Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2012-08-14 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 14, 2012 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 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of August, 2012. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson, Dir. Zurn, Dir. Bergsten, Dir. Williamson, Finance Officer McFarland, Manager Winslow, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. STALL BARN DISCUSSION. Discussion at a previous Town Board Study Session involved proposed uses for the stall barn in order to determine what type of structure to build. Representatives of the design team defined the characteristics of a U-rated structure which could be used for strictly agricultural purposes, as well as a building with an A3-rated use which would allow the building to be used for a variety of purposes and provide for more scheduling flexibility. The cost of an A3-rated building was estimated to be $1.7 million to $2.5 million. The Board’s preference is to move forward with an A3-use stall barn, to move forward with construction bids for the multi-purpose event center (MPEC), and have Finance Officer McFarland provide information regarding financing options for the projects. The Trustees requested that Elena Scott of Norris Design, provide the construction costs of a bare minimum A3 structure and supply a list of costs for add-ons such as masonry accents, cupolas, office finish, and a public address system that may or may not be included in the original structure but could be added if funding is available, or at a later date. Ms. Scott estimated cost of a basic stall barn without restrooms at $1.976 million. The addition of restrooms at an estimated cost of $245,000 would be required in order to bring the structure up to A3 usage specifications. The cost of a foundation under the restrooms would be additional, as well as $150,000 for off-site sewer requirements. The add-on costs were reviewed and discussed: masonry accents are part of the architectural requirements established for improvements and new structures at the fairgrounds; the cupolas are more decorative than functional; upgraded sewer lines would service entire fairgrounds property; wash bays are external and drain into detention ponds, not the sewer system; an exception could be requested for landscaping and irrigation requirements; and staff will research the cost to rent stalls as opposed to purchasing stalls for the barn. Additional comments included: the new stall barn will be fully utilized if the old barns are removed; 490 stalls are required for the Hunter Jumper event; the fairgrounds need to be both functional and attractive to be competitive; staff is currently working with a group concerned with the facility’s appearance and working to make accommodations to improve the situation; and the proposed delivery, construction and completion of the new stall barn is May 15, 2013. Town Board Study Session – August 14, 2012 – Page 2 In regard to the architectural requirements for buildings at the fairgrounds, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst noted that previous Boards adopted design standards such as masonry accents, colors, design and trim because it was important to ensure that the fairgrounds was a first class facility. He said from a cost per square foot perspective, the construction of the building is relatively inexpensive. Dir. Zurn stated that the Board needs to be confident in the type of structure they want built before directing the designers to move forward with schematic designs for the building and site, and the development of construction drawings for bidding purposes. To go backwards or make changes that would require a new design would be expensive. He said the directive to proceed must be based on estimated costs, added that the numbers include a 10% contingency, and stated that actual numbers may come in lower than the estimates. Glen Calvert, design team member, suggested preparing the construction bid documents and listing certain items as alternates in order to get numbers from contractors. He cited masonry columns, electrical upgrades, a public address system, and restrooms as examples. The Board expressed a comfort level with the add alternates approach to the project and directed staff to move forward with plans for an A3-use stall barn that would adhere to adopted architectural standards for the fairgrounds. In addition, the Board requested that staff proceed with obtaining bids for construction of the MPEC which is designed to accommodate conventions, function as an exhibit hall, and house 140 horse stalls. Other potential uses for the MPEC may be sporting events and regional tournaments sponsored by the school district, clubs, or sports organizations. The MPEC construction costs combined with data received from the MPEC pro forma, and financial information provided by Finance Officer McFarland will provide the Board with information for future decision-making. The Mayor called for a ten minute break for dinner at 5:00 p.m. POLICY DISCUSSION. Utility Transfer – Finance Officer McFarland reported that the current rates of transfer from the Utility Funds are 8.5% for Electric and 4.0% for Water based on gross revenue provided by residential and urban sales. Information recently discovered in the Town archives (circa 1940 when the Utilities were created) refer to a transfer from Utilities to the General Fund for the purpose of keeping future property tax increases to a minimum. Estes Park continues to have a low mill levy when compared to the rest of the State of Colorado. Utility Fund transfers are not unique to Estes Park, as a report previously completed by Assistant Town Administrator Richardson indicated that 79% of 29 municipalities researched utilize utility fund transfers. Previous discussions led to the Board requesting a policy related to the Utility Fund transfer to provide a basis for the transfer and transparency for the public. Assistant Town Administrator Richardson developed a draft policy for the Board’s review which proposed a transfer cap of 10% of net revenue. Net revenue refers to an organization’s revenues, net of discounts and returns; while net income is revenue net of all expenses. Discussion is summarized: a transfer based on net revenue is standard practice; a transfer based on net income would have major budget implications; set a policy that makes sense and demonstrates transparency to the public; transfer the balance remaining after expenses are subtracted from revenue; no problem with the Town charging the utility for use of Town facilities; transfer continues to keep property taxes low and helps to fund services such as the Senior Center; without the transfer services would have to be cut; outcomes justify the percentage of the transfer and are necessary for the quality of life; services funded from the General Fund seem appropriate; what we are doing seems to be working; will be setting policy that will be a guideline in the future; and feel comfortable with the 10% cap proposal. Town Administrator Lancaster stated that a private utility pays franchise fees and taxes Town Board Study Session – August 14, 2012 – Page 3 and the Town utility is paying the same expenses. The return on investment of Public Service is 10.5% off the top which is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Trustees questioned the percentage of wages for services rendered for administrative services to the utilities. The policy should state the basis for allocating the percentages with the Finance Officer implementing a reasonable cost allocation process. Assistant Town Administrator Richardson and Finance Officer McFarland will continue to work on the policy to include the basis for allocations and transfer percentages. Community Service Grants – Finance Officer McFarland said that over the past six or seven years, the total amount of Community Service Grants (CSG) funded equaled approximately 5% of sales tax. Trustee Koenig provided background related to guidelines used during the selection process which include, but are not limited to: are the funds used to address a community need; is the organization increasing the dollar amount of their request and if so, what is the basis for the increase; how many people are served by the organization; and does the organization seek out other funding sources. Trustee Elrod expressed concern that the Town’s generosity may limit the ability of these organizations to receive funds from the private sector and also noted that utilizing sales tax dollars for the CSGs eliminates the public’s choice as to what organizations to support. He suggested cutting back on the grants and allowing the public to make decisions regarding what organizations to provide with financial assistance. The Trustees requested that staff include selection criteria within the policy and preferred to keep flexibility by designating a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount to be utilized for grants. In addition, the Trustees proposed that the grant funds be used for programs that tie into the Town’s mission, vision and goals. Catastrophic Loss Fund – The Trustees discussed whether there is a need to continue holding the monies from the Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF) in reserve or to consider utilizing the funds in some manner. The fund was created in 1977 as a self- insurance fund following the Big Thompson Flood for the purpose of covering uninsured losses and deductibles the Town might incur. Funding of the CLF ended in1988 when the balance in the fund reached $1 million. The CLF was discontinued in 2010 and the monies were transferred to the General Fund fund balance. In 1988 the Town began a relationship with CIRSA for property and liability insurance coverage. With insurance coverage in place, the $1.277 million amassed in the CLF may be used to address other needs of the Town. The Trustees concurred that these monies no longer needed to be held in reserve and discussed utilizing the CLF funds for capital projects in Light & Power, Water, Streets and Parks. Town Administrator Lancaster said that transfers to the CLF from Light & Power and Water will be returned and earmarked as supplemental funds for capital projects and infrastructure improvements. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Items discussed for inclusion on future Town Board Study Session agendas include: • Visit Estes Park Branding Blueprint – Logos and Colors • The Town’s role in economic development, Town real property, financing options • Update to Comprehensive Plan – Joint meeting with the Estes Valley Planning Commission • Strategic Planning • Policy Governance • Quasi-Judicial Role of Trustees MISCELLANEOUS. Town Administrator Lancaster asked for direction in regard to follow-up from the community bear meeting that was held on August 9th and noted that the Town does not have a contractual arrangement related to the services provided by Waste Management. Trustee Koenig stated that it is not the Town’s job to mandate the use of bear-proof trash containers nor does the Town have the ability to monitor the situation. Town Board Study Session – August 14, 2012 – Page 4 The Trustees said that the Town should set an example for the community by dealing with trash in a responsible manner and asked staff to prepare a list of recommendations related to managing the trash situation in a manner that will be safe for both the community and the bear population for their review. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:39 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk