HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2013-05-14The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable,
high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take
great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community
by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
PROCLAMATION - TOWN OF ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 23, 2013, and Town Board Minutes
dated April 23, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services, April 25, 2013.
B. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works, May 9, 2013.
i. 2010 John Deere 672 Motor Grader, Colorado Machinery, Ft. Collins -
$133,364.80 – Budgeted.
ii. 2013 John Deere 344J Loader, Colorado Machinery, Ft. Collins -
$89,809.10 – Budgeted.
iii. Construction Contract for Fairgrounds Irrigation System, Urban Farmer,
Inc., $135,249.27 – Budgeted.
4. Tree Board Minutes dated March 19, 2013. (acknowledgement only).
2. LIQUOR LICENSE ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL LICENSE – CASA GRANDE OF ESTES PARK INC. dba CASA
GRANDE OF ESTES PARK CISCOS, 210 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, #220 & #206.
Town Clerk Williamson.
Prepared 05/05/13
* Revised: 05/10/13
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - M&S, INC. DBA OVERLOOK BAR & GRILLE, 165
VIRGINIA DRIVE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. AMERICA IN BLOOM. Municipal Service Worker Keri Kelly.
2. OUTSOURCING PAYROLL. Director Williamson & HR Generalist Spallinger.
3. PAY PHILOSOPHY. Director Williamson & Eric Marburger/ESM Consulting Inc.
4. SENIOR CENTER & MUSEUM MASTER PLAN PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES.
Director Winslow & Managers Fortini and Mitchell.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #08-13 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND. Finance Officer McFarland.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING RIGHTS EXTENSION – WAPITI
CROSSING – PUBLIC HEARING. Director Chilcott.
3. POLICE RETIREMENT PLAN AND FPPA COVERAGE. Director Williamson.
4. TOWN BOARD POLICIES. Town Administrator Lancaster.
• Governing Policy – Board/Staff Linkage
• Policy 102 Town Committees
• Policy 103 – Town Board Procedure and Tool Boxes.
5. ADJOURN
*
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 23, 2013
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION
of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd
day of April, 2013.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk
Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Development Plan Review Process – Discussion of this topic scheduled for June 11,
2013, will include the sequence of the review process and changing or adding to the
application during the review process.
Discussion on the Evaluation of Special Events on May 14, 2103, will focus on an
analysis of special events related to event costs and benefits to ensure the Town is
receiving the best value for its dollar. An Overview of the Draft Economic Development
Report received from Downtown Colorado, Inc., will be added to the May 14th agenda.
Assistant Town Administrator Richardson will report on this agenda item.
A Special Town Board Study Session will be held on May 23, 2013, for discussion of
Strategic Initiatives and review of community feedback on “visioning”.
TOWN BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES/TOOL BOX.
• Policy 102 – Town Committees
The Board reviewed Policy 102 – Town Committees which was revised based on
discussion at the April 9, 2013, Town Board Study Session. Section 102.4.3
Recruitment was discussed. Town Administrator Lancaster pointed out that at
times recruitment is necessary when committee members with specific skills or
knowledge are needed, as is the case with the composition of the Board of
Appeals. The Trustees concurred that outreach and encouragement of members
of the community to serve on boards and committees may occur, however, it
should be made clear that the encouragement does not imply the individual will
be selected for the appointment. Section 102.4.3.4 Eligibility was discussed.
The Trustees requested that the age limitation and the word “legal” be removed
when defining eligibility, and discussed the Board’s ability to appoint an individual
to multiple committees. Related to Section 102.4.4 Selection Process, Trustee
Koenig suggested that the policy state that the Town shall have a defined
screening procedure in place and proposed that those selected to serve on the
interview team be allowed to establish a written process and selection criteria for
each specific situation. Applicants for committees and boards will be notified
promptly of their application status related to appointments. The word “conflict”
will be substituted for the word “diverge” in Section 102.1.18.1; and Colorado
Statute will be referred to in Section 102.4.19.1 instead of a specific dollar
amount as this amount can be changed by the legislature. Town Administrator
Lancaster will re-write the policy to include the Trustees’ comments.
• Policy 103 – Town Board Procedures & Tool Box
Town Board Study Session – April 23, 2013 – Page 2
The format of the document was updated and a timeframe related to the Motion
to Reconsider was added. The Motion to Reconsider may only be utilized at the
same meeting action was taken.
Mayor Pinkham called for a break for dinner at 5:08 pm.
The meeting resumed at 5:20 p.m.
POLICY GOVERNANCE II – BOARD/STAFF LINKAGES.
This section of the Policy Governance model focuses on Board/Staff linkages and
defines the Board’s expectations of the Town Administrator and the Town Attorney,
including how the Board will measure those expectations. The policy states that the
Town Administrator is the Board’s official link to the operation of departments of the
Town Government and staff. The policy outlines responsibilities delegated to the Town
Administrator and states the Administrator may make decisions within the limitations
that have been set by the Board. Discussion related to changing these limitations
should be brought up by a Board member at a Town Board study session. In addition,
the policy emphasizes that individual Board members do not have authority over the
Administrator but rather the Administrator is bound by majority decisions of the Board of
Trustees. The Trustees discussed the timing of annual reviews of the Administrator and
Town Attorney and their desire for these evaluations to be completed prior to the April
election timeframe. The evaluation shall include items outlined in Section 2.3.7. Town
Administrator Lancaster provided the Board with a sample of an internal monitoring
report which utilized a traffic light format with green indicating compliance, yellow
indicating problem areas or partial compliance, and red indicating non-compliance.
Policy 2.4 deals with the ethical obligations of the Town Attorney and coincides with the
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. An evaluation of the Town
Attorney will be performed annually in February.
The Board discussed how to handle differing opinions related to compliance, job
descriptions, and the upcoming classification and compensation study. Trustee Elrod
noted that attention should be paid to any changes in policy that may affect the
Municipal Code.
DISCUSS PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR.
Town Administrator Lancaster said the Policy Governance document addresses
evaluation of the technical side of the Town Administrator position, but that there is also
a behavioral, or relationship aspect that is more subjective. He said the Board will need
to make a decision as to how to evaluate this and provided the Trustees with a copy of
the evaluation form utilized for Town staff holding supervisory positions. The Trustees
discussed utilizing 360 reviews, surveys, and evaluation forms as part of the Town
Administrator evaluation process. Following discussion it was determined that Trustees
Koenig and Norris would work together to create a draft evaluation process and bring it
back to the full Board for consideration at an upcoming Study Session. Mayor Pro Tem
Blackhurst said he would provide Trustees Koenig and Norris with information he
compiled when researching evaluations in the past. Mayor Pinkham said once a
process is decided upon and individual evaluations are completed by the Trustees, an
executive session will be scheduled to allow the Trustees to discuss the evaluation, and
then share the evaluation results with Town Administrator Lancaster. This will most
likely occur on Tuesday, May 28, 2013. It was noted that this is a performance
evaluation and it is not necessarily connected to additional compensation.
Compensation as it relates to the Town Administrator’s review is a separate issue and is
strictly at the pleasure of the Board.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 23, 2013
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of April, 2013.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATIONS.
Mayor Pinkham presented the Rotary Club with a proclamation honoring the 25th
anniversary of the Duck Race to be held on May 4, 2013. He also proclaimed May as
Emergency Preparedness month.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Ericson commented the 2012 audit has begun and the Audit Committee would
meet in June to review the audit. The Transportation Advisory Committee conducted its
first meeting to discuss items such as mission, process, and bylaws. The committee
would meet monthly initially and then quarterly thereafter. A special meeting of the
committee would be held next week to provide an update on the FLAP grant.
Trustee Koenig stated Sister Cities information can be obtained at the Visitor Center.
Western Heritage continues to prepare for upcoming events including Barrel Racing,
Antique Show and the Rooftop Rodeo.
Trustee Norris informed the Board the Visit Estes Park (LMD) Board reviewed their
advertising plan to increase awareness nationally and increase overnight stays. Their
annual meeting would be held on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at the Aspen Lodge.
Trustee Elrod commented the Estes Valley Planning Committee meet today due to a
lack of a quorum at their regularly scheduled meeting. The Development Code was
recently changed to address the financing concerns of condominiums by allowing
townhomes. The Committee considered an application for a conversion at their meeting
this month. The Museum/Senior Center Master Plan group continues to work with the
consultant to bring forward an initial report to the Town Board on May 14th. The Shuttle
Committee would meet and provide a report on the new trolley purchased for the 2013
season.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster met with RMNP Superintendent Baker to discuss the proposed
cuts to the federal government budget related to fire mitigation of $88 million to hazards
fuel reduction, a 50% cut. The funds are being reduced because the current modeling
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 2
has not shown an impact of fuel reduction programs; however, the modeling does not
take into account items such as beetle kill or the drought. By 2016, the Park would be
left with a skeleton fire crew for initial attack, cutting 3 positions. The Park has stated
the Fern Lake fire was controlled by the prescribed burns completed in the area and the
manual fuel removal along Bear Lake Road. These efforts have been completed to
protect the properties and community surrounding the Park boundary, thereby
protecting the economy of the local communities. The Park may request the support of
the Town to maintain funding for these programs.
The Town would be conducting visioning sessions with the community to collect
information on areas of importance and concern to the public. The sessions would
include businesses and the general public. One session has already been conducted
with the non-profit groups.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 9, 2013 and Town Board
Minutes dated April 9, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, April 11, 2013.
1. Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Department of
Human Services - Hub Juvenile Assessment Center.
2. Installation of Flower Sculpture at Peacock Park.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2013
(acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #06-13, Schedule public hearing of May 14, 2013, for a New
Tavern Liquor License Application filed by M&S, Inc. dba Overlook Bar &
Grille, 165 Virginia Drive.
6. Intent to Annex Resolution #07-13 – Fall River Additions 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18 & 19, Public Hearing scheduled May 28, 2013.
7. Appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as independent hearing officer – personnel
matter.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT ITEMS:
1. AMERICA IN BLOOM. Postponed to May 14, 2013.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - CARL SCOTT DBA COFFEE ON THE ROCKS,
510 MORAINE AVENUE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson presented the application stating all necessary paperwork and
fees had been submitted. The applicant has applied as a sole proprietor for a
Tavern liquor license. T.I.P.S. training has been completed. Carl
Scott/applicant was present and stated the business would be adding
additional landscaping and outdoor seating areas with fire pits. The business
would like to feature wine and cheese along with special coffee drinks to their
patrons. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) to approve a new
Tavern liquor license to Carl Scott dba Coffee on the Rock at 510
Moraine Avenue, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 3
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #2, Stone Bridge Estates
Condominiums, 1167 Fish Creek Road, Stone Bridge Estates, LLC &
Hanson Holdings, LLC/Applicants.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
with the Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-02, ELKHORN TUBING HILL, All Elkhorn
Addition (Less Elkhorn Plaza Lodges, less a portion of a metes &
bounds parcel); 600 W. Elkhorn Avenue; CMS Planning/Applicant.
Senior Planner Shirk stated the request would develop a Commercial
Recreation or Entertainment Establishment, Outdoor (year-round tubing
hill). The tubing hill would include use of an existing structure for a
ticketing office, a ‘magic carpet’ surface lift similar to those used for ski
areas, and the tubing runs. The runs would be an artificial surface and
use hard-bottomed ‘tubes’ designed to slide on the plastic surface. The
tubes would be stored in the existing horse barn near the bottom of the
hill. The tubing operation would be a daylight only operation. The
Elkhorn Lodge property is zoned CO Commercial Outlying, and
therefore, the existing accommodations and horse stables uses are
classified as nonconforming. Staff has not performed a complete
analysis of the degree of nonconformity, but examples include:
accommodations/outdoor entertainment uses, unpaved parking,
development in river setback, exterior lighting, refuse disposal and ADA
access. EVDC provides for the continuation of nonconforming uses and
structures, but ‘nonconforming uses shall not be altered or extended’
except the EVDC allows for nonconforming uses to move toward
compliance in phases. Staff finds that if the applicant successfully
addressed 1) The removal of the horse corral east of the horse barn
from the floodplain, and that area successfully revegetated; 2) The
number of horses and area of horse corral is reduced; 3) Waste
accumulation and junk vehicles removed; and 4) Incremental move
toward animal-resistant trash enclosures, the proposed use and
development would be moving toward overall conformity. In addition to
the nonconformities to development code standards, the property does
not comply with the Municipal Code including keeping of waste
materials, horses without permits, and unpermitted livestock such as
pigs, roosters and donkeys. Staff found the development does not
comply with the applicable standards of the development code, including
adequate public facilities such as drainage and pedestrian access; the
plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed
development mitigates potential adverse impacts on nearby land use by
limiting operations to daytime operation; and the tubing hill is a change
to a nonconforming use. The Estes Valley Planning Commission
recommended denial to the Town Board of the Special Review at their
March 19, 2013 meeting.
Frank Theis/Applicant stated the current property owners have decided
to invest in the property through the clean-up and renovation of the
property with over 5 dumpster loads of debris removed. The property
continues to move towards compliance. It was decided at the Planning
Commission to move forward with a recommendation even if
unfavorable in order to pursue a summer operation because the tubing
hill material comes from Italy. One of the main issues raised by the
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 4
neighbors was the increase in noise produced by the development.
Noise readings on the property were conducted by Elkhorn Lodge staff
and provided to the Town Board. The applicant stated the proposal
would not increase the outdoor use because there would be a reduction
in the number of horses. The operation would accept defined operating
hours of 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. The applicant presented a letter signed by 58
businesses supporting the project. The parking area would be defined
with recycled asphalt.
Those speaking in opposition of the Special Review included Brendan
Duffy/Town citizen, John & Winnie Spahnle/Town citizens, Becky
Browning/Town citizen, Marie Steinbrecker/Town citizen, Aaron
Petrie/Town citizen, Ed O’Farrell/Town citizen and Eileen Albritten/Town
citizen. The neighbors spoke to the increase in noise due to the new
use and the expansion of the nonconforming use; tubing hill areas
generally have loud sound systems playing music and announcing
riders; the noise ordinance has been exceed on the property with loud
parties during the summer months disturbing the neighborhood; the use
does not belong on the property and would not enhance the historic
property; individuals have purchased their homes in the area due to the
quiet surrounding; and the development would decrease property values
for the surrounding neighborhood and reduce the quality of life of the
residents.
Those speaking in favor of the project included Dan Norris/County
citizen, Charley Dickey/Town citizen & business owner, and Cody
Mikolitch/County citizen. The tubing hill would provide an economic
means for the continued improvements of the property and without it the
community would lose the historic property. The proposal would add to
the development of a year-around economy in Estes Park and provide
winter activities not only to the guests but to the children living in the
community.
Board comments included the need for a development that meets the
code requirements; requested the applicant bring forward a new plan in
compliance with the code; recommend a new plan that addresses the
neighborhood concerns with the completion of a comprehensive
professional noise study and address drainage on the property; and
landscaping requirements of the development code may abate the noise
issues and should be reviewed with a new proposal.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) to deny the Special
Review application 2013-02, Elkhorn Tubing Hill, finding that the
application does not comply with the Estes Valley Development
Code, and it passed unanimously.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENTS. Director Chilcott stated the Board of
Appeals was modified in 2011 with the adoption of the 2009 International
Building Codes from a three- to a five-member Board with technical
qualifications for members. Staff posted the position and received eight
applications and held interviews. The interview team recommended Joe
Calvin, Don Darling, Brad Klein, Tony Schiaffo and John Spooner. Once the
Board is appointed, staff would conduct training, form a new webpage for the
Board, draft bylaws, and revise the local amendments to remove the two
alternate positions. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to appoint
members to the Estes Park Board of Appeals: Joe Calvin for a five-year
term expiring May 1, 2018, Don Darling for a four-year term expiring May
1, 2017, Brad Klein for a three-year term expiring May 1, 2016, Tony
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 5
Schiaffo for a two-year term expiring May 1, 2015, and John Spooner for a
one-year term expiring May 1, 2014, and the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.,
and the motion passed unanimously.
2. PURCHASE OF MINI-EXCAVATOR. Director Bergsten presented the request
to replace the Water Department’s 15-year-old backhoe as it has become
unsafe to operate. The Department’s needs would be better served with the
purchase of a mini-excavator, skid steer loader and trailer. The new equipment
would allow staff to work more efficiently, capable of digging six-foot deep
trenches for water mains, and work on private property with limited damage to
vegetation. The equipment would be shared with other departments including
Community Services and Public Works. The Town could also share the
equipment with Estes Park Sanitation. The vehicle replacement fund has
$131,717 escrowed to replace the equipment; however, the item was not
budgeted for in 2013. Staff recommends the purchase of a Caterpillar 308ECR
SB mini-excavator for $79,056 after a $24,000 trade-in of the backhoe. It was
moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve to purchase the
Caterpillar mini-excavator from Wagner Equipment for the quoted price of
$79,056, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Pinkham called a 10 minute break at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:00 p.m.
3. MORAINE AVENUE (HWY 36) PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS –
CONTRACT APPROVAL. McDowell Engineering has finalized the design
plans for the Moraine Avenue improvement with a scope of work including
engineered sidewalk, curb and gutter, handrail and drainage improvement
along Moraine Avenue at Elkhorn Avenue south to Crags Drive. Engineer Ash
stated during the design phase two items were removed (removal of pedestrian
crossing at Wiest Drive and the rehabilitation of the sidewalk and handrail from
Crags Drive north to Snowy Peaks Winery. Once the design met with Public
Works and CDOT approval the project was advertised for bid on March 28,
2013 with three bids received:
Mountain Constructors, Inc./Platteville $299,877.30
Technology Constructors Inc./Arvada $312,920.04
Northstar Concrete, Inc. $307,283.75
Staff recommended Mountain Constructors, Inc. of Platteville, which has
proposed the use of local firms such as Cornerstone Concrete for sidewalks
and Van Horn Engineering to conduct surveying. The project timeline has been
estimated at four to six weeks. The project would be funded with CDOT
roadside enhancement funds $209,600 and STIP funds of $90,277.30.
The Board questioned the need to utilize STIP funds for the project; questioned
the improvements along the upper half of Moraine may be lost in the future if
the Town is successful at obtaining FLAP grant funds to reroute downtown;
would Public Works oversee the project; and CDOT has requested signaling of
the Wiest intersection in the past, which does not appear in the current design.
Staff stated the project exceeded the engineer estimates because of the overall
cost of items such as construction surveying and traffic control. Construction
management of the project would be completed by Farnsworth due to the
number of projects ongoing in Public Works. CDOT has completed modeling of
the Wiest pedestrian crossing and has demonstrated there is no need for a
signalized crossing.
Trustee Ericson stated concern with presentations being incomplete and stated
concerned with the budgeting for the project.
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 6
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to
approve the award of the Moraine Avenue (Hwy 36) Pedestrian
Improvement Project construction contract to Mountain Constructors,
Inc. with a not-to-exceed fee of $299,877.30, and it passed with Trustee
Ericson voting “No”.
4. ORDINANCE #06-13 APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION.
Finance Officer McFarland stated staff has worked with Jim Manire/Financial
Consultant to review and negotiate a Certificate of Participation financing
package to fund the Multi-Purpose Event Center and stall barn at approximately
$6.1 million. The Town issued an RFP and received 7 responses with Branch
Banking and Trust, headquartered in North Carolina, offering the lowest interest
rate (2.43%) and the best Call option (callable after December 1, 2020, without
penalty). Annual payments are estimated at $515,000, with the final payment
due in December 2027. UMB Bank would act as the Trustee. Ordinance #06-
13 would approve and authorize the execution of the leasing of Town Hall and
a portion of the Municipal Parking Lot to UMB Bank (Trustee) by executing a
site lease; sublease of the leased property from the Trustee back to the Town
by the execution of the Lease Purchase Agreement; and acknowledgement of
the execution and delivery by the Trustee of the Indenture of Trust and the
approval of $6,125,000 as the maximum principal amount of the Certificates
that may be executed and delivered under the indenture.
Trustee Phipps stated concern with the language in the sublease stating the
Town has an option to purchase the leased property and would suggest the
language be amended to state purchase the lease hold interest.
Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record, it was moved and
seconded (Norris/Blackhurst) to adopt Ordinance #06-13 for the Certificates
of Participation and to use the proceeds to build the Multi-Purpose Event
Center and stall barn at the fairgrounds at Stanley Park, and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.
and the motion passed unanimously.
5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH USA PRO CYCLING
CHALLENGE BIKE RACE. Director Winslow stated Larimer County,
Loveland, Fort Collins and Windsor were successful at securing a stage of the
USA Pro Challenge through Northern Colorado. An IGA between the entities
would create an Enterprise able to receive and distribute funds and negotiate
and sign agreements. The entity would be known as the Northern Colorado
Pro Challenge Local Organizing Committee (LOC) and will be responsible for
the planning, promoting, and conducting the event. The LOC would be
governed by an Executive Committee consisting of nine members, one from
each Town/County agency and four other members chosen by the five
agencies. Staff requests approval of the needed road closures for the event
based on the route approved by the race officials. The length of the closures
would be kept to a minimum to conduct the race and ancillary events. Staff
also recommends appointing Director Winslow as the Town representative on
the LOC. The budget for the event continues to develop; however, staff
requests $15,000 as well as in kind donations for the event. After further
discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Northern Colorado Pro Challenge
Local Organizing Committee, including necessary road closures for the
race and naming Director Winslow as the Town Representative for the
Local Organizing Committee, and it passed unanimously.
6. EXTENSION OF ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY LOAN. Finance
Officer McFarland stated the Town entered into the original two-year loan in
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 7
June of 2006 with the Estes Housing Authority for $2.7 million for the
acquisition and resale of low-income housing. Extensions of the agreement
have been approved by the Town Board in 2008, 2010 and 2011. The current
extension expires on June 1, 2013; however, a balance of the loan remains
with approximately $313,000 still outstanding. The Authority has requested an
additional two-year extension through June 1, 2015 with a commitment to
continue to make principal payments on the loan with each unit sold as well as
monthly payments of $2,000 regardless of unit sales.
Director Kurelja was present and thanked the Town Board for the continued
support of the Authority. She stated the Authority through the partnership with
the Town has provided low income housing to seniors, provided housing to
teachers, seasonal housing and filled a tremendous community need.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to extending the Estes Park
Housing Authority Loan for two years, expiring on June 1, 2015, and it
passed unanimously.
7. FOSH AGREEMENT - DETERMINATION OF FEASIBLITY. Pursuant to an
Agreement dated May 14, 2002 between Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH) and
the Town of Estes Park, FOSH transferred to the Town $475,435.34 raised to
build a performing art theater in Estes Park. A Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Town and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc.
(SOPA), stated the FOSH funds would be used to construct a theater at
Stanley Park Fairgrounds property owned by the Town. On April 26, 2011, the
Town Board extended the FOSH Agreements to determine feasibility of the
SOPA Theater project to May 9, 2012, and extend all other dates in the FOSH
Agreements by one year. In March, 2012, SOPA terminated the MOU with the
Town effective April 12, 2012. The original FOSH agreement stated if a
performing arts theater was determined to not be feasible the funds should be
distributed; however, the Town Board has not determined the feasibility of a
theater. Prior to moving forward with the application process for donation of the
FOSH funds, the Town Board needs to make a determination that “a facility is
not feasible”. There are no other references within the FOSH Agreements as to
how a determination of nonfeasibility is to be made by the Town Board.
Trustee comments have been summarized: Trustee Blackhurst stated the
Town should follow through with the original intent of the donors and terminate
the agreement and distribute the funds per the agreement; Trustee Elrod
commented the theater has been determined to be feasible based on the
recent approval by the Board to agree to a land purchase by EPIC for a theater
downtown; and Trustee Norris would support the feasibility of the theater to
allow EPIC the opportunity to move forward with the current plan.
Stan Black/EPIC Board President read a prepared statement from the EPIC
Board stating the approval of the purchase option agreement between EPIC
and the Town was predicated on the fact the proposed performing arts theater
downtown was in fact feasible. The EPIC Board continues to move forward
investing time and money into the project including funds dedicated to the
development plan, consultants and a capital campaign. He requested the
Town honor the intent of the 270 FOSH donors to build a performing art theater
in Estes Park.
