Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2011-11-08a 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 whether the community wants these issues addressed; 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 with 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. 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 group, ad hoc committees, and performance measures when appropriate. She said staff has been working on some areas as Also asked about Colorado community benchmarks is additional fee could do with next survedy Mayor – from your perspective as pio do you see as we make progress on these issues some form of public information effort about what town is doing to improve governance Kate wise to use that avenue whenever we are making efforts to improve on items below benchmark already knew some areas were issue increasing communication is helping ourselves Kate moving on to critical issues had 20 community characteristics and two town services below have reviewed with dept heads and compiled list of efforts over last two years steps taken towards improving these issues Also wendys’ suggestion important and willing to fund? Table provided Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 2 Eric how many areas in entire thing general categories more than 20 don’t mind focusing on areas we fall below benchmarch stress a lot of areas where we are superior in serives that departments and employees provide not get lost in the shuffle in some of the negatives items we cant do a lot a bout like ease of car travel in the summer in EP Kate had two below five similar and 14 above services overall rated highly 21 were rated 67-100 saying excellent don’t want that to get lost John know you showed us when made initial report where doing well to follow up would there be any kind of an outreach we could do to services clubs and organizatios nto help reinforce this in the citizens’ minds lions rotary Kiwanis and all thos type of things Kate yes specifically on issues focus on good things being done outreach worthwhile doing John what you did was fantastic first survey cant tell where fallen down appreciate bar chart any thought given to how to go about this already we are dealing with some of these things econ devo, transportation, CAMP, Chuck a lot more than two or three already dealing with half of them right now John mayor in slide presentation talked about goal teams done years ago, work sessions on various topics ad hoc committees did not know if staff had ideas Jerry if anyone from town to service clubs start out with overall presentation done about results in general and if that could be made available could go to lions , think people have a sense there was a survey and a sense of results but don’t know details Jerry this is good recent town efforts what thought does staff have about addressing in the future did this cause dept heads or admin to say to help address this we could start doing … that would be helpful Kate think that is where we need to go category by category for an action plan for the future, a summary of results fo r service organizations would be easy to do Eric one thing struck me nd agenda for triangle meetings there were negative comments in the documentation about the direction of the community and where community feels need to go that is not supported by community need to rely on the data as opposed to comments not as reliable as statistical information we know we have areas for improvement but in terms of general overall doing a pretty good job and make sure accentuate those and that fact in triangle meeting next week. Mayor if go into community to talk about this needs to be able to respond to questions and concerns that will come up and consistent message to the community Kate walk through topics let know what you would like to see happen if anything Transportation jerry one thing noticed omitted is TVC inadvertently omitted, think we have made headway with coming up with suggestions that may look at some of these issues in TVC, john in final report that TVC is putting together, eric everyone will never be completely satisfied, Wendy 80% want to maintain and improve streets there is value there in tax dollars used that way and some are willing to fund with taxes and we have been talking about additional sales tax so everyone shares in using the streets have problem with infrastructure maybe we can be more aggressive and get up to 1 million and understand why we need to do that and support it. Mayor point well taken in sense that 80% relates to overall quality not just transportation through Town of Estes Park Housing – action plan? Working with EPHA eric it isEPHA that has expertise the need for this group can we support it and how can we support it financially? Through changing regulations? Inclusionary zoning? Grant funding? The voters were clear in early 1990s did not want toep involved in affordable housing so how can we then support their efforts Jerry agrees to some extent but was 20 years ago and have different population not to say it would change but it is a fact think there are things this body can do as town board working in conjunction with epha to get things done problem with housing authories in general limited to working with HUD and HUD funds and they have restrictions on income our need isn’t so much 80% but more 80 to 100 or 130 think town working with EPHA might look at options may have piece of land that could be used John could EPHA look at a broader Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 3 Eric working with Alison and com deve in contact over variety of things perfect for EPHA to look at this topic is on going Jerry set up a private non profit eric we have one of those in place with development of vista ridge, think there is room for cooperative efforrs to get more work force housing in this community Chuck a lot of avenues to go does not mean throwing money at PUDs, regulations Eric is need for 80 to 125, work force housing program, if talking building project your source of funding is largely federal with regulations and restrictions Community planning – dave talk about status zucker a lot of information about those efforts taken since report is there anything additional considering is already action plan with zucker report Mayor are we in process of doing this and looking at height limitations we have 30 ft part of overall PUD discussion which is stalled in EVPC, dave thye have turned their attention to other issues Eric need to be careful with references to need to improve ? architectural? Eye of beholder quantifiable need to be cautious in that realm to get into the objective as opposed to subjective Jerry agree Economic development and sustainability all these areas were below benchmark…see packet… Jerry some of those things impossible for town to get involved with. Economic outlook and household income..establishment? change your inventory? Also retail growth too slow look at economy and market driven wendy rezoning for kmart to come in to provide more variety of shopping not looking for competition for our retailers Eric had king soopers thing they wanted town to get involved in condemnation, Kate since there is an effort to establish a community effort toward econ devo could address areas we have influence over as a community that could be action plan for that Recycling – board supports good stewardship and already private enterprise options available Jerry town could help educate here good part about recycling and firms to do it don’t thing town should or needs to get involved with Mayor continue to make sure have competitive services and to track success of big belly and whether finanicially make ssens to invest in those and are they received well and reducing collection and service costs Eric that is promoting a business that is waste management have other companies agree need to know if effective but cant promote just one business Mark big bell not waste management this was through another vendor not waste management understood the signal goes to waste management and comes uto pick up it is not signalized sends an email when full to Kevin ? no does not alert when full not how being operated bought base model extra cost Education – add library programs just included town programs but a lot of organizations provide educational programs raises question some are community characteristics not just town necessarily Jerry has this been shared with other entities sent all results to intergovernmental manager groups so they have all information Community inclusiveness – wendy when talking about opps like elkhorn project many citizens though excited kids not doing outdoor activities as much as in the past may be cultural change with kids don’t have shopping malls and things don’t get any reason that it is not a reason that not great place to raise children excitement about activities to get kids involved in don’t think EP doing anything wrong we are not flatirons mall, kids would rather do computer than go outside, wendy part or response may be a cultural shift they are not outside playing they are playing computer games Kate in talking with other communities that can be related to other areaws bedlow benchmark which for us maight be economic dev and housing may be tied into that and things to improve there might help raising kids, community access to centers and amenities Civic engagement low on people watching meeting 30% had noted that because about 30 percent of cable and webstreaming of meeting videos began spring last year and Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 4 promotion of service chuck can you tell how many people watch we can get them from IT, eric that will continue to grow Mark previous said that site wasone of more frequently viewed kate yes the page on the town website that links to the videos is heavily viewed includes meeting announcements, agendas, minutes and link ot video one of most heavily used Third party stats can be looked into, continue promoting that when we can Public trust – overall direction EP is taking 48% felt good or excellent, compiled list of efforts to include in planning when people are involved trust more Eric another area need to be careful architectural control your house is not good enough? What does not taking in right direction really mean? How do you quantify it what are key issues people find not the way they want the town to go there is no consensus so need to be careful don’t ignore but cautious Chuck like what trying to show is we are working on communications aspect of this trying to get out there get more input and talk to people Chart to provide another overview of potential town projects and willingness to fund will be discussing later on this evening Jerry interested in action plan when put together 5:20 break for dinner. 5:35 resume ZUCKER REPORT FOLLOW-UP. Dave follow up to community seuvey discussed here to talk about zucker audit will is also here audit for whole deparment Audit was conducted October November 2009 implementation plan over spring 2010 impolmenet made solid progress but before that go over report in general One thing zucker system group out of san diego contracts people to do audits all across country focuses on larger organization not smaller towns like estes park Alison wanted noted up front we are small when expectations for turnarounds and those things is accustom to larger systems will shared story living in Denver and walked through process with permit we don’t have staff to provide that type of service One thing focused on five key areas or groupsing needed hi8ghest priorities iga with Larimer county, lack of planning timing of reviews technology and planning processes We extended iga with county last year addressed that, regarding technology we now as dept have same gis mapping software, awaiting new sungard system have run into technical problems with adoption tracking software we are doing quite a bit on technology front and regarding timing of reviews made lprogress on that and also planning processes, lack of planning think zucker forshadowed what saw on community survey , original audit came forward with 55 recommendations of those 36 65% are completed and ongoing 16 of those 29% have been intifiieated not finalized 94% have been addressed fully or in process, of things not started outside of our control town wide electronic file system goes back to sungard will be rolling out over years for centralized database, being addressed town wide, another for town to take over building inspections for unincorporated valley don’t know if that has been discussed out of control not started, and third training budget see what happens later tonight Dave talk about planning specific issues and will back up building division things Have implemented most recommendations focus on a few and open up to questions most important came out of audit was we now sit down and public works and utilities sit down every fridya and coordinate re: issues that come up and pending reviews start talking up front before applications come in and talk every week through review process. Keep on same page this is something never happened here before that has helped open lines of communications and reduces snags in review processes Jerry any increase in the speed of reviews? Dave yes not overall but getting comments back from inidivdual dept has facilitated that also at that meeting Susie parker is present takes memos she is aware of when deadlines are approaching and help keep people on track Dave focused on communicating all of development requirements to applicants right up front with pre application meeting used to be about an hour now slowing down taking Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 5 time to walk through development code rquiremntes and time frame swater line… etc. slowing down and manage projects on front end Only had a handful since started will see what happens hoping this will help save time down the road also help owners and developers save money and helps local engineers thank you for doing this when we tall have to pay…they balk, let htem know about requiremtns up front Mayor did we change requirement for level of detail on original plans at one point issues get into project and find the level of detail in original plan not adequate , helps bring quality of submittal up, Greg are we summarizing and sending out summary to applicant? Dave they get that before the meeting meeting agenda goes through item check list write notes on that and scan that and email to applicant Greg problems in past when promised something at pre app meeting when way into process always felt you should have record of what was discussed at pre app meeting Dave always done but this is more thorough Lowell zucker talked about improving efficiencies did we look at other communities as to how to streamline and still meet requirements re: planning review processes time frames are industry standard laid out by state law increase internal efficiency with weekly meeting Review time frames for planning there were two things recommended to reduce time frames staff level dev and boundary line adjustment plans, changed review scheduled shaved off four to six weeks off review period, and boundary line adjustment process take to straight to tb or county commissioners discussed with evpc and consensus was only added one month wanted to keep looking at boundary adjustment but at staff level at pre app they can request shortened review time frame staff is authorized to can accommodate and have done that Jerry what was evpc reason to review lot line adjustments? Dave some issue that pops up going through review gives neighbors opp to come to meeting, come to tb by development code regulation so to expedite process a boundary line adjustment would not have to come to town board greg does not believe so may be look into Lowell reason asked about process is because of stakeholder meetings surprised planning commission chose to say no keep , could streamline process if legal? Will mention to director Eric money well spent on the report and time well spent and did what jh and Lowell intended it to do to evaluate processes in dept and increase efficiencies Says a lot that staff has followed up with this Dave knew things needed to be done and to have someone from outside come in is helpful Chuck will get with you off line Dave suggested giving staff more authority for variances Would be a development code change Jerry page four priority 2 phase 1 at bottom construction advisory board? Think already have that we created a building code board of appeals which could be used as advisory board Will talk of modeling on Loveland the current position of stakeholders they do not want the boar dof appeals and construction advisory board to be same group staff is meeting with different stakeholders as initiate conversations and put out there for them to form group and keep town fingerprints off of it form when they want to take shape function would be a collective mindset of presentation to the board of a different opinion that building official might have on adoption of the code take exception to something Staff is trying to not mold that group come together and make your concerns known During adoption process more open communication between stakeholders and staff now TOWN BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES. Mark shared with series of emails and outline of what hoping to cover this evening disrupting lawful assembly memorandum from eric rose and application of that Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 6 information to the public comment at our board meetings and the second portion establish policy for public comment at board meetings and where proper policy setting authority is Go through memo in may 2009 eric provided this information on disruption of board meeting jh then sent out to board is resurrected in talking about it helpful to have greg as well as wes to give direction on this issue some clarity could be a benefit If intending to prevent or disrupt … request to cease be made how do we determine intent and where are bounds free speech? Mayor my perspective that one area is subject tot interpretation and the questions is when you get into the verbal disruption and verbal interfering with meeting how do we interpret that and what are things omeone can say as much as may not like and where is the line drawn? And when we do draw line what does that imply what takes place? Greg – the term intent is used also in state statutue to and has definition of what intent is to cause specific results defining the offense is conscious attempt to disrupt then guilty of violation of muni code how do you determine if charged with then judge owld make determination whether proved intent it is immaterial whether result occurred don’t have to go so far as have disrupted but intention is enough to be charged and convicted Mayor if perception is if individual intended greg yes, any time you have intent you have to prove not easy to prove has to be some finding that actions were intended to disrupt there are levels of that has a lot to do with demeanor of the person and what the person says if someone is disruptive and shouting and not responding and continues that is intent to disrupt threatening languages when gets down to being respectful and saying sometihgn someone does not like that is not disruptive , Mayor swearing an dfoul language that is more common courtesy and not disrupting the meeting would like respectful but don’t always you can ask them to and how foul does it get and how long does it last, Eric what kind ofguidelines can you oput greg do not have to allow public comment, only have toallow on public hearing itesm land use liquor licenses Mark agree intent may be difficult to determine or different between seven members of board could be perception #2 is request to leave subject to debate? What if members don’t agree what happens then? Is it whoever declares or is it debatable It is a practial standard whoever is running the meeting and orderly processes of the meeting that person should make determination not debatable lose effectiveness of chairing the meeting if gets disruptive someone has to say stop it is over cant debate that prson opinion no legal opinion Wes from enforcement standpoint will be looking at someone obstructing hindering or impedes flow of the meeting if meeting came to standstill and cant proceed due to person then we have disrupting lawful assembly wes get nervous if someone is voicing opinion would be uneasy with charging someone with disrupting lawful assembly in my experience when individual does this it is just that we cannot move on with this meeting unless we remove this person is key for consistency if there is public coment recommend and to prove in court have a set time limit and you have three mintues then if continues to go on and now impeding natural flow of meeting then take to court the standard is …and tape to pull for evidence etc., but the intent portion would be officers interpretation and the officer discretion and their burden to show the intent in court wes opinion the board be concerned with progress of meeting Wes if someone tries to interfere with meeting does not mean they will get charge can pull out and did meet all points for Mark declaration by the chair to remove someone is not necessarily determinative of action officer will take depends on the situation Trying to get clarity Wes is our job a security officer in meeting to secure if feel someone is escalating and obvious board is uncomfortable person continues to disrupt officer can make decision Board member could indicate believe someone is disruptive could say don’t agree as practical matter the chair has to make that determiniation been here for 30 year s don’t believe anyhone has been charged a lot of incidents when people asked to leave they leave once confronted this is first time in last few years have police presence have askd people to leave and staff has done that an escorted people out and come back Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 7 Jerry the time limit clarifiy one thing heard from public they ike and appreciate that we took way three minute limit, is there some other way feel should not have time limit on every topic, Mayor currently say: it is a request, should go through and come up with something reasonale and enforceable Jerry the perception is that you have reinstated the 3 minute limit question is we don’t have change wordiong to request? Greg 1 you can put a time limit Jerry bottom line is if someone disruptive and no time limit is it harder to prosecute Wes it is easier if you can say they went over time limit and ocntineud to be disruptibev and hijacked the obard and refused to get away from podium wes I like it if I could go into court and say there is aprocedure with set timeimit and this person continued to deliberately go past that and disregarded rules of the board Mayor will try to find a logical point to say think you very much and get them off , don’t want seconds ticking and comment is important Wendy question is there a reason if staying with three minutes could not address more than one topic? Came out of coffee chat maybe we take out one topic and leave three minutes limit Chuck if respectful of time that is what getting at with time limit is respectful of time and can talk about three things then OK Eric personal attacks on employees as trustees have obligation to protect from public humiliation and if public cant do that then cease public comment That is free speech cant say only want ot hear about staff and employees if good Idont have problem meeting Mark whether negative don’t want staff to be held up to public criticism and ridicule that means cannot be held up to praise either Mayor personnel issues how problem with lambasting staff is one way thing no ability to respond Disagree that if someone can not say something good will cut off public comment Greg you cant limit content free speech rights if allow comment take good with bad people can say anything unless disruptive Lowell rely on the PD in the room will be able to discern probable cause as it relates to violation of ordinance need coordation of effort till on same page it is officers decision as far as charging someone Chuck not as meaningful for board whether or not charged whether or not cannot remove ifnot breaking the law If physical threats that is breaking the law the officer will step in and take action without waiting for the mayor John run a civil meeting where do you draw the line some are obvious Greg in regard to personnel mayor say thank you understand you have concern make an appointment with ta or trustee, allow a little agree no one wants to be subject of personal attack is not comfortable but legally first amendment political speech is the most protected speech of any, Jerry on personnel thing if there is an issue expressing opinion about planning staff both free speech Greg don’t think mayor should say that re: if personnel issue Mayor in terms of a policy that can be followed relative to public comment is there anything simple we could put into place? Greg just say establish time limit if you don’t have how come some people can get up there for ten minutes and then say past three minutes have to be consistent, you can say request keep to three minutes but consistently enforce Wendy we are encouraging the mayor if something ilke ot talk about in private to interject want to speak for two more minutes let them, can try to derail but hae right to continue if they want to have that right Jerry if reuesting three minutes and not done say wrap it up Mark right now at discretion of chair much easier for enforcement to limit comment , but not equitable in EP to limit say adequately addressed now repeating things discussed and ask to wrap up whether three five ten minutes fearful trying to limit making the cure Town Board Study Session – November 8, 2011 – Page 8 worse than disease and say to citizens you have nothing to say that is intersteing beyhond 3 minutes Mayor how much time do you want to allow we have business to attend to Mark that is why sometimes need to say how many here to comment so know how many want to come up Mayor some communities have sign in don’t want to go there Chuck seen only x amount of mimnutes total for public comnet Eric back to personnel have to listen and see how much that comes up how big aproblem that is if signficaint would want to revisit this issue and eliminate public comment that is an option Mark that issomething established as policy by the board not chair Wendy question if going tos pecificially limit to three minutes then the public guide should state that Mayor let me go back to comment is not strict limitation it is a request can have more than one topic has to do with town government needs to relate to the Town of Estes Park Greg if going to have time limit it should be adopted by the board and put into the policy unless determine number of comments thenlimit to ensure does not go beyond set numberf of minutes Mayor maybe go back to if redundant and too long ask to wrap up Ask them to be brief and relevant have ability to limit Jerry order of business one thing feels awkward is having the order of things making motion second then discussing know that is way supposed to be done up until this we did it with discussion first then motion it feels awkward it is confusing people wait a minute you have not discussed this yet Eric to do that is gets it out on table Most of the time still doing old way habit is hard to break Mark are we not going to mention any restriction as it relates to the comment no are we going to limit to one subject no,.will ask comments brief and chair will make discreipton RE; comment or repettiives ness the rules we adopted don’t need to be changed just need to follow and be cognizant Kep comments brief focus on town policy or acitivity? Mayor whether or not mayor has ability to shut down board 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