Ordinances and Policies

Town ordinances are funny. When the Town of Estes Park wants to enforce them they do, or not. If there isn’t an ordinance they pretend that there is one and act as if there is. This was pointed out in the last posting on marketing, advertising, et al.

A few pictures were passed along to us to point this out. The first is a truck. This is a post office truck parked illegally. If a citizen parked on the street they would be ticketed. The ordinance doesn’t make exceptions for the USPS. Only the local cops do.

The second is a storage trailer parked at a local retailer. This is against an ordinance. Where’s the enforcement?

The next examples show favoritism where the “policy” isn’t an ordinance, but there is lots of room for favoritism. Why could Fun City totally replace their sign and yet when Dick’s Rock Shop was sold the new owner couldn’t get a permit to change the sign? So, what's the big deal? Duh, if one has the rules, shouldn't they be followed? Apparently some folks don't think so. Silly people.

As always, thank you for sending these pictures and for your comments. They are always welcome at estesparkian@yahoo.com

Chamber Pot Part Due

The Estes Parkian is laboring overtime on Town ordinances for the blog and it dawned on us that this Chamber thing is a very good example and the perfect place to start.

Neither the Chamber nor the Town seems interested in educating the rest of the community as to their goings on. The Chamber would prefere the community not know they are selling out and are falling in line with town dictates (witness the political and mayoral dictates written in their agreement). The Chamber board president Lois Smith swore the board to silence concerning the contents on their negotiation with the Town. We swore not to reveal sources.

Last Friday one of the Chamber board members, Paul Fishman, droned on and on in a published letter to the editor about how we all must go alone to get along, who cares if the Town follows the law as long as we get along. Speaking for the Chamber board of directors he appeared bent on blaming the Chamber inability to come to agreement with the town on a Chamber member, that the current Chamber board, according to his letter to the editor, is not capable of representing the business community. Honestly I am not making this up.

The following is the agreement the Chamber board is salivating to sign:


AGREEMENT


THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of _____________ 2006, by and between the ESTES PARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a Colorado Non-Profit Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Chamber", and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado Municipality, hereinafter referred to as "the Town".


WITNESSETH


WHEREAS, the Chamber is engaged in coordinating activities and services to promote and assist its member businesses and individuals and the act as a business advocate for its member businesses; and

WHEREAS, the Town provides advertising, marketing, sales, special events and conference center activities through its Estes Park Convention and Visitors Bureau (EPCVB); and

WHEREAS, the Chamber is one of the Appellants in the Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 06CA953; and

WHEREAS, the parties have determined that resolving the current legal dispute in the above referenced legal action by stipulating to the dismissal of said legal action is in the best interest of both parties in order to use their respective resources for the enhancement of the economic development of the Town and the Estes Valley and provide the needed business service support of individual businesses located therein; and

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to execute this Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITALS AND THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PROVISIONS AND AGREEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:


1. The Chamber agrees to obtain the agreement to and the signature of the other Appellants in the Colorado Court of Appeals case, namely, Norm and Dee Pritchard, individually and d/b/a Black Dog Inn, a Colorado sole proprietorship; and Baldpate Inn, Ltd., a Colorado corporation, on the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. The execution of the Stipulation of these Appellants shall occur within ten (10) days of the date of execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto. Upon receipt of the executed Stipulation from the Chamber, the Town agrees to execute the Stipulation and forward the Stipulation to the Colorado Court of Appeals. In the event the execution of the Stipulation by both of the other two Appellants is not obtained within said ten (10) day period, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect.

2. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Town and the Chamber but prior to the filing of the Stipulation and entry of an order of dismissal of the case by the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Town will pay up to $1,500 to the Chamber to assist in the production of the new “business kit” notebooks. The Town will also assist in developing an electronic version that can be emailed to interested parties.

3. Upon execution of the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice of the Colorado Court of Appeal case by all parties to the case and the entry of an Order of Dismissal With Prejudice of the appeal by the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Town agrees as follows:

a. The Chamber may nominate and the Mayor may appoint one (1) Chamber member to the EPCVB Policy Advisory Board, and one (1) Chamber member to the Advertising Policy Advisory Committee. However, the Mayor reserves the right to reject any nominee if he deems appointment of said person to be contrary to the Town’s interests.
b. The Town will assist the Chamber with operating expenses by paying each year to the Chamber an amount equal to 2.5% of that year’s annual revenues received by the Town from the purchase of General Business Licenses ($6,065 based upon 2006 year-end estimates) of the Town.
c. Beginning in 2007, the Town will assist the Chamber with advertising and sponsorship of Chamber special events. Advertising assistance will be provided by EPCVB staff based upon a written summary of events provided by the Chamber. Sponsorships for events will be provided up to $5,000 annually. Sponsorships will be subject to approval by the Community Development Committee of the concepts submitted. Each event is expected to generate its own support in an escalating fashion such that by 2009 the Town is no longer contributing to the event. The Chamber will develop new event concepts annually in order to receive the same level of funding.
d. The Town will co-sponsor business-to-business seminar topics with the Chamber up to $1,500 starting in 2007 and declining over the three-year period. The Town will contribute up to $500 per seminar. At the end of 2009, the Town will then co-sponsor mutually beneficial seminars on a case-by-case basis.
e. The Town will become a member of the Chamber if the fee is reasonable.
f. Discussions between the parties relative to Website operations, fulfillment material development and distribution and lead generation and distribution shall be addressed via the EPCVB Policy Advisory Board.


4. The parties understand and agree that the Town, through the EPCVB, is the appropriate party to advertise and market the Town and the Estes Valley and provide for special events and conference center activities.

5. The parties agree that the Chamber is the appropriate party to provide business service to its member businesses and be the business advocate for said businesses in the Estes Valley.

6. Term of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 above, this Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years, beginning on its effective date through December 31, 2009 unless terminated by either party pursuant to Paragraph 8 hereafter.

7. Termination of the Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party on or before December 1 of each calendar year, with such termination effective on December 31 of said calendar year.

8. Appropriation. To the extent this Agreement constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt or financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation by the Town as required by the Colorado Statutes and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The Town shall not have any obligation to continue this Agreement in any fiscal year in which no such appropriation is made.

9. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to either party, under this Agreement, shall be made in writing, shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, postage pre-paid, certified mail, return receipt requested as follows:

Town of Estes Park
Attention: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517


Estes Park Chamber of Commerce
Attention:

Estes Park, Colorado 80517

10. Default and Remedies. In the event of default under this Agreement by either party, the non-defaulting party shall give the defaulting party written notice of said default with thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure said default. In the event the defaulting party does not cure the default, for any reason, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to all remedies available at law or in equity, plus any attorney’s fees and costs incurred arising from a default of this Agreement.

11. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

12. Construction. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if it were prepared by both of the parties hereto and it shall be deemed to contain the entire agreement of the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties.

13. Assignability. Neither party shall assign this Agreement without the other party’s prior written consent.

14. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and, to the extent permitted, assigns.

15. Third Party Beneficiaries. No rights created in favor of either of the parties hereto shall be construed as benefiting any other person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement.

16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such provision shall be fully severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision by the severance of such provision from this Agreement.

17. Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of either party have the authority to bind their respective party to the terms of this Agreement.






ESTES PARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE



By:___________________________________



ATTEST:


_____________________________





THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK


By:_____________________________
Mayor


ATTEST:


______________________________
Town Clerk


We searched through all of the town ordinances and could not find a single one that pertains to advertising, marketing, or visitor services, not one. So why would the Mayor invest so heavily in a department not supported by town ordinance? Politics?

We recently received a mayoral memo going back to 2003, this memo from the mayor to the trustees goes into detail on how the mayor decided “he” should be the Chamber of Commerce not the business community. Honestly I’m not making this up. From what we are seeing the mayor has his hands full just keeping the sidewalks clean, which he can not seem to accomplish and seeing the (town law) ordinances are enforced, which he can’t seem to accomplish either.

To sum this up the Mayor decided in 2003 to do away with the Chamber and he has chipped away at it for quite some time now. All that Fulfillment Task Force negotiating yada – yada - yada was nothing but political bullshit from the town master fertilizer spreader mayor Baudick, to, and I quote the mayor here “deal with the Chamber problem”.

Refer to this line in the proposed agreement: The parties understand and agree that the Town, through the EPCVB, is the appropriate party to advertise and market the Town and the Estes Valley and provide for special events and conference center activities.

This town is a statutory town the rules of town operations are dictated by the state legislature not the Mayor not Greg White or the Chamber of Commerce. The mayor is attempting to create powers for himself in the back room. Shame , shame , shame. The mayor is trying to accomplish administratively, in the back room, under the cover of darkness, out of the sight of the towns people, powers and authorities that are only legally bestowed legislatively.

Why would the Mayor need the legal blessing from the Chamber for crying out loud?
Why does the Mayor need a written contractual act of contrition?
Seems to me the town would desire a result for the court of appeals to validate the fine legal guidance offer up by Greg White (tongue in cheek), not some last minute back door buy off.

God forbid this legal action should be heard by the State appeals court, the only oversight your trustees have. Yes indeed this is an expensive and time consuming process to be sure. When your elected officials ignore Colorado State laws, that exist for our protection, what is a mere mortal to do? Go before the trustees and receive a tongue lashing from the Mayor? You elected me bla bla bla and hiring my son is beneficial for the town bla bla bla, what do you mean hiring my wife is a conflict?

Your trustees are not legally responsible to you the citizens who elect them, they are only subjugated to the State of Colorado. Anytime the mayor decides to restructure the laws of Colorado the only alternative you have is to hire an attorney and go to court. Please reference the resent Stanley Hotel lawsuit. When the Mayor pulls some crap it effects real people and real peoples lives. Its okay to fight back against corruption, honest.

Concerning the advertising and marketing the advantages of Estes Park.

Why not create a detailed ordinance mandating the towns advertising and marketing activities in the same manner the police department is mandated through ordinance, after all the police and fire department and the CVB all compete for the same pot of moneys to do their respective jobs? Currently there is no guideline to the towns advertising and marketing, are they mandated to only stimulate summer activities or activities 360 days out of the year? How is effectiveness measured? Where is it written? It seems the Towns volunteer advertising and marketing efforts can go away at the snap of a mayoral finger; the Town is not liable for any results or methodology. Is it even necessary? It seems to me businesses are going out of business in mass even with the expenditure of all that money. People will come to visit the park, advertising our not.

Now, the essence of what the appeals court will decide is simply this, can the mayor accomplish whatever he wants by declaring his act to be administrative? If so then he can eliminate any and all oversight to his activities, effectively making every card in the deck a wild card. No checks and balances, no public oversight when spending your money, pretty nice gig.

I find it odd that no one wants the boss (State of Colorado) to make a decision here. The new board of the Chamber wants to follow the dictates of the Mayor and go away.

The town trustees want to create their own Colorado laws.

After all what could some panel of fifteen appellate judges in Denver know about Colorado Law?

Comments? estesparkian@yahoo.com

The Mayor's Chamber Pot

Article as it appeared in the TG.

Chamber makes a public appeal to move negotiations on settling lawsuit forward

By John Cordsen

Negotiations between the Town and the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce to resolve an ongoing lawsuit appear to have stalemated. The Chamber made a public appeal during Tuesday night’s trustee meeting to move the negotiations forward.
For the past five months a Town committee and chamber representatives have been trying to reach an out-of-court agreement to end a lawsuit filed by the Chamber against the Town in May 2005. The Chamber lawsuit alleged the CVB marketing fees were an illegal tax implemented by Town officials and the suit questioned Estes Park’s right, as a statutory municipality, to spend sales tax dollars to create a Convention and Visitors Bureau.
A Larimer County District Court ruled in October 2005 that the Town had statutory authority to establish a CVB, but said the Town’s two-percent fee charged to out-of-town members is an improper tax.
The Town was ordered to immediately stop charging the revenue-based fees and to refund money collected under the fee schedule — an estimated $15,000 paid by 14 out-of-town lodging establishments. Town officials agreed not to oppose the court decision and authorized CVB staff to return the funds.
The Estes Park Chamber of Commerce filed an appeal, challenging the legality of the Town to form and operate a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB).
In October 2006, the Town put an offer on the table that included monetary assistance to the Chamber in return for the lawsuit being dropped and other conditions, primarily the definition and understanding of each entity’s responsibilities. Under the agreement, the Town would be responsible for marketing Estes Park and the Chamber would be a business advocate providing business services to members.
In return, the Chamber would receive up to $14,000 in the first full year of the agreement.
Chamber representatives said that provisions within the latest proposal were unacceptable.
Chamber spokesman Paul Paget read a prepared statement Tuesday night outlining the Chamber position.
“… when the Town board submitted its final formal agreement documents for the Chamber signature, unacceptable conditions had been added. These changes and additions dashed the apparent progress to reach an out-of-court settlement, leaving the lawsuit at its original Court of Appeals status.”
The Chamber, in its prepared statement, objected to the Town’s required release by the Baldpate Inn and Norm and Dee Pritchard as plaintiffs in the appeals case.
“On May 9, 2006 when these plaintiffs requested to withdraw from the appeals case leaving the Chamber as sole plaintiff, the Town disallowed their request. Now, in a seeming turnaround, the Town is requiring their withdrawal from the appeals case, thus making the current proposed agreement unacceptable,” read Paget from the Chamber’s prepared statement.
The Chamber put forth a three-prong proposal to counter the Town’s most recent offer.
In it, the Chamber proposed that:
“The Chamber shall not be required to obtain a release of the lawsuit from co-plaintiffs, the Baldpate Inn and Norm and Dee Pritchard.” The Chamber contends the Town should pursue agreements with the plaintiffs individually.
“Plaintiffs will consider a revised out-of-court settlement agreement offer containing more reasonable monies to assist with restoration funding, housing and personnel necessary to re-establish a fully functioning chamber of commerce organization.”
“It is strongly recommended that both organizations pursue, forthwith, the formation of a revolutionary joint-venture-synergistic partnership that provides for maintenance of individual identities, meanwhile providing for pragmatic public services…”
Estes Park Mayor John Baudek said the Chamber, bringing the issue unannounced to the meeting and presenting their case in the public comment portion “undermines the current negotiation process between the Town committee and the Chamber representatives.”
Estes Park administrator Randy Repola explained that the Town felt blindsided by the unannounced public appeal from the Chamber. He concurred with the mayor that the actions may hamper negotiations.
“The current offer is in question,” said Repola. “It may no longer be available.”

This is the text delivered to the Trustees last Tuesday night, by Paul Paget on behalf of the Chamber board.


January 9, 2006


“Good evening, Citizens, Mayor Baudek, Board of Trustees, Staff and local Press.
I stand before you, not just as Chamber Board member, but as a concerned business owner, property owner and taxpaying citizen to speak openly regarding the deadlock between you, the Town’s governing body, and the Chamber of Commerce, the representative body of our business community.
Over the past 5 months, representatives of the Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors have attempted to resolve many of the key issues contained in the current lawsuit between the Town and the Chamber of Commerce now in the hands of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Both parties seem to wish to reach an out-of-court settlement on multiple points of contention, and proceed with a more permanent, productive, and cooperative relationship.
Preliminary discussions between Town representatives and Chamber representatives appeared to point toward eventual resolution. For the betterment of all, in certain issues, we agreed to respectfully disagree and set those matters aside. We did find many areas of agreement and worked to proceed forward in those areas. However; when the Town Board submitted its final formal Agreement documents for Chamber signature, unacceptable conditions had been added. These changes and additions dashed the apparent progress to reach an out-of-court settlement, leaving the lawsuit at its original Court of Appeal status.
Persisting, and following the axiom that “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” The Estes Park Chamber of Commerce submits the following alternatives for resolution of the existing disagreements between the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce and the Estes Park Town Government. This statement does not wish to convey fault, blame, or wrongdoing, on anyone’s part. Please consider the tone and spirit as conciliatory as we merely intend to state the factual state of the matter, and offer possible alternatives which can obviate Win/Lose conditions. Resolution further affords “face saving” and redirects energies toward future positive outcomes.
The Chamber of Commerce, together with Plaintiffs The Baldpate Inn, LTD, a Colorado corporation and citizens Norm & Dee Pritchard find the latest Town out-of-court settlement Agreement unacceptable.
Most specific is the Town’s required release by The Baldpate Inn and the Pritchards as plaintiffs in this appeals case. On May 9, 2006 when these plaintiffs requested to withdraw from the appeals case leaving the Chamber as sole plaintiff, the Town disallowed their request. Now, in a seeming turnaround, the Town is requiring their withdrawal from the appeals case, thus making the current proposed agreement unacceptable.
The Chamber of Commerce now offers the following proposal for the Town’s consideration:
(1) The Chamber shall not be required to obtain a release of the lawsuit from co-plaintiffs, The Baldpate Inn and Norm & Dee Pritchard. The Town should pursue agreements directly with each plaintiff. If the Chamber & the Town’s mutual goal is to move forward assisting our business community by way of a strong Chamber of Commerce with a Town government that actively listens to and supports business concerns, then we can clearly demonstrate these roles by having an agreement completed ASAP. It is unreasonable to assume the Chamber can make decisions for individuals or specific businesses, but instead the Chamber is bound to act in the best interest of all of its members.
(2.) Plaintiffs will consider a revised, Out of Court, Agreement offer containing more reasonable monies to assist with restoration funding, housing, and personnel necessary to re-establish a fully functioning Chamber of Commerce organization.
(3.) It is strongly recommended that both organizations pursue, forthwith, the formation of a revolutionary Joint-Venture-synergistic partnership that provides for maintenance of individual identities, meanwhile providing for pragmatic public services. The vision of our Chamber includes moving forward in a synergistic partnership with Town government and all business organizations to maximize our limited resources, working together to do more in less redundant ways. Fully functioning models for this concept exist, not only throughout the country, but as near as the city and county of Denver. It is suggested that a bipartisan, “think-tank” group mediated by non-biased third party professionals, be charged with the assignment to create, design, and implement this operation. The initial plan would require a structure similar to the following:
· Goals (to consist not more than three ), · Strategy (one comprehensive statement), · Objectives for each goal (with measurability required), · Tactics (including specific assignments and milestone reports)
If both parties agree to aggressively pursue number 3, above, temporary operational activities can coexist while the ideal permanent plan is created and implemented. These probably should be determined under the mediated umbrella as well.
In conclusion, these concepts may, in fact, provide an opportunity for the community to capture desired favorable publicity, not only in the local area, but, not inconceivably, the national arena. We have much to gain, and risk much should we fail to resolve these concerns.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to address this most important issue.”

The Estes Parkian received a copy of the agreement the Chamber was willing to sign in fact the new board of the Chamber upon being seated voted to drop the case already in the Colorado Court of Appeals, for basically nothing in return. It is rather lengthy so in the interest of keeping this article relatively readable I didn’t post it but it amounts to a capitulation to the Mayor, for $14,000.00 and a seat on the CVB board.


If you watched this episode on television, as I did, all sorts of questions washed through my mind.

Why would the town even want to negotiate with the Chamber over a position in the applet court unless the Town had a very poor position? Why couldn’t the Chamber figure that out?


Why would the Chamber of Commerce want to negotiate anything with the Town of Estes Park? You would think these people in the Chamber would still have bleeding open wounds from the back stabbing they got during the Fulfillment Task Force Tom Foolery and the eviction. The Chamber of Commerce reminds me a lot of the French Army, born to loose, born to retreat, born to postulate with the spine of a noodle.

The Chamber of Commerce wanted to give up their legal position and bend over for the town and couldn’t even pull that off. So if I have gotten all this information correct the Chamber no longer wants to pursue a legal position against the town but one of the other plaintiffs does?


The most telling was the fit hizzoner pitched. That man got his panties all in a bunch because he loves his back room negotiations. He loves to operate out of the eye of the public and blew a cork because Paul Paget brought the silly situation into the light of day.

Email comments or whatever to : estesparkian@yahoo.com

Thanks

Estes Park Talks Back - 1

Email from our readers:

Welcome to Estes Condoville, CO.! Whom are we running this town for? It surely isn't the local residents! Building condos everywhere does not make a community. There are too many vacancies as it is and selling out Estes Park to developers to build more condos does not make any sense. We are becoming a community of 2nd homes and summer residents and they do not contribute a thing to us being a community. But the Town (and EPURA) would rather get tax money from these places. The Town Manager, so-called Town Planner, and the Trustees/Mayor sit idly by and sell out this place and do absolutely nothing. These elected officials should be looking out for the residents and town - not developers and out-of- state owners! Developers gladly build these condos, make their millions, and we are stuck with the results. Town government approves these projects but I have yet to see any Town Manager or Supervisor retire and stay here. They are content to make their huge salaries, destroy Estes Park, then move elsewhere. It is a wonder the people here put up with this or their huge $7 million annual payroll for 110 permanent employees!
In 1997, I proposed establishing "Impact Fees" on developers and putting this money into a special fund- for such things as roads, Fire & Police Protection, schools, etc. But no Trustee wanted to touch it since it might require them to have a backbone and do something constructive. At least this would have given back something to the community.
Trustees should get involved! You shouldn't have 2 different sources approving building projects - the so-called Planning Commission approves projects, Town Planner Bob Joseph approves developments. Variances are the norm here when they should be the exception. The Comprehensive Plan is a joke because the town does what it wants, regardless of public input. It carries no weight whatsoever except when it benefits the government!
The elected officials should be concerned not only about this overbuilding of condos but also about the disappearance of Commercial property. We need another grocery store chain! We need to stop changing commercial property to multi-family and letting these developers build condos- such as Rich Willie did on both sides of HWY 34 (and with variances that they authorized him).
Now, I have learned that the daughter of the late Ola Stanger is planning to build a huge 150 condos project behind Grumpy Gringos toward the lake. Plus they will be 2 stories high effectively blocking more views! Why are our Mayor/Trustees sitting idly by and watching Estes Park being destroyed? The citizens here should be contacting everyone of these elected officials and letting them know we care about our town and want some restrictions on development.This overbuilding is insane! Bad enough we do not have the infrastructure to accommodate all these people if they all decide to live here year round!
Mayor, Trustees, and Town Officials- you work for us, not developers or out-of-staters! Begin protecting and preserving Estes Park - not OUTSIDE of Estes Park, like the H-P property off Pole Hill!!! Why sell Lot 4 (in front of the Stanley Hotel) and invest in open space OUTSIDE of Estes Park? We know developers have rights but how about rights for your present local residents???

Patrick Cipolla

More:

I am quite disturbed to learn you have been successfully coerced to discontinue your comments option as part of your Blog. I have never heard of this, in any part if this or any other country.

For a town that purports to represent itself as a superior model of democracy, high morals, ethics, and champion of the Constitution, this comes as the highest form of totalitarianism.

Shame, shame, oh so bloody shame.

Mr. Justin…: You raised your eyebrows at the mere mention of anarchy. Well, here it is! Enjoy your strange bedfellows.

Norm Pritchard

More:


Take a look at some of these. New for 2007- Assist. to Repola ($90,000), Town Clerk and ASSIST. Town Clerk, plus Executive Secretary.
over $13,000 for Catering to these PUBLIC SERVANTS
$1 million to the General Fund from Water co.
$1 million to the General Fund from Power & Light.

Same ole, same ole. What do these Trustees ever look at??
You might some of this interesting.
I requested a copy of the Detailed Budget Book but they wanted to start charging me $25. But I refused and instead look at it online!

Patrick Cipolla

More:

More EPURA please!

Intrested (please do not use my name- I do not need the town to come after my property!)

Send you thoughts, information or opinion to: estesparkian@yahoo.com

TIF - EPURA

The Estes Parkian has received a flood of requests to expound on the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA), I assume due to the resent article in the Trail Gazette. It appears EPURA voted to fund a new blight study(aprox, $80,000.00 of our dollars) . Evidently we need to shed a little more light on this high powered vacuum the town attached to all of our wallets, TIF. Details are hard to discern as this group habitually goes into executive session to strategize.

These are the members of EPURA they are not elected officials, they are all political mayoral appointments (the exceptions of coarse are Randy Repola and Will Smith they are paid staff):

Gerald Swank, Chairman
Paula Steige, Vice Chairman;
Wil Smith, Executive Director Jim Cope
Irene Little
Randy Repola
Ron Wilcocks
John Ericson, Jr.


We copied the Trail article

EPURA authorizes new blight study

Process part of extending the life of agency created in the ’80s following Lawn Lake Flood
A major step to extend the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) beyond 2008 was taken in December. EPURA members voted Wednesday, Dec. 20 to conduct a blight study to determine what areas might be eligible to include in a redefined urban renewal area.
The study is a precursor to any further action that could recommend a new urban renewal area. The Authority authorized Chairman Gerry Swank to enter into contract with Terry Ware, urban planning consultant, to perform the study. It is estimated that completion of the blight study will take about two months.
The basis of urban renewal is the “curing of blight,” as defined in the Colorado Statutes.
One of the Town board’s goals is to extend EPURA beyond 2008, when the current property tax increment expires. The Town Board asked EPURA to undertake the necessary steps to achieve this. The first step in this process is to conduct a current blight study. Upon completion of the blight study, a future urban renewal area will be recommended for Town Board approval. Upon approval of the area, a new urban renewal plan will be developed to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Town Board.
The EPURA board has identified a dozen or so community improvements that it considers desirable to achieve in the future beyond 2008. These potential improvements are generally within the western half of the existing urban renewal area (URA) or in the close-in Route 7 area beyond the Conference Center.
The URA as originally drawn includes the basic downtown area. The URA was later extended to include the Stanley Historic District and out to include the Conference Center.
As work proceeds, EPURA and the Town Board will be seeking public input into the planning process.



Originally published by Estes Parkian February 20, 2006

In 1947 the Colorado State legislature passed a law that allowed communities to create urban renewal special districts through the vote of the general electorate. The purpose for the law was to create a vehicle by which communities could rehabilitate slum and or disaster areas within their communities. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority is an independent and separate governing body and was created and approved by a vote of the citizens of Estes Park, to rehabilitate the Downtown Commercial District after the 1982 Long Lake natural disaster. The powers and authorities of the district are confined to the voter approved improvement district, in the case of EPURA, the downtown commercial district. To accomplish the recovery after the 1982 disaster, money was raised through the issuance of bonds; investors purchase the bonds (shares). As a TIF district money to pay back the investors are accumulated within the community using TIF, tax-increment-financing.To accomplish the rehabilitation of slums or disaster areas effectively urban renewal authorities are granted special powers of authority not granted to town trustee bodies. It is assumed that special or emergency conditions require special powers and authorities to raise money and accomplish planned and approved projects. Urban renewal authorities and powers are intended to be expressed on a very specific and defined area with a very specific and defined plan during a predetermined span of time.To better understand urban renewal authorities it is necessary to understand the definitions of the powers that these authorities have.The definitions of the powers and authorities that EPURA has are listed:(1) Authority or "urban renewal authority" means a corporate body organized pursuant to the provisions of this part 1 for the purposes, with the powers, and subject to the restrictions set forth in this part 1.(2) "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare:(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements;(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable;(h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes;(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property;(k) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 1745, § 3, effective June 4, 2004.)(k.5) The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements; or(l) If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property in an urban renewal area, "blighted area" also means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation.(3) "Bonds" means any bonds (including refunding bonds), notes, interim certificates or receipts, temporary bonds, certificates of indebtedness, debentures, or other obligations.(3.3) "Business concern" has the same meaning as "business" as set forth in section 24-56-102 (1), C.R.S.(3.5) "Displaced person" has the same meaning as set forth in section 24-56-102 (2), C.R.S., and for purposes of this part 1 shall also include any individual, family, or business concern displaced by the acquisition by eminent domain of real property by an authority.(3.7) "Governing body" means the governing body of the municipality within which an authority has been established in accordance with the requirements of this part 1.(4) "Obligee" means any bondholder, agent, or trustee for any bondholder, or any lessor demising to an authority property used in connection with an urban renewal project of the authority, or any assignee of such lessor's interest or any part thereof, and the federal government when it is a party to any contract or agreement with the authority.(5) "Public body" means the state of Colorado or any municipality, quasi-municipal corporation, board, commission, authority, or other political subdivision or public corporate body of the state.(6) "Real property" means lands, lands under water, structures, and any and all easements, franchises, incorporeal hereditaments, and every estate and right therein, legal and equitable, including terms for years and liens by way of judgment, mortgage, or otherwise.(7) "Slum area" means an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, and which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.(8) "Urban renewal area" means a slum area, or a blighted area, or a combination thereof which the local governing body designates as appropriate for an urban renewal project.(9) "Urban renewal plan" means a plan, as it exists from time to time, for an urban renewal project, which plan conforms to a general or master plan for the physical development of the municipality as a whole and which is sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the urban renewal area, zoning and planning changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, building requirements, and the plan's relationship to definite local objectives respecting appropriate land uses, improved traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facilities, and other public improvements.(10) "Urban renewal project" means undertakings and activities for the elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of slums and blight and may involve slum clearance and redevelopment, or rehabilitation, or conservation, or any combination or part thereof, in accordance with an urban renewal plan. Such undertakings and activities may include:(a) Acquisition of a slum area or a blighted area or portion thereof;(b) Demolition and removal of buildings and improvements;(c) Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other improvements necessary for carrying out the objectives of this part 1 in accordance with the urban renewal plan;(d) Disposition of any property acquired or held by the authority as a part of its undertaking of the urban renewal project for the urban renewal areas (including sale, initial leasing, or temporary retention by the authority itself) at the fair value of such property for uses in accordance with the urban renewal plan;(e) Carrying out plans for a program through voluntary action and the regulatory process for the repair, alteration, and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements in accordance with the urban renewal plan; and(f) Acquisition of any other property where necessary to eliminate unhealthful, unsanitary, or unsafe conditions, lessen density, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare, or otherwise remove or prevent the spread of blight or deterioration or to provide land for needed public facilities.“Blight” as defined in Estes Park by EPURA may mean many of the buildings in the down town business district are a “blight” can be confiscated torn down and replaced. Many if not most of the properties in the downtown business district pose fire hazards, contain toxic molds, inadequate electrical wiring, are in need of extensive repair, are empty or closed the majority of the year posing an economic “blight”. If you are a building owners in the down town business district and have not been paying attention you should, Forever Living Resorts, the EPURA corporate partner in the development of the Conference Center, purchased the building on the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine, they are extensively renovating it. EPURA “blighted” the Visitors Center, spent TIF tax monies to build a new one. EPURA can take your property using the property tax you pay into the system to do it.The members of the EPURA board are appointed by the Mayor. Current Board members are Randy Repola; Irene Little; Paula Steige; Gerald Swank; Ron Wilcocks; John Ericson Jr.; the paid director is Will Smith. They meet the third Wednesday of each month at 8:00 am in town hall.EPURA is set to expire in 2008, the town has hired a team of attorneys to explore ways to indefinitely extend the powers and authorities of EPURA. The mayor has on many occasions falsely labeled EPURA the planning arm of the town. There are many valid reasons to mandate the retirement of EPURA.In an intergovernmental agreement negotiated in a series of executive sessions between EPURA and the Town Trustees the majority of EPURA TIF funding is handed over to the town and combined with the general fund. The laws of Colorado are very specific about intergovernmental agreements between special districts and other governmental bodies, such agreements and assumption of power must be approved by the electorate in a general election any such agreement has never appeared on any general election ballot here in Estes Park.31-25-115. Transfer - abolishment.Statute text:(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part 1, the governing body of a municipality may designate itself as the authority when originally establishing said authority. A transfer of an existing authority to the governing body may be accomplished only by majority vote at a regular general election.The use of an established urban renewals real powers to accomplish rehabilitation of slums and blighted areas is one thing, the misuse of these powers to accomplish economic development where blight and slum are not present is a growing problem across Colorado there are several pieces of legislation currently being developed to eliminate the abuse.

Originally published by Estes Parkian February 6, 2006

One approach to financing redevelopment is the creation of a tax increment financing (TIF) district. TIF is a financing technique wherein bonds are issued to fund redevelopment and the bondholders are repaid through the new (or incremental) tax revenues generated by the new construction/development. Only urban renewal authorities and downtown development authorities have the ability to create a TIF district.For example, suppose the city of Anytown, Colorado creates a Tax – Increment – Financing (TIF) district to facilitate redevelopment of several adjacent properties, including aging and vacant industrial buildings and a former rail yard. The TIF district would be fixed size and the redevelopment will add new industrial and retail buildings to take advantage of short haul rail access, nearby highways, and downtown access, creating and economy where none existed before.Once the properties within the TIF district are redeveloped, property values will increase, which result in increased tax revenues. These property tax revenues from the TIF district are split into two revenue streams:The first stream (base) is equal to the “As – Is” property tax revenues without redevelopment and goes to the same city, county, school district, and other taxing entities (the base is allowed to increase with the market over time).The second stream (increment) is the net increase in property taxes resulting solely from new development. The increment is used to fund the redevelopmentCity officials claim the development is paying for itself. The reality, however, is that the tax increment would normally go to schools to educate the children living in the development; to water and sewer, fire and police, and other public costs of the development. Since the TIF siphons these funds away, taxpayers in the rest of the areas must pay for the schools, water, sewer, fire, police and other urban – services needed to support the new development. If tax rates aren’t raised, then everyone pays by getting lower service levels. Often cities will suffer some financial crisis, leading to demands that taxes be increased to pay for some needed service such as a fire district, schools, libraries, when no such crisis would have existed without the tax-increment financing.The easy availability of TIF money creates a moral hazard for developers. With development getting tax subsidies, what developer would be willing to invest in a project without subsidies? Meanwhile retailers and other business in existing business must continue to pay taxes to subsidize their competition. In Estes Park retailers move to the new subsidized developments, thus hastening the blighting of the existing malls and buildings in the historic down town area hastening the blighting of this historic area and creating new opportunities for TIF- financed redevelopment the only one to profit being the developers.TIF also creates a moral hazard for city officials and planners. If redevelopment requires huge subsidies, then it may in fact be more expensive than so called sprawl. Since the creation of EPURA the downtown business district has sprawled east and now west and yet the original historic downtown business district is empting out contributing to an accelerated blight. More or less a never ending cycle.

If the town has some secret plan for community improvements wouldn’t it be nice if they shared it with all of us? If the town has some urban development plan that will require the borrowing of millions of dollars through the bonding process shouldn’t we all be in on it?

There are alternatives that we will explore.

Please, continue to email your inputs to; estesparkian@yahoo.com.

Thank You

The Estes Parkian

Assigment Estes Park

As a gift to you, we offer this sneak peek behind the scenes at the Estes Parkian.

We have grown by leaps and bounds, nearing our third year of service to Estes Park.

Our humble blog has developed a fantastic following; please consider the following information .

From a readership of 25 to 100 per day in the beginning, we now have 2,000 to 25,000 visits to our blog each day, strongest in the winter, slows down in the summer.

We have regular visits from every state in the union and several foreign countries.

Including: Spain, England, Italy, Canada, China, and Australia.

Wisconsin, Texas, California, New York, Florida, of coarse Colorado, are some of our strongest domestic visitors. Locally we get a lot of visits from Fort Collins, Longmont, Highlands Ranch, Denver, and Loveland.

The original concept of the Estes Parkian was and still is, to provide a free speech forum for citizens of this little burg. We all live in a fish bowl of a little town and the Estes Parkian is a valuable service as a pressure release valve.

We offer up our opinions, we think an awful lot of people in and out of town share our point of view.

We enjoy our opinions we believe them to be valid, true and correct. No one has yet to prove them incorrect, false or misleading; sometimes the truth is difficult to digest.

By the way the number one contributor to our comments pages is town hall. Town staff spends a lot of time on our little site.

All that “you have no value” stuff – Town Hall.
All that “you cannot spell” stuff – Town Hall.
All that “your grammar is bad” stuff - Town Hall.

So for a while, or at least until Peter Marsh and the propaganda staff of the town find something else to do with their time besides monitor and comment on our blog (hopefully they will stay off those X sites - computer games maybe? ) we will just be offering our opinions, without comment privileges. Thank town staff for that!

If you have special insights, ideas, data, pictures, you would like to see published please email them to us at estesparkian@yahoo.com. Please indicate if you would like to remain anonymous, we will honor your request.

We offer up an assignment , here is your opportunity to participate in your local government.

Ordinance "Estes Park".

Take a picture and include the ordinance violation you believe is represented and send it to the Estes Parkian. We are very familiar with all town ordinances and reserve the right to interpret or publish the contributions at our sole discretion. All photos emailed to estesparkian@yahoo.com, become the property of the Estes Parkian. Remember to do your home work include the picture and an explanation of why your picture represents a violation.


This should be fun, Happy New Year.

2007

Happy New Year