HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2011-11-08* Revised
STUDY SESSION
TOWN BOARD
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
4:30 p.m.
Rooms 202/203
170 MacGregor Ave.
AGENDA
4:30 p.m. Citizen Survey Results and Utilization.
• Zucker Report Follow-up.
Town Board Meeting Procedures.
Future Agenda Items.
6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn — Prepare for Board Meeting.
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
IOWN OF ESTES P
Administration
From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
Date: November 8, 2011
RE: Citizen Survey Results and Utilization
Background
This summer, the Town of Estes Park conducted a citizen survey using the National
Citizen Survey (NCS) model. The NCS allows benchmarking with future Town survey
results, as well as benchmarking with approximately 500 other communities to assess
local satisfaction with the community and with government services. Specific uses of the
results include monitoring trends in resident opinions, measuring government
performance, and informing decisions on budget, land use and strategic planning. The
scientific survey was completed by 576 households, a response rate of 54 percent.
Results are posted on the News Desk at www.estes.orq.
After staff presented results at the October 11 Town Board meeting, the board asked
staff to gather the following information for a discussion of the following:
• Estes Park's overall ranking in comparison to benchmarks;
• How results are used in other communities; the board will then decide how to
proceed.
• Critical issues (areas where Estes Park falls below the benchmark) and whether
respondents want these issues to be addressed.
• Importance of issues and potential town projects, and willingness to fund, (custom
questions 18a and 18 b) as they relate to the Capital Asset Management Plan.
Overall ranking
The Benchmark Report compares Estes Park's results nationally for individual template
questions on the scientific survey. Benchmark comparisons with Colorado jurisdictions are
only available for an additional fee through the National Research Center. The following
items may serve as good indicators of Estes Park's overall rank among communities
nationwide:
• Estes Park as a place to live: Ranking 77 out of 280 (much above benchmark)
Page 1
• Value of services for the taxes paid to Estes Park: Ranking 64 out of 292 (much above
benchmark)
• Services provided by the Town of Estes Park: Ranking 110 out of 315 (above
benchmark)
How results are used in other communities
The following is based on research on the practices of other Colorado communities, and
others across the nation through International City/County Management Association (ICMA).
• Replication: Most communities survey their citizens every two years during the
summer prior to a municipal election; results are often used during orientation of
newly elected officials.
• Debrief: Most municipalities hold an executive debrief with elected officials and
department heads to examine items that fell below the benchmark, those which have
decreased in ratings since a municipality's previous survey and Key Drivers, which
may have the greatest influence on overall Town service ratings.
• Action Plans: Municipalities most often respond with action plans formulated and
executed by the appropriate staff and/or officials. Action Plans may call for:
o Increased communications on an issue or service;
o Policy review; and/or,
o New initiative.
• Focus Groups: These are often used to more closely examine critical community
issues that could lead to new or changing initiatives.
• Ad Hoc Committees: These are often used for targeted initiatives.
• Performance Measures: Some 200 jurisdictions have implemented performance
measures through ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement. Performance
measures help local governments measure, compare and improve service delivery.
In brief, measures are developed by staff in all departments, are evaluated using
internal measures, citizen surveys and comparisons with other communities. The
process assists with budgeting priorities and service improvements and gages the
success of these actions in fulfilling the goals set forth by the elected boards.
Implementation of performance measures requires significant staff time across
departments. Communities often devote a position to oversight of the program.
Critical Issues (attachment)
The survey identified 20 community characteristics/perspectives and two Town services
that were rated below the national benchmark. These results have been reviewed with
department heads and a list of improvement efforts has been compiled.
The attached document, The Town of Estes Park's 2011 National Citizen Survey:
Critical Issues, identifies these items, as well as pertinent efforts for improvements since
Page 2
2010 when applicable, and related custom question responses on importance and
willingness to fund with additional taxes and/or fees.
Staff asks for direction on whether the board wants further actions on these items.
Importance and willingness to fund issues and potential projects (attachment)
The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of 14 special projects and issues, and
to indicate willingness to fund with additional taxes and/or fees. The attached chart provides
the results for all projects. Projects noted with asterisks (**) are also included in the Capital
Asset Management Plan (CAMP).
Page 3
0
0
o
s
C
(a E
o
C
0
0
a) +'
sa m
0)
a) -0
0
CO
a;
* U_
y >Z
L 0
CU
H
0 a)
0
O
n; N
0
.� L
a) o
N
C +,
o ac)
C
. >
O
(13
CO c
V% 0
4•, 0) a�
cu a) > D
O- N -0
L (a (a
U +' -
70.1 0 a) O
++ aJ C 0
CO 0 4
Z tn
( O V)
el U C
N +T' C
a) '3
c�a E (0 c
n3
en a)
ai NN 'E
-0 0 t
W a) O 0
a
it; c
0
of >.•CD ay
L Ln
to > E N
L
V N -c 0
U
a) 0)
L-
V i-
L-
a)
4-
a,
Cu.
v
0
is
Cu
4
CD
CC
as essential or very important;
43% willing to fund with additional taxes or
• •
N
0)
CU
•
transportation as essential or very
}J
C
(0
O
Q
E
L
0
a)
x
co
(a
0
-0
(0
s
.N
0
an
C
L,c
0)
N
•
d-+
C
a)
N
Ln
v
ca
-1
0
b.0 +)
0
E
0.
3 0
z co
a,
re
4-
C L
0 0
0
o L
m
•
or very important;
u
a
v�1
TS
cc
V
u
co Luf c"
c
= (0 CO Z
C C
m Ohp >,
0 c
-0 0. (a a)
a) +, z an
0) CU > c
C 0) i
- 0 O 0
a)
O
t,!} _ U a
• •
m
qD
0
To
spaces in 2011.
Free shuttle service expanded in 2010,
2011 and 2012.
L
0) 0 c
-413
E t
a) Ln
o..a) c (0
o E O o "a
a an
CU co c
c c0i o - 0
w0
Ln L U c
((0 N la)
Lc") 0) 4--
a) a) N COLl-I -0 l-
d' O
a) m Q
.— pG ) > '� Ln U
L co vi LN . c (0
0 0 ‘...
ON a) d on T 7'in L
c •� a� C= L)E 0) O
O Ln N 0 Ln u (�A +T'
wo as o Qa > p a •o
L
(6 O O W -0 o
co Q U z Q U O-
• • • • •
0 O
L
C> t1A
CD-
0 _0
0 C
CU �0ca
L
-0 bO
CO
LL.. (...,
a)
C N
O
L.
CO a t
N O 0
N C 0)
O M
0 CS- c
Li Q- U
• •
0
o
02
4.0
Ease of car travel in Estes Park
Traffic flow on major streets
Amount of public parking
0
CU
x
CO
0
0
CO
c
4—
O
t0
ai
a)
N 4-
•
a new parking structure.
0
4-4
a
w
z
•
cu
0
E
0
4
sa
CCz
as
c
0
a)
ea
L
ra
3
ai
z
v
F-
c
a)
0
rn
•
options as essential or very important;
33% willing to fund with additional taxes or
•
aJ
4—
•
Availability of affordable quality housing
Variety of housing options
Experiencing housing costs stress (>_ 30% of
E
0
u
E
&.)
Related data from custom questions
need for improved site and architectural
• • •
could be drafted if desired.
Staff continues to work towards improved
•
community relations and improved
Overall quality of new development
Land use, planning and zoning*
H
0
d
o'
a
tts
CC
c
Q ci
c a) c O O
a) -0 N
U0 i C c a,
0 co a) co a)
-0 la 0 v c
E o a, o u
• N 0 @ > v)
a)
> c o a p .0
to CO 0)
0) L-. 0) O .ate+ a)
- 0 E N
vi IV ate+ _ +E
NGl o = E 4 =
O O 1 E N U Ecu
•
d
E
0_
0
G)
a)
E
0
0
U
W
0)
a,
-a
0
rn
•
Initiatives as essential or very important;
W
{0.7
•L
aJ
++
a)
Q
0)
v
*
E CC
c >
o FE
W CI
v)
cm
0
a.
4.4
a)
0
0.
W
•c
0
0.
0.
0
na
.Q
0.
0
s
N
Estes Park as a place to work
Retail growth seen as too slow
a)
E
0
V
0
s
aJ
0
0
Y
0
0
0
E
0
0
U
W
C
O 0 I— "0c C
= a) -0 m N
0 -C
O ++ '0
a) b0 b0
0 a) '-
L- C O E N
m 'E o aJ
-CS+, c 2
N = a) .> co
Cl. 0 E c P
0 O a) a,
a, s
CD 0 t
"� N E v- CO
fa 00 U Off-+
O N
03 i Q' bA
m C
CO
N
0 E '" 'C
CO bA
a) O_ 0. O
C 0) = +, a)
-- to v) v) i
•
;:
E
V
0)
a
0
a
0
Cu
'a
44
CC
Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from
private enterprise recycling options
available for citizens and visitors in the
Estes Valley and surrounding
communities.
V)
co
tO
2
0
0
.4=
co
CU
713
8
•
o Citizens Information Academy
o Citizens Police Academy
o Police (z. 4)
Museum (:=, 30)
ro
0
0
4-,
0
0.
0
Of)
c
115
0 0 0 O
Senior Center 46)
Educational opportunities
Public Works/Tree Board 7)
Light & Power (=2)
-0
(0
ro 1-
-0
0
0
CO
c
(0
0
CO a)
o OD
CO -0
" "0
(9 0) -0
•
CU
V)
a)
CU
"6
a)
a)
4,
Q. V)
CU 1:3
L.) 03
>
'0 0
4.0 111
>.
in
cEb1
0.E
o
o
u .o
_c
0
>-
ro
0
4-,
0
0.
0.
4-
(0
tto
4-,
1
•
Estes Park as a place to raise children
4-
U1 0
C
CU C
0
E
-
v,
0.0
1-
-
-0 CU
-C CO
4-, u
CU 0
4-,
o CU
>,
L.=
CIO
0
V)
ru .
0 CU
CU
(0)
a) :a
"ru
Ta
u o
ao
o
ao
c
a)
-0
ca
0.
a) 6-
-a ..a
4.1
ro 0
8
0
0 H
N
4- .N
O
bp 0
C C
C.
N a..'
o
c
f6 o Q
qA
a) i-
_o co
o v
cfa) OA 3 ai
U_
cN 0
C f6 u,
the internet or other media in the past 12
0
M
a
s
c
0
E
(0'),
43
u
0
Gd
3:
F0
co
cc
.a
0
0
0
03)
-13
0
cc
Citizen Survey
Medical Marijuana
C
N (B
U O
bCA U
la
-0 O
0 u.
co 0 -
}+ V)
O E
co O
v > C
O
Elkhorn Project
Historic Preservation
Shuttle services
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall direction that Estes Park is taking
Moraine Ave., Prospect
N
tab
a=+
"0 0' c
o� E v
c Q
N O
aCa -a >
O O
> i
O �
- o
_c C
O
v
Z w
0 0
*Town services
-0 co
C v-i
W.• c
° 0 .4.Z.
• cu=
cr
120 E
c 0
_
.0
"t3
C 0
co (-NI
CU 0)>'
C s•
+a V)
C
N
E Et,
op
0 0
1", LP tr) cl•
0
-e•
0
r
/9(/°,4c. '')*?
41 (e., lov
0
0,p
<
ee, -10
*),/ `'?"
,r .,e) (),s,
4'e> ocv
(4,c6 ovo,. .0/0
—<!
44
4'rvo 40 %11,04 %0
4)0,0 „
3.
47 44'
4, ef"
470
cbd )
j4)e) q00 ClesVt)
,
Y‘e xtei•
0 -
•.? .0 470
qi4 t)
/
Afc,c,
evelopment De a rn
hilcott, Director
.. •••
• .. . .
;:$01.009 Division
Will • :* : .
Wit[Bliithfield., :Chief Buildiit..0fficial •
carolyn:IV1pp?Claffer,: Plans Examiner aspd:cOcle:CoMplianceOfficer:
:ClatideTrapfieidauilding*Inspector and*Code.:Compliance Officer
• •.
Planning Division
pp)..0d. shirk; Panne(t
Administrative Assistant:
Karen Thompson
•• •
November 2011 update
This is an update to the April 2010 implementation plan.
In late summer 2009, the Town of Estes Park contracted with Zucker Systems to
conduct an operational/organization audit of the Community Development Department.
The report was finalized in November 2009.
Zucker Systems found numerous positive features in the Community Development
Department and provided 55 recommendations for improving the Department.
Organization
Items are listed in the same order as found in the April 2010 implementation plan. Only
new or revised information is provided.
Bullet graphic system:
✓ Completed
• Initiated and Ongoing
o Not initiated
Priority One Recommendations:
Phase One:
• # 1: The Town Administrator and the Director of the Community Development
Department should review the study and agree on an implementation plan (p.
9).
o Implementation requires ongoing review with Administration.
✓ #2: The joint Town/County planning for the Estes Valley planning area should
be continued and the Intergovernmental Agreement should be renewed (p. 12).
Note: Zucker recommended that Community Development assume building
permitting and inspections functions for the entire county. Building Division
staffing levels would need to be evaluated.
• #10: The Community Development Department should take a more aggressive
role in communicating with the Town Administration, Planning Commission
and Town Trustees with a focus on setting clear priorities for the Department
(p. 17).
✓ Triangle meeting for 2011 provides joint -goal setting for 2012 work plan.
o Staff will prepare a work Plan for 2012 for Community Development
(Planning/Building)
o In April invite the new Trustee to introductory meeting with staff.
i
EP
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
1
✓ #30: The timelines for plan check first check should be 10 working days for
new residential and 20 days for new commercial. Rechecks should be two
days for residential and four days for commercial (p. 30).
✓ Staff continues to evaluate all possible ways to increase efficiencies and
meet performance standards.
✓ #31: The timelines for residential remodels or additions for plan check first
check should be five working days and 10 days for commercial tenant
improvements with two days for any re -check (p. 30).
✓ #33: Performance standards should be met 90% of the time and overtime or
stand by consultants should be used when it appears the standards cannot be
met (p. 31).
✓ In addition to overtime/consultants, staff anticipates that Sungard One
Solution will assist with tracking and minimizing process time, Shelly Tressell,
assisting with organization processes, filing.
✓ #50: The process for items going to the Planning Commission should be
modified as outlined in Section 5.G of the Zucker Report (p. 43-44; speed
distribution of submittals, expand inter -governmental communication).
✓ Community Development staff has continued to improve communication with
review agencies and applicants. This includes increased interdepartmental
and interagency discussion prior to pre -applications and more thorough pre -
application meetings.
• #54: The Community Development Department and the Engineering/Public
Works Department should meet to discuss the negative survey responses (p.
62).
✓ Completed Summer 2010 as part of weekly Friday morning meetings
o Due to staffing changes, this will be revisited in upcoming Friday morning
meetings.
• #55: The Community Development Department staff should review the
customer questionnaire and determine areas where they can be responsive to
customer concerns (p. 64).
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review 2
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
Phase Two:
• #18: The Town's IT Department or a consultant should conduct a review of the
permitting and related systems for the Community Development Department.
This should include a review on the new version of PT Win (p. 20).
✓ The Black Bear (PTWin) software company is no longer in existence.
• In 2012 Community Development will transition from PTWin to Sungard One
Solution for all addressing and permitting needs, except Planning review of
building permits in the unincorporated Estes Valley.
• Planning has used numerous Excel spreadsheets in place of a database
/sophisticated software to track land use applications (subdivisions and
development plans), letters of credit. Community Development anticipates
migrating this data into One Solution.
• Sungard includes an on-line customer access portal that and possible tie-in to
ArcGIS.
• #19: The Town should purchase a field computer and printer for the Building
Inspector (p. 20).
• The toughbook is being replaced in 2011 (improved speed and compatibility
with desktops).
• In the winter of 2010, Community Development purchased a field printer for
the Building Inspector.
• #29: Staff should continue discussions with the Contractors Association with
the possible outcome being to reduce the number of plan correction
comments and details required on the plans (p. 29).
• Staff's understanding is the Contractor's Association membership has
decreased and the association is less active. The Association does not
meet on a regular basis.
• Staff continues discussions with contractors, engineers, and architects
and on a one-on-one basis.
• A Contractor's Advisory Board is likely to be formed and staff can
continue discussions with this board.
Fewer plan correction comments and details can result in expensive and difficult field
corrections. Staff strives for the appropriate balance between review comments and
field corrections.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review 3
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
• #34: All Divisions or Departments reviewing building permits should meet the
same standards being used by the Building Division. These reviews should be
coordinated by the Building Division (p. 31).
✓ All Divisions and Departments use the same review standards as the Building
Division.
✓ Reviews are coordinated by the Building Division.
✓ The Building Division has notified and continues to notify all departments of
required review timeframes.
✓ Staff will evaluate compliance with review timeframes when new permitting
software (Sungard) is operational. PTWin does not have the capability to
determine if standards are being met.
✓ #37: Next day inspection should be made 95% of the time. When these cannot
be made the Building Official or Plan Checker should help out or stand-by
consultants and overtime should be used (p. 33).
✓ #45: Copies should be distributed to affected agencies at the time of
application (p. 40).
✓ #48: The process for staff decisions on Development Plans should be
substantially changed as outlined in Section 5.E of the Zucker Report (p. 41;
accept anytime, speed affected agency notification, truncate review period).
✓ #49: The Community Development Department should prepare a formal
planning work program for adoption by the Board of Trustees (p. 43).
✓ Initiated Winter 2010
• Ongoing (Triangle Meeting) and Community Development 2012 work plan.
Priority Two Recommendations:
Phase One:
• #5: The Community Development Department should consider additional
communication opportunities (p. 14).
o Invite new Trustees and Liaison to introductory meeting.
o Continue outreach to civic and professional organizations.
o Explore creation of a Construction Advisory Board.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Ei' Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
✓ #6: The Community Development Department should attempt to have one
planner and one building staff available in the office at all times the office is
open to the public (p. 14).
✓ Staff has and continues to attempt to have one planner and one building staff
available at all times;
✓ Due to staffing changes, this has become problematic.
• #7: Department documents, handouts and the web site should use appropriate
terms and be completely up-to-date. New handouts and revisions should be
completed as appropriate (p. 15).
• Ongoing
✓ #9: The Department should have a policy that all phone calls and emails be
returned the same day received (p. 16).
✓ Community Development staff strive to return calls the same day. Policy is
within two days.
✓ #11: A careful review of new copy machines should be undertaken before the
Department undertakes a new lease in March 2010 (p. 18).
✓ #14: The GIS software should be up -graded so the entire Community
Development Department has the same software (p. 19).
✓ #17: The Department should adopt new procedures to assure that the web site
is up-to-date at all times (p. 19).
✓ #21: The Building Division and Town should work to reduce the number of
local amendments to the I codes (p. 23).
✓ I -Codes adopted in 2009 with local amendments at request of elected officials
many of the policies and procedures were incorporated as local amendments.
• #22: The existence of a Building Code Appeals Board and its processes should
be clearly communicated to the public and the industry including reference on
the web site and in handouts (p. 23).
✓ Initiated Spring 2010.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
5
✓ #36: The Building Division should take a more active role in coordinating all
Divisions or Departments in relation to Certificates of Occupancy (p. 33).
✓ Completed Winter 2010. Revisited and improved on in 2011. Sends more
emails and follows thorugh, holding for 2 weeks when are we going to hear.
Initiates follow up contact with review agencies when necessary doesn't just
wait to hear back from review agencies.
✓ #38: The request for an email address should be added to the Sign Application
form (p. 33).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Application form updated.
✓ #41: The Community Development Department should examine and resolve
the variety of process timing issues outlined Section 5.0 of the Zucker Report
(p. 37; distribution of submittals, filing, Public Works review).
✓ #44: The number of required copies for BOA applications should be
determined as part of the Sketch Plan process and required to be submitted at
time of application (p. 40).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Applicant no longer needs to provide multiple copies, thus easing burden on
applicant.
✓ Plans are distributed to reviewing agencies via email.
✓ Reduces cost to applicant and paper waste.
✓ #46: The public should be notified of BOA items as soon as it is clear that an
item will go to public hearing (p. 40).
✓ Website is updated within two days of application submittal.
✓ Neighbor notifications mailed within three days of acceptance of submittals.
✓ Members of the Board are notified of application submittal via email.
• #52: The department should review the employee questionnaire as part of a
Department Staff meeting (p. 49).
• Initiated Spring 2010: Meeting scheduled in May to discuss questionnaire.
• Feedback to amend Implementation Plan as necessary.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review 6
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
Phase Two:
✓ #15: The information available in the GIS system should be reviewed with
layers corrected and new layers added as appropriate (p. 19).
✓ Completed Spring 2010.
✓ Meeting held with GIS specialist to discuss storage of data and naming
protocol.
✓ Town Boundary map has been updated and standardized.
✓ Coordinate system has been standardized.
✓ Community Development Staff "power users" all have same version of
software.
✓ Base Map has been agreed upon for use by Public Works, Utilities, and
Community Development Departments.
✓ File storage and naming protocol has been agreed upon.
✓ All GIS data to be stored on one server, pending server update/replacement.
• On -going meetings to be scheduled with GIS specialist.
• Yearly budget for $1,200 to maintain up-to-date GIS software.
✓ #25: Use of overtime and stand-by consultants should be used as necessary to
meet plan check performance standards and next day inspections (p. 25).
✓ Completed Spring 2010.
✓ Action plan has been in place for at least two years.
✓ Two local architects are pre -approved as stand-by plan -check consultants.
✓ Next day inspections consistently met.
Priority Three Recommendations:
Phase One:
✓ #8: The Community Development Department should consider starting a
monthly or bi-weekly standing Department -wide staff meeting (p. 15).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Planning Division meets every Monday morning.
✓ Department meets once a month.
• #13: The Department should up -grade a phone to include multiple lines for the
Administrative Assistant (p. 18).
✓ The last phone up -grade does not allow the Administrative Assistant to
determine when other employees are on phone, as the old system did (this
was the issue, not "multiple lines" as outlined).
✓ The IT department can install software on the Administrative Assistant
computer to allow such monitoring.
• The Administrative Assistant should work directly with the IT department.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
✓ #43: Planners should review building plans for zoning conformance within two
working days (p. 38).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Policy book revised to require initial review done within two days.
✓ Revisited due to change in staffing, reviewing in same timeframes as
Building.
Phase Two:
✓ #4: In the future, should the Town consider organizational changes,
consideration should be given to the possible merging of Redevelopment,
Housing, Code Enforcement, and Community Development (p. 13).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Code Compliance was re -assigned from the Police Department to the
Community Development Department.
✓ The Town does no longer has a "redevelopment" department (following
abolishment of EPURA)
o It may be possible to incorporate the Estes Park Housing Authority into the
Community Development Department.
• #24: The Building Division should continue and where feasible expand having
all staff cross trained and certified for plan intake, plan check, and inspection
(p. 24).
✓ Initiated Spring 2010.
✓ Plan formulation under way to ensure all employees can perform plan intake.
✓ All employees can perform inspections.
o Building Inspector requires additional training to perform plan check. This will
require budget for additional training and certification.
o 2011 Inspector Trauffield obtained highest level of code enforcement
certifications, cross trained with Carolyn McEndaffer now.
o Carolyn McEndaffer received additional certification in plan review, cross
training with Chief Building Official in plan review.
o Carolyn McEndaffer cross -training 2011/2012 on over -counter misc permits.
✓ #26: The Building Division should develop a policy to prohibit out plan
preparation by Town Plan Checkers (p. 25).
✓ Completed Winter 2010.
✓ Existing Town personnel manual policy prohibits outside employment where
there is potential conflict of interest, and requires written approval from
Department Head.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review 8
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
• #28: The Town should review its building permit fees and decide how much
subsidy is reasonable or desirable and how these fees should relate to the
similar County fees (p. 28).
✓ Initiated Spring 2010.
• Summer/Fall 2010: Building permit fee schedule will be revised and adopted
with new building codes.
• Decided during code adoption not to increase any fees. No fee schedule in
codes so is revisited every time adopt new codes.
✓ #32: A policy and handout should be prepared indicating the plans and permits
that can be reviewed and issued over-the-counter (p. 30).
✓ #35: A checklist should be prepared listing required commercial inspections.
This should be worked out in consultation with the industry (p. 32).
✓ CT updating for 2009 codes.
✓ Distributes to project supervisors in the field.
✓ #40: Boundary Line Adjustments should proceed from Staff to the elected
officials with no need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (p. 37).
✓ Summer 2010.
✓ Discussed with Planning Commission, who did not want to amend the
development code. Reason was that it was not a cost savings to property
owners, and added only one month to review schedule.
✓ Individual applications can proceed from Planning Commission to Town
Board the following week, thus reducing the overall review time frame by five
weeks.
• #42: The Department should review the way planning sign offs are handled on
Building Permits with the goal of simplifying the process for applicants (p. 38).
✓ Authorized Building to sign off on Planning's behalf when compliance is
obvious.
Recommendations to be implemented
Other recommendations require additional time, authorization, or funding, and therefore
could not be implemented as quickly as those mentioned above. These
recommendations are outlined below.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
9
Priority One Recommendations:
Phase One:
✓ #51: Possible changes to the Final Plat process should be considered (p. 46).
✓ Summer 2010.
✓ Planning Division to review peer jurisdictions to compare and evaluate Final
Plat processes.
✓ Initiate Problem Statement process if warranted.
✓ #53: The Engineering/Public Works Director and the Town Administrator
should review the customer questionnaires and develop a program to address
these concerns (p. 61).
✓ Spring 2010.
✓ Following review of Implementation Plan, Town Administration should
schedule meeting with Department heads to discuss survey results and how
to best address the concerns.
✓ Feedback to amend Implementation Plan as necessary.
Priority Two Recommendations:
Phase One:
o #3: As the Inter -governmental agreement is extended, consideration should be
given to possibly adding functions to the Agreement, particularly
responsibility for building permits and inspection (p. 12).
✓ Town Administration should initiate discussion with the County Manager.
✓ Yearly salary negotiation would provide a opportunity to discuss.
✓ If administration staff is in agreement, pursue discussion with Boards.
✓ Would require additional staffing of building division.
✓ Would provide consistency valley -wide for builders and contractors.
Phase Two:
o #12: Town Administration should develop a Town -wide approach and policy
related to electronic files and filing systems (p. 18).
✓ Summer 2010.
✓ Town Administration should form an employee task force, including members
of the IT department, to examine this issue.
✓ Proposed "department based" server system is a good step in this direction.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
10
✓ #47: Board of Adjustment cases should be reviewed to determine if the
ordinance could be changed to no longer require a variance or if additional
minor variances could be approved by Staff (p. 40).
✓ Staff currently authorized to grant minor modifications up to 10%.
✓ Staff will present this concept to the Board of Adjustment at next available
meeting.
✓ Pending Board input, the Problem Statement process will be initiated.
Priority Three Recommendations:
Phase One:
✓ #16: The Town should have the same MS Software for all related functions (p.
19).
✓ Town Administration should consult with IT department.
Phase Two:
o #20: The budget should be modified to provide 2% of the personnel budget for
training (p. 21).
✓ Community Development Director to request training budget during next
budgeting cycle.
✓ Cite Zucker report and ISO standards as justification.
