Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2014-06-24 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 24, 2014 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of June, 2014. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland, Director Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Materials for Town Board meetings and study sessions are currently distributed to the Board on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting. Trustee Holcomb asked if these materials could be delivered to the Board earlier to provide an opportunity to ask questions and receive more information from staff prior to the meeting. He also asked that staff provide options over and above “Yes” or “No” to the Board when considering action items. Mayor Pinkham and Town Administrator Lancaster concurred that the discussions between staff and the Board during meetings provides beneficial information for the entire Board and prevents a situation where each Board member is having an individual conversation with staff outside of the meeting setting. Discussion with staff during the meeting also provides an opportunity for staff to review and discuss available options. Mayor Pinkham noted that when making a motion the Board is not limited to a simple “Yes” or “No”. Questions can be asked, conditions can be added to a motion, and the item can be continued or tabled until additional information is received. The sample motions provided on the memos are there as a framework or starting point for a motion. In answer to a question about agenda items, Town Administrator Lancaster stated that items for the study session agendas are most often determined by the Board’s discussions and requests. Staff may also request an item be added to the agenda when direction from the Board is needed on a particular topic. Town Board agenda items are typically determined as an item progresses through a development and review process such as exists for planning items, or is reviewed at the Committee level and moves forward to Town Board for approval. Town Attorney White said the procedure that has worked well in the past is for agenda items to be suggested during study sessions at which time the Board can determine whether the item should be added to the agenda and whether it should be an item for a study session or the regular Town Board meeting. Topics that come up outside of study sessions should be directed to Town Clerk Williamson. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. A discussion related to an RTA application will be scheduled for the July 8, 2014, study session as well as a discussion on vacation homes as staff seeks input from the Board on how to proceed with regulations and enforcement. It was suggested that staff consider discussion of commercially-zoned properties be held separate from and prior to discussing options for the Fish Hatchery property. Regarding discussions of the Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 2 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP), Town Administrator Lancaster stated that due to staff’s involvement with flood-related projects, these discussions have been delayed and once staff is ready with the necessary information and materials, these topics will be scheduled. Administrator Lancaster recommended that the Board consider a discussion of the dangerous building portion of the building code that the Town has not previously adopted. This portion of the code deals with the authority to red-tag structures that are unsafe to occupy and/or in some manner pose a danger to the public. Trustee Nelson said that Elizabeth Fogarty, new CEO of Visit Estes Park (VEP), has requested time to provide a presentation to the Board regarding Local Marketing District (LMD) highlights and the direction she and the LMD board will be heading in the future. The Trustees agreed that the presentation should be scheduled during a regular Town Board meeting. FLOOD RECOVERY FINANCIAL UPDATE. Finance Officer McFarland reported that the financial effects of the September 2013 flood have affected over 400 budget line items and nearly all 12 Town funds. He spoke to flood-related expenses and reimbursements that have been requested and/or received. He noted that at the time of the flood, it was unknown how long the roadways in and out of Estes Park would be closed. The Rock Quarry Project was undertaken in order to mine materials from Lake Estes, and to crush and prepare the rock for base for road repairs as well as use in other areas where materials were needed. Grand County provided equipment for the project and approximately 70,000 tons of material was removed from the lake. This material was sold to Larimer County, Kiewit, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD), Estes Park Sanitation District, and utilized by Town of Estes Park departments. To date $1.053 million has been spent on this project and approximately $831,000 has been either reimbursed or funds have been transferred internally to cover the costs. The net out-of-pocket is approximately $222,000, and no additional material remains to be used or sold. The Town’s insurance carrier is the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA). Flood-related items covered by CIRSA include Town Hall, sites around Town, Fish Hatchery and Glen Haven electrical work. To date, paid claims total $1.46 million. At least one claim is being disputed, however, Attorney White noted that the reason for denial of the claim is not valid and that the Town is entitled to payment of the claim. Approximately $212,125 in claims remain outstanding and additional claims related to permanent overhead electrical system repairs may be made. Work being done under the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection program, includes protecting exigent sites from spring run-off, hauling rock from the Highway 36 blast site, and staging and hauling of rock. This work is primarily in the Fall River and Fish Creek corridors. Cost share for these projects is 75% funded by NRCS, 12.5% funded by the State of Colorado, and 12.5% funded locally. Staff anticipates that the local portion will be covered from rock hauling, or by private residents, with little out-of-pocket for the Town. NRCS will reimburse to the State and the State will in turn reimburse to the Town. This creates a negative cash flow affect that staff will monitor. Approximately $280,000 in reimbursements have been requested so far however, to date, no funds have been received on an estimated $700,000 worth of projects. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is expected to reimburse costs related to debris removal, emergency protective measures, temporary work, roads and bridges, utilities, trails and parks, and water control facilities with the same cost share percentages and reimbursement process as NRCS. Numerous projects in Estes Park and Glen Haven are approved to move forward at an estimated cost of $5.2 million. To date the Town has received $76,781 in reimbursements and has requested another $233,572 which has not been received. Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 3 Emergency and permanent repairs to highways and connectors is funded through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at a cost share of 80% with local participation at 20%. Community Drive and Fish Creek Road fall into this category. It remains unclear whether the State will be picking up any portion of the 20%. FHWA funds will be sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and distributed to the Town. Engineering for the project is not complete and the job has not been bid, however, an estimate for the construction and repair of these roadways is $6.3 million. There is some overlap and duplication in this area with FEMA providing funds for some aspects such as trails and utilities with a 12.5% cost share. Christie Crosser, Grants Specialist, said she has created a document to illustrate agency/project associations and Project Manager Zurn stated that as the project is designed it will become clearer as to how expenses will be divided. Finance Officer McFarland summarized by stating that the Town had $2.13 million in flood-related expenses in 2013, not including the Rock Quarry project, and has expended $278,000 so far in 2014. To date, $1.327 million has been recovered through insurance claims and small FEMA project reimbursements. He stated there is $300,000 in Open Space funds that could be utilized for flood-related expenses and also $1.3 million in the Community reinvestment Fund from the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Town Administrator Lancaster said that since sales tax is up it is the public’s perception that we have recovered from the flood, however the Town is still in protection/recovery-mode as it is still unknown how much money will be necessary to pay for repair and restoration projects. He said purchasing and hiring freezes are in effect. In response to a question about reimbursements for staff time, Grant Specialist Crosser said there is some money available but it is not adequate. She said the State of Colorado has allocated approximately $50,000 in FEMA disaster management funds to the Town of Estes Park. These funds must be applied for through the State and when received may be utilized for administrative costs, and could be allocated to expenses related to staff time or legal feels. She also noted that Notices of Intent (NOI) have been submitted to FEMA through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and also to HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program for monies to help cover local cost share percentages. She said at this time there is no way to know whether the Town will need to come up with $0 or several million dollars. Finance Officer McFarland provided challenges to consider as the Town moves forward: 1. Sales tax is received 45 days in arrears and the bulk is collected in the summer. It will be difficult to make spending decisions based on sales tax until early fall. 2. A budget for the Events Center was created based on the Johnson pro forma. Actual revenue and expenses are unknown at this time. 3. Parking structure construction costs are up significantly over the original estimate and may require more funding. 4. FEMA reimbursements are slow in coming and there is some potential for previously approved expenses to be denied based on different interpretations of FEMA personnel. Research shows that FEMA reimbursement could be in the range of 40 cents on the dollar. 5. Other communities affected by the flood are talking about moving ahead with repairs less quickly and considering multi-year plans to address flood recovery. Grants Specialist Crosser said that FEMA has placed a deadline of March 2015 on the completion of temporary and permanent work and noted that the Town will be requesting an extension. Town Administrator Lancaster said that staff has been asked to focus on mandated recovery projects at this time. PIO Rusch will prepare an overview for the public outlining the ongoing financial challenges related to flood recovery. Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 4 FALL RIVER AND FISH CREEK MASTER PLAN. Director Chilcott said that after the flood an application was made to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for funding for the restoration of Fall River and Fish Creek. The Town has joined a flood-wide master planning effort that is supported by state agencies, including the CWCB. The master plan will focus on areas affected by the September 2013 flood; will be vetted through the community and provide a foundation for permanent recovery work based on strong science and engineering; and will be a path to resiliency in the community, the economy, and the river systems. A risk-based approach to master planning has been chosen as the best method to identify short- and long-term projects with efforts and dollars focused on areas where the most benefit will be realized. Julie Ash representing Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers said the plan’s vision is to work with, rather than fight, the river. A resilient stream corridor can be achieved by providing protection for bridges, roads, and homes; reducing flood and geomorphic hazards; and promoting stream health. The master planning process will put the Town in a better position to receive funding to not only restore and rebuild to pre-flood conditions but also for competitive funding to make improvements so that the same damage does not occur during future events. The master plan will help identify scientifically sound projects that may be eligible for funding. Ms. Ash said comprehensive education and outreach will be utilized in creating the plan and noted that private land rights are going to be a factor in completing repair and restoration work. Since work upstream affects properties downstream, making individual decisions about individual properties will likely result in less protection for the overall area. She noted that while taking precautions prior to spring run-off, rip-rap was used in areas along Fish Creek because of the large area and the short time frame to prepare. She said in the interest of stream health, the rock material cannot remain in place. A permanent solution may be to re-use or re-distribute the rock to hold grade, for example, while the willows are re-established. The first River Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting was held on June 24th. Members include representatives from EVRPD, the sanitation districts, the Estes Valley Land Trust, the lodging association, Larimer County, Partners for Commerce, and property owners along Fall River and Fish Creek. The Board asked that staff share the message that has been given to members of the RAC so that they can provide a consistent message when speaking to constituents. Floodplain Manager Birchfield said that prior to the flood there existed detailed studies to reference and specific criteria on which to base decisions related to floodplain management. Post flood, this information is no longer valid. He said the risk-based master plan will help in identifying hazards and new data can be gathered to aid in the production of new floodplain maps and materials. He said he anticipates coming back to the Board some time later in the year with changes to the Estes Valley Development Code and floodplain management regulations. Floodplain Manager Birchfield noted that even though flood insurance rates are on the rise due to disasters such as hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the Town’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and any improvements and mitigation that can be done will help with rates in the community. DRAFT REVISIONS TO BOARD AND STAFF LINKAGES. Town Administrator Lancaster brought forward a draft revision to Policy Governance 2.1 that will further define the decisions staff has the authority to make and those that are the responsibility of the Town Board. He briefly reviewed Section 2.1.8 which is being proposed as an addition to the policy. The Board discussed item #10 and how to define “scope” as it relates to Town projects. It was determined that anything that would materially change the product or outcome of the project would be considered a change to scope and require Town Board approval. Trustee Ericson requested #5 be re- worded to indicate Board approval is required for changes to the budget at fund-level. Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 5 The Board expressed a comfort level with the revisions, therefore, Town Administrator Lancaster will prepare to bring the policy forward for formal approval at the Town Board meeting scheduled for July 8, 2014. USE OF PROJECT CONTINGENCIES. Project Manager Zurn stated that the purpose of contingency funds is to cover costs associated with unforeseen situations, architectural errors and omissions, and negotiating with private sector contractors. He said it is the Town’s practice to add a contingency to a project which becomes part of the initial budget that is approved by the Town Board. He noted a difference between contingency funds and underspending or saving money on a project in which case the underspent funds may be used elsewhere. As there was little time remaining before the start of the regularly scheduled Town Board meeting, Town Administrator Lancaster noted that Project Manager Zurn’s comments provided an introduction to the topic and said the discussion would continue at the Town Board Study Session scheduled for July 8, 2014. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk