HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2013-07-09 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 9, 2013
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD 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 9th day of July,
2013.
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, and Norris
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town
Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Town Attorney
White and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Trustee John Phipps
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated at times the Board liaison has become an advocate
for the group rather than a reporting body and would like to discuss at a study session.
Trustee Ericson requested a discussion of the Town’s role in events prior to the budget
process in order to address funding for the 2014 budget. Administrator Lancaster
stated the discussion would take place later in the fall or winter as it is too difficult for
events staff to address the issue during the height of the event season. Mayor Pro Tem
Blackhurst agreed stating that a number of the events for 2014 have already been
scheduled and the discussion should take place during the budget process in October.
Staff would identify criteria for events, the return on investment, the synergy of the event
and the effect on the downtown businesses.
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA – TOWN OPTIONS.
Attorney White reviewed the voter approved Amendment 64 that legalizes the personal
possession, use, and limited home-growing of marijuana by adults 21 years of age and
older, and authorizes the operation of marijuana establishments which include
marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana
testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores. Amendment 64 required the Colorado
Department of Revenue to adopt regulations governing the operation of marijuana
establishments no later than July 1, 2013; requires local governments to adopt
regulations identifying the entity within the local government responsible for processing
license applications for marijuana establishments no later than October 1, 2013;
authorizes local governments to adopt licensing procedures and regulations governing
certain aspects of the operation of marijuana establishments; and authorizes local
governments to prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments by adoption of an
ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure. On February 12, 2013, the Town
Board imposed a temporary moratorium on the establishment and/or operation of all
marijuana establishments as defined in Amendment 64 to October 1, 2013. October 1,
2013 is the date upon which the Town, if the Town Board so determines, must either
“opt out” of allowing retail marijuana establishments within the Town or establish local
licensing procedures for retail marijuana establishments. Town options include opting
out; refer an ordinance to the voters, however, the election may not occur until
November 2014; allow the citizens to bring forward an initiated ordinance to allow or
ban marijuana facilities; or allow the facilities and adopt an ordinance that designates
the entity within the local government responsible for licensing. Regardless of the
Town’s actions the Municipal code would need to be amended to address the lawful
possession and use of marijuana by persons over the age of 21 and the use of
Town Board Study Session – July 9, 2013 – Page 2
marijuana paraphernalia. The Town may adopt an ordinance which prohibits the open
and public consumption and use of marijuana. Amendment 64 does not affect the
Town’s ban on medical marijuana establishments set in 2010 by Ordinance 23-10.
Board discussion followed: The Town should opt out and if the citizens want to legalize
it within town limits an initiate ordinance can be filed; it is still illegal under federal law;
marijuana sales and use within town limits would not project a family friendly image in
which the town markets itself; and the Board would request Larimer County consider
opting out in the unincorporated areas of the Estes valley. The Board consensus was to
bring forward an ordinance to the first meeting in August to opt out of all four types of
facilities and bring forward any Municipal code changes to comply with the new laws.
Attorney White suggested the Board consider addressing social clubs as well. The
Planning Commission would have to address the zoning of such clubs.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 101 – BOARD ASSIGNMENTS.
Trustee Ericson proposed a consistent method for appointing Board members to liaison
positions. He suggested committee assignments should align with liaison
responsibilities; i.e. a member of the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works
Committee should be appointed liaison to the Tree Board. Trustee Norris agreed it
would be a consistent method for appointments. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the
liaison reports to the full Board and not the Committee. Trustee Koenig stated the
format limits a Trustee’s area of interest and removes flexibility to participate in a
number of areas. The Mayor stated there are a number of liaison appointments such as
the Open Lands that do not fit into the Town’s committee structure.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Assistant Town Administrator Richardson presented a draft Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) to be used in developing the 2014 budget. A CIP is a mid-range planning tool (4-
10 years) used to manage and plan out the expenditure of funds for large one-time
capital expenditures. Capital expenditures are defined as any improvement, purchase or
new construction with a cost of $50,000 or more and a useful life of five years or more.
The intent of the CIP is to present all capital activities in one document where activities
and expenditures are readily available for review and identification. The CIP process
would require changing internal operational processes currently used by staff. It would
require the application and use of a systematic approach to developing capital
expenditures beyond a one year period and require planning out expenses. The CIP
process requires organizing significant capital activities for the purpose of scheduling,
reporting, tracking and completing projects and improvements.
Trustee Koenig and Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated concern the Board may only be
presented with a vetted list of projects and not the full list of projects the departments
are considering. Staff reassured the Board all items would be presented to the Board
along with a preferred list of projects identified by staff. Trustee Koenig requested the
vetting process be defined clearly in the document and that all projects would be
presented to the Board with pros/cons and alternatives.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated Section 1.9 Categories within CIP Framework should
be noted they are not listed in priority. He also stated concern with placing all capital
projects in the Community Reinvestment fund in the future. Staff assured the Board
projects would be funded from a number of accounts and would be outlined in the CIP.
Trustee Ericson prefers all capital items be placed in one fund such as CRF and not the
individual departments. He would recommend the renaming of the plan to the Capital
Investment Plan rather than the Capital Improvement Plan as capital items are an
investment of tax dollars in improvements. The Board consensus was to change the
plan to a Capital Investment Plan.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk