HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2010-06-22€106 4633[El 43 STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:00 p.m. Rooms 202 & 203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 4:00 p.m. Proactive Communications. 5:00 p.m. Potential Projects & Alternative Funding Options 7:00 p.m. Board Meeting. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ·>....
Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:15 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2924 ST. TIME 06/16 14:03 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1
Communications Town of Estes Park Mayor/Trustees/Staff/Public Study Session Trustee Mark Elrod May 25, 2010 1. How do any of us (Mayor/Trustees) know if communications we receive (be it electronic or hard copy) have been received by all, some, or no others? 2. With communications which have been received by all of us (Mayor/Trustees) who will determine what type of acknowledgement will be sent? Do we agree that all communications should be acknowledged as to receipt? Who will determine what type of reply will be crafted? Who is responsible for crafting a common reply? Who is responsible for signing such reply? 3. On communications which are sent to only one of us (Mayor/Trustees) how should we determine whether it should be shared with others? Should individual communications that are given to staff for reply be shared with all of us? Should individual communicationsthat are give to staff for research be shared with all of us? 4. Are communications marked "Personal and Confidential" really that when addressed to a public official? What duty isthere of a recipient to advise the sender ofthe public nature of the communications? Is there a duty to share such communications with others? 5. Recently (May 12, 2010) the Mayor unilaterally communicated the Town's support of the draft of the National Forrest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009 to Senator Mark Udall. The Mayor has stated ... "As mayor, I'm occasionally called upon to represent the town by on state or national issues by letter ortestimony. Sometimes on very short notice." When is it appropriate for a Mayorto unilaterally articulate a position of the Town on matters which in fact have not been benefited by consensus discussions with the Town Trustees? 6. I understand that various Trustees have preferences with how replies to public issues be handled. Some prefer that staffaddress a raised public issue. Some preferthat staff research the public issue and provide the Trustee with information for the Trustee to communicate back to the public themselves. Would there be any benefit for being consistent in the method by which such replies are in fact handled? 7. Communications to/with the Town Attorney by the Mayor/Trustees and the dollar cost impact of such should be examined. It currently appears fairly open for the Mayor/Trustees to contact the Town Attorney without much need for a gate-keeper. For purposes of understanding billings should the Town Attorney "itemize" the charges with who initiated the contact and the nature of the contact? I am sensitive to attorney-client privilege but if it is legal advice to a public official about public business, public issues, statutory or regulatory interpretations, then it would seem to beg fortransparency. 8. Communications to/with the Town Attorney by "staff' and the dollar cost impact of such should be examined. Is there value to having a procedure established for contacting the Town Attorney? Is there value to having a gate-keeper for inquires to the Town Attorney by staff? Is there a way to monitor the appropriateness of contact of the Town Attorney by staff? Isthere a way to limitthe "1'm just curious" kind of question? Isthere a way to more %\
specifically frame questions tothe Town Attorney by staff sothatthe time expended is reasonably related to the issue being addressed? 9. PIO. Having had the experience of having a PIO now for over a year, I am wondering whether we should discuss the PIO duties? This is not about the individual, but the position itself. Is the position of PIO functioning as we envisioned? Could the Plo be more effective and how? 10. When is it appropriate, if at all, for the Plo to be more pro-active in addressing issues that may be raised in a public venue other than a Town Meeting or Mayofs Coffee Chat? (Newspaper articles, radio/TV broadcasts/Letters to the Editor, etc.) 11. Seriously consider the technology to have all Trustees with an official estes.org e-mail address. The CML was suggesting this for a host of reasons. Realizing there are issues with using the estes.org method the primary one is official business is on the estes.org server, record retention and removal could be uniformly controlled, some customization could be necessary for individual needs and preferences. 12. Communications in developing the Agendas for the study sessions and Board Meetings should be discussed. Who is responsible for establishing the items appearing on Agendas? As was mentioned at our last study session perhaps there was too much to discuss at one time. How do we communicate to one another in Agenda development those kinds of matters? On Board Meeting Agendas who is responsible for adding items under "Action Items"? We are all provided drafts of Agendas, but what is itthat is the desired result in the review of the drafts and how do we communicate it back to the others on the Board? In presenting items as Action Items I never really thought about it and should have. For example who added "Bond Park Master Plan Design Engineering Phases I & 11" to the draft Agenda forthis coming Board r meeting? I would be interested in knowing which Board member or staff asked for it to be added in case further clarification becomes necessary. l also think it important communication to advise the Board at the draft review stage what action is anticipated (for example on Bond Park... approval ofthe phases?, modifications of the phases?, discussion ofthe phases?, funding of·the-phases?,-gathering further public comment?)r-Then-how-should communications about that item on the draft Agenda be addressed by individual Board members if they had concern with that item being on this Agenda, or the action anticipated on that item? I do not believe that because it becomes clear when we receive our study session or Board packets what the Agendas really mean is at all helpful at the creation of Agendas and reviewing the drafts of Agendas if the Board is to have any authorship responsibility for them. 1 3
TOWN op ESTES PARI<L 9.Adininistration .:141 Memo .'. <g#W#livt' 1 #A~4:,2 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: June 18, 2010 RE: Potential Projects & Alternative Funding Options PROJECT SYNOPSES 1. Multi Purpose Event Center (MPEC). Kenney and Associates designed this building and produced construction documents. The building is approximately 36,000 sq ft of clear floor space. It is designed for both summer and winter use. The summer use would primarily be equestrian stalls. The winter layout would be for tradeshows, walking track, basketball, conferences, etc. This building would accommodate approximately 150 - 10x10 stalls or vendor booths. This building also has the Fairgrounds and Events offices, Show offices, and a room upstairs for VIPs, entertaining, meetings, etc. This building has a concession stand for food service as well as restroom facilities needed on the west end of the property. The idea for the MPEC evolved as a result of the need to replace the old WWII era white stall barns on the east end of the property. An early master plan (1995) called for replacement of those east stalls with 4 stall barns. Also, this area is slated to become the future home of a performing arts theater. It is the only land the town owns outright at the fairgrounds because the rest is in a restricted easement from F.O. Stanley. An idea was presented to not just replace the stalls with a steel building, but to create a multi-use facility that could be used year-round and boost our economy. The town held public meetings and conducted an on-line survey to determine the winter uses. The building was originally 60,000 sq. ft., but reduced to 30,000 sq. ft. in 2008. A concession area was added to the 34,900 sq. ft. MPEC building, which consists of 28,000 sq. ft. of show space, 3,748 sq. ft. of office and meeting space, 2,392 sq. ft. of storage area and 760 sq. ft. second floor conference area. Staff recommended a professional pro forma be completed prior to committing to build the MPEC.
Last year, the board said we should still keep a permanent stall barn on the list of projects because they did not envision the MPEC being used for stall barns forever. They wanted to move away from that multi-use concept as soon as practical. 2. Indoor Arena (Stanley Park). Kenney and Associates also designed an Indoor Arena, which would enclose existing arena #5. Last year, the board asked Kenney & Assoc. to stop at the schematic design level when it became obvious we would not be able to afford both an MPEC and IA at the same time. Town Board approved the schematic design to the indoor arena which would include east and west wings totaling 180 stalls. These stalls would replace barns T, U, V and W. 3. Transportation Hub/Civil Site Work. The town will be required to match 20% of the funding we've received from CDOT, approximately $950,000 to build the parking lot/transportation hub by the Senior Center, which is slated to include 410 spots. There will also be drainage and sewer/water line relocations as part of the project. 4. Fairgrounds Parking Lot Lighting and Landscaping. Self explanatory 5. Permanent Stall Barn. Kept on the list in case we eventually wanted to move away from using the MPEC for horse stalls. There have been several locations on the property identified as ideal spots for new stall barns. An area on the northwest side of the property by arena 4 has been considered. This building would need to accommodate 150 stalls to take the place of what the MPEC would hold. Should SOPA build the Performing Arts Center, the 200 stalls that will be torn down will need to be replaced. That could mean a combination of several options listed below. The property needs 400-500 stalls total to accommodate the events we currently have booked. In addition, the stalls on the East side of the property are in rough shape and will need to be replaced in the near future. Building maintenance costs, safety of the animals as well as the need to sanitize stalls are all concerns of our current facilities. The fairgrounds currently have 408 stalls. • Tearing down T, U and V (112 stalls) and replacing with one building (90 stalls) does not give us any extra stalls. • Moving and rebuilding Barn W (90 stalls) does not give us extra stalls. • Building the MPEC gives us approximately 150 new stalls. • Building the west stall barns (new stall barns) gives us 90 new stalls. • Total stalls under this scenario: 420. • Total stalls needed: 400-500. Page 2
6. Replace barns "T" "U " and "V" (Barn T holds 40 stalls, Barn U holds 24 stalls and Barn V holds 48 stalls - 112 total). These were built with pole barn construction with no foundation and below current and future grades. The exteriors of the barns are actually part of the stalls inside. Replacing Barns T, U, and V would be one building. For practical reasons, the barns could be positioned on the east side of where the indoor arena is currently planned to go. 7. Renovate and Relocate Barn W (Barn W holds 90 stalls). Barn W is used in the summer for horse stalls and is used in the off-season for a variety of events and for storage. This building is structurally sound. It is in need of new metal on the exterior. The roof currently has numerous leaks and the outside skin is in bad shape. This building also has both current and future grade issues. This building is currently located where the indoor arena is planned. By moving this building and adding new skin to the outside, the facility will function better. This building could be relocated to the northwest side of the property next to arena 4. 8. Bond Park Master Plan. The proposed plan was developed by Winston Associates, Inc. over six months with public input including focus groups, public meetings and informal surveys. The Master Plan is a flexible plan that may need to be altered as it in implemented. It can be implemented in one phase or broken out into as many as six phases. The plan that focuses on active and passive use, flexibility, adaptability, limits size of events, year-round activation, and accommodates winter uses. Three designs were presented to the stakeholder group and the public for consideration and all three received positive feedback. The popular design aspects have been included in the final proposed plan, including moving special event tents onto MacGregor Avenue and Park Lane, ice rink with natural ice, fire pit with a shade shelter, diagonal sidewalk through the park, Elkhorn Avenue seating plaza, one-way MacGregor Avenue northbound, rock outcrop stage in northwest corner with a seasonal shade structure, small water feature in northwest corner, gateway shelter, play elements for small children, and relocate statutes and monuments currently in the park. The plan also addresses the need to keep views open to the businesses on Park Lane and preserve most of the green space within the park. The total cost of the phased project would be approximately $2 million and with $250,000 in annual funding would require six phases to complete in the following order: MacGregor Avenue renovations; northeast plaza; Park Lane festival promenade; main park area and Elkhorn Avenue improvements; fire pit, stage, children's sculpture, and the tree plazas on Elkhorn; and gateway shelter, other structures and water feature. Staff anticipates completing the RFP for engineering design for Phases I & 111 (MacGregor Ave and Park Lane) by the end of June. 9. Moraine Avenue Streetscape and Safety. Staff has received two grants from CDOT totaling $256,000 for beautification of sides of highways. We have three years to use the money. $200,000 was awarded in June 2008 and $56,000 was recently awarded. Survey drawings exist for the Moraine/Elkhorn/Rockwell area. Page 3
Staff intends to remove the lower Moraine Riverwalk crosswalk as part of this work, as directed by the board last year. This project will include improved landscaping and sidewalks. They are both 20% matching fund grants. 10. More downtown parking (structure or upper deck). The idea of more parking downtown surfaces every year. A parking study was conducted in 2005 by Republic Parking which indicated there was a parking problem on a few weekends per year and gave suggestions to improve our parking situation. The shuttle system was implemented as a result. Instead of saying "no," staff took a look at what it would take to say "yes." The answer is a revenue source. A downtown development authority could be an option, but would increase property tax for downtown commercial and residential properties. Another option is to go to a vote for increased sales and/or property taxes. Structures are expensive to build and maintain. There are other options that should be exhausted before a structure is considered. Last year, the board did not want to ask voters for any type of tax ncrease. 11. Donut Haus turn lanes and traffic signals. This intersection is CDOT's. They will not be upgrading the intersection in the near future unless the town would like to contribute money to expedite the work. Each year, we work with CDOT on ways to improve the intersection. A recent traffic accident report for the last 5 years revealed there were 3 accidents in 2005 and 3 in 2007. 12. Downtown Traffic Flow Realignment. Three documents were produced in 2003,2007 and 2008 to address downtown traffic. A transportation committee has been formed to take a planning approach, instead of an engineering approach to downtown traffic. The committee is working on a report to the town board with recommendations to move forward. 13. Museum Storage Facility. The Museum is a repository for about 24,000 historical objects held in two locations: a 600 sf onsite storage space, and a 4000 sf offsite unheated warehouse (a portion of the old Light & Power building). Several outside surveyors over time have recognized that the two storage areas are inadequate both in size and in quality. Through an NEH grant the museum funded a facility study in 2009 by a museum collections specialist and an architect. The study's purpose was to assess the Museum's collections storage needs and develop a plan for a suitable collections storage facility. The study recommended a new 6000 sf facility to be located at Stanley Park just east of the Museum's Rocky Mountain National Park Headquarters Building. This facility would replace the two current storage areas plus accommodate collections growth for 20 years. It would meet industry standards for museum collections storage including a well insulated envelope, fire alarm and fire suppression, security system, and environmental controls. Functional spaces for office space, collections processing, loading dock, mechanical room, and general storage are also included. The cost estimates include planning, building and moving into the Page 4
building. Total Estimated Project Costs as a non-phased project: $1,758,580 and total Estimated Project Costs as a phased project: $2,072,950. 14. Affordable Housing/EPHA Collaboration. The board discusses a potential collaboration with the Housing Authority involving the town-owned Fish Hatchery property. 15. Streets & Drainage Utility. One of the 2010 town board goals is to explore a Streets and Drainage Utility as part of maintaining a sustainable Infrastructure. Asphalt roadways are designed to last for approximately 20 years before the binder fails and should have maintenance performed every 10 years. He reviewed the cost of maintaining asphalt roadways: roads with a fair to good rating can be maintained at a cost of $2.00/sq. yd.; overlay a roadway with a poor rating at a cost of $8.00/sq. yd.; and if reconstruction is required the cost could exceed $35/sq. yd. Roadways can be designed to last longer; however, the cost exceeds the benefit. Roadways in Estes Park tend to last longer because of the soil structure. He stated at the current funding rate it would take 2 M years to fund the reconstruction of a half mile of roadway and the Town has approximately 2 M miles of roadway that would require reconstruction. Town funding for street improvement has remained flat with the cost of asphalt tripling over the past 20 years. Town staff has been discussing revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, utility fees) to fund the necessary improvements and maintenance for Town roadways. Many communities have established a separate utility to fund street and/or storm water improvements. The town has the statutory power to establish and maintain roadway and storm water infrastructure, and therefore, by ordinance could form a street utility and/or storm water utility to assess a fee for improvements. This fee would not be a tax as it is based upon the need to raise revenue for a specific purpose. We've discussed a flat fee versus a separate fee for commercial and residential properties; whether or not the fees could be collected through the utility accounts; the need to educate the public on the reasons for the creation of a new utility; and Town citizens should not fund the cost for the entire valley. Staff stated improvements and maintenance could be funded through the Community Reinvestment Fund; however, the Town cannot continue to grow and/or maintain existing infrastructure without new revenue sources. An Intergovernmental Agreement with the County could be approved to assess the fee to property owners within the Estes valley. 16. Land Acquisition on Riverside Drive. This was a town board goal for a few years, several years ago. CDOT's long term plans for traffic improvements in Estes Park involve upgrades to Riverside Road. We don't know if this will ever happen, but the town could start to acquire property as it becomes available as part of an overall long term strategic plan. 17. SOPA Performing Arts Theater Commitments. Through an MOU with SOPA, the town is committed to several obligations. If SOPA raises all of the required Page 5
capital to build a performing arts theater, the town is obligated to complete site improvements including parking and landscaping ($1.2M) an annual operating subsidy ($217,000) and replacing the white stall barns with a new stall barn ($2.8M). Replacement of the white stall barns is not retluired if the MPEC is built and available for the stalls. The Town/SOPA MOU has no expiration date. The agreement states either party may terminate with 30 days notice. Also, the FOSH agreement states the Town must determine the feasibility of a theater within 5 years of the agreement or May 9, 2011 and if feasible must build the theater within 8 years of the agreement or May 9, 2014. This item will come before the board later this year for discussion since a critical deadline for FOSH funds occurs next years. 18. Impact Fees. Staff budgeted money to perform an impact fee study this year. If we implemented an impact fee, an ordinance would be passed to collect fees from development for growth impacts on transportation/similar to existing Larimer County impact fee ordinance. 19. Historic Preservation/CLG. Counties and municipalities in Colorado have the authority to adopt ordinances which provide regulations applicable to historic properties. About 33% of Colorado's 64 counties and 271 municipalities have preservation ordinances. Entities with an LPO (Local Preservation Ordinance) can designate and protect buildings, sites, structures and districts of historic, architectural and archeological significance. An LPO can enhance property values and help maintain an area's unique historic character, which can benefit a tourism economy. An LPO is not enough for an owner to qualify for state or federal tax credits, and it adds another layer of review (a preservation committee or commission). Forty-four of the Colorado governments with a local preservation ordinance (39%) are also Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Adopting a local preservation ordinance, including a preservation commission; is a necessary prerequisite to becoming a CLG. The Certified Local Government Program is a national initiative which provides technical assistance and small grants to local governments for the purpose of helping them preserve their unique historic ~ character. CLGs have obligations to the State in terms of qualifications and training for preservation commission members, reporting requirements, adherence to federal standards, etc. Some of the benefits of CLGs include access to a small pool of grant money, the power to designate local landmarks which then become eligible for a 20% State tax credit, and the opportunity to forge connections between historic preservation and land use planning. 20. Lot 4 Usages. This is the only piece of developable property around the Stanley Hotel. The other lots 5,6,8 have been placed in conservation easements. Lot 4 is zoned Commercial Outlying, CO. The following ballot language was approved by voters: "Before any sale of any property owned by the Town of Estes Park within the Stanley Historic District, shall the question of such sale and the terms Page 6
and considerations thereof be submitted and approved at a regular or special election?" Ideas for Lot 4 have included building a new town hall or paving it for parking. 21. Hwy 34 transit park and ride. To help alleviate traffic downtown, the idea is to capture cars before they enter downtown. We will build a transportation hub/park and ride off hwy 36 at the fairgrounds next year. Is there also a need to use the same logic on hwy 34? Lot 4 is a potential site or acquiring a new lot. 22. Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment. There may be a future opportunity to address our traffic congestion with a by-pass road. Page 7
m m e 2 § 2 §§ 8§8 8§ 3 8 § 00 0,00000 m 58 00 OdoddE a. 53 322993 N- 6 0. 161.41»161-4-0 1.0 -LA 1.4 1/~ 14 14 0- 14 in g 3 3 E: 6. 0 " .-1(hlrn-:1-u-,Ohooe, Project Cost Est. Description Multi Purpose Events Center-Stanley Park 3,800,000 38,000 sq. MPEC /required site work on and off site utilities Indoor Arena - Stanley Park Enclose existing arena #5 Transportation hub/Civil site work - Stanley Park Local match to state funding to complete transportation hub and drainage Fairgrounds parking lot Ighting and landscaping 250,000 ' lighting and landscaping Stanley park/transportation hub Permanent Stall Barn - Stanley Park 240 stalls - move away from using MPEC for horses Replace barns "T" "U" and "V" Rebuild these temporary pole barns, no foundations, are sliding Bond Park Master Plan 018 - $2,085,327 All at once or 6 phases Funded EPURA participation / traffic signal @ crosswalk ? 10 More downtown parking (structure or upper Promote and pass 1/4 cent sales tax for parking/maintenance? 11 Donut Haus turn lanes & traffic signal Improvements to unsafe intersection, traffic lights & geometric improvement 12 Downtown Traffic Flow Realignment Must involve CDOT, 3 documents /mini couplet 13 Museum Storage Facility - $2,100,000 Study completed by Friends of the Museum 14 Affordable Housing/EPHA collabo Fish Hatchery Property collaboration 15 eets & Drainage Utility How we prioritize/utility possibility 16 Land Acquisition on Riverside Drive Acquire property to avoid future condemnation for road improvements 17 A Performing Arts Theater Commitments 3,800,000 e improvements, pirking, landscaping, new stall barns 18 pact Fees odn nceto collect fee from development for growth impacts on transportation/similar to existing Larimer County fees 19 ervation Ordinance/CLG Ord n nce and CLG 20 new town hall 21 Hwy 34 transit park and ride Local match for transportion hub on hwy 34 22 Elkhorn Lodge Development Partnership potential for long term traffic congestion solution Renovate and relocate barn "W" Moraine Avenue Streetscape & t
6/18/2010 - .L. . FINANCING OPTIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Steve McFarland - Finance Officer June 22, 2010 (portions reprinted from August 25,2009 presentation) Cash Flow CRF BALANCE (per'09 CAFR): $2,920,837 Transfers in (2010): : 800,000 ( CVB Advertising) Subtotal: 3,720,837 Expenditures: Grandstands (1,200,000) Professional fees - MPEC/etc. (200,000) CRF BALANCE 2010: $2,320,837 SOPA reserve: 440,000 Available for MPEC, etc: 1,880,837
6/18%2010 CURRENT FINANCING INFO ¤ Current rates are - 5.00-5.25%. Shorter duration the better the rate. ¤ For every $100,000 financed, annual payment is: • $12,800 for 10-year note. • $ 8,100 for 20-year note. r ~'~ '-5:' l Ll Pit*65*1.6,421 /~ FINANCING OPTIONS PROJECTS CAN BE PAID FOR BY: • CASH o $1,900,000 available in Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF). • Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects General Fund to contribute $500,000-800,000/yr to Community Reinvestment Fund, assuming General Fund ratios allow. • However, $200,000+ is committed to SOPA, allowing for o Loan pmnts of less than $300,000 in principal/interest. o Or, $300,000 increase annually to $1.9m CRF balance.
6/18/2010 A . %%21+1,iv. -" »tall " I /:C« 4..'I '.h ''I I ' b.'.4/ p. I T.. D. i AR, 2, it' 42 >. .. * .;.'1 4.1 +4. j.14#2 * 114. .422. 6 -Yk'. ., :- FINANCING OPTIONS CASH + FINANCING o Most modes of financing become unavailable should Amendments 60/61 and Proposition 101 pass in November election. Financing would only be available through an electoral process and will likely be for only a 10-year duration. o Existing options most likely favor a Certificate of Participation (COPs), although time is critical and we may or may not be able to execute a COPs before November election. 1 Z..' ' 4... #*/ ' '€v FINANCING OPTIONS o Assuming Town could put together a finance package, Town could probably do a project with following characteristics: • Cash Up to $1,900,000 . COPS o $3% - 20 year loan @ 5.25%, payments of $245,000/yr. 0 $2m - 10 year loan @ 5.00%, payments of $255,000/yr. 3