Teresa Marie Widawski/County resident and EPIC supporter reaffirmed the
Board’s approval of the land option suggested the project was feasible and
requested the Board provide EPIC the time to raise the capital before
determining the project is not feasible.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/) that pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the FOSH Agreements a facility at the Stanley Park
fairground is not feasible and directed staff to begin the application
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 8
process to distribute the existing FOSH funds, motion died for a lack of a
second.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) the construction of a
Performing Art Theater appears to be feasible as of this date. The Town
will continue to hold FOSH funds as it has been until January 31, 2017. If
no significant construction of a new Performing Art Theater in Estes Park
is underway by said date, applications for funds shall then be taken and
acted upon by the Town Board. What will constitute significant
construction shall be determined by the Board of Trustees at that time.
The motioned passed with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst voting “No”.
Mayor Pinkham whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 25, 2013
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on
the 25th day of April, 2013.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Elrod and Norris
Attending: Chair Ericson, Trustees Elrod and Norris
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Director Chilcott, Director Winslow, and Deputy
Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Chair Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
HARMONY FOUNDATION FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
The Harmony Foundation has requested the waiver of development application fees in
excess of $4000 associated with the review of a plat, development plan, and annexation
that will facilitate redevelopment and future expansion of the Harmony facilities located
at 1600 Fish Hatchery Road. The Town’s intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with
Larimer County requires that the Town consider annexation of property when being
developed. Harmony is located outside of the current Town boundaries, with
annexation pending. The Town’s current Community Development Fee Waiver Policy
outlines criteria to be used when considering waiving fees assessed by the Community
Development Department for in-house fees. Since the fee waiver request exceeds
$3000 the Town Board is the decision-making body and staff recommends the item be
considered by the full Board at the May 28, 2013, Town Board meeting. Trustee Elrod
initiated discussion related to how the Harmony Foundation fits within established
guidelines for a fee waiver. He noted that the Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization,
but expressed concern related to how the organization meets all criteria of the policy.
He questioned whether Harmony is providing a critical service to an underserved and
needy segment of the community, more specifically Estes Park residents, and asked
Dot Dorman, CEO of the Harmony Foundation, to clarify these points as well as provide
information related to the charitable aspects of the organization. Ms. Dorman said
Harmony’s long-range plan is to increase the number of beds to 120, add a medical
center, dining hall, and lecture hall, and reported that a capital campaign to raise funds
is underway. She said that one in 10 adults in the general population suffer from
substance abuse and noted that the Estes Park community is not exempt from this
statistic. She said 50% of Harmony’s clientele are Larimer County residents and noted
that Harmony currently provides the only beds for detox in Larimer County and the only
residential treatment option, as well. Ms. Dorman reported that 12 to 15 scholarships
were awarded to patients last year totaling approximately $200,000, with preference
given to Estes Park residents. Trustee Elrod stated it is his opinion that the fee waiver
policy is geared towards more philanthropic organizations than Harmony noting that
there is a cost to the Town and to the community related to development plan reviews
and building permits. Trustee Norris said that some clarification of the fee waiver policy
may be necessary in the future but said he supports the fee waiver, stating that dollars
spent by the families and friends of Harmony patients more than offset the requested
fee waiver.
Community Development / Community Services – April 25, 2013 – Page 2
Assistant Town Administrator Richardson said that at this time, the detox facility at
Harmony cannot be utilized by the Police Department and said that the closest facility
available is in Lafayette or Greeley. He said entering into an agreement with Harmony
for detox services could be beneficial to the Town. The Committee asked that staff
provide an overview of the benefits of the project, including information that had been
presented to the Planning Commission, when the item comes before the Town Board.
Director Chilcott added that the fee waiver request does not have to be all or nothing;
that a partial fee waiver could be considered. The Committee recommends the
Harmony Foundation Fee Waiver Request be included as an action item on the
Town Board Agenda for May 28, 2013.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Community Development Monthly Report – Highlights of the monthly report
included: an increase to building permit valuations; staff’s continued work on
drafting a modernized Comprehensive Plan with completion expected by the end of
the year; increased development activity; and inclusion of Fire District, Estes Park
Sanitation District, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District personnel on the
development review team. In addition staff is working on drafting code amendments
related to micro-distillery/micro-brewery operations, and attainable housing
incentives. Dir. Chilcott noted that discussion about incentives occurred at the most
recent Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) meeting and Trustee Elrod
requested that the EVPC minutes on this topic be provided to the Town Board for
review. Dir. Chilcott added that a functional GIS map now exists and a
demonstration to view it and other maps, will be scheduled for the Committee. Code
Compliance will continue to focus on outreach, and life safety issues, as well as
noxious weeds during the spring season. She noted that, year to date, Community
Development Department revenues are ahead of budget with expenses under
budget.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Museum Quarterly Report – Dir. Fortini reported that a positive response was
received related to a new staff-lead workshop format which provides a creative
outlet for staff as well as face-time with the community. 175 people attended the
Friends of the Museum’s first program of 2013, a preview of the “Ski Hidden
Valley” film which is now in production. A number of additional events will be
offered by the Friends throughout the year. Also, research is being done to find
unique products, such as archival tools, that can be made available to the
community at the Museum Shop. Revenues generated by the Friends and
through the Shop are returned to the Museum. Curator of Collections Bryon
Hoerner continues to become familiar with the Museum’s collection and
renovations to the permanent gallery are in process with the Park Theatre display
nearing completion. Dir. Fortini said it is time to explore options for the
Hydroplant and the best use of the property and said a new display of items on
loan from the Stanley Museum is being prepared for the opening of the
Hydroplant at the end of May.
• Visitor Services Quarterly Report – Visitation at the Visitor Center was down in
March and mirrored lower visitation numbers recorded in Rocky Mountain
National Park. The numbers of telephone calls received at the Center continue
to decline as people utilize online services. The new VisitEstesPark website is
scheduled to be launched on June 4th and will be used as a tool by the
Ambassadors and staff to provide service to visitors. The Committee said that
the Ambassadors and staff must be prepared to answer questions related to
Colorado Amendment 64 in regard to the recreational use of marijuana. Town
Administrator Lancaster said that since any staff member could be asked
Community Development / Community Services – April 25, 2013 – Page 3
questions on this topic, discussion and training will be scheduled so that staff can
relay consistent, accurate information.
• May Special Events Report – May kicks off with the Duck Race sponsored by the
Rotary Club, and the Town-sponsored Surprise Sidewalk Sale, with one new
event being added to the May schedule. During the month of May, staff focuses
on preparing for the Wool Market which is one of the largest shows of its type in
the United States. Both the Scandinavian Festival and the Midsummer Festival
that were previously held in Bond Park have cancelled for 2013. However, the
dance portion of the Scandinavian Festival has been salvaged and will take place
at Performance Park. With projects at the fairgrounds getting underway, staff
meets on a weekly basis with the construction management team, and has
contacted show managers to discuss plans for construction as it relates to each
individual show. The online permitting process has been successful and staff
continues to find new ways to utilize the system. Dir. Winslow welcomed
Heather Gooch who was hired to fill the Secretary II position at the fairgrounds
and events office.
• USA Procycling Challenge – The routes for the USA Pro Challenge have been
announced with racers riding through Estes Park on August 24th. Dir. Winslow
said organizational meetings are held on a weekly basis as the event approaches
and ancillary events are being planned to coincide with the race. He noted that
security for the race will be provided by the Colorado State Patrol and by local
law enforcement agencies; and said that staff is notifying and working with
businesses along the route that may be impacted on race day. He reported that
a fixed wing aircraft will follow the race for communication purposes and the race
will be broadcast live on NBC.
ADMINISTRATION.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Verbal Updates – Visioning sessions held recently were well attended and
well received. Five facilitators from Larimer County and Town staff
assisted with the sessions. Two more visioning sessions are scheduled
and the on-line survey can be taken at www.estes.org. The visioning
report will be presented at the Town Board Study Session scheduled for
May 23, 2013.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:39 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 8, 2013
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on
the 8th day of May, 2013.
Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Attending: Trustees Koenig and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir. Bergsten, Dir. Zurn, and
Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Chair Blackhurst
Trustee Koenig called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. 2012 Statistics – Sgt. Pass noted that total Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)
incidents for 2012 increased 8% over 2011 which he said is consistent with the
increase in Group A crimes which are the more serious, complex, felony-type of
crimes. Group A crimes in 2012 included homicide, sex offenses, aggravated
robberies, and weapon violations. The number of motor vehicle accidents (MVA)
decreased, however, the number of injuries from MVAs was higher. He noted that
total arrests were up 24% over 2011, and said that the number of adult arrests
increased significantly over 2011, with 35% more adult arrests in 2012.
UTILITIES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Light & Power Capital Project Update – Interim Supt. Lockhart noted that L&P
crews are making progress on trenching and undergrounding for the Fall
River/Big Thompson project with 880 feet remaining to be completed. The rental
of special machinery equipped with an auger has expedited replacing power
poles on the Allenspark project. Over half of the poles have been replaced and
the project is ahead of schedule at this time.
2. April 2013 Storm Rescue – Dir. Bergsten noted that the snowfall on April 15,
2013, had a positive effect on the outlook for the Town’s raw water supply. He
said in November 2012, the Colorado Big Thompson quota was set at 60% for
2013, meaning 60% of the total shares of water would be available in 2013.
However, the April 15th snowfall raised the snowpack in the Fraser River
watershed from 76% to 103% of normal, which may result in an adjustment to the
percentage of available shares and increase the likelihood that Windy Gap
pumping will occur. Dir. Bergsten commented that water in the Big Thompson
watershed will be tested this year related to the impact last year’s fires may have
had on water quality.
