HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2016-01-26
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 26, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of
January, 2016.
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, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
FUND BALANCE POLICY.
Finance Officer McFarland presented a draft policy related to fund balance for discussion.
The draft policy proposes maintaining a 20% fund balance in the General Fund which
would include a 3% Tabor reserve; a 10% operating reserve in Fleet; a minimum of 15%
of the fleet replacement value in the Vehicle Replacement Fund; and approximately
$100,000 to $200,000 in the IT Fund. The policy recommends maintaining reserves of
30%-40% of the three-year rolling average of annual claims in the Medical Insurance
Fund. The Enterprise Funds, Light and Power and Water, have defined bond reserve
requirements and operations and maintenance requirements in addition to self-imposed
reserves for debt coverage and maintenance and replacement of infrastructure. The
Community Reinvestment Fund and Special Revenue Funds do not have minimum
reserve requirements and the Theater Fund is a fiduciary fund held by the Town.
Finance Officer McFarland explained the make-up of fund balance which includes non-
spendable fund balance, restricted fund balance, committed fund balance, assigned fund
balance and unassigned fund balance. These categories have different levels of
restriction and spendability. He noted that percentages are important, but it is also
important to monitor the actual dollar amount in each fund and said that adopting a fund
balance policy would facilitate making budget-related decisions.
The Board concurred with the proposed policy noting that 20% fund balance is a
reasonable target and noted that the Town’s revenues are sales tax-driven, creating a
level of uncertainty that does not exist in municipalities that are property tax-driven. The
Trustees noted that the repair work on Highway 34 over the next year or two may impact
the Town’s economy.
Staff will prepare to bring the fund balance policy forward to the Trustees at an upcoming
Town Board meeting.
PURCHASING POLICY.
A draft purchasing policy was brought forward to the Board by Finance Officer McFarland.
The purpose of the policy is to designate spending authority and limits, and to set financial
preference parameters for local contractors. Development of the purchasing policy has
been ongoing and has included input from the leadership team and a review of policy
governance to determine appropriate approval levels – either Board level or
administrative level. The Town Board currently approves budgets at the fund level and
often times re-approves expenditures over $30,000. The proposed draft policy delegates
pre-approved budgeted expenditures under $100,000 to the Town Administrator and
allows step-down levels of spending to specific staff positions. All procedures for
expending funds such as budget approval, RFPs, purchase orders, etc., would still be
required and maintained. The policy would allow for a more expedited spending process
Town Board Study Session – January 26, 2016 – Page 2
when all required criteria has been met. The Trustees discussed the purchasing limits
contained in the draft policy that were being proposed for particular job titles and said the
purchasing limits should not be defined by job title, but rather by the type of projects and
expenses that are incurred by individuals holding these particular positions. It was noted
that the spending limits are per contract per purchase.
The Board agreed that the policy would streamline the process and still retain the checks
and balances that are currently in place.
In regard to local purchasing preference, current policy allows for a local preference
discount when selecting vendors if the local contractor’s bid is within 2% of the out-of-
town vendor’s bid. Following discussion, the Board agreed with staff’s policy proposal to
increase the local preference percentage to 5%. It was noted that federal and state grants
do not allow for local preference discounts and that staff will need to keep this in mind
when utilizing grant funds so as not to violate grant guidelines.
The Purchasing Policy will be prepared for Town Board consideration at an upcoming
Town Board meeting.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 5:43 p.m.
BUILDING CODE LOCAL AMENDMENTS FOR VACATION RENTALS WITH
OCCUPANCY OVER EIGHT (8).
Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield provided the Board with options related to
regulating vacation home rentals. As a review from the January 12, 2016, Town Board
Study session, CBO Birchfield stated that the Board can choose to regulate vacation
homes either through the International Residential Code (IRC) or the International
Building Code (IBC). Options provided included:
1. No change – regulate to the IRC – vacation homes would continue to be licensed
with no inspections or additional safety requirements.
2. Regulate to the IBC – This would provide the greatest amount of protection to
renters, however, it would likely come at a sizable cost to the vacation home owner.
At a minimum sprinkler and accessibility requirements would be triggered.
3. Hybrid Approach – Adopt local code amendments to address critical needs of the
community. The Board would have the ability to tailor requirements to include life
safety surveys to address, for example, unpermitted work, verify street address,
verify proper egress, check CO and smoke alarms, and inspect existing gas
appliances. He stated a $200 fee in addition to the business licensing fee would
likely be required to pay for the cost of the safety survey. CBO Birchfield noted
that if violations were found during the safety survey, the owner would be required
to rectify the violations.
The Board’s discussion is summarized: Larimer County has not made a final decision as
to which code they will use to regulate vacation homes; strive for consistency with Larimer
County regulations; require surveys/inspections for all properties engaging in short term
rentals of less than 30 days; surveys/inspections would provide better safety for guests
and surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods; depending on findings, supplemental
surveys/inspections may be required; frequency of surveys/inspections would need to be
determined; don’t want to over-legislate but care about public safety; consider inspection
of long term rentals in the future; ADA standards are included in the IBC but are not
included in the IRC; schedule a survey/inspection during 2016 in order to be licensed as
a vacation home in 2017; and recommendation is to survey all vacation homes.
Staff will develop local amendments based on the hybrid model to bring forward to the
Board in conjunction with the adoption of the IRC, the IBC and the property maintenance
code.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Phipps noted that the action item at the subsequent Board meeting is about
vacation home fees and that discussion should be focused on that topic only.
Town Board Study Session – January 26, 2016 – Page 3
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster scheduled the following topics for discussion:
February 2, 2016 – Joint Meeting with the County Commissioners regarding
Vacation Homes. (A final follow-up meeting with the Commissioners is proposed
for March 1, 2016)
March 8, 2016 – Biennial Citizen Survey – Custom Questions
March 8, 2016 – Utility Metering Infrastructure
March 22, 2016 – Status report on Capital Improvement Plan Process
The following discussion topics have been approved for discussion but have not yet been
scheduled:
Annexation Philosophy
Work Plan for Code Changes
Personnel Policy Schedule
A discussion related to the Sister Cities program has been removed from the list of study
session agenda topics.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk