HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2011-02-08Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 8, 2011
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of February, 2011. Meeting called
to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present:
Also Present:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated appreciation for the signs placed around the bird
sanctuary regarding elk as wild animals.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority meeting
would be held on Wednesday, February 9th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203 and the Public
Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee would be held on Thursday, February
10th at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room.
Trustee Levine stated Pride Award nominations would be available through the month
of March for Volunteer of the Year, Business Person of the Year and Teacher of the
Year. Anyone within the Estes Valley can be nominated for the awards.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 25, 2011 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated January 25, 2011.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, January 27,
2011.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 21, 2010
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated January 4, 2011
(acknowledgement only).
Board ofTrustees — February D.2D11—Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Levi ne/Bl ackhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved,
and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. TRUSTEE LIAISON UPDATES.
Trustee Miller stated the LMDcontinues to move forward with the marketing
programs and received an update from Mi|| Aevium at the last board meeting.
He also attended the Colorado Preservation Saving P|amao conference with
two members of the Historic Preservation Committae, Ron Norris and Sharry
White.
Trustee Levine announced the Tree Board would be seeking one new member
and applicants must be Estes valley residents. He commented on this years
Arbor Day celebration atthe elementary school. This year's Tree Symposium
would include a morning only session and single topic presentations
throughout the summer.
Tn/ohaa Ericson stated SOPA continues to move forward with the formation of
subcommittees and finalizing ofthe 2O11/2012business plan. He commented
the Transportation Visioning Committee has formed 3 separate sub-
committees that would each meet once a month on Wednesdays from 3:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with u monthly meeting for the entire committee on the first
Wednesday ufthe month.
Z TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
° The final 2010 sdmn tax collection was $7.007 niUion, just over the 3010
budget.
° Reminded the public the air curtain burner continues to operate Monday
through Friday and to bring items now rather than waiting until spring when
the burner can become overwhelmed.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 3U11TOWN MISSION, VISION AND GOALS.
The Town Board held a retreat on January 31. 2011 to review and revise the
Tuwn'omission. vieion, guiding principle statements and goals.
Mission Statement ' The Mission ofthe Town ofEstes Park kstoprovide high'
qusdity,ve|iab|onervicasforthebonefitofourcihzens, visitors, and employees,
while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
Vision Statement' The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as
premier mountain resort community.
The2011 Goals include 1) Improve Transportation through enhancing the
visitor experience and reducing congestion; 2) Sustain Infrastructure by
developing m comprehensive street mairtenunoo/rep|acement program and
developing and implementing m capital improvement program for significant
capital projects; 3) Stanley Pork Redevelopment including u review of the
K8PEC pnoformo, establishing u plan for new horse ata||n and resolving the
SDPAfeasibility mt the fairgrounds and F[)SHfunding byMay 2011;4)Bond
Park Redevelopment through the completion of phases | and ||| ofthe master
plan an developing the scope for phase ||; and 5) Develop Economic
Strategy by exploring grant opportunities, evaluating economic development
opportunities and participate in economic development plan with Lahmer
County.
Board of Trustees — February 8, 2011 — Page 3
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated the town should preserve the wildlife in
the community, and therefore, include wildlife in the town goals.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the Mission,
Vision, and Goals for 2011, and it passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #02-11 RE -APPROPRIATION OF 2010 ENCUMBERED
FUNDS TO 2011 BUDGET.
Finance Officer McFarland stated some Town departments entered into
contracts in 2010 for goods and/or services that were not fulfilled by the end of
2010; therefore, the funds are rolled over to 2011. There are 55 items totaling
$1.939 million that include funds for the MPEC, Marys Lake Water Treatment
Plant upgrades, infrastructure, vehicle replacement and software. After
additional discussion, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to
approve Resolution #02-11 to re -appropriate funds from 2010 to 2011
budget, and it passed unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE #04-11 AUTHORIZING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO
ENFORCE VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL & DEVELOPMENT CODES.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. The Community Development and
Police departments share primary responsibility for code
compliance/enforcement. The Code Enforcement Officers from Community
Development have been sworn in by the Police Chief; however, the individuals
do not currently have clear authority to issue summons of complaint into
Municipal Court. The proposed ordinance would allow the officers to have
authority to enforce sections of the Municipal Code, including Chapter 5.20
Business Licenses, Chapter 8.04 General Disturbances, Chapter 8.05 Beetle -
Infested Trees, Section 9.16.070 Littering of Public and Private Property,
Chapter 10.16 Recreational Vehicles, Travel Trailers and Tents, Title 12
Streets and Sidewalks, Title 14 Buildings and Construction, and Title 17
Zoning. Town staff would continue to obtain voluntary compliance before
issuing summons to court.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen requested the Town review the complaint process
to allow the complaint to remain anonymous.
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing and Attorney White read Ordinance
#04-11 into the record. After additional discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Levine/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #04-11, and it passed
unanimously.
4. REGIONAL TOURISM PROJECT AT THE ELKHORN LODGE.
Town Administrator Halburnt provided background on the Regional Tourism
Act that would approve up to 2 projects funded by increment sales tax funding
to attract significant investment and revenue from outside the designated
regional tourism zone. The applicant must be a local government. A separate
regional tourism authority would have to be created to receive and utilize the
state sales tax increment revenue. Applications must be submitted by March
21, 2011 and the cost to prepare an application is estimated at $40,000 to
$50,000 with an additional $50,000 for a private assessment of the project to
be paid for by the applicant if the project were to move forward. If approved by
the Board the funding would come from the Community Reinvestment Fund.
Frank Theis and Todd Jirsa provided an overview of the project on the Elkhorn
Lodge property that would include the restoration of the current lodge, cultural
art centers and an Adventure Park with downhill skiing, tubing, alpine coaster
Board of Trustees — February 8, 2011 — Page 4
and other year-round activities. The project would provide a year-round
economy by strengthening the winter months, create jobs, promote Estes Park
and help other districts. The RTA would provide 50% of the cost of the project
with 10% from the Town and private investment providing the remainder of the
funding.
Board comments and questions are summarized: questioned if the Town had
to pay for the application or could a third party; several Board members stated
concem with the Town's fiduciary responsibility; questioned if the project would
move forward without the Town's involvement; funding suggestions included a
cost sharing with the private sector or the private sector paying for the initial
application; the planning process does not occur within 6 weeks and there has
not been enough documentation presented for the Board to make a decision
on this speculative investment; the voters abolished EPURA in 2010 and
thereby stating government should not be involved in public/private
partnerships; no financial documentation has been presented relative to sales
tax; and questioned how the project would meet sales tax projects when lift
tickets are not taxable.
Mr. Theis commented the project would most likely move forward without the
Town supporting an application for RTA funding. The benefit of RTA funding
would include the ability of the authority to bond and build the project
immediately. Mr. Jirsa stated if the project moves forward solely as a private
venture, the Town would still need to support the project with water. The
authority would be different than EPURA because the increment would be from
the state sales tax and not the other special districts, create jobs, economic
stability, and the community supports the project unlike the plan presented by
EPURA.
Public comment in support of the Town submitting the application was heard
from Ron Wilcocks/County citizen, Dave Ranglos/ County citizen, Curt
Cleaves/County citizen, Kimberly Campbell/Town citizen, Richard
Homeier/Town citizen, Linda Chapman/Town citizen and John Kamprath/Town
citizen. The project would create jobs in the community and increase winter
activity. The Town would have to be in support and show commitment toward
the project in order to have private investors interested in the project. Many
stated concern that funding was the primary issue for not moving forward with
the application to potentially receive millions of dollars in funding to improve
the Town's economy.
Public comment in opposition of the Town submitting the application was heard
from Greg Rosener/Town citizen, Claire Beesley/Town citizen, Charley
Dickey/Town citizen, Kathryn Hoenbein/County citizen and Johanna
Darden/Town citizen. The Town would have to pull funds from another project
with no guarantee the proposal would be accepted. The private sector should
come together to fund the application. There were questions as to why the
preparation of the application would be so expensive if most of the work and
information already existed. A governmental body should not assume the risk
associated with the application. Concern was raised over the limited timeframe
to prepare the application and the number of outstanding questions of how the
project would move forward if approved.
Ron Wilcocks/County citizen and former EPURA Commissioner questioned the
difference between an URA and an RTA. He stated the URA abolished by the
voters could have been used because the property was already in the
boundary. He also stated the formation of a new RTA would have to go to a
vote of the people.
Board of Trustees — February 8, 2011 — Page 5
Attorney White stated the projected water needs for this project are estimated
at 30 acre feet of fully consumable water. The Town has 300 acre feet of
Windy Gap water that could be used to fulfill the needs of the project; however,
the Town has not assessed how the use of the water would affect the Town's
long range water needs. In the past, the Town has used up to 225 feet of the
300 feet of Windy Gap water in one year.
Discussion followed amongst the Board on how to fund the application process
with Trustee Blackhurst not in support of funding the application due to a lack
of information and the project not meeting the criteria of an RTA project;
Trustee Miller would support the application if matching funds were available;
Trustee Koenig supports moving forward to revitalize the community if both the
preparation costs and assessment fee could have the support of matching
private funds; Mayor Pro Tem Levine stated support for the application and the
matching funding; Trustee Ericson stated the Town should fund half the
application cost with funds from the Mayor's contingency with the additional
funds for the application funded by private funds; Trustee Elrod commented
the application does not make business sense and would not support the
application unless private funds were used for the entire preparation costs; and
Mayor Pinkham stated the application would be worth pursuing to answer
questions and to see if the project could move forward. Further discussions
followed on how and if there was enough time to conduct an RFP process to
hire a consultant to prepare the proposal if the Town were to fund the
application. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the RFP process would take a
minimum of 2 weeks to a month to complete. After additional discussion, it was
moved and seconded (Koenig/Levine) to support the RTA application
contingent on private funding of the application preparation cost in order
to eliminate the Town's RFP process to hire a consultant, and it passed.
Those voting "Yes" Trustees Ericson, Koenig, Levine, and Miller. Those voting
"No" Trustees Blackhurst and Elrod.
Mayor Pinkham called a break at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
5. ORDINANCE #03-11 — PUBLIC HEARING - 2011 - 2013 WATER RATE
INCREASE.
Mayor Pinkham continued the public hearing from the January 25, 2011
meeting. Interim Utilities Director Richardson stated the Board approved a
5.6% water rate increase for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Since the adoption of the
recommended plan revenues have not met projections (water sales down
5.8%, investment income down 88(Y0 and development tap fees down 71%),
debt service requirements have increased due to the improvements at the
Marys Lake water treatment plant, conservation has increased, less interest
income realized, less bulk water revenue, additional costs associated with
sewer tap fees for the water treatment plant, and the addition of depreciated
assets for the first time in 2007 were included in the plan. The Water
department has deferred capital improvement projects in order to meet the
decrease in revenue and increased costs for the past three years. The 2010
rate study included the capital improvement plan, depreciated assets and debt
service requirements through 2015. Staff recommended a 6.7% (3.7% budget
and 3% depreciated value) increase for all service classes for the next 3 years
to meet budget and work toward fully funding depreciation. The proposed rate
would increase the average town residential customer bill by $2.10 per month.
The annual water depreciation for 1 mile of pipe replacement is $528,000 and
the Town has 109 miles of pipe with a life expectancy of 40 years. The Town's
current system contains pipe over 44 years old and 55% is 31 years and older.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated concerns regarding future water usage
and water rights. She stated those using water should be charged
@oardofTrustees—Pebruary 8.2V11—Page 6
proportionately for the usage. She would also advocate for additional
conservation methods to encourage citizens to use less water.
Richard Hnmear/Towmcitizen commented the rates are reasonable and does
not disagree with improving the system; however, the LVi|iUeu Committee
should review what constitutes a capital expenditure versus a maintenance
cost. There should be an accurate accounting of the costs for the uU|ity, and
the rates should not fund General Fund projects or programs. He stated 8.5%
nfthe rate increase would flow into the General Fund through transfers.
Rick Grabish/Courty citizen reviewed definitions for cont-based, retum,
investment, return on inveobnant, profit, not -for -profit, nonprofit, onpito|, gain,
capital gain and dividend. He stated if the terms were used an defined then
there might not beaomany issues raised during the rate discussion.
