HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2011-01-25Town ofEstes Park, LahnnerCounty, Colorado, January 25.2011
Minutes of o Regular nnewbn0 of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Pork, LohrnerCounty. Colorado. Meeting held inthe Town Hall in said Town
ofEstes Park onthe 25 mday pfJanuary, 2O11. Meeting called toorder by
Mayor Pinkham.
Present:
Also Present:
William C.Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tern
Trustees Eric B|aokhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jmcouie Ha|burnt, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town /\drn|nietruk»r
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at7:OO p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
SWEARING |NQFPOLICE OFFICER N|CKLyO0S.
Town Clerk Williamson conducted a swearing in ceremony for Police Officer Lyons.
RESOLUTION OFRESPECT —HO0BALL.
Mayor Pinkham presented Ron Ball with a Resolution of Respect for his nu|e in keeping
western cowboy heritage alive through his music as Estes Park's Singing Cowboy.
RECOGNITION OFKELL8|EPURDY—MISS RODEO COLORAOO2O11
Mayor Pinkham presented KeUsio Purdy with a Resolution of Respect recognizing her
accomplishment as the first Rooftop Rodeo Queen to be crowned Miss Rodeo
Co|orodu2U11. Healso presented her with $5.00Otohelp offset her travel costs for the
year. The Town Board unveiled o banner in Ko||miu'a honor that will be placed along
Hwy 34/36 interchange during 2011 when the banner location is not being used.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Mayor Pro Tern Levine stated anyone nominated for onEstes Park Pride Awards would
also be nominated for the LahmerCoun4/ volunteer awards. He also reviewed the
nomination process for the awards and encouraged the community to nominate
individuals through the month ofMarch.
Trustee Ehounn thanked Town Administrator He|bumt for the revised 2011
organizational chart that demonstrates the appropriate supervisory authority. He was
also pleased tosee the Planning Commission reviewing solar power issues.
Mayor Pinkham stated the Town certified 70 town employees in CPR through the Police
Department.
Y' CONSENT AGENDA:
1 . Town Board Minutes dated January 18, 2011.
Board of Trustees — January 25, 2011 — Page 2
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, January 13, 2011.
1. Estes Valley Victim Advocate 2011 Contract.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 20, 2010
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Koenig) the Consent Agenda be approved, and
it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES.
Trustee Miller accompanied the LMD to the Colorado Tourism office to meet
state and national officials. Al White/Head of Tourism Office has offered to
attend a joint meeting with the Town and the LMD to discuss state tourism
issues such as heritage tourism. Governor Hickenlooper has also announced
the development of an ambassador program to encourage businesses to
relocate to Colorado and to promote tourism to attract visitors.
Trustee Koenig reported Sister Cities has begun organizing a group of Park R-
3 students to visit Monte Verde, Costa Rica to learn about the culture and
conduct science experiments.
Trustee Elrod stated the Planning Commission has begun discussing updates
to the Development Code for multi -family and accommodation developments,
review of solar energy codes, and a problem statement for Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) for review by the Town Board and County Commission.
Mayor Pinkham restated comments from the previous Board meeting regarding
Governor Hickenlooper's bottom up approach to the state economy. Members
of the Board attended a conference held by the Northern Colorado Economic
Development group that has brought together Weld and Larimer counties to
discuss the economy with a long range view out to 2050.
2. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL REPORT.
Director Chilcott stated the Town Board and the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners reached consensus at the August 30, 2010 joint
meeting with the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) that the current
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as a whole continues to be a valid document
that requires some updating. EVPC has discussed the process for updating
the plan through community outreach, education andoutreach to special
districts. She requested the Board provide staff with any specific
recommendations on how the plan should be updated. Trustee Blackhurst
stated concern with possible duplication of efforts with the EVPC and the
Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) Committee reviewing guidelines for
historic preservation. Trustee Elrod stated the HPO Committee is establishing
recommendations at the town level ,and the EVPC is looking at the issue from
valley wide.
3. SIGN CODE EDUCATION AND LED SIGNS.
Director Chilcott stated the revised Sign Code was adopted by the Town Board
on November 9, 2010. Proactive enforcement of the code would begin on
February 1, 2011. Staff has facilitated community education on the new code
including creating a handbook, a brochure, press releases, redesign of the
Board ofTrustees — January 25, 2O11—Page 3
Community Development wabohawith regard to oignago, held public forums,
visited businesses to distribute brochures and answer questions, attended
Board of Realtors meeting and provided handouts for the Clerk's Office to
provide with new business licensing. Staff has developed and the Board
approved the bylaws for the Creative Sign Design Review Board. Positions on
the Board have been advertised and recommendations are expected to be
forwarded to the Town Board in February. Staff continues to review
infonneUon related to LED sign negu|adone, and would request returning to the
Board with recommendation at the second meeting in March to adequately
naviavv the issue. It is the recommendation of staff to also bring back any
clarifications or changes to the sign code that may be needed after enforcing
the new code the next two months. One area that should be udd:seomd
includes the need for on annual master permit for uma||'ooa|o nonprofit
odvertioing, which would reduce uooho for the nonprofits and reduce staff time.
Trustee Koenig appreciated the master permit for nonprofits. Trustee K4i||or
questioned if e fee would be necessary and would an annual permit be
necessary for ongoing events.
4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
° Reminded citizens that annual dog licenses are available.
° The 1OOblock ofMacGregor Avenue would baclosed for up0oamonth hn
replace water and sewer mains for Town Hall.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Ordinance #01-11, Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
— Amend Section 13.3 definitions for Impervious Surfaces and Lot
Coverage. Mayor Pinkhamopened the public hearing. Aareported at
the January 11. 2011 meohng, this amendment would clarify that
permeable pavement is not exempt from impervious surface or lot
coverage standards. The Development Code e||owm the EVPC to
approve up to m 25% variance to lot coverage if the design would be
beneficial. She stated the definitions have been updated anrequested
at the previous meeting. [NayorPinkham o|uoed the public hearing
and Attorney White read the ordinance. |twas moved and seconded
(B|aokhumKMi||er) to approve Ordinance #01'11, and it passed
unanimously.
B. Ordinance #O2-11.Amendment tothe Estes Valley Development Code
— Remove all references to Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
(EPURA). Mayor Pinkhom opened the public hearing. The Town
Board abolished EPURA with the approval of Ordinance #04-10
following the passage of the oiUoon initiative in January2O10. Mayor
Pinkham closed the public hearing and /#±onnoy White rood the
ordinance. It was moved and seconded (K4iUor/B|aukhunt) to
approve Ordinance #U2-11.and itpassed unanimously.
4- ACTION ITEMS:
1. FINANCIAL SOFTWARE UPGRADE.
At the January meeting of the Public Safety, Utilities and Public VVodm
Committee, staff presented the proposed upgrade of the existing HTE financial
software purchased bythe Town in1A92. The upgrade would allow the use uf
standard oenx*m, new workflow automation, ability to extract data and create
reports and maintenance cost savings. A user group did identify one other
company capable of migrating the current system into a new software package;
however, the group agreed to remain with the current provider and negotiate an
Board of Trustees — January 25, 2011 — Page 4
upgrade to the system through the Town's current maintenance agreement
with Sungard PS. The five year cost to upgrade to Sungard's OneSolution® is
$292,367 and includes maintaining the existing system to run parallel to the
new system, hardware for the new system, and migration/conversion and
training services. The five year cost to maintain the current software and
hardware replacement would total $339,168. After discussion, it was moved
and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the upgrade to the HTE
financial software, and it passed unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE #03-11 — PUBLIC HEARING - 2011 - 2013 WATER RATE
INCREASE.
Interim Director Richardson stated HDR Engineering was hired to perform a
rate and cost of service analysis for both utilities. HDR reviewed the study with
the Town Board at the study session on December 14, 2010. Cil Pierce/HDR
reviewed the process used and stated a comprehensive rate study consists of
assessing the revenue requirements, cost of service, and rate design.
Financial planning considerations included a review of debt service coverage
ratios, minimum reserve levels, financing capital projects and adequately
funding the renewal/replacement of existing infrastructure to maintain level of
service in the most cost effective manner. The proposed rate adjustments of
6.4% in 2011 and 6.8% for 2012-2015 would increase the funding for capital
improvements through rates. The average urban residential customer's bill
would increase $2.80 per month per year. HDR also reviewed the water rate
structure and recommended the Town maintain the current structure and adjust
the rates to meet American Water Works Association (AWWA) meter capacity
ratings for all customer rates. This would significantly increase the cost to
customers with a 1 % inch to 4 inch services; therefore, HDR presented a three
year gradual implementation of the increase. A review of 10 municipally owned
utility weighting factors demonstrated most were twice those of Estes Park.
The proposed changes to meter rates would increase the revenue generated
by meters from 38% to 40%. The increase would provide more revenue
stability for the utility due to conservation and lower usage in the off-season.
Trustee Koenig commented on the equity of charging a 4 inch main meter
considerably more than a 1 inch main, especially because the larger mains
belong to property tax entities such as the school and the hospital. Staff stated
the use by a 4 inch meter is expediential and places a greater demand on the
system. The smaller metered customers would have to subsidize the larger
users if the current low rate remains.
Trustee Miller stated the HDR report contains the revenue projections but has
not provided information on expenses. The expenses and the capital
improvement plan should be reviewed by the Board and the public. There are
other revenue sources besides rates that would be available for capital such as
impact fees and system development fees. Mayor Pinkham commented that
rates are a stable platform for revenue to meet debt service ratios. Interim
Director Richardson stated the utility must at a minimum meet the debt service
commitment to avoid having the note called and to maintain a good bond rating
for future projects.
Trustee Koenig questioned if the utility had assets such as water rights that
could be sold to help stave off an increase at this time. Town Administrator
Halburnt stated the Board could recommend selling water rights; however, this
would be a short term solution and rates would have to increase in the future.
