HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2015-01-13
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado January 13, 2015
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
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of January, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, 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 4:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris spoke to his disappointment with the Town’s granting partners
unwillingness to allow the Town to relocate the Visitor Center parking garage to the
south parking lot across the river from the center.
Mayor Pinkham opened discussion on the inclusion of all the bills in the Town Board
packet. Discussion followed amongst the Board with suggestions including a summary
of bills could be provided or the inclusion of bills at a certain dollar amount.
Administrator Lancaster commented staff would discuss the possibilities and report
back to the Board.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Director Bergsten reviewed a proposed water rate adoption schedule with the Board
and requested the Board schedule a study session for March 10, 2015 to review the
proposal. The Board consensus was to schedule the item for the March 10, 2015
meeting.
Waiver of water tap fees for Falcon Ridge was scheduled for the January 27, 2015
meeting. Amending the Town Board Policies 1.4, 1.6 and Policy 101 was scheduled for
March 24, 2015. Consideration of the FEMA Community Rating System was postponed
until the next meeting.
Trustee Ericson stated the CDCS Committee was concerned with the scope for the sign
code revision project. The Committee’s opinion was the project scope was too narrow
and should be expanded. The intent of the study session would be to include a review
by the consultant on the legal issues related to the sign code and provide a background
of the proposed sign code revisions.
ROOFTOP RODEO PRIZE MONEY.
Director Winslow and members of Western Heritage requested the Board consider
increasing the prize/purse money for the 2015 Rooftop Rodeo. The increased purse
money would attract more contestants and higher quality contestants to the rodeo.
Currently the Rooftop Rodeo has one of the lowest total purses for rodeos held during
the same timeframe. Staff and Western Heritage proposed the increase for each event
by $1,000 and highlight two events, bareback riding and saddle bronc, to increase
participation. Highlighted events are required to pay double the purse or $12,000 per
Rooftop Rodeo event. The increase funding request would be $20,000 and funded with
the savings from contracting with the new stock contractor below the approved budget.
Town Board Study Session – January 13, 2015 – Page 2
PRCA places a limit of $70,000 prize money for a medium sized rodeo. The additional
funding would make Rooftop Rodeo one of the top paying rodeos during this timeframe
with a total prize/purse of $60,000 and competitive with its top rival Deadwood, South
Dakota.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned why the request has
not been increase to the full $70,000 as the Town would save approximately $40,000
with the reduced stock contract; and what provides the Rooftop Rodeo an advantage if
all rodeos have the ability to highlight events.
Western Heritage stated the increased funding would place the rodeo were it needs to
be in relation to the cap and the competition. The weekend of the rodeo and the 4th of
July week are the busiest weeks for rodeos. Deadwood rodeo is two weekends after
the Rooftop Rodeo. The Rooftop Rodeo would be pooled with three other rodeos,
thereby increasing the purse for those contestants that ride in all three rodeos.
The Board consensus was to allow the budgeted funds to be reallocated and used to
increase the purse as outlined by staff and Western Heritage.
BOARD DISCUSSION & COMMENT DURING LIQUOR LICENSE
Mayor Pinkham stated concern with how the Board addresses the licensee during the
liquor hearing. He stated the Board should treat each licensee with respect. Trustee
Ericson questioned if it was appropriate to provide a summary of how important having
a liquor license is and how seriously the Board takes liquor licensing.
DOWNTOWN VISIONING PROCESS
Trustee Phipps questioned why the Town Board would discuss an item related to the
Comprehensive Plan, as it is the purview of the Planning Commission per state statute.
He also objected to the change in the boundaries of the downtown neighborhood.
Trustee Norris and Trustee Nelson stated the development of a downtown vision would
not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and would add detail to the plan. The
visioning process would assess and integrate the ideas of the Town and the community
for the area and make it a better place in the future. After further discussion, it was
concluded to move forward with staff’s presentation.
Planner Shirk stated the purpose of the discussion was to provide background
information on the advantages and disadvantages of a Downtown Neighborhood Plan;
present the general concept of the public process and content; and to gain consensus
to proceed with the CDBG-DR grant application to fund the Plan. The downtown core
has seen little to no change or upgrade to the infrastructure since the EPURA
improvements following the Lawn Lake flood of 1982. A number of things have
changed over this time including a doubling of the population in Larimer County,
increase visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park, extensive destination marketing
efforts to increase visitation, a shift in demographics of residents and guests, and a
need to evolve the town’s destination product and compete with other mountain
destinations. The existing infrastructure requires updating to accommodate the current
and future demands and address items such as flood mitigation, traffic and parking
congestion, infrastructure planning, economic diversity and workforce housing. The
development of a plan would provide a blueprint for future development and
infrastructure improvements for the downtown commercial neighborhood. The plan
could be funded through a CDBG-DR grant. Round 2 funding of $11 million is available
to fund planning that would provide communities with the opportunity to assess impacts
and needs for the recovery process, from economic development and housing to
infrastructure hazard mitigation and resiliency needs. The grant application must be
submitted to the State by January 30, 2015. If awarded the grant, staff would
recommend the hiring of a consultant to conduct an inventory and analysis of the
existing downtown, prepare a draft plan, coordinate public outreach, and deliver a final
plan with an implementation plan. The plan would address the next 20 years, define the
boundaries of the plan area, identify quality of life issues, identify demographic trends,
Town Board Study Session – January 13, 2015 – Page 3
review flood mitigation risk, minimize flood insurance costs, integrate the Downtown
Loop Project, address parking needs, coordinate transportation improvements,
coordinate the improvements to infrastructure improvements, draft urban design
guidelines, establish a wayfinding system, encourage economic diversity, guide land
uses to ensure compatibility with downtown and identify barriers to development,
prepare economic analysis and market demand, expand business year, and
redevelopment and repair of older buildings. A plan could make future grants available
to complete projects such as floodplain mitigation, bridge improvements, etc.
Discussion followed amongst the Board: the assessment by an outsider would be
beneficial, the downtown area is not utilized by the residents and questioned if the plan
would address uses by the citizens; the boundaries proposed need to be discussed
further; questioned how the plan would interact with the EDC grant funded projects;
would a task force be appointed; recommend the plan area start large and shrink it
down through public comment; questioned the progression of projects such as FLAP
and the parking structure; and requested staff notice all the properties and businesses
potentially affect by the plan.
Staff stated the development of the plan would be integrated with the EDC grant and the
same consultant may be used to complete the economic analysis. A committee would
be developed to review the infrastructure needs and a separate committee would review
the overall plan. The FLAP and parking structure projects would move forward and the
plan would take these projects into consideration.
Additional discussion was heard on the timing of the grant application and the need for
the Planning Commission to consider the development of a plan before staff moved
forward with the application. The consensus of the Board was to schedule a Planning
Commission meeting as soon as possible to ensure their concurrence with the
development of the plan.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk