HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2014-01-28
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado January 28, 2014
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 the
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of January,
2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Ericson requested Assistant Town Attorney John Frey join the Town Board for
an upcoming meeting.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Trustee Elrod requested the Town Board have a general discussion on voter initiatives.
Attorney White suggested the Board add the discussion to the Town Board meeting as
an executive session to receive legal advice with regard to the current voter initiative.
UPDATE ON SALES TAX CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE.
Administrator Lancaster provided the Board an update on the formation of a citizen led
sale tax campaign committee. The committee has developed a message of “Stand
Together for a Strong Tomorrow”. In order to provide the quality of life the citizens of
Estes Park desire, the community needs to band together to get the sales tax increase
passed. A speakers bureau has been developed to provide factual information on why
the tax is needed, what it will do for the town, and what the tax is not. A member of the
committee has developed a Facebook page and developed other social media outlets.
He stated Board participation would be critical. Trustee Phipps added the Library has
provided the Town with an outline used for their recent mil levy campaign which utilized
over 100 volunteers. He urged the Senior Center Inc. to provide support.
Trustee Norris stated the young families and teachers are supporting the measure for
the Community Recreation Center, while the older citizens are asking why they should
pay for items they may not use. Other questions being asked include why the tourist
are paying for roads they don’t drive on, and what other revenue enhancements did the
Town consider. Trustee Phipps added others are questioning why the Town did not
consider revenue bonds.
REVIEW OF TOWN PROPERTY INVENTORY.
The Town staff prepared an inventory of Town owned real estate within the Estes Valley
several years ago. The Association for Responsible Development refined the inventory
this past summer. The Board was presented with a draft policy last summer containing
criteria on how the Town would determine ownership of real estate assets, and the
Board decided not to pursue a formal policy. Staff has analyzed and reviewed each
parcel to determine the current use and benefit to the Town. The list of properties have
been divided into categories including actively used by the Town, potential properties to
Town Board Study Session – January 28, 2014 – Page 2
sale or dispose of, open lands or parks, parking lots that could be used for commercial
venture in the future, and properties not owned by the Town but by other entities.
The properties identified for disposal included the Fish Hatchery complex, a parcel on
Old Ranger Road, two properties on Moraine just below the landfill on either side of Elm
Road, a sliver of property along Stanley Circle Drive and Lot 4 Stanley History District.
The Town owns a number of open space parcels including three large open space
parcels with conservation easements in the Reserve subdivision, a parcel along Dry
Gulch Road south of Crossroads Ministry, a small parcel on Moccasin acquired during
the development of the bypass, a wooded lot on the corner of Community Drive and
Hwy 7, a parcel below the thumb on Prospect Mountain obtained during a subdivision
as on outlot, Sanborn reservoir near the Cheley Camp, a parcel containing a water tank
acquired with the purchase of the Crystal water system, a parcel on Audubon
purchased for a proposed water tank not needed now, and the abandoned Black
Canyon water tank parcel.
The Board discussed the need for criteria in determining which properties to sell and
acquire for public use in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst advocated for holding
Town owned properties as there may be a use in the future. Administrator Lancaster
stated certain properties are a liability for the Town to own, for example Blank Canyon
parcel, and therefore, should be sold to the adjacent property owner (MacGregor Ranch
or Rocky Mountain National Park). Trustee Koenig suggested a separate category be
created for unbuildable lots.
Trustee Elrod questioned if parking lots fronting Elkhorn Avenue are the highest and
best use of commercial real estate that could generate additional tax revenue. He also
questioned the sale of air space above parking lots for commercial or residential use.
Administrator Lancaster recommended parking lots could be considered if the spaces
are replaced elsewhere in town; however, he recommended the Dairy Queen lot be
maintained for the one-way couplet realignment and the Brownfield lot for access to the
River.
Further discussion was heard on whether the properties identified for disposal should be
advertised for sale and if formal plans for the use of the properties should be identified.
Trustee Koenig suggested Town owned properties available for development could be
added to a index in the Development Code for developers to review when considering
development in the valley.
The Board agreed to allow staff to move forward with the disposal of the Sanborn
reservoir and the Black Canyon properties to the neighboring property owners as they
pose a liability to the Town. Trustee Elrod suggested land swaps may be an
appropriate mechanism for disposing of these properties. Administrator Lancaster
would proceed with the disposal of the two properties, narrow down the categories
further, and discuss the Town inventory with the new Board.
FLOOD RECOVERY AND REPAIR COSTS.
Funding for repairs to public infrastructure will come from a number of sources including
CIRSA, FEMA, Federal Highways, State of Colorado, NRCS and others. In general,
these sources are covering 75% of the cost, 12.5% covered by the State and 12.5%
covered by the Town. The Town’s 12.5% can be funded through in-kind match, which
was the case for the initial emergency response. The remaining recovery projects are
estimated at $1.5 million for the Town’s portion over the next two years. In addition to
the Town’s obligation, much of the repair work to be completed would be on a
reimbursement basis; therefore, the Town would fund the work upfront and then be
reimbursed. This has the potential to cause cash flow concerns. Possible sources of
funds to be utilized, including fund balance, maintain reduced budgets, reduction in
town services, and proceeds from the sale of excess Town property.
Town Board Study Session – January 28, 2014 – Page 3
Finance Officer McFarland stated the repairs fall into three categories: roads and
bridges, FHWA projects, trails and parks at a cost of approximately $5.8 million. He has
confirmed that Open Space funds could be used as matching funds to repair trails and
parks. He stated Water, Light and Power, and river restoration have not been included.
The reimbursement timeframe has been identified as 45 days but could take longer, and
therefore, could leave the fund balance down as low as 15% in 2014.
CONCURRENT REVIEW AMENDMENTS TO EVDC.
Director Chilcott stated staff drafted an amendment to the concurrent review process as
directed in a problem statement reviewed and approved by the Town Board and County
Commissioners. Staff requests a review and clarification of the policy direction based
on the amendment proposed. Staff understood the policy direction was that when a
development plan or special review is required, review occurs prior to the Board of
Adjustment (BOA) review. However, staff had not considered the Board of Adjustment
application could not be submitted until final action was taken on the development plan
or special review as this would add significant time to the development process.
Board discussion followed: Trustee Norris and Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst would
support a parallel process for all application as long as Planning Commission or the
Town Board has made a final decision on the application prior to BOA consideration;
and the BOA has stated the developer should be able to make a decision to obtain a
variance before expending funds on a full development plan.
The Board consensus was to move forward with the proposed language allowing all
applications to be submitted at the same time, with the BOA hearing the variance
application after final decision by the Planning Commission or the Town Board. It was
suggested the process be reviewed in 18 to 24 months to determine if the code was
working. Trustee Elrod requested staff confirm the Board of County Commissioners
would be in concurrence with the proposed code amendment.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk