HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Special Meeting 2011-01-18Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 18, 2011
Minutes of o Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park' Lahnnar County' Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Perk on the 18" day of January, 2011. Meeting
called toorder byMayor Pinkhann.
Also Present:
William C. Fqnkhano'K4ayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tern
Trustees Erin 8|ankhurot
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry K4iUor
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jaoquio Ha|burnt' Town Administrator
LnvvoU Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Jackie VViUiarnoon' Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do a4
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Nona.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Mayor Hnkham congratulated the organizers of the Winter Festival on another
successful event that benefited businesses in Town during the off-season. The Mayor
and Town Administrator Hm|bunntattend Governor Hickmn|ooper'aregional economic
meeting in Loveland to discuss u ^bottom'up" plan to revitalize the stato'n economy.
The Governor also intends to reinstate a $15 million budget for the State Tourism
office. Town Administrator Ho|bumt stated she invited the new governor to Estes Park.
1- CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 11.2O11and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated January 11.2011.
It was moved and seconded (Levi ne/B|aGkhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved.
and itpassed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. BOND PARK PHASES |& III DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
Scott Zurn/Pub|ioVVodm Director stated in September. 2810 RG Consultants
and Winston Associates were hired to design and engineer the construction
documents for Bond Park Phases | and |||, an identified by the Bond Park
K4oetor Plan. Using preferences identified in three stakeholders maetingo, the
design team created a plan and budget options for the Board's consideration.
Paul Kuhn/Winston Asnnciskou provided u summary of the preferred design
that included m curvilinear one-way alignment of MacGregor Avenue with
Board of Trustees — January 18, 2011 — Page 2
concrete band to delineate the end of the roadway, use of pavers to stripe
parking spaces, tinted and exposed aggregate concrete for the event
promenade, river boulders or sandstone slabs as parking bollards to delineate
parking space on the raised roadway, a boulder seating ring with sandstone
pavers at the corner of Park Lane and MacGregor Avenue, planters with raised
seat walls as a bid alternate, eliminate metal tree grates and replace with
decorative curb over the tree grates with sandstone, and a consolidation of
handicap spaces in front of the public restrooms. The preferred concept plan
would have 75 event tent locations between the two phases, with the other
approximately 25 located throughout the park in future phases. The proposed
sidewalk on the northwest corner could be eliminated to save the existing
health trees, which would remove two event tent spaces.
The Board discussed the costs associated with colored and/or stamped
concrete versus unit pavers and the maintenance of both materials. Trustee
Koenig expressed concern the boulders may attract children creating a
potential hazard. The design team would review options including using
smaller boulders, larger spacing and grouping versus one boulder.
Gary Welp/RG Consultants reviewed the proposed costs for construction of
phases I and III and the potential alternate construction phasing: 1) $708,575
for completion of both phases; 2) $631,818 reduce scope of Park Lane from
Elkhorn to Virginia; 3) $548,002 reduce scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to
mid -block between Virginia and MacGregor; and 4) $490,589 reduce scope of
Park Lane from Elkhorn to MacGregor. Further reductions could be realized
with a change in materials utilized in the plan of up to $112,000. The
disadvantage to breaking up the project would be an unattractive transition with
unmatched curb and sidewalk.
The Board questioned whether or not a delay in construction would increase
the overall construction costs. Director Zurn stated additional phasing would
increase the costs because of an increase in material costs and construction
staging. Trustee Miller stated alternative materials could be used to reduce the
cost of the construction, thereby completing the two phases with the approved
budget. Trustee Blackhurst reiterated the need to move forward with the
preferred plan, finalize the design and receive bids before discussing
alternatives.
Director Zurn commented staff recommended and the Board approved the
design of phases I and III; however, staff did not anticipate constructing both
phases at one time because of the limited Open Space funds of $500,000
available by July 2011. Town Administrator Halburnt informed the Board that
additional funds for the project could be allocated from the Community
Reinvestment Fund.
Ron Norris/County resident stated support of the motion to approve the
preferred plan and go out to bid. He stated the hardscaping of the park should
be completed at one time for the benefit of the citizens and the visitors.
Frank Theis/Town resident commented there is tremendous interest in
construction projects currently and the Town would receive competitive bids.
He encouraged the Board to bid alternative materials.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) to approve the preferred
design for Bond Park phases I & III and approve the solicitation of
construction bids for both phases, and it passed unanimously. Trustee
Blackhurst thanked staff, the design team and the stakeholders group for their
time and effort on the project.
Board of Trustees — January 18, 2011 — Page 3
The stakeholder group recommended the addition of a storm drainage system
to service Bond Park and the surrounding area, which is outside the scope of
the original project. The additional element has been estimated at $120,000
and could be funded from the 2011 Community Reinvestment Fund. This is
not within the scope of the project and Open Space funds would not be
appropriate source of funding.
Town Administrator Halburnt stated Kevin Schwery/owner of property adjacent
to Bond Park is amenable to an easement through his property for a drainage
easement, and in return, he has requested improvements to the area and a
waiver from setback requirements. Director Zurn stated the design of the park
is dependent on the construction of the storm drainage from MacGregor to
Park Lane; additional funding would be needed to complete the connection to
Virginia Drive. He recommended this project be combined with the RFP for
Bond Park phases I and III. After further discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Miller/Levine) to approve the design and construction bidding
for the storm drainage system along Park Lane and MacGregor Avenue to
the Big Thompson River from the Community Reinvestment Fund in the
amount not to exceed $120,000 with a 1O% contingency, and it passed
unanimously.
2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR WATER AND LIGHT AND POWER.
HDR consulting presented the results of their rate study for Water and Light
and Power at the December 14, 2010 Town Board study session. The
presentation addressed each utility's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as
part of the recommended rate increases. For each utility it was stated rate
increases are based in part on their CIP's. The HDR report identified other
factors that require increased rates including operation and maintenance
expenses, taxes and transfers, debt service obligations and source of supply
expenses. CIPs consider the renewal and replacement of equipment,
regulatory requirements and growth related facilities. As the infrastructure for
each utility ages the price to maintain or replace equipment increases.
Matching the depreciation value of assets each year and maintaining an
adequate revenue base to maintain water and electric requires consistent
reasonable rate adjustments. For both utilities maintaining redundancy is a
critical component to the operations of the Town's utility services for the
community. These redundancies directly impact the capital budget and fund
balances for each utility to include planning their respective CIPs.
Traditionally staff has developed the CIP with assistance from outside
consulting services. The plans have been approved annually through the
budget process and have historically been presented in the financial plans and
rate studies. The current CIPs for both utilities contain a replacement timeline
for 2011 through 2015. When developing the CIP the following are considered:
staff knowledge and experience of the system, computer generated modeling,
professional engineering consultants, age of the capital asset, current condition
of the system, depreciation replacement values, financial resources and
prioritization determined.
With a combination of debt service obligations and rates failing to adequately
fund capital improvements, HDR has recommended a portion of the proposed
rate increases fund the Water CIP. By adopting HDR's recommendations the
Water utility would move closer to meeting the replacement of their depreciated
value on its capital assets. Water utility has not met the standard depreciation
replacement ratios except when bonding a capital project. The water system
has an infrastructure value of $23.5 million and an annual depreciation value of
$589,022 with an average useful life of 40 years.
Since 2005 Light and Power has maintained its budget replacement
depreciation ratios with exception of two years. A combination of bonding
capital projects and adequate replacement budgeting of capital assets has met
Board of Trustees — January 18, 2011 — Page 4
the recommendations for standard depreciation ratios; however, replacement
values for future replacement capital is assumed to be 1 % to 2 times the value
compared to the actual purchase price. Light and Power is achieving minimum
standards but is not meeting future value replacement costs. The electric
system has an infrastructure value of $23.8 million and an annual depreciation
value of $595,157 with an average useful life of 40 years.
Each utility carries a debt from past capital projects, whether from a loan or
from bonded debt, with obligations that affect the ability of the utilities to bond
in the future and receive preferable bond ratings in the future. Debt service
ratios must be maintained or sanctions could be placed upon the utility. These
ratios are met through maintaining revenues.
Trustee Miller and Blackhurst questioned what other methods besides rates
might be used to meet revenue needs. Trustee Miller stated the Town should
develop a formal CIP process, as a long range planning tool, that outlines the
projects and the costs associated. He recommended a plan be developed this
spring in order to be incorporated into the 2012 budget. Trustee Ericson and
Blackhurst agreed. Trustee Ericson also recommended the Town develop a
program for the indigent and low income because rate increases are more
burdensome on this segment of the population. Town Administrator Halburnt
acknowledged there are programs in place such as Larimer County Energy
Assistance Program (LEAP); however, the Town could look at other options.
Mayor Pinkham stated Crossroads also provides assistance with utility bills.
Trustee Elrod questioned how the percentages of projected taxes for Light and
Power were determine; 2.5% in -lieu -of -tax payment of urban revenue, 3%
franchise fee of urban revenue and 8.5% of total utility revenue transferred to
General Fund. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the fees have been traced
back to 1966 with references to rent and payment in -lieu -of -taxes (PILOT).
The transfer to the General Fund has ranged from 8.5% to 10%, as approved
by the Board annually during the budget process. HDR has stated the dividend
paid is within standards, with some dividends as high as 20% in other
communities. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the transfer to the General
Fund is a dividend, a return on investment for the initial development of the
utilities by the Town; payment in -lieu of tax because the municipal owned
utilities do not pay property tax; and the funds are used to operate departments
such as the museum and senior center that are not typically operated by local
government. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town utility rates are significantly
lower than other Front Range and mountain town communities. Staff has been
fiscally responsible. He does have some concern with the proposed rates,
especially the meter fees that may go up as high as 500%; however, without
revenues from the Town's investment in the utilities, services would have to be
cut.
Rick Grabish/County resident suggested in an effort to be as transparent and
an effort to gain public trust, he recommend the Town be clearer with
descriptions and more open about why the increased rates are needed.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeg 9:25 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jckie Williamson, Town Clerk