes
Park
and
LWV&CRC
$14,900
in
grant
funds
to
purchase
24
new
recycling
bins
• This
fall,
town
and
LWV&CRC
explored
partnering
to
purchase
dual
trash/recycle
bear-‐proof
bins
• Terms
of
CDPHE
grant
require
bins
to
be
acquired
and
installed
no
later
than
June
30,
2013
Public Works Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, Public Works Director
Date: January 8, 2013
RE: Transportation Advisory Committee Mission Statement
Background:
In April of 2012 the Town Board’s appointed Transportation Visioning Committee,
(TVC), completed their work subsequently submitting a comprehensive report with their
recommendations to the Town Board of Trustees. One of the recommendations of the
TVC was to form a Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) that would meet
with Town staff and review transportation initiatives providing input with
recommendations supporting the TVC report.
In an effort to support the TVC recommendations staff has started the process to
implement one of the TVC recommendations, to form a citizen’s transportation
committee. We have advertised for TAC applicants through the local paper with a
deadline of January 7, 2013. As of January 4th we have received only one application. If
we do not receive the requisite number of applicants (7) we will re-advertise, submit a
series of press releases and initiate other recruitment strategies as needed.
Staff has also looked at five other communities (Arvada, Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland
and Glenwood Springs) who use a transportation committee system as part of their
transportation planning. It is our plan to have a sitting transportation committee in place
by the end of the first quarter of 2013.
At this point staff is seeking approval from the Town Board regarding the direction
currently initiated, including the draft mission statement, and input of any changes the
Town Board would like implemented.
Draft Mission Statement:
The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Committee is to:
support comprehensive transportation planning that enhances the quality of life for the
citizens, business and visitors to the Town of Estes Park; support the continued safety
and maintenance of the Town of Estes Park Transportation System and to review and
recommend transportation related capital projects to implement the Board of Trustees’
transportation goals. The Committee will act as a sounding board to the Board of
Trustees and the Town department of Public Works on transportation planning,
construction and maintenance issues including: roads, transit, trails, pedestrian access,
parking and air quality. The Committee will support the Town Board and staff in local
and regional transportation planning and promote cooperative efforts to resolve
transportation issues in the Estes valley.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the mission statement for the Transportation Advisory
Committee.