Trustee Koenig stated she would like to see the full rate increase uf8.7Y6for
both meter and volumetric fees. She commented on the need to resolve the
funding issue for the uU|ih/ and not continue to increase the funding shortfall
for the Water department.
Trustee yNiUor stated concern with the methodology used for depreciation and
the replacement pmgnom, and n\nansod the need for the Board and the public
Voreview the QPfor the utilities. The Town should also look at other revenue
sources such astap fees to fund depreciation. He recommended the Board
review the 8.596 transfer during the 2011 budget pnoomaa. Trustees Ericson
and Elrod agreed areview ofthe C|Pand transfers are needed in2011�
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing and Attorney White read Ordinance
#03-11 into the record. After additional dinoumsion, it was moved and
seconded (B|ookhurnVLevino) to approve Ordinance #03-11 to reflect a
5.0% increase for meter and volumetric charges for2011 ' 2013, and it
passed. Those voting ^Nn" Trustees Elrod, Ericson, and Koenig and those
voting "Yes" Trustees B|aokhurst and Miller, and Mayor Pro Tam Levine,
resulting in aUe vote. Mayor Pinkham oast a ^Yon^ voto, breaking the tie.
Q. ORDINANCE #O5'11 —PUBLKC HEARING '2011 '2013 ELECTRIC RATE
INCREASE.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. Interim Utilities Director
Richardson stated a 0001 of service analysis and rate study was conducted by
MDR for the Light and Power Department. The study recommended an
increase in a|ooiho rates of 2.896 in 2011 and 1.4% increase each year
thereafter beginning in 2012through 2015. The study also recommended the
implementation of a minimum energy billing for residential and small
commercial customer classes. The minimum charge would only be charged to
customers that do not use the minimum amount of energy per month. Staff
recommended adopting the rate increases proposed by HORthnough 2013
and re-evaluating the plan to determine if the 1.4% would be needed in 2014
and 2015. Ci| Pierce and Kevin Lurontz*n/HDR Enginaehng provided on
overview ofthe notm study and ouot of service. The key issues addressed
included adequate funding to maintain the existing nystom, renewal and
replacement funding homaintain level ofservice, and reset the purchase power
rider tozero in2O11 with future purchase power riders aoapass through from
PRPA. The rate adjustments would allow for a healthier debt service ratio and
moot O&M through 2015. Net metering would continue to receive u credit
each month for excess energy at the wholesale energy cost and be refunded
once ayear.
Board of Trustees — February 8, 2011 — Page 7
Trustee Elrod questioned what the other 28 municipally owned electric systems
charge per kWh; what rate increases the utility may foresee; do they have
transfer payments; what due diligence is used to determine the percent of the
transfer; and what does the Town do to determine the transfer percentage.
Town Administration Halburnt stated staff would survey the other municipalities
and bring the results forward for review during the budget process.
Trustee Koenig commented that past Boards have made decisions that have
made the utility sound and have followed the recommendation of the
consultants hired to perform the analysis. She stated support for the minimum
monthly charge that would help alleviate the year-round residents sustaining
the system for the seasonal residents. Trustees Miller and Ericson also stated
support for the minimum fee.
Public comment was heard from Jane Rutledge/Town citizen, Bob Risch/Town
citizen, Richard Homeier/Town citizen and John Nicolas/Town citizen
requesting the Board review reducing costs and not increasing rates; taxes
and transfers should not be considered a revenue requirement and seem to be
arbitrary; suggested conducting a rate study of the other municipally owned
electric utilities and decreasing the rate of transfer to cover the CIP for the next
several years; and the cost of service should be discussed at the next budget
process as well as franchise fees.
Mayor Pinkham stated the Town has a large service area with less customers
per area compared to larger municipalities, and therefore, the cost to provide
the service is significantly more. Trustee Blackhurst commented the dividend
paid to the Town by the Enterprise fund is for the initial investment made by
the Town in developing the utility.
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing and Attorney White read Ordinance
#05-11 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to
approve Ordinance #05-11, and it passed with Trustee Elrod voting "No".
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the reetin /Z!10 a.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jac le Williamson, Town Clerk