Attorney White commented on the need to determine the amount of water
Estes Park may need in the future.
Discussion followed on the impacts of not raising the rates or delaying a rate
increase for up to 8 months. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the utility may
Board of Trustees — January 25, 2011 — Page 5
be operating at a 2% deficient because the approved budget contained a 2%
increase in revenue anticipating a rate increase. Ms. Pierce stated the rate
study model suggested the utility would need a minimum of 4.5% increase to
meet the debt service ratio. Trustee Miller suggested a rate increase of 2% be
considered this year to meet budget, which would provide the Town time to
review other options and the CIP for both utilities. The Board agreed staff
should provide additional information on the expenses related to O&M and the
CIP for 2011; an overview of what the proposed 6.4% rate increase would
fund; and the funds needed to meet the debt service ratio of 1.1. Trustee Elrod
stated the 8.5% of sales transferred to the General Fund should be reviewed to
determine how the number was developed and if it is reasonable.
Superintendent Boles stated a lower increase now would require scheduled
replacement to be delayed and potentially cost more in the future. Rate
increases would most likely be higher in the future to meet annual depreciation.
Mayor Pinkham stated the Board needs to understand the magnitude of the
projects in order to make a decision on rates.
Ron Norris/Town citizen requested the Town state the assumptions for the debt
service ratio, state the costs for the next 5 years and review areas of cost
reduction/containment for the utility.
Rex Poggenpohl/County citizen commented the transfer of utility funds to the
General Fund annually is taxation without representation. He stated with low to
no inflation in the economy a 6% increase in water rates would be
unconscionable.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated she would be opposed to the Town
selling any water rights.
Jim Swaney/County citizen commented the basis for rates is to cover average
cost of the utility with the long term cost being the marginal cost. The people
that need the increase capacity should pay for that service. He suggested the
Board encourage customers to conserve by considering a basis rate for the
first 1,000 gallons of use per month and a much higher cost for additional
usage.
After additional discussion, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Koenig) to
continue the public hearing to February 8, 2011, and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Pinkham called a break at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:30 p.m.
3. ORDINANCE #04-11- PUBLIC HEARING - 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
CODE ADOPTION.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing, and Chief Building Official
Birchfield provided a presentation outlining the adoption process for the 2009 (-
Codes. He state the Town is currently using the 2003 I -Codes adopted in
2005. Three codes would be adopted as primary codes (International Building
Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC) and International Existing
Building Code (IEBC)) with the remaining 6 secondary codes adopted by
reference. Staff has worked with the stakeholders, networked with other local
users and met one-on-one with individuals to address concerns related to the
adoption and proposed local amendments to the 2009 I -Codes for the past 2
years. In order to move the adoption of the codes forward, staff requested
direction related to setting a building fee schedule, automatic sprinkler system
requirements for both the IEBC and the IRC, participation in the Community
Rating System (CRS) and the Board of Appeals having authority over all
decisions of the building official. The Town adopted the 1997 Uniform Building
Board of Trustees — January 25, 2011 — Page 6
Code fee schedule with the 2003 I -Codes that have been adjusted over time
through the increase in valuation of a project. The new codes would require
the sprinkling of new residential single-family homes, and it is the opinion of
staff and the Fire Chief to not include this requirement; however, staff
recommends facilitating additional meeting with stakeholders to modify the
standards for Estes Park. Participation in the CRS program could reduce the
insurance rates for citizens. The Town already has a number of regulations in
place that would qualify under the program such as 50 foot river setbacks in or
Development Code, which would provide Estes Park policy holders credit
toward their insurance premiums.
Trustee Blackhurst stated sprinkling should be considered for new commercial
construction or a single-family home over a set square footage (new or
remodel). Trustee Miller suggested a trade-off system could be implemented,
for example increase building requirements related to fire rating to eliminate the
need for a sprinkler system. He also stated concern with using valuation to
determine if a remodel would require sprinkling, and suggested staff consider
square footage. The Board consensus was to have staff receive more input
from the stakeholders in the community on local amendments for sprinkler
systems.
The Board consensus was to adopt the fee schedule separate from the
building codes to allow them to be changed when necessary.
Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town should evaluate the application process for
the CRS, what components of the program are already in place, and
encouraged staff to coordinate a meeting with FEMA and Public Works with
regard to the drainage system.
Paul Brown/Town citizen appreciated the efforts of the building department to
involve the community in reviewing the local amendments and adoption of the
new codes.
Joe Calvin/Town citizen and local architect stated support for the adoption of
the new codes. He would recommend the Board adopt the IEBC because it is
useful when remodeling an existing building that cannot meet the new code
requirements. The IEBC contains provisions for 50% alteration of an existing
building that could be used for sprinkler requirements.
After additional discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to
continue the public hearing to the March 22, 2011 meeting, and it passed
unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting 11:4
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
William C. Pinkham, Mayor