✓ Current budget for training of planning staff is 1.3%, building staff 1.5%.
✓ Request specific training for Mountain Town Planners conference (specific to
resort communities) and for new building code training.
✓ Certifications require on -going training to maintain.
✓ #23: The Building Code Appeals Board should meet no later than 14 calendar
days following an appeal (p. 23).
o Building Code specifies Board of Appeals to adopt rules of procedure.
o Board has met twice in last 10 years.
a Fall 2010: Building Department should prepare draft procedures for Board to
review, and schedule meeting for adoption.
✓ #27: The Town should continue its analysis of the possible use of Impact Fees
(p. 27).
✓ The Public Works Departments has contracted with Felsburg Holt and
Ulleveg to conduct an initial impact fee study.
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
11
✓ #39: The Town should consider creating one or more Senior Planner positions
(p. 34).
✓ Community Development Director should discuss this with Administration,
and request budget if agreed upon.
Conclusions
Status: The Zucker report included 55 recommendations for improvement of
operational/organizational improvements for the Community Development Department.
Community Development has initiated or completed over 90% of recommendations that
can be internally implemented.
;
EP
Implementation Plan — Operational/Organizational Review 12
Community Development Department, November 2011 Update
Guidance for Chairing Meetings
(Adopted March 2011)
The Mayor's function is to apply rules for running the meeting. The rules are
designed to define a topic/problem and encourage orderly discussion ultimately
producing a majority decision. The Mayor remains a participant in the
discussion/debate and decision making, without overshadowing any participants.
Order of Business:
Call meeting to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Proclamations and Presentations
• The Mayor is responsible for calling the meeting to order, leading
the pledge of allegiance and organizing proclamations and
presentations.
Public Comment (topics not on the agenda)
• The Mayor invites citizens to make comments and recognizes the
citizens in the order of request. The Mayor has the option to set
time limits on public comment.
Town Board Comments
Liaison reports
Town Administrator's report and report on public comment follow-up
• The Mayor requests Town Board comments and liaison reports by
Town Board member. The Town Administrator provides report.
Consent Agenda
• The Mayor asks if any consent items are to be moved to action
items and then requests a motion to approve consent items; and
asks for a second. The vote is called by the Mayor. The vote tally
is announced by the Mayor.
Action Items (repeat process for each action item)
- State discussion item with motion to be discussed
- Staff Report
- Clarification of Staff Report by Board questions/discussion
- Public Comment
• The Mayor states the action item.
• Staff/guests provide a report.
1
• If present, the ordinance is read by the Town Attorney or Town
Clerk.
• The Mayor asks Board members for comments and questions
pertaining to the report.
• When the Board members' questions have been answered, Public
Comment is requested.
• If there is a large attendance, ask for hands from the audience to
determine the number of wishing to make comment, and limit
time accordingly. To keep the meeting on track, the Mayor may
declare comments "out -of -order". The Mayor states the reason
comment is out of order and asks person to make comments
pertinent to the motion or sit down.
• The Mayor then asks for a formal motion from the Board
members, and a second. (Note: the motion must be in a format,
causing a "yes vote" to approve a motion and a "no vote" to oppose a
motion. The second is only to allow discussion.) The originator of the
motion restates the motion for the Town Clerk and Board.
Amendments and substitute motions may be taken at this time
(see discussion below).
• The person making the motion is asked to discuss/debate the
motion first. Then each Board member is given a turn to speak.
Respectful debate is allowed.
• The Mayor asks the Town Clerk to restate the motion or
amended/substitute motion.
• The Mayor asks the Town Board to vote and reports the vote
results.
2
Managing Motions
(Adopted March 2011)
Three motions are allowed: basic, amended and substitute motions.
Basic motion: The original motion made and seconded by the Board.
Amended motion: A combination of the basic (original) motion with an
addition, deletion or change to it.
Substitute motion: The basic motion (and/or amended motion) is
completely removed and a new motion is made.
The Mayor decides if a motion to amend or substitute is in order. All
motions require a second. The Board member making the change
restates the revised motion for the benefit of the Town Clerk and
Board. Discussion/debate is requested of all Board members on all
motions. When there is no more discussion/debate, the Mayor
requests the following actions:
Example: There are three motions on the floor: Basic, amended and substitute.
(Voting on motions: The first vote is taken on the last motion on the floor.)
The substitute motion is read by the Town Clerk. The vote is taken.
A "YES" vote on the substitute motion ends the voting and the action item
is decided by the substitute motion.
A "NO" vote requires a vote to be taken on the amended motion.
The amended motion is read by the Town Clerk. The vote is taken.
A "YES" vote ends the voting and the action item is decided by the
amended motion.
A "NO" vote requires a vote to be taken on the basic motion.
The basic motion is read by the Town Clerk. The vote is taken.
A "YES" vote decides the action item.
A "NO" vote requires a new motion to continue discussion on the action
item. (At this point, the Mayor may request staff to gather more
information and continue the action item for a later date.)
Executive Session: If an executive session is required, the Mayor or a Board
member makes the legally required announcement. The public is asked to leave
and the Board moves into Executive Session.
Adjournment: The Mayor adjourns the meeting if no other comments are in
order, or adjourns to executive session and follows executive session protocol.
3
Town Board Meeting
Order of Business
(Adopted March 2011)
• Call meeting to order
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Proclamations and Presentations
• Public Comment
• Town Board Comments
• Liaison Reports
• Town Administrator's Report and Public Comment Follow-up
• Consent Agenda
• Action Items (repeat process for each action item)
■ State discussion item with topic to be discussed
■ Staff Report
■ Town Board clarification of Staff Report - questions/discussion
■ Public Comment
• Formal Motion/Second (if Ordinance is present, Town Attorney/Town Clerk reads prior to
motion)
■ Motion modifications/amendments if desired
■ Debate/Discuss motion
■ Motion modifications/amendments if desired
• Mayor calls for vote
• Vote
• Additional Staff Reports
• Executive Session (if needed)
• Adjournment
Every Board meeting will end no later than 10:00 p.m., except that (1) any item of
business commenced before 10:00 p.m., may be concluded before the meeting is
adjourned and (2) the Town Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later
than 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter
which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Board meeting,
and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been
considered by the Board, will be continued to the next regular Town Board meeting and
will be placed first on the agenda for such meeting.
The Town Board reserves the right, by majority vote, to further extend the meeting to
conclude any business the Board deems necessary.
Public Guide to Estes Park
Town Board Meetings
(Adopted March 2011)
The Town of Estes Park holds its regular Board Meetings at 7:00 p.m. on the second
and fourth Tuesday of every month. These meetings provide a public forum for
conducting the business of governance of the Town and provide for public input into that
process. All residents are encouraged to attend and participate.
In order to provide guidance and order to the Town Board meetings the following format
is generally followed on the Agenda:
• The Mayor calls the meeting to order.
• The Pledge of Allegiance is recited on a voluntary basis.
• If there are any proclamations or special presentations they will be acknowledged
first.
• Public Comment. The public is called upon to provide any comment on any item
not on the Agenda for further discussion during the meeting. Comment may be
limited due to time constraints in the determination of the Mayor. Generally these
comments are not addressed by the Board, but may be referred to staff for
further follow-up.
• The Mayor will ask the Board if they have any comments.
• The Mayor will ask the Board if there are any Liaison reports for groups for which
they serve.
• The Mayor will ask the Town Administrator for any report or follow up to public
comment that may need to be made. These reports are informational only and
require neither debate nor vote. The public is not asked to comment on Reports.
• The Consent Agenda items are next addressed. The Mayor announces each
item on the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda items are not open for public
comment. However upon request of the Mayor, any Trustee, staff, or member of
the public an item shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the
Action Items Agenda which would then allow for public comment.
• Action Items. Each Action Item is announced and the motion to be discussed is
addressed. Staff will provide detail on each Action Item. The Board may ask
staff for further clarification, ask questions and discuss the staff detail. The
Mayor will then open the Action Item up for public comment. The Mayor may
limit time for comment based upon the number of the public present wishing to
comment, or based upon the discussion being previously commented on by
another member of the public requesting that comment subject germane or not
previously addressed. Once public comment is closed no further public comment
will be entertained on the Action Item. The Mayor will accept a motion, and a
second. A motion modification may be entertained. The motion is debated and
discussed by the Trustees. Additional motion modification may be entertained.
The question may then be called and a vote taken. The Mayor does not vote
with the exception of breaking a tie vote.
• There are special occasions where legally the Board may vote to enter into
Executive Session. Executive Sessions are not open to the public, nor are the
discussions in Executive Sessions publicly disclosed. The Mayor shall, prior to
the Executive Session, disclose the purpose of the executive session and
announce to the public whether or not any action shall be taken by the Board
following its reconvening in Regular Session following the Executive Session. In
the event there will be action taken by the Town Board following the Executive
Session, the action will be taken in Regular Session and open to the public. In
the event there will be no action taken by the Town Board following the Executive
Session, the Town Board will adjourn immediately following the Board's return to
its Regular Session.
• Every Board meeting will end no later than 10:00 p.m., except that: (1) any item
of business commenced before 10:00 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting
is adjourned and (2) the Town Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting
until no later than 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of
business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the
conclusion of the Board meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at
the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Board, will be continued
to the next regular Town Board meeting and will be placed first on the agenda for
such meeting.
The Town Board reserves the right, by majority vote, to further extend the
meeting to conclude any business the Board deems necessary.
• Adjournment ends the meeting.
Town Board meetings can be viewed on Channel 12 TV in real time and on the internet
approximately two business days after the meeting at www.estes.org.
Motions:
Tool box for: Meeting Procedure Options
(Adopted March 2011)
Purpose. Properties
Basic Motion:
Purpose: Places an action item on the floor for discussion
The motion is stated in the positive.
"Yes" vote supports motion.
"No" vote opposes the motion.
Divide complex issues into individual motions.
Second is required.
Amend a Motion:
Purpose: To change a portion of the Basic Motion.
The amendment uses the original basic motion wording with a
change in wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
Second is required.
Substitute
Motion:
Purpose: To completely remove/replace the Basic Motion.
The substitute motion is a new motion with new wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
The Mayor determines if motion qualifies as Substitute Motion.
Second is required.
Table Motion:
or
Continue Motion:
Purpose: Stops an action item discussion for more
information.
The Mayor generally states a new meeting date to discuss
item.
The Mayor may send item back to committee/staff for revising.
The Mayor will recommend to Table or Continue as
appropriate.
Occurs when information is lacking or no decision can be
made on action item.
Second is required.
Motion to
Reconsider:
Purpose: Re -open discussion on a finalized action item.
Only a Board Member voting in the majority for the motion
that finalized the action item may request a reconsideration
motion.
Second is required.
Point of Order:
Purpose: To correct meeting proceedings and help the Mayor.
State "point of order" and what procedure was missed by the
Mayor.
No Second is required.
Second a Motion:
Purpose: To open discussion on an action item.
Notes: The person providing the second does not need to
agree with the motion.
The originator of the motion or changed motion will need to
repeat the motion for the benefit of the Town Clerk's record
and Town Board clarity of motion.
Town Board Motions
(Adopted March 2011)
1. The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for
consideration. A basic motion might be: "I move that we create a five -member
committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser."
2. The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is
under discussion, he or she would move to amend it. A motion to amend might
be: "I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee." A
motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to
change it in some way.
3. The substitute motion: If a member wants to completely do away with the
basic motion under discussion and put a new motion before the governing body,
he or she would "move a substitute motion." A substitute motion might be: "I
move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year."
Motions to amend and substitute motions are often confused. But they are quite
different, and so is their effect, if passed.
A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but to modify it in
some way.
A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor and substitute a
new and different motion for it...
Voting on motions when there are several on the floor.
The first vote is on the last motion. In the example above, the substitute motion
would be voted on first. If passed, the other two (Basic and Amend) would not
require a vote because they become moot. If the substitute in the above example
passes, it replaces both the Basic and the amendment to the Basic motion.
If the substitute fails, then a vote is needed on the amendment. If the amendment
passes, the basic motion is moot because it was replaced by the amendment.
However, if the amendment fails, the basic motion needs to be voted on. If it
passes, it is final. If the basic fails, then the chair determines if a new motion is in
order, or does the action item need to be tabled for more information, returned to
committee, have staff gather more information, etc. A time for future review of the
action item should be established.
*Instructional scenario quoted verbatim from: Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple
Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century, 2003, League of California Cities.
5/29/09
Here is a guideline for use if a person becomes disruptive during a Board Meeting.
Authority/Policy: Estes Park Municipal Code, Public Peace, Morals and Safety
Section 9.08.040, Disrupting Lawful Assembly:
It is unlawful to disrupt a lawful assembly. A person commits disrupting lawful
assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession or gathering,
he or she significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession or gathering by
physical action, verbal utterance or any other means. (Ord. 2-84 §2(part), 1984)
What to do:
If any person exhibits any of the above described behavior the Mayor, Board members or
Staff have the authority to request the behavior to cease.
1. The person should be informed that if they do not comply they will be asked to
leave the premise.
2. If the behavior continues following the official warning the officer providing
security should be called upon to remove the person from the meeting.
3. If this occurs the person will be cited for Disrupting Lawful Assembly and be
trespassed or ordered to leave the meeting until a final disposition is determined
by the Municipal Court judge.
Town Board Meeting Procedures
Study Session
November S, 2011
Issues of Concern
Mark Elrod, Trustee
o The Trustees have been provided with a copy of a memo dated 5/29/09
from Commander Eric Rose of the Estes Park Police Department
addressing disruptive behavior during a Board Meeting. The memo reads
as follows:
"5/29/09
Here is a guideline for use if a person becomes disruptive during a Board Meeting.
Authority/Policy.: Estes Park Municipal Code, Public Peace, Morals and Safety
Section 9.08.040, Disrupting Lawful Assembly:
It is unlawf d to disrupt a lawful assembly. A person commits disrupting lawful assembly if
intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he or she signifi-
cantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession or gathering by physical action, ver-
bal utterance or any other means. (Ord. 2-84 $2(part), 1984)
What to do:
If any person exhibits an of the above described behavior the Mayor, Board members or Staff
have the authority to request the behavior to cease.
1. The person should be informed that if they do not comply they will be asked to leave the
premise.
2. If the behavior continues following the official warning the officer providing security
should be called upon to remove the person from the meeting.
3. If this occurs the person will be cited for Disrupting Lawful Assembly and be trespassed
or ordered to leave the meeting until a final disposition is determined by the Municipal
Court fudge. "
I believe there needs to be some clarification on the application of this disruptive
behavior guideline. The Mayor, Board members or staff have the authority to
request the behavior cease.
1. In reading the memo defining disruptive behavior it states that if such
action is taken "intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting,
1
procession or gathering, he or she significantly obstructs or interferes
with the meeting, procession or gathering by physical action, verbal
utterance or any other means, that a request to cease can be made.
How does one determine "intent" and where are the bounds relative
to free speech?
2. Is the request to cease subject to debate? That is if others of this
group (Mayor, Board, Staff) disagree with the request to cease does
is become objectionable and by whom?
3. Who/what is the final authority over the enforcement of the
disruptive behavior policy? The individual making the request to
cease? The unanimous decision of the Board? The majority decision
of the Board? The Mayor?
4. What other elements of the disruptive behavior policy should be
made more clear?
® The Board established policy/procedure in March 2011 by adopting the
following relating to public comments:
From "Public Guide to Estes Park Town Board Meetings"
Public Comment. The public is called upon to provide any comment on any item
not on the Agenda for further discussion during the meeting. Comment may be
limited due to time constraints in the determination of the Mayor. Generally these
comments are not addressed by the Board, but may be referred to staff for
further follow-up."
From "Guidance for Chairing Meetings"
"Public Comment (topics not on the agenda)
The Mayor invites citizens to make comments and recognizes the
citizens in the order of request. The Mayor has the option to set
time limits on public comment."
It would appear that the Mayor may set time limits on comments as discretion
may dictate.
What other unilateral limits on public comment may the Mayor make to public
comment policy/procedure without consent/agreement by a majority of the
Board acting in consensus?
1. The number of topics that may be addressed at any one time?
2
2. The subject of the topics that may be addressed?
3. What elements of free speech are of concern?
4. The absolute time limit on comment/comments?
5. What does the Mayor have authority to alter or decide relative to
public comment policy/procedure without the necessity of
agreement of the other members of the Town Board and under what
circumstances?
6. What other elements of the establishment of policy/procedure
should be made more dear?
3