HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2011-11-08
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 8, 2011.
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION
of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at
Town Hall in Rooms 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the
8th day of November, 2011.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller
Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, PIO Rusch, Chief Kufeld,
Planner Shirk, CBO Birchfield, and Deputy Town Clerk
Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS AND UTILIZATION.
Following the October 11th Town Board meeting at which the results of the citizen
survey were reviewed, PIO Rusch prepared a follow-up report to provide information
requested by the Board. The report addressed: Estes Park’s overall ranking in
comparison to benchmarks; how other communities use survey results; areas where
Estes Park falls below the benchmark and the community’s interest in addressing these
issues; and the importance of issues and Town projects and the community’s
willingness to fund these projects.
PIO Rusch said an overall ranking was not provided in the survey results, however the
Town was rated much above, or above, the benchmark as a place to live; in value of
services for taxes paid; and for services provided by the Town, which may give an
indication of where Estes Park would rank overall; and noted that Colorado community
benchmarks can be added to survey results for an additional fee. She said most
communities survey their citizens every two to three years and use the data for
orientation of public officials; to debrief board members and department heads; and to
formulate action plans, focus groups, ad hoc committees, and performance measures
when appropriate.
She reviewed a list of 20 community characteristics and two Town services that were
below the national benchmark, along with action that has been, or will be, taken to
improve these issues. Discussion by the Board is summarized:
• Provide the public with information related to the progress made on issues
• Focus on areas where the Town fell below the benchmark, but also stress where
the Town ranked as superior in services
• May be worthwhile to do public outreach to service clubs and organizations
related to survey results
• Many identified issues are already being dealt with by staff, through economic
development, transportation visioning, and CAMP
• The survey results indicate that, in general, the Town is doing a good job; need
to accentuate the positive
The Board discussed critical issues identified through the survey and proposed further
action to be taken:
Transportation – Trustee Miller noted that the Transportation Visioning
Committee will be bringing forward recommendations in a final report to the
Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 2
Board of Trustees. Trustee Koenig said that a majority of respondents want to
maintain and improve streets, with 43% willing to fund improvements. She
suggested being aggressive in moving forward to address these improvements
with additional sales tax as a possible funding source.
Housing – Continue to work with and support the Estes Park Housing Authority
(EPHA); consider changes to regulations; inclusionary zoning; grant funding; and
working towards meeting work force housing needs of residents in the 80% to
125% Area Median Income (AMI) category.
Community Planning – An action plan is in place based on results of the review
done by Zucker Systems in 2009.
Economic Development – The Town and local districts are involved in
establishing a community effort to focus on economic development and to
address areas we have influence over as a community.
Recycling – Options are available to residents through private enterprise. The
Town will track the success of the big belly solar trash compactor installed in
Bond Park.
Education – Programs are currently provided by the Town, as well numerous
other local organizations.
Community Inclusiveness – Responses may be related to other areas ranked
below the benchmark such as economic development and housing. May be
experiencing a cultural shift in what residents want to participate in, for example
youth may be more likely to play video games than participate in hiking and
outdoor activities; as well as wanting access to community centers,
entertainment centers, and amenities.
Civic Engagement – The webpage containing public meeting information and the
link to meeting videos is one of the more frequently accessed pages on the
Town’s website. Staff will look into statistics on numbers viewing the meeting
video and will continue to promote the availability of the videos to the community.
Public Trust – This is hard to quantify; staff will continue to work on
communications and solicit public input.
The Mayor recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. for dinner and resumed the meeting at
5:35 p.m.
ZUCKER REPORT FOLLOW-UP.
Planner Shirk reported on staff’s response to the Zucker Systems review. He said the
review included 55 recommendations for operational/organizational improvements for
the Community Development Department. Of those 65% are completed and 29% have
been initiated, for a total of 94% of the recommendations that can be internally
implemented being fully addressed or in process. One of the highest priority items
identified by the report was to extend the intergovernmental agreement between the
Town and Larimer County which was done in 2010. Another high priority item was to
address technology and software related problems. All Community Development staff
members now have the same GlS mapping software, and adoption of the Sungard
System is underway. Also, planning meetings are now held each Friday morning and
include Public Works and Utilities staff in order to increase communication that will
reduce obstacles related to the review process and increase internal efficiencies. In
addition, staff is focused on communicating all development requirements to applicants
during a detailed pre-application meeting. A summary of the meeting which includes a
checklist with notes is provided to the applicant.
The time frame for planning review has been adjusted with the review schedule being
reduced by four to six weeks. Applicants can request a shortened review time frame at
the pre-application meeting and staff is authorized to grant this request. Planner Shirk
said boundary line adjustments will continue to be processed through the Estes Valley
Planning Commission. Attorney White and Director Chilcott will research and discuss
this process.
Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 3
CBO Birchfield spoke to the creation of a Construction Advisory Board saying the
current position of stakeholders is that the board should be separate from the Board of
Appeals. Conversations continue on this topic.
Planner Shirk said items not yet addressed are those outside of Community
Development staff’s control and include a town-wide electronic filing system, and items
requiring additional budget.
The Trustees concurred that the goal of the Zucker evaluation of Community
Development Department processes had been met and resulted in increased
department efficiencies.
TOWN BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES.
The Board evaluated policy related to public comment at Town meetings. Discussion
related to verbal disruptions and free speech is summarized:
• Consider eliminating public comment except when required by State statute.
• How do you determine if the intent of an individual is to disrupt the meeting or
prevent the meeting from continuing?
• Who makes that determination, and can that determination be challenged?
• State statute provides guidelines related to intent to cause a specific result and a
conscious attempt to disrupt proceedings.
• Intent may be hard to prove in court.
• An individual is disruptive when shouting, using threatening language, and failing
to respond.
• Being disrespectful and saying things others do not like hearing may not be
disruptive.
• Common courtesy and respectfulness should preclude the use of foul language
and swearing during public comment.
Attorney White said if the Board allows public comment, then it must take the bad with
the good, noting the content of comments cannot be limited. He said no one wants to
be the subject of a personal attack, but legally first amendment political speech is
protected. He said it is standard practice for the mayor, or chair, to make a non-
debatable determination related to the orderly process of the meeting.
Chief Kufeld said from a law enforcement standpoint, the security officer is present
during the meeting to observe, and the officer will determine if an individual’s behavior is
obstructing, hindering, or impeding the flow of the meeting. If it is obvious to the officer
that the Board is uncomfortable and the behavior of the person is escalating, the officer
will, at his discretion, make a decision as to the person’s intent. If the meeting comes to
a standstill and cannot proceed due to this behavior, the individual may be charged with
disrupting lawful assembly. Additionally, if physical threats are made, the officer will
step in and take action. Chief Kufeld said the existence of guidelines and regulations
related to public comment and consistent enforcement of these guidelines would assist
law enforcement in proving intent in a court of law.
No changes to policy will be forthcoming; the current policy will be followed. The Mayor
will continue to request that public comment be brief and on a topic related to Town
policy and/or activities, and will ask individuals to conclude their comments if statements
become repetitive and redundant.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
This item was not discussed due to the lack of time.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk