Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2014-06-24 Tuesday, June 24, 2014 TOWN BOARD 4:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Board Room 4:00 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:05 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:15 p.m. Flood Recovery Financial Update. (Finance Officer McFarland) 5:00 p.m. Break for Dinner 5:15 p.m. Fall River & Fish Creek Master Plan. (Director Chilcott) 5:45 p.m. Draft Revisions to Board and Staff Linkages. (Administrator Lancaster) 6:00 p.m. Use of Project Contingencies. (Administrator Lancaster) 6:30p.m. Meeting Adjourn. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 3:45 p.m.” AGENDA     Continued              June 24, 2014 June 26, 2014 (Board Retreat)  Review Strategic Plan – Goals / Practices July 8, 2014  Vacation Home Regulations Enforcement Discussion  Possible RTA Application Discussion (TENTATIVE) July 22, 2014  Fish Hatchery Property Discussion July 23, 2014 (Special Meeting)  Update on Community Center Feasibility Study August 12, 2014  Commercially Zoned Properties Discussion August 26, 2014  Town Water Ownership / Issues Briefing September 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress October 14, 2014  Seasonal Tour Business - Follow Up Discussion November 11, 2014  Review Citizen’s Survey Results December 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items Items to be Scheduled (Items are not in order of priority)  Logo Discussion  Museum / Senior Center Master Plan  Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for Parking Structure  Review Capital Investment Plan and Capital Asset Management Page 1 FINANCE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: June 24, 2014 RE: Flood recovery financial update Background: The financial effects of the September 2013 flood have been extremely complex and far reaching. Most of the 12 Town Funds, and over 400 line items in the financial statements, have been affected by flood-related activity. The nature of flood reparations has caused several challenges. Public Works, Community Development, and the Utility departments are actively and aggressively seeking creative ways to enact repairs over multiple damaged sites. Finance is tasked with making sure “I’s are dotted and “T”s are crossed so that maximum reimbursement is available from multiple agencies, all of which reimburse at different rates, under different requirements, and with unknown reimbursement time frames. Finance’s greatest challenges are 1) making sure Town Funds do not run out of money before reimbursements arrive, and 2) making sure that the rules and regulations of each agency is followed so that the reimbursement processes are not impeded. The financial impact/progress of the flood can be measured in multiple ways. Staff will present a “30,000 foot” overview of financial information that will attempt to answer what is being fixed, where, what agency is involved, what has been expended, and what our expected reimbursement may be. Staff is currently updating financial information, which will be brought to the Study Session. Budget: No Budgetary action is recommended at this time. The 2014 Budget will be significantly revised during the Budget process. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director Date: June 24, 2014 RE: Fall River and Fish Creek Master Plan Objective: Update the Town Board of Trustees about the purpose and status of the Fall River and Fish Creek Master Plans. Present Situation: Town has joined the flood-wide master planning effort, supported by state agencies, including the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). This is a critical step in flood recovery to build permanent recovery work on a foundation of strong science and engineering, vetted through the community it impacts and is the path to resiliency in our community, economy, and river systems. The Town is taking a risk-based approach to master planning as the best method to identify and prioritize both short-term and long-term projects. This approach is consistent with that being used to identify projects for which FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and HUD Community Development Block Grant funds have been requested. A risk assessment evaluates where the community can get the most value in terms of multiple benefit projects as well as the quantity of smaller scale projects versus those needing more involved efforts and partnerships. This deliberative approach leads to savings during project design and implementation. The Town has served as a catalyst for the Fall River and Fish Creek coalitions. These coalitions connect the community and initiated master planning efforts to capitalize funding opportunities that result in community connectivity and leverage economic opportunity through effective floodplain management and healthy habitats, open space, and trails. A consensus-driven planning and design process is the path forward integrating the community into flood recovery work from the earliest stages Proposal: At the Town Board Study Session Community Development staff and Julie Ash, Senior Water Resource Engineer with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers will provide update the Trustees. Advantages: N/A Disadvantages: N/A Action Recommended: No action required. Budget: Fall River (and downtown) Master Plan: Funded by grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado. Fish Creek Master Plan: Funded by a grant from the CWCB. Additional funding requested from CO Department of Local Affairs, Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG – DR) planning funds. Level of Public Interest High Sample Motion: N/A Attachments: None Administration Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: June 20, 2014 RE: Draft revisions to Policy Governance 2.1 Objective: To further clarify the decisions that are exclusively the responsibility of the Board of Trustees and what other decisions are delegated to the Town Administrator Present Situation: In some cases, staff has pointed out that it is not completely clear what decisions staff has the authority to make and what decisions should be taken to the Town Board. This can cause problems by either slowing down the decision making process in order to get a routine decision on a bi-monthly Board meeting, or on the other side of the coin, staff making a decision that should be reserved for the elected body. Proposal: The revised policy 2.1 further clarifies what decisions are the purview of the Board. Advantages:  Avoids misunderstandings  Can speed up the decision making process in some cases, to enable better customer service  Ensures the Board has exclusive decision making authority for major issues. Disadvantages:  It is impossible to anticipate all situations and there still may be some judgment calls necessary. Action Recommended: That the Board review, discuss and comment on the proposed revisions to Policy 2.1 so staff can prepare a final draft to bring back to the Board for formal approval at an upcoming Board meeting. Budget: n/a Level of Public Interest low Draft 2 5-30-2014 1 POLICY TYPE: B OARD/STAFF LINKAGE POLICY 2.1 POLICY TITLE: DELEGATION TO THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR The Board of Trustees’ job is generally confined to establishing the broadest vision and policies. Implementation and subsidiary decision making is delegated to the Town Administrator as specified in the Estes Park Municipal Code 2.28. 2.1.1 Only decisions of the Board of Trustees, by majority vote, are binding on the Town Administrator. 2.1.2 With the exception of the Town Attorney and the Municipal Judge, the Town Administrator shall have line authority over all Town departments. This authority shall include supervision and control over day to day functions and management decisions required to carry out the objectives of the Board of Trustees. 2.1.3 The policies, goals and objectives of the Board of Trustees direct the Town Administrator to achieve certain results; the policies permit the Town Administrator to act within acceptable boundaries of prudence and ethics. With respect to the policies, the Town Administrator is authorized to make all decisions, take all actions and develop all activities as long as they are consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the policies of the Board of Trustees. 2.1.4 The Board of Trustees may change its policies, thereby shifting the boundary between Board and Town Administrator domains. Consequently, the Board may change the latitude of choice given to the Town Administrator, but so long as any particular delegation is in place, the Board will respect and support the Town Administrator’s choices. The Board will not allow the impression that the Town Administrator has violated policy when the Town Administrator supports an existing policy. 2.1.5 No individual member of the Board of Trustees has authority over the Town Administrator. Information may be requested by individual Board members, but if such request, in the Town Administrator’s judgment, requires a material amount of resources or is detrimental to other necessities, the Town Administrator may ask for majority Board action on such a request. 2.1.6 It is understood that at times it may be in the best interest of the Town to waive or grant exceptions to adopted Board policy. The Town Administrator shall request Board approval for any policy waiver or exception prior to its implementation. 2.1.7 Should the Town Administrator deem it necessary to, or inadvertently, violate a Board policy, he or she shall promptly inform the Board of Trustees. Informing is simply to guarantee no violation may be intentionally kept from the Board, not to request approval. Board response, either approving or disapproving, does not exempt the Town Administrator from subsequent Board judgment of the action. Draft 2 5-30-2014 2 2.1.8 The following decisions shall be the responsibility of the Board of Trustees. Implementation and subsidiary decision making for all other items is delegated to the Town Administrator. 1. Establishment and approval of all Utility Rates 2. Establishment and approval of Community Development Fees 3. Establishment of purchasing approval limitations contained in the Town Procurement Policy. 4. Approval of any increase to staffing levels The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. 5. All changes to the adopted Town Budget 6. Any sale, purchase or lease of real property 7. Any changes to employee benefits 8. Any issue that, in the opinion of the majority of the Board of Trustees, concerns a substantial policy determination and/or is of a controversial nature with the public that warrants Board involvement. 9. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements, subject to the provisions of the Town Procurement Policy. 10. Approval of any substantive change to the scope, design, development or construction of any capital project. Contingency Administration Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: June 20, 2014 RE: Discussion of Use of Contingency Funds Allocated to Town Capital Projects Objective: To discuss the use of contingency funds that are included in the budgets for Town capital projects; specifically any limitations on the uses of these funds and any Town Board approvals that are necessary prior to use of any contingency funds previously allocated in the project budget. Present Situation: It is a normal practice to include a specific amount of contingent funding in the budget of capital projects. These funds are included because it is impossible to anticipate all issue that may come to light during a complex construction process. Without an adequate contingency, many projects would have to revise their budgets on an ongoing basis. According to the AACI International, project contingencies include "Some of the items, conditions, or events for which the state, occurrence, and/or effect is uncertain include, but are not limited to, planning and estimating errors and omissions, minor price fluctuations (other than general escalation), design developments and changes within the scope, and variations in market and environmental conditions. Contingency is generally included in most estimates, and is expected to be expended. A key phrase above is that it is "expected to be expended". In other words, it is an item in an estimate like any other, and should be estimated and included in every estimate and every budget. Because management often thinks contingency money is "fat" that is not needed if a project team does its job well, it is a controversial topic." Contingency funds are commonly associated with change orders approved during the construction process. Change orders are common and may range from minor changes of only a few dollars or possible dollar savings, to major additional expenditures. Under most projects, as long as the project scope remains unchanged and the expenditures remain within the allocated budget (including the contingency funds) the project managers have the authority to approve and fund all change orders. Requiring board approval of all uses of contingencies and change orders would significantly slow projects down due to the fact that they could only be considered twice a month. These delays would also significantly increase the total project costs. Contingency 2 In a more specific discussion, in the Events Center project, an opportunity has presented itself to modify the project and add a second floor meeting space in the silo of the facility. This will provide additional rentable space for clients to use for breakout space and individual meetings, expanding the capacity and market for the facility. Staff believes there will be a positive return on this investment, if the change is done during the construction phase. To add the second floor later after construction is completed would be more expensive and would be disruptive to the operation of the facility. There is adequate funding in the project budget to fund this change. This is an example of a scope change and warrants the discussion and approval of the Town Board. This is beyond the scope of a normal use of contingency funds for completion of the project, however staff believes this is an opportunity that warrants the Board's consideration. Proposal: Discussion only to clarify the definition and use of contingency funds and for staff to obtain Board direction on how the Board would like staff to handle use of contingencys in the future. Advantages: n/a Disadvantages: n/a Action Recommended: n/a - discussion only Budget: n/a Level of Public Interest low