HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Joint Study Session 2023-03-22RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 22, 2023
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the LARIMER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS and the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in
said Town of Estes Park on the 22' day of March, 2023.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Webermeier, Trustees
Cenac, Hazelton, MacAlpine, Martchink, and Younglund
County Commissioners Commissioners Kefalas, Shadduck-McNally, and Stephens
Also Attending:
Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator
Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer, Director Muhonen, and
Town Clerk Williamson
County Manager Volker, Assistant County Manager Kadrich,
Community Planning, Infrastructure and Resources Director
Ellis, and Larimer County Engineering Director Peterson
Absent: None
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
STORMWATER UTILITY DISCUSSION
Director Muhonen reviewed the previous discussion held at the August 19, 2022 joint
meeting in which the elected officials were in support of exploring a utility service area
for stormwater within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary that drains
into the Big Thompson River; establishing how the program should be funded, such as
grants, user fees and sales tax; and the establishment of a user fee for both Town and
County residents within the identified boundary. He stated approximately 40 stormwater
utilities exist in Colorado utilizing a number of funding structures based on impervious
coverage, fixed rate, tier system, fee per parcel square footage, water usage, zoning,
etc. Grant funding has been identified with funding varying from $100,000 to millions of
dollars annually and a local match varying from 10% to 50%.
Elected official comments and questions were heard on grant funding: would the Town
be in a better position to acquire grants from the federal government due to the acreage
of federal land surrounding the valley; there are a number of grants available through
the USDA for rural properties; contributing runoff comes from the federal lands and
should be an element of the cost sharing perhaps through grant funding; and a diverse
funding source should be considered for the utility.
Director Muhonen reviewed the options of utilizing sales tax to fund the utility stating the
existing lodging tax revenues could not be used; however, a separate occupation tax on
lodging businesses could be considered. Property tax could be increased but this
increase would place the financial burden on a relatively small number of property
owners within the Town limits only. An increase or renewal of the 1A sales tax could
allocate a percentage of the 1 % sales tax if approved by the voters in 2024 to fund the
utility.
Trustee Cenac arrived at 9:45 a.m.
Staff recommended a funding strategy consisting of three elements: grants at 20%,
sales tax at 50%, and user fees at 30% of the costs. An increase in sales tax of .23%
would generate just over a million dollars and could be added to the funds budgeted by
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — March 22, 2023 — Page 2
the Town of $500,000. A sales tax would share the program cost over a larger number
of beneficiaries and fund approximately 50% of the program cost. User fees are based
on impervious coverage that increases the stormwater runoff rates. The rates for
residential are proposed at approximately $3 - $24 per month and non-residential at $9 -
$30 per month with a number of properties with fees significantly greater. Staff
proposed the fees could be cut in half to only fund administration, operation, and
maintenance aspects of the utility. Director Peterson stated it is common to see a tiered
rate for residential properties as there tends to be less variability among the properties.
Elected official comments and questions were heard on user fees: larger property
owners with large budgets should not have their cost subsidized by the smaller property
owners; impervious coverage may not be the most equitable method to utilize; the
previous public survey demonstrated a desire for an increase in sales tax versus a user
fee; and concerned with the impact on small individual business owners in the valley.
Director Muhonen reviewed the scope of work to include large, river -oriented projects,
and small, neighborhood -oriented projects. The scope of capital expansion work can be
scaled up or down as needed. The overall program currently consists of a $79 million
program to be completed in 30 years. Staff requested direction from the elected
officials on the program. Discussion followed on the need to address the scope of the
projects within the plan in an implemental approach rather than an arbitrary dollar
amount over a period of 30 years.
Staff questioned the allocation and magnitude of the grants, sales tax and user fees.
Staff requires an understanding of the costs to be covered by the funding model in order
to adjust the different elements such as reducing the user fees would require an
increase in sales tax funds to backfill. Other options could include an adjustment in
timeframe or cutting back on projects based on funding.
Elected official comments and questions were heard: significant flexibility would be
required in the plan; the scope of work must be completed; the community supports
addressing stormwater; the Town sales tax remains below a number of mountain
communities and surrounding communities and consideration of a 1.5% sales tax
increase in 2024 to fund the projects seems reasonable; the implementation of the utility
would require significant community education and engagement; it would be
irresponsible to not move forward; those on fixed incomes need to be considered with a
user fee; support for a user fee to fund operations only; the community has been
supportive of the 1A sales tax and would look favorably on using the sales tax to fund
the utility; voters are likely to support a sales tax in lieu of a user fee; the fee should be
included as a part of the funding of the utility; the user fees presented should be revised
with less tiers; without a user fee the issue becomes a Town only discussion; move the
program forward with the sales tax and then continue the discussion on the user fee;
and the user fee should be addressed at the same time as the sales tax to cover
ongoing costs of the utility.
The general consensus of the elected officials was agreement with the scope of work,
and the need to continue to explore the three funding source models as it relates to the
user fee: 1) no user fee; 2) user fee for ongoing operational costs; or 3) implementation
of a full user fee. Information would be brought forward for the elected officials to
review in June.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 11:43 a.m.
ck e Williamson, Town Clerk