The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2013-10-22 Tuesday, October 22, 2013 TOWN BOARD 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Board Room 4:30 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:45 p.m. Sales Tax Initiative. (Administrator Lancaster) 5:15 p.m. Town Board Compensation. (Town Clerk Williamson) 5:30 p.m. Break for Dinner. 5:45 p.m. Review of Liquor Violation Guidelines & Process. (Town Clerk Williamson & Board Discussion) 6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn. “Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m.” AGENDA October 22, 2013 Items to be Scheduled:  Distribution of FOSH Funds  Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for Parking Structure  Review of 2014 Objectives in Light of the Flood  Town’s Role in Events  Senior Center/Museum Master Plan  Review of Town Property Inventory  Committee Appointments/Definitions  Community Survey 2014  Parking Structure Design Review  Neighborhood Subdivision Issues  Review Capital Investment Plan  Discussion of the Fire District Agreement and Revenue Sharing  Revision to the Sign Code  Acceptance of Art, Gifts, Naming of Parks, etc.  Strategic Planning – Issues and Plans  Revise Stanley Historic District Agreement Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items 1% -> Sunset -> 10 years -> -> 15 years Project Ball Park Cost notes Streets / drainage $ 1,200,000 Bike trails / trail connections $ 9,000,000 $7M Big T, $2M for Fall River - Match Monies? Community center / senior center $ 15,000,000 Expanded transit $ 300,000 to double frequencies Emergency AM radio $ 50,000 Conference center – upgrades and expansions $ 1,250,000 $250K for upgrades, $1M for expansion Museum/ Museum Storage $ 7,000,000 Riverwalk improvements ? Streetscapes – Riverside/Moraine/34 $ 1,000,000 Fiber ? Performance Park Upgrades Upgrade/new restrooms downtown Pocket Park/neighborhood parks Public art – percentage of total investment in each project Move EP Sanitation Highway 7 improvements Infrastructure at Elm Road Fish Hatchery Proposal Lot 4 development Redevelopment of Town Hall lot Residential Sidewalks Workforce housing Parking structure downtown Water mains Shooting range / archery Underground electric Undergrounding towers Town Hall / new or go up a story Offsite storage more funding for Community service grants Colorado Community tax rates State County City Bed Tax other Muni Mill levy notes Sales tax w/o Lodging Tax Total sales tax Estes Park 2.9% 0.60%4.000%2.0% 1.822 7.500%9.500%Loveland 2.9% 0.60%3.000%3.0% 9.564 6.500%9.500%Durango* 2.9% 2.00%3.000%1.9% 2.507 7.900%9.800%Vail 2.9% 1.50%4.000%1.4% 4.691% RE Transfer Tax 8.400%9.800%Longmont*** 2.9% 0.80%3.275%2.0%1.1%13.42 8.075%10.075%Fort Collins 2.9% 0.60%3.850%3.0% 9.797 7.350%10.350%Telluride 2.9% 1.00%4.500%2.0% 2.2683% RE Transfer Tax 8.400%10.400%Aspen 2.9% 3.60%2.400%2.0%0.5%5.4311.5% RE Transfer tax 9.400%11.400%Steamboat** 2.9% 1.00%4.750%2.0%1.0%0 9.650%11.650%Breckenridge 2.9% 2.75%2.500%3.4%0.125%7.2961% RE Transfer Tax 8.275%11.675%Boulder*** 2.9% 0.80%3.410%7.5%1.1%8.748 5% Admissions Tax 8.210%15.710%* bed tax is outside town limits only ** LMD tax and an accomodations tax *** RTD and SCD taxes Funding Options  Sale of excess Town Property  Formation of a Storm Water Utility  Increase Utility Rates  Charge for parking  Impact Fees  Sales tax on water  Increase in property tax *  Increased business license fees (particularly for VRBO  Increase Sales Tax*  Real Estate Transfer Tax**  Grants, Open Space, Lottery Funds  TIF Financing (URA / DDA)  Reduce property tax combined with increased sales tax*  Requires vote ** Prohibited by TABOR amendment Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: October 18, 2013 RE: Town Board Compensation Objective: Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal election on April 1, 2014. Present Situation: An extensive review of Board compensation was completed by Interim Town Administrator Richardson in 2012. After careful consideration, the Town Board approved an increase in March 2012 for newly elected Board members in April 2012: Mayor - $7,500, Mayor Pro Tem - $6,500 and Trustee - $5,500. The Board members elected in April 2014 would receive the current salaries unless a change is approved prior to the election. Staff reviewed the data provided to the Board in 2012 and found that only two communities have changed their compensation packages – Steamboat Springs and Blackhawk. None of the changes impact where Estes Park ranks in relation to peer cities. The information is being provided for Board discussion at the study session. Steamboat Springs: Mayor salary 2012- $21,096 Mayor salary 2013 - $9,917 Trustees 2012- $15,840 Trustees 2013- $7,449 Blackhawk: Mayor salary 2012- $9,847 Mayor salary 2013- $10,402 Trustees 2012- $9,437 Trustees 2013- $10,402 Proposal: None. Advantages: N/A Disadvantages: N/A Action Recommended: Provide staff with direction on whether the Board would like to review changing the compensation for newly elected Board member on April 1, 2014. Budget: An increase in compensation would require an update to the Legislative personnel line items. Sample Motion: N/A Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Interim Town Administrator Date: March 13, 2012 Re: Ordinance #03-12 Amend Municipal Code section 2.20 Mayor and Trustees Compensation. Background: At the February 28th Town Board study session a review of Town ordinance 2.20.010 “Compensation of Mayor and Board of Trustees” was presented for review and discussion. From that meeting, staff and Town Attorney White prepared revisions to the Town’s Municipal Code section 2.20.010 outlining recommended changes to the code. Those recommended Municipal Code changes are being presented by Town Attorney White. Staff was asked to provide additional information regarding the comparable communities used by staff for recommending changes to the current Town Board of Trustees compensation. The additional information includes: 1) Each community’s 2012 budgeted total annual revenues; 2) Number of Fulltime Employees; and 3) The represented percentage of each community’s total sales ratio to their General Fund budget revenues. The (13) communities selected for comparison are based on similarities regarding: 1. Tourism as a primary economic base; and 2. Sales tax as a primary revenue to the community’s general fund Research revealed a direct comparison of like communities to the Town of Estes Park is not possible since comparable information regarding tourism season, populations, annual operating budgets and sales tax generators cannot be exactly compared, however the communities used for the purpose of this research share greater similarities than metro area urban communities or other rural Colorado communities. The remaining comparables depicted in each of the tables are the same those presented at the February 28th study session meeting. A demographic table is included outlining basic community information, i.e. population and primary economic driver along with the already presented comparable information. Budget: The recommended changes to the Town Board of Trustees, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor compensation are only for the newly elected positions to be determined on April 3, 2012. Those recommended increases and impact to the 2012 budget are: Mayor $1,125 Mayor Pro Tem $1,125 Three Town Trustees $3,375 Total $5,625 Staff Recommendation: Depicted in the tables below are each of the Town Board of Trustees positions identified by Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Town Trustee. In table “A” the Mayor position currently ranks last in compensation comparison, the Mayor Pro Tem ranks 9th and the Town Trustee position ranks 11th. Staff recommends increasing each Board of Trustees annual compensation amount by $1,500 based on the comparison information. These recommend changes adjust the Mayor position to 12th, the Mayor Pro Tem position to 6th and the Town Trustee position to 10th. Table “A” Mayor Annual Salary Health Benefits Other Benefits General Fund/Sales Tax Comparison FTE’s Annual Budget Steamboat Springs $21,096 X X 75% 169.75 $41,050,231 Telluride $18,000 X X 51% NA $23,465,010 Breckenridge $14,400 X 43% 176 $57,475,888 Vail $12,000 X X 61% 213 $49,356,996 Frisco $11,400 63% 64 $10,496,284 Dillon $10,800 X 84% NA $8,786,619 Blackhawk $9,847 X X 43% 92 $25,068,039 Silverthorne $9,000 X 68% 77 $26,937,792 Winter Park $9,600 X X 60% 35.25 $5,354,272 Durango $8,999 X X 58% 283.9 $50,641,322 Glenwood Springs $8,400 42% 191.3 $44,324,689 Estes Park (Proposed) $7,500 X X 82% 133.6 $34,439,364 Crested Butte $7,200 21% NA $8,476,418 Gunnison $7,200 X 87% 82.5 $15,816,803 Estes Park (current) $6,000 X X 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 NA‐Not available Table “B” Mayor Pro Tem/Trustees Annual Salary Health Benefits Other Benefits General Fund/Sales Tax Comparison FTE’s Annual Budget Steamboat Springs (6) $15,840 X X 75% 169.75 $41,050,231 Telluride (6) $9,600 X X 51% NA $23,465,010 Breckenridge (6) $9,600 X 43% 176 $57,475,888 Blackhawk (6) $9,437 X X 43% 92 $25,068,039 Vail (6) $7,500 X X 61% 213 $49,356,996 Mayor Pro Tem Estes Park (Proposed) $6,500 X X 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 Frisco (6) $6,000 63% 64 $10,496,284 Glenwood Springs (6) $6,000 42% 191.3 $44,324,689 Gunnison (4) $6,000 X 87% 82.5 $15,816,803 Durango (5) $5,999 X X 58% 283.9 $50,641,322 Estes Park (Proposed) $5,500 X X 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 Mayor Pro Tem Estes Park (Current) $5,000 X X 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 Winter Park (6) $4,800 X X 60% 35.25 $5,354,272 Estes Park (5) (Current) $4,000 X X 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 Dillon (6) $3,600 X 84% NA $8,786,619 Silverthorne (6) $3,600 X 68% 77 $26,937,792 Crested Butte (6) $3,600 21% NA $8,476,418 Table “C” Community Demographics Population Economic Driver General Fund/Sales Tax Comparison FTE’s Annual Budget Breckenridge 2665 Tourism 43% 176 $57,475,888 Durango 16,627 Tourism 58% 283.9 $50,641,322 Vail 4,843 Tourism 61% 213 $49,356,996 Glenwood Springs 9,107 Tourism 42% 191.3 $44,324,689 Steamboat Springs 12,180 Tourism 75% 169.75 $41,050,231 Estes Park 5,858 Tourism 82% 113.6 $34,439,364 Silverthorne 3,887 Tourism 68% 77 $26,937,792 Blackhawk 114 Gaming 43% 92 $25,068,039 Telluride 2,221 Tourism 51% NA $23,465,010 Gunnison 5,854 Tourism 87% 82.5 $15,816,803 Frisco 3,676 Tourism 63% 64 $10,496,284 Crested Butte 1,487 Tourism 21% NA $8,476,418 Dillon 7,278 Tourism 84% NA $8,786,619 Winter Park 1,630 Tourism 60% 35.25 $5,354,272 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: March 8, 2012 RE: Ordinance No. 03‐12 An Ordinance Amending Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code regarding compensation of elected officials. Background: Ordinance No. 03‐12 increases the compensation for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee. Also, an introductory paragraph has been added which establishes the timing and procedure for future determinations as to whether or not the compensation shall be changed. If the ordinance is adopted, the increased compensation for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee shall apply only to those newly elected officials for the office of the Mayor, Trustee, and the individual Trustee appointed as the Mayor Pro Tem. Current individual Trustees who are in the middle of their respective terms will not receive the increase in compensation pursuant to the provisions of Section 31‐4‐405 C.R.S. which provides that the emoluments of office shall not be increased during the term of any individual elected or appointed official. Budget: The 2012 budget includes appropriated funds to pay the increase compensation of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees. Staff Recommendation: No Staff Recommendation. Sample Motion: I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 03‐12 for the purpose of amending Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 03‐12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.20.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 31‐4‐301 (4) C.R.S. the Mayor and members of the Board of Trustees shall receive such compensation as fixed by ordinance; and WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides for compensation of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code does not provide any process for when and how the Board of Trustees shall review future changes to the compensation of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is determined that it is necessary to amend Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee, and also to provide the method and timing of future review of said compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 2.20.010 Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees In recognition of services rendered as Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem or member of the Board of Trustees, the elected officials of the Town of Estes Park shall receive compensation as set forth in this Section. During the budget process for each even numbered year, the Board of Trustees shall consider adjustment of the amount of compensation set forth in this Section. As part of this review, the Board of Trustees shall review compensation for elected officials provided by comparable Colorado municipalities using appropriate sources including, but not limited to, the Colorado Municipal League. Any adjustment of compensation shall be by ordinance. 1) The Mayor shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. 2 2) The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. 3) Each Town Trustee shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of five thousand five hundred dollars ($5,500.00) per year during each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments. 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this_______day of______________, 2012. TOWN OF ESTES PARK _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the_____day of__________, 2012 and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the________day of____________, 2012. _____________________________ Town Clerk Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: October 18, 2013 RE: Review of Liquor Violation Guidelines & Process Objective: To gain direction from the Board on how staff should move forward with revising the current stipulation guidelines. Staff would also like to gain direction on how the Board would like to address the remaining four businesses that failed a compliance check in August. Present Situation: The Town Board approved stipulation guidelines in July 1999. Staff has used the guidelines in the past and during the recent compliance checks to negotiate stipulation agreements. During the review of the recent agreements it was suggested by the Town Board that the guidelines be reviewed to determine if they are still valid and/or if they could be updated to provide clear guidelines to staff. The Board also requested public input on how the guidelines might be modified The Town Board received public input from a number of liquor licensees and the public at their October 8, 2013 meeting. In addition, written comments have been submitted for the Board to review and consider. The Clerk’s office has received a number of policies from communities around Colorado and has developed a summary of those policies for the Board’s review. The Clerk’s office will take direction provided by the Board at the study session to draft new guidelines for the Board’s consideration at an upcoming meeting. These new guidelines would be utilized by staff to negotiate stipulation agreements for future compliance check violations. Proposal: N/A Advantages: N/A Disadvantages: N/A Action Recommended: Provide staff with direction on how to modify the guidelines. Budget: None. Sample Motion: N/A These guidelines are used to assist local licensing authorities in treating all licensees as equitably as possible. They are provided as a guideline and do not cover every potential violation that can occur. Each case is considered individually. Mitigating FactorsTraining ProgramsWritten Policies Supervision ProceduresSelf‐Check ProgramsPast history of success with compliance checksUse of birthdate input cash registersAggravating FactorsSeriousness of violationFailure to submit evidence of mitagating factorsPrior offensesIrresponsibilty and failure to accept responsibilityLack of effective operational/training programsFailure to cooperate with enforcement representatives Written WarningPayment of Fine AllowedSuspension Range ‐ Served Days in Abeyance for one yearSale to Minor ‐ First OffenseAlamosaYes Yes 0‐10 5‐15ArvadaYes 1‐14 YesBoulder 59CentennialYes 10 5Estes Park1‐21 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authority. Fort CollinsYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.LittletonYes 10 5Lone Tree32State of ColoradoYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.ThorntonYes 1‐14WestminsterYes Yes 1‐15 YesSale to Minor ‐ Second Offense within One Year**All local licensing authorities require that days held in abeyance from the first offense be imposed in addition to separate sanctions for the second offense. AlamosaYes* 5‐30 10‐20 *If fine or suspension not served on first offense.Arvada7‐45 YesBoulder10 20Centennial14 7 Estes Park1‐30 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authority.Fort CollinsYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority.Littleton14 7Lone TreeYes 5 10State of ColoradoYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority. ThorntonYes 5‐21WestminsterYes* 5‐30 Yes * *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority. Written WarningPayment of Fine AllowedSuspension Range ‐ Served Days in Abeyance for one yearSale to Intoxicated Person ‐ First OffenseAlamosaYes Yes 0‐10 5‐15ArvadaYes 1‐14 YesBoulder 59CentennialYes 10 5Estes Park1‐30 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authority.Fort CollinsYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.LittletonYes 10 5Lone Tree32State of ColoradoYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.ThorntonYes 1‐14 YesWestminsterYes Yes 1‐15 YesSale to Intoxicated Person ‐ Second Offense within One Year**All local licensing authorities require that days held in abeyance from the first offense be imposed in addition to separate sanctions for the second offense. AlamosaYes* 10‐30 10‐15 *If fine or suspension served for first offenseArvada7‐45 YesBoulder10 20Centennial14 7 Estes Park1‐90 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authority.Fort CollinsYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority.Littleton14 7Lone TreeYes 5 10State of ColoradoYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority. ThorntonYes 5‐21WestminsterYes* 5‐30 Yes * *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority. Written WarningPayment of Fine AllowedSuspension Range ‐ Served Days in Abeyance for one yearConduct of Establishment ‐ First OffenseAlamosa**Reviewed and considered on case‐by‐case basisArvadaYes 1‐14 YesBoulder 59CentennialYes 10 5Estes Park30 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authorityFort CollinsYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.LittletonYes 5 3Lone Tree32State of ColoradoYes* Yes 1‐15 Yes *Where there are no aggravating circumstances, a licensee who has provided training to its staff members, may be issued a warning on first violation.ThorntonYes 1‐14 YesWestminster**Reviewed and considered on case‐by‐case basisConduct of Establishment ‐ Second Offense within One Year**All local licensing authorities require that days held in abeyance from the first offense be imposed in addition to separate sanctions for the second offense. AlamosaArvada7‐45 YesBoulder20 20Centennial14 7 Estes Park90 Yes* *Actual time served to be determined by local licensing authorityFort CollinsYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority.Littleton14 7Lone TreeYes 5 10State of ColoradoYes* 5‐30 Yes *If no fine or suspension served on first offense, fine in lieu of days served and days held in abeyance at discretion of local licensing authority. ThorntonYes 5‐21Westerminster**Reviewed and considered on case‐by‐case basis LIQUOR LICENSE STIPULATION GUIDELINES *Revised July, 1999 Statement of Purpose: To authorize Town staff to negotiate a Stipulation Agreement, utilizing these Guidelines, with the Liquor Licensee following the setting of a Show Cause Hearing. The Town Board may amend, approve, or deny any Stipulation Agreement. REGULATION NO. CODE VIOLATION * RECOMMENDED SUSPENSION *ACTUAL TIME SERVED – TO BE DETERMINED Critical Violations: 12-47-901(1)(a) Sale to an Underage Person 1st Offense 2nd Offense, w/in 1 yr. 3rd Offense, w/in 1 yr. 4th Offense, w/in 2 yrs. 21 Days 30 “ 60 “ 90 “ to revocation 12-47-901(1)(a) and Reg. 47-900 Sale to Intoxicated Person 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 30 Days 90 “ 6 Mo. to revocation Reg. 47-900A. Conduct of Establishment Intentional: 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 30 Days 90 “ 6 Mo. to revocation Administrative Violations: 12-47-901(5)(n)(I) and Reg. 47-922A.1. Permitting Illegal Gambling 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 7 Days 30 “ 90 “ to revocation “ Video Poker Gambling 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 7 Days 30 “ 90 “ to revocation 2 REGULATION NO. CODE VIOLATION *RECOMMENDED SUSPENSION *ACTUAL TIME SERVED – TO BE DETERMINED “ Shake-A-Day Gambling Device 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 7 Days 30 “ 90 “ Reg. 47-900A. Permitting Disturbances 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 20 Days 30 “ 90 “ Reg. 47-900A. Conduct of Establishment Negligence: 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 20 Days 30 “ 90 “ to revocation Reg. 47-408A. Purchase of Liquor from Other Than Wholesaler 1st Offense 2nd Offense 5 Days 7 “ Reg. 47-419B. Failure to Meet Food Requirement (H&R, Brew Pub) 1st Offense 2nd Offense 10 Days 30 “ 12-47-901 (5) IV (I) Sale After Legal Hours 1st Offense 2nd Offense 7 Days 20 “ 12-47-301(7) Failure to Report Manager, Corporate & Financial Change 1st Offense 2nd Offense 5 Days 7 “ 12-47-901(5)(a)(I) Underage Employee Selling or Serving 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 20 Days 30 “ 90 “ Reg. 47-904C. Altered Liquor 1st Offense 10 Days 3 Definition: 1. Offense: for the purpose of these guidelines, an offense is a single occurrence of a violation. It is possible that within an offense, there could be multiple counts. Notes: 1. These guidelines are intended as an instrument for the Town Board and Staff. The Town Board and Staff may at any time, depending upon the severity of the violation, alter the suspension time defined in these guidelines. 2. *These guidelines were prepared following review of the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division’s Guidelines, as updated June 4, 1999. 3. Staff may, at any time, elect not to negotiate a Stipulation Agreement, thus proceeding with the Show Cause Hearing before the Board of Trustees. 4. All substantial liquor license violations, as determined by Staff, will be scheduled for a Show Cause Hearing. If the Town Board does not approve the Stipulation Agreement, the Town Board will proceed with the Show Cause Hearing. 5. Days not actually served (days held in abeyance) are suspended on the condition that no further violations occur within the one-year stipulation period. 6. *Liquor violations are carried for 5 years for purposes of litigation. October 17, 2013 To Whom It May Concern: I am Thad Eggen co‐owner, with my wife Sandra, of the Twin Owls Steakhouse. I am writing to provide feedback regarding the Town of Estes Park’s policies on liquor law violations. I believe the current policies towards businesses who break the law are excessively punitive towards the employees of businesses and the business themselves who violate liquor law and do more to damage the town in loss revenue than to protect minors or punish businesses who do not obey liquor law. I propose that the town continues conducting under‐age sting operations with the following changes: ‐ test all businesses, repeatedly (one single test does more to prove an error of negligence rather than a conscientious and consistent attempt to break the law and increase one’s profit accordingly) ‐ a first offense should be result in an a monetary fine to any business that serves an underage individual and an obligation for the offending employee to attend a TIPS training within “X” days of the offense ‐ re‐test same business within 14 days of first offense, if negligent again, double the fine and revoke liquor license for a period of one week ‐ re‐test same business within 14 days of first offense, if negligent again, triple the fine and revoke liquor license for a period of two weeks ‐ repeat process with a similar increase each offense The proposed changes would be expensive and time consuming for the police department; the savings and earnings in town revenue could be used to fund said program. Personally I believe I would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, as we have seen from the recent flood, if my establishment were to have its liquor license suspended in the summer season. Without doubt many of the weddings or events whose revenue we would lose would not be able to utilize another similar venue in our town during that time as those places will have been booked months prior.* In addition to this loss of revenue at my establishment, the lodging industry would experience a loss in revenue due to canceled reservations. The end result would be a significant loss of tax revenue for the town. Thank‐you for your time. If you have any comments, questions or concerns please write me at steakhouse@twinowls.net Sincerely, Thad Eggen *Conjecture?, perhaps. I’d gladly make phone calls with any town employee to inquire on the availability of similar venues during peak weekends for the summer of 2014, in May‐October of 2014 to prove my hypothesis. To: Estes Park Town Board From: Sid and Laura Brown Date: October 16, 2013 Unfortunately, neither Sid nor I were able to attend the session where the board was asking for input on liquor license violations in an effort to create policy. After having owned the Big Horn Restaurant for 15 years as well as being a part of this community for over 30, we wanted to submit some ideas for your consideration. We understand the need for liquor enforcement, but we do think our town is unique. Because there is a large turnover in this town, we are constantly training. Most businesses send their core employees to TIPS training or training provided by the State of Colorado. In turn, that training is passed on to the many new faces we see each year. Moreover, it is discussed through the year as new employees arrive and is reinforced in employee manuals. However, training only goes so far. A manager cannot follow every employee to the table or the retail counter during every alcohol sale. As well, the employee can simply make a mistake, do the math wrong, or not look carefully at the license. As an owner, we try our best to make sure that each employee in every situation does as they’ve been trained. But, we are dealing with human beings who do make mistakes. Because of this, we believe that the first offense should be a warning coupled with training. It provides a reminder of our duty as small business owners to train and re‐train without giving up. It also reminds the server of the need to slow down. The warning would serve as a vehicle for conversation with our staff and in turn because we are such a small community that conversation would go beyond the single business it impacted. Moreover, the warning could be paired with some formal training opportunities for servers. It also would be a chance to clearly outline the potential penalties for a second offense creating a goal of improving the situation rather than just punishing the server and the business. We also believe that the intent of the sale should be looked at. Is this a person who simply made a mistake? Did the server look at the license showing evidence of trying to follow protocol? Was the training in place for this server? This is a different scenario than the server or salesperson who knowingly and with intent sells to a minor, though we do believe no business owner would condone this. Of course, with second infractions would come more severe penalties. But again, the intent of the sale should still be looked at in regard to the amount of time a license is suspended and the prospective impact on both the business and the staff. Most businesses here are not big chains, and we all have a relatively short window of time for earning the income that keeps us in business year round and our staffs employed through the winter. We know this is a complex issue with many points to consider. We know as well that we have just touched on a few of these points. Thank you for allowing our input. Sid and Laura Brown