Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2010-09-14STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:30 p.m. Room 202 & 203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 5:30 p.m. - Medical Marijuana. - Recycling. - Problem Statement Review. - Next Study Session Agenda. 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. 4. ¢.. . W. ki*ki Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 5:00 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3274 ST. TIME 09/08 16:50 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 ERROR 5771590 EP News 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARIQ Towd Clerk Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ~ Date: September 10, 2010 RE: Medical Marijuana, Recycling & Problem Statement Review Background: Attached are the minutes from the previous year regarding discussions on medical marijuana, recycling and the problem statement. Also attached are the final notes from Commissioner Norris for the problem statement and the format used by Community Development staff. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: NA Sample Motion: NA r-3 Board of Trustees - November 24,2009- Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Homeier) to approve the 2010 Town Board of Trustee Goals as listed with the addition of Develop Energy Policy added as a sub-bullet to Sustain Infrastructure, and it passed unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE #09-09 - AMENDING SECTIONS 2.52.020 AND 2.52.040 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SALARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK. Town Clerk Williamson reported per Colorado Revised Statutes, the Municipal Code requires the salaries of the Municipal Judge and the Municipal Court Clerk be reviewed every two years. The increase in salary amounts to 5%. The Board discussed the need to establish a review process for appointees such as the Municipal Court Judge and Clerk. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #09-09. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursUMiller) to approve Ordinance #09-09 increasing the salaries of the Municipal Court Judge and Clerk effective January 1, 2010, and it passed unanimously. 1 0 # ' ·.2-'.C *P· I 71'#.·%RDTAANdE #10166 -2 TEMPORARY MORA¥ORI-OM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. Town Attorney White provided a brief history on the legalization of medical marijuana, including the 2000 constitutional amendment to legalize the use for medical proposes, and in February 2009 the federal government announced it would no longer enforce the federal marijuana laws as long as marijuana was being used in accordance with state law. This change has resulted in a ' number of new patients and primary caregivers in Colorado, including the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries. This has raised a number of policy and legal issues for municipalities. The Town does not have provisions in the ~ Municipal Code or the Development Code to address these businesses. Staff recommends the Town Board adopt an emergency ordinance to impose a .4 seven-month moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in Town. During the moratorium, staff would work on proposed code amendments related to these businesses. Attorney White read Ordinance #10-09. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve Ordinance #10-09 placing a temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries effective immediately, and * it passed unanimously. 1 , /'lilli. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Levine) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 8, 2010 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day.of June, 2010. Board: Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Chief Kufeld, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Mayor Pinkham, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson Mayor Pro Tem Levine called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CIRSA LIABILITY PRESENTATION. Tami Tanoue/CIRSA provided a presentation to the Board on suggestions to reduce the risks of liability. 0*gs· .t ' , =4 1 '419,-C-.!, 1. 1 7 4- . 0 , 1 4 . 4 , 1 1 MEDICAL MARWUANACENTERS. -4 6, 4 1 Attorney White provided the Board with background history on Amendment 20 to the .i Colorado Constitution and the recent passage of House Bill 10-1284, as it pertains to * :i.;the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture and sale of medical marijuana and medical * '·2 marijuana-infused products. Amendment 20 did not legalize the sale of medical i marijuana in any form to any person including a patient and/or primary caregiver. The ~ House bill creates a state licensing authority and authorizes that authority to promulgate j, L regulations governing the licensing of medical marijuana. Municipalities may adopt a ~ local ordinance between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011 licensing, regulating or' : prohibiting the cultivation or sale of medical marijuana. Licensing would be similar to, liquor licensing requiring dual licensing by the state and the municipality. The Town and Larimer County passed a temporary moratorium that expires on June 24, 20100 therefore, there are no centers located within the Town or the unincorporated portion of ; the valley. Options available to the Board include extending the moratorium through -June 30, 2011 to provide the Board time to consider options and to hear public ~ comment, adopt an ordinance to ban centers, growing operations, and infused product i:-' '~ sales, or allow the moratorium to terminate and possibly have centers locate in Estes N Park. The bill has allowed the local authority the ability to restrict centers through land i use, hours of operation, modify distance requirements, local licensing requirements, etc. L RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - June 8, 2010 - Page 2 f~ The Board discussed the extension of the moratorium, taxation of the product, the need 3,1 01 to gather public comment, and continuation of the moratorium in the county in 31 U ranju Staff would contact Larimer County to R nction with the Town's moratorium. " 79 determine whether or not the County would continue a moratorium for the valley. Staff ' 84 would contact CML to determine if federal and state grants could be in jeopardy if the r i Town allows the centers and grow operations. 041 33 Trustee Koenig reviewed information she gathered from the local facilities in Town, i ~1 including Timberline Medical, Family Medical and Salud. There are no doctors in Estes M Park that prescribe medical marijuana or monitor such patients; therefore, if centers 5 M were located in Town patients would still ne~dtoq seek~g!0*jairti?R-19 the valley.- 0 *1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION. The Board agreed to review the issue at the first Town Board study session in July. Staff would invite a representative of the state historical society to provide further information. The Board reached consensus that staff has provided a thorough review of the subject and further work was not needed. The Board also agreed to invite Historic Laurette Pickering to the meeting. PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION. This item would be discussed at the next study session. There being no further business, Mayor Pro Tem Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.nl. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Board of Trustees - June 8, 2010 - Page 3 Finance Officer McFarland stated the voter approved 7 of 1% sales tax was earmarked for acquiring, protecting, improving, managing, maintaining and administering open space, natural areas, wildlife habitats, parks and trails. The fund began in 1996. The Town has received approximately $3.875 million that has been used on personnel, operations and maintenance, capital projects and debt service. Funds have been used to purchase the Knoll-Willow property and Hermit Park property, construct portions of the Fall River, Lake and Fish Creek trail system, Hydroplant Museum grounds and restroom, Pine Knoll viewing platform and Bond Park redesign Phase I. Joanna Darden reaffirmed her opinion the open space funds should not be used for the redevelopment of Bond Park. f 22 MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER UPDATE. li Attorney White provided the Board with background history on Amendment 20 - . to the Colorado Constitution and the recent passage of House Bill 10-1284, as it pertains to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture and sale of medical ' marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products. The bill creates a state licensing authority and authorizes that authority to promulgate regulations governing the licensing of medical marijuana. Municipalities may adopt a local ordinance between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011 licensing, regulating or prohibiting the cultivation or sale of medical marijuana. Licensing would be similar to liquor licensing requiring dual licensing by the state and the municipality. The Town and Larimer County passed a temporary moratorium that expires on June 24, 2010; therefore, there are no centers located within the Town or the unincorporated portion of the valley. He suggested the Board consider an extension of the moratorium through June 30, 2011 to provide the Board time to consider options and to hear public comment. Charlie Dickey/Town citizen cautioned the Board on allowing centers in Estes Park due to the ease of access for substance abusers and the increase in crime. He would support a continuation of the moratorium. Judy Anderson/Town citizen stated she has had a party interested in leasing space for the past 6 month, and commented that 25% of sales at a shop in Loveland come from Estes Park citizens. She recommended the Board consider the financial aspect of allowing the centers. She would not support a continuation of the moratorium. Trustee discussion was heard: encourage public input on the issue; encourage the public to review the House Bill; and there are no local doctors to prescribe medical marijuana or clinics to provide monthly follow up in Estes Park. Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 7 plan as long as progress is being made; and extensions can be requested through the Community Development Department provided there are no changes to the development plan. The expiration would pertain to development plans that are never initiated or sit dormant, and would be retroactive to existing plans with approximately 20 plans being affected. If the amendment is approved, staff will notify the developers of the expiration regulation. As there was no public comment, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Elrod) the public hearing be continued to July 27, 2010, and it passed unanimously. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2009 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the process for compiling the annual financial report for the Town of Estes Park, EPURA, and the Local Marketing District (LMD), which was prepared jointly by Finance Department staff and the independent auditing firm, Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The audit resulted in an unqualified, or clean, opinion from the auditors that the financial statements fairly represent the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park. The CAFR includes a Single Audit which is required when Federal grant funds in excess of $500,000 are received in one fiscal period. The completed annual report is due to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) by June 30th and the State of Colorado by July 31St. Kyle Logan, Project Manager for Swanhorst & Company, noted that the Letter to Management that was prepared by Swanhorst recommends implementing procedures for internal controls related to the tracking of grant funds, and controls for the approval of credit card purchases. He said that the Town needs to be aware of new accounting standards effective in 2011 related to the use of special revenue funds and the budgetary and reporting implications of these changes. When asked why the LMD was included in the CAFR, Mr. Logan said that by accounting standards, the Town influences the financial activity of the LMD by virtue of appointing a majority of its board members. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve acceptance of the audit report and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2009, and it passed unanimoysly. ./ 1. I ..7/r - 'I . / 2 .- ' Fi: ·.. A:i , 1 2. ORDINANCE #14-10 - EXTEND TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FOR 5 2 '. A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS. 2 { Ordinance #10-09 establishing a moratorium on the issuance of a business ' I license, building permit, or any other approval related to medical marijuana I facilities, previously passed by the Town Board, expires on June 24, 2010. Atty. White stated that Ordinance #14-10 will extend the moratorium until June : 30, 2011, providing time for the Town Board to receive public input related to Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 8 94.4 31 the medical marijuana issue, examine options available to local municipalities U 1 related to the recent enactment of HB 1284, and evaluate the State's ~ 21 i regulatory system. The Ordinance will take effect immediately upon its ?1 ; approval. i ..u t.1 ' PUBLIC COMMENT. 1 Charley Dickey, Town resident, supported the idea of soliciting more public / comment on this issue, and noted the possible negative impact associated with ~ medical marijuana facilities. * 1 PII; Atty. White read Ordinance #14-10 into the record. It was moved and ; 2 seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to adopt Ordinance #14-10 extending a ] moratorium on the issuance of business licenses, building permits and A other approvals related to establishing and/or operating medical ; 1 marijuana facilities in the Town of Estes Park until June 30, 2011, and it 1 passed unanimously. The Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced .. i i immediately. : Atty. White noted that Larimer County has a moratorium in effect until July 7, 4 2010, for the Estes Valley planning area. The Town Board asked Town 4. e.. i Administrator Halburnt to advise the County Commissioners of the extension of o ¥ - 1 the Town's moratorium, and request that the Commissioners consider a similar 4 4 j extension of the moratorium in the unincorporated Estes Valley. 10~ 3 SHUTTLE BUS CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIST. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson presented a contract with McDonald Transit for the operation of the free shuttle system for the summer season. Transportation along three routes will begin on June 26, 2010, and continue until August 29, 2010. The shuttles will also operate on September 4,5, and 6, 2010, Labor Day weekend. The base contract of $121,376.20 does not include fees for additional fuel usage or additional hours over and above the base contract. Fuel usage in excess of the base contract will be outlined on an individual receipt for reimbursement. The contract has been reviewed by Atty. White and signed by the president of McDonald Transit. $171,655 is budgeted in the transportation account 101-5600-456-22-60 for 2010 shuttle services. PUBLIC COMMENT. Charley Dickey, Town resident, asked about the availability of advertising racks for merchant advertising. Deputy Town Administrator said the racks may be an option next year, but would require a different type of bus than contracted for in 2010. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 10, 2010 - Page 2 the Town consider providing a specific dollar amount with an annual increase for staffing. The LMD Board could then allocate funds as needed for staffing. The LMD Board has realized they were understaffed in 2010 and would need to add staff 2011. The LMD would like to grow the group marketing aspect and special events with the backing and aid of the Town. They requested the help of the Special Events Department to run the events. The main effort would be to grow off season events. This would require an increase to the Town's budget; however, it would be offset by additional sales tax revenue. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the Town does not have the staff for new events and looks for turn key events to bring to town. Discussion continued on the need for more events such as Winterfest, the economic feasibility and viability of more events, the large number of volunteer hours provided to put on the larger events in town such as the Rodeo and the Christmas Parade, and the LMD should provide a proforma for new events. LMD Chair Larson stated the LMD Board would like to address transparency as it relates to stakeholder fees and real costs associated with producing the payroll for LMD staff. LMD Board Member Webermeier stated the stakeholder fees currently go to the Town, and therefore, there is no incentive for the LMD to grow this product by increasing fees and/or selling additional products. The LMD would request the stakeholder fees be retained by the LMD and pay rent to the Town for space at the Visitor Center and appropriate IT costs. Discussion continued on the need for staff to address the details such as rent, more detailed LMD budget or a biannual report, and the need for a simplified payment process for salaries and rental of office space. The Boards suggested Town Administrator Halburnt and LMD Director Campbell meet to discuss potential changes to the IGA. The draft IGA would be reviewed by two members of each Board before consideration by each Board. The Town Board thanked the LMD for their efforts during the past year. LMD Chair Larson thanked the Town for forming the district. +t,$ E. .., FUTURE STUDY SEASION ITEMS. i The Board considered whether or not to begin the public hearing process for medical Y :\ marijuana. The consensus was to wait because the Board extended the moratorium for 1an entire year. The next study session would be a presentation on medical self o insurance and open discussion. 0 - 117 o. .F 1<.6 There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 7 -te RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 24,2009 - Page 3 options for financing the projects and stated they would like to pay for the projects with available funds; however, they would like staff to bring forward finance options. Administrator Halburnt stated the only other item that received a high rating was an update to the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed amongst the Board and staff on the need, including the fact an update was recently completed for the statistical numbers and projections; an update should not be completed during the current economic environment; the money should be spent on other projects; discussed the need to identify potential commercial ground; more important issue would be to address the inconsistencies with the Municipal Code and the EVDC; and a problem stated would provide clarity on the scope of the issues. Mayor Pinkham stated the Town needs to look at the long term sustainability of the town and the issues facing the community. He informed the Board that RMNP Superintendent Baker has shown interest in an assessment and may be able to provide funding of approximately $30,000. The Board reached consensus to remove the Comprehensive Plan update for 2010. Chief Dorman stated an inspection of Town Hall was completed and a report would be forthcoming; however, no major issues were found. If the Fire District passes in November, the issue of a fire code could be addressed by the district. The Board agreed the adoption of a Fire Code should be placed on hold until after the election. The Board requested additional information on the cost, location, and size (number of spaces) for a police carport. The carport would protect the cars from sun damage to the paint but more importantly the electrical components within the cars and would keep the cars free from snow. The Town received grant funding for the beautification of Moraine Avenue. CDOT has informed Public Works that the state expects the Town to fix the pedestrian crossing with a $100,000 traffic light. Discussion followed on the need for the crossing at Moraine Ave. to Wiest. The Board reached consensus on the removal of the pedestrian crossing at an estimated cost of $5,000. The Board discussed the funding of EPURA for 2010. EPURA has requested $500,000 for operations and project funding. The Board agreed that establishing funding for EPURA should wait until after the election on the Initiated Ordinance to abolish EPURA. I * 6 5 J Administrator Halburnt stated the League of Women Voters have requested the Towni; , 1 be involved in joint meetings with the county and Waste Management to discuss H L , recycling issues. She stated the issue should be addressed by the county and the , , k I private business sector and not the Town. Trustee Ericson stated the Town should / support recycling, The Board consensus was to promote recycling on Town k t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 24,2009 - Page 4 44 t i owned properties and in the downtown areas; however, the Town should not ~t ~ finance a recycling center. 0 : ·' ·t~ ~ . ar, :71~<AL· i ..'.. le Trustee Miller requested staff replace the current question marks in the CIP plan with estimates and resend the document to the Board. The Town has committed to pay for the salaries and benefits for the four CVB employees that would report directly to the LMD. The only funds the Town would save are the dollars currently spent on marketing/advertising. The Town would still be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the CVB building. The LMD has presented their interest in sharing the revenues generated by the stakeholder services of approximately $100,000. The Board should consider whether or not they intend to fund the LMD beyond the employee salaries. POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES. Administrator Halburnt presented the Board with the potential of forming a new utility for stormwater/drainage. The valley wide utility would become an enterprise fund that would charge each account a monthly fee of $5 and could collect approximately $500,000 a year to address stormwater and drainage issues. Many towns are forming these utilities. Trustee Miller stated the Bond Park focus groups continue to discuss the parking issue downtown. He questioned if an increase in sales tax for parking could be dedicated to a parking structure, i.e. a second level on the Wiest parking lot. He also questioned the potential sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District as a revenue source. MISCELLANEOUS. Trustee Homeier requested staff provide two scenarios at the beginning of the budget process with one scenario spending all available funds to maintain infrastructure and complete the grandstands and the MPEC and a second scenario showing the baseline costs of running the Town. He would like to know where the Town could cut 10% to 15% in order to accomplish the infrastructure improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Levine concurred and stated this would allow the Trustees to determine how much money could be spent on other projects. Administrator Halburnt stated statutory requirements do not include departments such as the museum and senior center. Mayor Pinkham and Trustee Blackhurst stated this process would overcomplicate the budget and items can be deleted during budget discussions in October. Director Zurn stated $1.2 million should be funded per year to maintain the current infrastructure. He also stated the drainage master plan has identified the need for $9 million in improvements to stop polluting the rivers. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 22, 2009 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of September, 2009. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Ericson, Levine, Homeier and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson, Absent: Trustee Eisenlauer Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. OFFICE OF SENATOR BENNET. Meg Corwin and James Thompson from Senator Bennet's office presented information on the services provided to municipalities, including assistance with Federal Agencies, grant funding opportunities, immigration or social security issues for citizens. The Board provided Senator Bennet's office with the top five issues/concerns facing the Town of Estes Park, including transportation (transit and parking), economic development to enhance year-round economy (new infrastructure at the fairgrounds and Bond Park redevelopment), affordable housing for the work force above the 80% median income, street infrastructure, community center (school building). The Board requested information on what programs may be available through rural development, block grants or other federal financing. Town Administration will provide Senator Bennet's office with background information and details on the issues. R..'7#1.:r -- · .= .._...- 4 Y + 1* OPEN DISCUSSION. 4, E{ Mayor Pinkham, Administrator Halburnt and Commissioner Donnelley discussed the :11 4.~ issues that could be addressed at the recycling center in Estes Park, including safety ;I 94 concerns, improved signage by the County, and encouraging Waste Management to ~ ' 31 promote curbside recycling or requiring recycling with an increased base fee of $10. . 1 1 The Board suggested the League of Women Voters could survey the community , to determine support for curbside recycling and could educate the community on ~, 21 their options. 9\ ... V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 27, 2010 - Page 2 time of year to inform the citizenry through the Town's PIO and the utility bills; and HOAs would be the logical mechanism for distributing information to homeowners. Director Joseph stated only properties that have been developed with the new Development Code are required to have bear-resistant receptacles; therefore, full compliance with the code requirements would only come with redevelopment of property in the valley. Trustees Koenig and Miller reviewed a program in Pueblo in which a group of volunteers provide information to the community on code violations such as trash in an effort to bring them into voluntary compliance. If the initial outreach is unsuccessful, the matter is turned over to the Code Enforcement Officer for further action. The Police Auxiliary may be a logical group to develop a core volunteer group in Estes Park. Staff would contact DOW to discuss further education on the issues/concerns, develop education message with PIO and investigate the code enforcement techniques used in Pueblo. p 4:':*.·- A*.·- '~r©,·14„ '• -4*109 - ~.6,; 11~, ~k-1- I. ' ' 4 RECYCLING 4 1 The memo prepared by Town Administrator Halburnt stated the issue is whether or not 1 to require trash haulers in Estes Park to offer recycling as opposed to requiring a J recycling fee for each account. Larimer County language was reviewed. Trustee discussion is summarized: two companies already provide curbside recycling for a fee; the Board encouraged Waste Management to promote curbside recycling during its September 22,2009 study session meeting; more education such as articles f to inform the community of the options available; there is a need for cardboard recycling . · in the summer; the Town has made improvements at the transfer station and Bond Park , 5 by supplying recycling receptacles; the Town should not compete with private industry that already exists; and the issue should be addressed at the upcoming Triangle i meeting between the Town, County and Planning Commission in August. ' Mayor Pinkham stated he would attend the next Recycling Committee meeting to inform ' , the group the Town will not address recycling because it is being addressed by private industry. 4 - - I 4. 01 117 f - c 44 , .ld/u':·. '-41. MEETING PROCEDURES. Trustee Miller stated the Board has discussed in the past the need for developing meeting procedures, and at the recent CML conference it was highly recommended that a set of rules should be adopted by the governing body for conducting meetings. Discussion was heard amongst the Board with a consensus that Trustee Koenig and Elrod would develop a draft meeting procedure policy with the assistance of Attorney White, Town Administrator Halburnt and Town Clerk Williamson. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 14, 2009 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of July, 2009. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine, Homeier and Miller Commission Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Klink, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl and Tucker Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson, Director Joseph and Planners Shirl< and Chilcott Absent: Commissioner Lane Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. CODE CHANGE PROCESS AND PROBLEM STATEMENT. Planning Commissioner Norris stated the meeting would define how the Trustees, Commissioners and staff would work together to define for, and implement, future changes to the Estes Valley Development Code, and more specifically, to come to agreement on the work process and the problem statement template to be used in the process. The following process was proposed: • A perceived need arises and brought to the attention of the Trustees or County Commissioners. • The elected officials make a decision if a code change is needed or other action is required. • If a code change is needed, develop and agree with a written problem statement that is sent to the EVPC defining the policy issue being addressed, the problem to be solved, and the boundaries or constraints. • EVPC would review the problem statement and identify questions or issues that need further discussion or clarification, develop initial thoughts, and send a revised problem statement and questions to the elected officials. • Elected officials to review EVPC input and reach final agreement on the problem to be solved. Complex issues may need to be discussed with joint study sessions with the elected officials and the EVPC. • EVPC would provide staff with final problem statement and specific guidelines to be addressed in the draft changes. • Draft changes to be reviewed by EVPC. • EVPC would hold public hearing and make final recommendations to the elected officials for final decision. Discussion followed on the proposed process: the process is one way and should be a two way process; the EVPC should also identify issues that should be brought forward to the elected officials; any individual or group should have the ability to write a problem statement to bring forward to staff, EVPC, or an elected official; a more informal process should be used at the beginning to identify the problem and the scope; the process would help the public understand why the code changes are being considered; questioned where the bulk of the concerns come from initially; questioned if the process would work for larger issues; and the problem statement provides boundaries on the issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 14, 2009 - Page 2 Changes to be made to the process include: clarifying the initiator could be anyone that perceives a need for a code change and would write a problem statement to be reviewed by the Community Development Cdmmittee for consideration and recommendation to the Town Board; elected officials to clarify and revise the initial problem statement before sending onto the EVPC; steps four and five should be iterative and allow all parties the chance to discuss and identify concerns including staff; and timeframes placed on the different steps of the process. Director Joseph stated planning staff becomes a conduit for code changes through issues that develop during the review of development applications. An issue must present some weight or magnitude before it would be brought forward to the EVPC or the elected officials. Commissioner Norris would make the changes discussed and forward a revised process for review and comment by both boards. Trustee Blackhurst requested the process be reviewed in September of 2010 to assess whether it has been productive. The template for the problem statement was reviewed and discussed with the following comments: the headings To and From should be left blank; the constraints should be removed from the scope and placed in a separate line item; add priorities and boundaries; and the heading Policy Issue should be changed to Issue. VACATION HOMES AND BED & BREAKFAST CODE AMENDMENT - PROBLEM STATEMENT. Trustee Blackhurst stated the recommended code changes do not address the issues raised by the Town Board and contain changes that cannot be enforced. The Town Board requested the EVPC develop definitions for small hotel, bed and breakfast and vacation homes. He expressed concern with the number of unlicensed vacation homes and how to deal with the issue. Attorney White stated vacation home uses are addressed through the Municipal Code and do not regulate the homes in the county. The recommended code changes would bring the regulation under the EVDC in order to enforce them throughout the planning area. Director Joseph added the Municipal Code does not address whether or not a vacation home is a principle use in residential areas. The Town Board tabled the recommended changes by the EVPC on vacation homes because of the new process. A new problem statement should be developed and reviewed prior to moving forward with any new code changes for vacation homes. WILDLIFE CODE CHANGE. Director Joseph stated the EVPC approved recommended changes to the wildlife code and questioned whether or not to move forward to the Town Board. It was agreed the change should move forward for the Town Board's consideration. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Work Process for EVDC Changes Rev. 4: 7/14/09 This work process is to be reviewed, evaluated, and updated no later than September, 2010. 1. A perceived need is brought to the attention of the Estes Park Board of Trustees* by any of the processes identified in the EVDC. A change can be initiated by Trustees, County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, Town Staff, or individual citizens. The initiator of a change should put his/her thoughts in writing using the Problem Statement format (attached). Citizens are encouraged to informally discuss proposed changes with Staff, a Planning Commissioner, or Trustee as a first step. * Throughout this document, mention of the Estes Park Board of Trustees also implies involvement of the Larimer County Commissioners where appropriate. 2. The initial written request is sent to the Community Development Committee for consideration. This committee will recommend to the Trustees within one month, whether: a. A code change is needed, or b. Some other action is required. 3. If a code change is needed, Trustees discuss, clarify, and revise the problem statement to spell out the policy issue being addressed and the reasons why, the problem to be solved, and the boundaries or constraints within which solutions should be considered. If a majority of the Trustees agree to proceed, the revised problem statement is sent to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for consideration at their next monthly meeting. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commissioners and Staff review the problem statement and: a. Develop initial thoughts on what types of code revisions may be needed to solve the problem, and the implications (pro and con) of these revisions; b. Identify questions or issues that need further discussion or clarification; and, c. Send their thoughts, questions, and issues to the Trustees within one week. If there are significant questions or issues, Planning Commissioners may request a meeting with the Trustees to ensure that a common understanding is reached before any work is initiated. 5. Within one month of receiving Planning Commission feedback, Trustees review input from the Planning Commission, reach final agreement on what problem(s) to solve, and the types of solutions to be considered they will support, and send a final problem statement to the Planning Commission for action. 6. At their next meeting, Estes Valley Planning Commissioners provide Staff with a finalized problem statement, and specific guidelines on what is (and is not) to be addressed in the draft changes. 7. Staff drafts the proposed changes and a schedule for further study sessions and public reviews, and brings to the Planning Commission for discussion. 8. Planning Commission continues to work with Staff to develop the code changes and ensure that these changes meet the objectives set by the Trustees. 9. Planning Commission holds a public review and makes final recommendations to the Trustees, who make the final decisions to approve or disapprove the changes. Work Process for EVDC Changes Template for Problem Statement, Rev. 4: 7/14/09 (Words in parentheses describe what to include under each heading) To: (Staff, Planning Commission, or Board of Trustees) From: (Originator) Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reasons change is needed.) Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to be considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept. 3. Desired timing, 4. Suggested priority for this change.) Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) Developed By: (List Trustees/others who participated in defining the problem, and the date.) TOWN op ESTES PARK~_ Memo Community Development TO: From: Date: RE: Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code F.39* Problem Statement: [insert title] /.4/ Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reps*ffs dAWrige is needed.) 444/ *J474 £ a '*. I ./ 1. Describe issue. 07 2. Describe why it is an issue. EY- 96 3. Important to review all associated issues el~d:Gode lan®age to ensure¢hothing left out that may require additional action at a latel, ti;he.*42' %44.r.1.1 r 43<A..7.- Purpose: (State problem to be solved ir*243:s~ences.)€ 444 i* ~Y;N<*~~$ ~%36,>e '.L Staff recommends that code revisiondlitre draft¢idt.fdr public review to address the issues described above. 4« / Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to~fe considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the wdrk is to be k606 3. Desired timing. 4. Suggested priority for this change.) · '1611.4 'L.1,4-K.t/VP -I Jl:/ 1. Review of.current code. 2. Explainl~e*ardrfi@ters of teview and why. 3. Outlifie,timing of rdview of Problem Statement and subsequent action. 4. Will kthis issue be "housekeeping" or more controversial, such as a historically "hot P .1 button'~ issue or potential NIMBY? 5. Does®is. issue warralitjoint review of Boards? /1. i -.1/ Desired Outcomes: =(Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) 1. The above problem will be corrected 2. Timeframe Page 1 9. TOWN oF ESTES PARKL Memo ~~ . I .... I TO: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Administrator Halburnt Date: September 10, 2010 RE: Upcoming Work Sessions Sept. 28 SOPA Review of Fundraising Efforts Health Insurance October 12 Community Garden October 26 Fire District MOU Renewal November 23 Open Discussion Not scheduled Joint Housing Project - EPHA & TOE Fish Hatchery Property Historic Preservation draft ordinance Town Board Meeting Procedures - draft policy Purchasing Policy = only buy products built by American Companies and built in the USA Medical Marijuana Public Input Plan mm~~£;AtiWA, Medical Marijuana Town of Estes Park Study Session September 14, 2010 We need to establish a foundation on the record for whatever direction we may decide to follow. Without a foundation for our ultimate decision our action would rightfully be open to legal challenge I believe. To establish that foundation I believe the following comments for the record are helpful and perhaps necessary ... 1. Representatives from Timberline Medical; Family Medical and Salud to offer the status of their physicians' ability to currently write prescriptions for medical marijuana. I am not suggesting they offer an opinion as to whether they believe medical marijuana should be available in our Town unless they want to. 2. Iwouldlikeustohearfroman "expert" on medical marijuana as to the benefits of its use and know/unknown long term effects. 3. I would like us to hear from members of the "public" as to their personal feelings about medical marijuana availability in our community. 4. I would like us to hear from local law enforcement what they foresee as potential issues of concern to them. Not whether they are pro or con. 5. Iwould like ustohearfrom " staff" what such regulation would cost in terms of time and effort. Not whether staff is pro or con on the issue. 6. I would like us to have an update upon the action of the Larimer County Commissioners (today's vote) on a resolution to ban dispensing medical marijuana in unincorporated areas of the County. 7. I would like us to hear from our local banks or branches on their policies for accepting deposits from medical marijuana dispensaries. 8. I would like us to hear from any other social services agency or authority about issues we should be made aware. 9. I would like us to hear from any other nearby communities that allow medical marijuana dispensaries abouttheir experiences pro or con. And from the businesses in those nearby communities and their abilities to service Estes Park residents needs. There may be others from whom we would wish to hear to add to this list. 1 would not usually be in favor of "inviting" comment or establishing a list of parties from which we would want to hear versus just allowing those who have a comment and want to show up to offer it to be heard. But due to the unusually nature of the issue I believe it to be a better course of action. Respectfully, Mark Elrod Recycle Town of Estes Park Study Session September 14, 2010 Below is Mayor Pinkham draft response to a citizen regarding recycling. Many thanks for sharing your concerns about recycling. I hope that I can clarify a few issues and respond to your concerns about cardboard and paperboard recycling. As you stated, Sue and I are very supportive of recycling. We currently take our corrugated and cardboard to Fort Collins. I know that many other folks take theirs to Fort Collins, Loveland, or Lyons because they go to the valley anyway for business, medical or shopping purposes. 1 hope the following information will be help. 1. Waste Management's Estes Park facility is a transfer station, not a recycling center. Waste Management is a business, licensed by the county to collect and process waste materials. The issues are both economic and environmental. The waste that is collected there goes to the landfill. We pay for waste collection to cover the cost. The recyclables go to the recycling center. The recyclables are sorted and resold at a price which will hopefully cover the cost of collecting, transporting and sorting. 2. The Transfer Station currently accepts corrugated cardboard and brown paper bags for recycling, Boxes need to be flattened, and wax coated boxes are not accepted. There is a fee of $11.09 per cubic yard for cars and $11.17 per cubic yard fortrucks. 3. Curbside Residential Recycling Service is available for all Estes Park and Carriage Hills residential units that use Waste Management for the trash service. They will pick up glass bottles and jars, plastic containers, aluminum and tin cans, Newspapers, magazines, catalogs, junk mail, and phone books. They will also pick up corrugated cardboard, brown paper bags and chipboard. This is processed by single stream recycling. The property owner has to provide their own boxes, trash cans or other containers. The fee is $9.50 per 96 gallons. Pick up is once a month on a Wednesday. The Estes area is divided into 4 quadrants, so there is pickup in each quadrant once a month. Atlas has indicated that they may also get into curbside collections next spring. They are currently focused on commercial waste hauling. While Commissioner Donnelly may have offered a compactor, operating one involves many issues and costs that would need to be covered by users. A few of the issues that need to be addressed include site location, compactor housing and material storage, security fencing and lighting, paving, operating costs, and transportation to the valley. I believe private enterprise needs to be in the recycling business; not the Town. Furthermore, the needs extend beyond the town limits. I hope that the LWV and the Community Recycling Committee will take the lead in helping to promote the current availability of cardboard recycling.