HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Joint Study Session 2023-05-24RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado May 24, 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 Virtually on the 24th day of May,
2023.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Trustees Cenac, Hazelton, Lancaster,
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, Town
Engineer Bailey, Engineer Waters, and Town Clerk
Williamson
Assistant County Manager Kadrich, Community Planning,
Infrastructure and Resources Director Ellis, and Larimer
County Engineering Director Peterson
Absent: County Manager Volker
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m.
ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER UTILITY DISCUSSION
Director Muhonen reviewed the previous discussion held at the March 22, 2023 joint
meeting in which the elected officials directed staff to 1) review Idaho Springs
experience with funding stormwater with a sales tax; and 2) develop three variants of
the three funding sources with a focus on the user fee. The model used by Idaho
Springs would not be relevant as it only generates $25,000 a year and accumulates
over years for grant matching funds.
A stormwater utility funding estimating tool was created and summarized funding
allocations for five options. The user fees were broken down into three cost
components: Administration, Operation & Maintenance, and Capital. Options 4 and 5,
the user may enter preferred percentages of program costs to evaluate a variety of
funding strategies. The cost estimating tool did not alter three other highly influential
variables that impact total program cost: 1) time duration for infrastructure buildout; 2)
annual inflation of construction costs; and 3) annual change in sales tax revenue
collected. Understanding the limited agency influence over these variables, staff
recommended that a decision be made based on reasonable current assumptions, and
future funding adjustments be made periodically (every 10+/- years) as updated factual
data becomes available.
Elected official comments and questions were heard and summarized: would the user
fee need to be adjusted over time and would the voters need to approve the change;
the voters should have the ability to vote on the user fee; user fees help to spread out
the funding sources and not rely solely on sales tax to fund the utility; the user fee
provides funding from those properties not within town limits that benefit from the
improvements of the utility; a multi -facet approach would be appealing and user fees
should be used for Operations and Maintenance as well as Administrative costs; the
visitors have paid for a number of issues within our community and the town cannot rely
on them to continue to fund every new project; the cost of doing business should be
consider when assessing user fees as the town consists of small business owners;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — May 24,2O23—Page 2
concern was raised on relying solely on sales tax to fund matching dollars for grants;
and user fees could be used in the event a sales tax sunsets.
Director K8uhonen stated user fees can be established administratively and would then
be adjusted administratively over time. Town Attorney Kramer confirmed user fees
could be established administratively and would not require avote. Hefurther stated
there are a number ofmechanisms for funding o ntonnwmter utility that may require o
vote.
Discussion was heard and summarized on Option 2 with a user fee to cover
Administrative and some Operation and Maintenance costs along with sales tax and
grant funding: heard comments on the likelihood of the voters approving a sales tax-,
discussion on taking the user fee to the voters for approval and the impacts of doing so
when it would not be required to do so; grant agencies tend to look more favorably to
applications that demonstrate a diversified source for matching funds as itshows the
community values the projects; and the need to educate the voters that a renewal of the
1A tax m/nu|d not raise taxes but rather reallocate where the funds are used in the
future.
Director KXuhonen requested discussion on the user fees ranging from $3 ' $10 for
residential properties. The general consensus was approval ofthe proposed residential
property user fees. There was discussion heard on how to ooaass commercial
properties that may have alarge impervious coverage but are small businesses. Using
sales tax as m measure was discussed; howeve/, a number ofbusinesses are service
based and would not generate significant sales tax.
The general consensus of the elected officials was agreement with Option 1 to fund a
stonnwuter utility with three funding sources: sales tam, grants and user fees, explore
the election options for both the November 2023 coordinated election and the upcoming
2024 Municipal Beotinn, and bring forward two options for the consideration on the
timing ofimplementing uuser fee.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 12:48 p.m.
r^
"'le Williamson, Town Clerk