3. Verbal Updates –
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – May 8, 2013 – Page 2
o Charles Heights Pipe Replacement – Charles Heights residents are
working with Larimer County to place the creation of a local improvement
district on the November ballot. Dir. Bergsten noted that the Town would
be willing to supply the materials for the water pipe replacement project,
with the proposed improvement district responsible for hiring a contractor
and installation of the pipe.
o GIS Mapping – Larimer County’s GIS and IT departments have been
instrumental in assisting the Town with pursuing an enterprise license
agreement with Environmental Scientific Research Institute (ESRI) which
would allow Town staff to have greater access to mapping software at a
flat fee cost of $10,000 per year.
o Drinking Water Quality Reports – The reports are ready for distribution.
o PRPA Annual Report – Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) has gone
paperless with their annual report at a savings of approximately $2,500.
The report can be viewed online or a hard copy is available by contacting
the PRPA office.
o Water Dispenser – Data related to the usage times and frequency of
usage of the dispenser has been collected, however the measurement of
ambient noise associated with using the water dispenser has not been
completed. Trustee Koenig said she will assist staff with procuring a
device that can be left on-site to measure noise levels at the dispenser
throughout the day. Dir. Bergsten noted that the Upper Thompson
Sanitation District offered to locate the dispenser on their site, however it
would be expensive to move the unit to that location.
o PRPA Listening Session – PRPA staff will be at the Estes Park Resort on
Thursday, May 16, 2013, from 6 p.m. till 7:30 p.m. to get input from the
community on environmental and economic concerns as it relates to
electricity generation. Meetings will also be held in Loveland, Fort Collins,
and Longmont, with the sessions providing PRPA with data to be utilized
when making decisions related to future power generation.
PUBLIC WORKS.
2010 JOHN DEERE MOTOR GRADER.
The 2013 budget includes $130,000 to replace the Town’s existing motor grader that is
between 25 and 30 years old. The grader is used for shoulder work, ditch work, snow
removal and grading purposes. Staff received the following three bids for replacement
of the grader:
Power Equipment, Denver Volvo $146,358.00
Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins John Deere $133,364.82
Wagner Equipment, Windsor CAT $204,933.28
The John Deere grader is equipped with six-wheel drive, a GPS system, a back-up
camera, has been operated a total of 1800 hours, and is a step above the standard
grader. Staff is recommending the purchase of a 2010 John Deere grader from
Colorado Machinery at a cost of $133,364.82, which includes $15,000 trade-in value for
the Town’s Champion Grader. The additional funds needed for this purchase are
available in the vehicle replacement fund due to savings on other equipment purchases.
The Committee recommends the purchase of the 2010 John Deere Motor Grader
as described above from Colorado Machinery at a cost of $133,364.82, from the
Vehicle Replacement Fund, account #635-7000-435-34-42 budgeted, to be
included on the consent agenda at the May 14, 2013, Town Board meeting.
2013 JOHN DEERE 344J LOADER.
The 2013 budget includes $120,000 for replacement of the Street Division’s 1997 front
end loader. The equipment is used to load salt and sand during weather events and for
moving materials and debris at the Public Works yard. The loader is also utilized at the
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – May 8, 2013 – Page 3
fairgrounds during the summer season resulting in year-round use of the equipment.
Three vendors provided bids for replacement of the loader as follows:
Power Equipment, Denver Volvo $92,343.00
Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins John Deere $89,809.10
Wagner Equipment, Windsor CAT $95,669.91
Staff recommends purchasing the 2013 John Deere 344J Loader from low bidder
Colorado Machinery. The price includes a trade-in value of $15,500 for the 1997 front
end loader and is under-budget by $30,190.90, which will be retained in the Vehicle
Replacement Fund. The Committee recommends the purchase of the 2013 John
Deere 344J Loader from Colorado Machinery at a cost of $89,809.10, from the
Vehicle Replacement Fund, account #635-7000-435-34-42 budgeted, to be
included on the consent agenda at the May 14, 2013, Town Board meeting.
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FAIRGROUNDS IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
Public Works staff solicited bids for the installation of an irrigation system at the Stanley
Park Fairgrounds. The design provides an irrigation system for the entire Fairgrounds
encompassing both current and future uses of the property. The following bids were
received:
Urban Farmer, Inc. $122,953.88
Alpine Gardens, Inc. $130,134.27
Staff recommends awarding a contract to low bidder Urban Farmer, Inc., at a not to
exceed cost of $135,249.27, which includes a 10% contingency. Completion of the
project is expected to be mid-June to end of June, 2013, based on the contractor’s
schedule. Dir. Zurn noted that the irrigation will focus on watering the trees planted on
site, will reduce dust and air pollution, and “green-up” the entire Fairgrounds property.
He said that if usage of the property changes based on the results of the Senior
Center/Museum Master Plan, the irrigation system could be easily modified. The
Committee recommends awarding the Irrigation Construction Project contract for
the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park to Urban Farmer, Inc., at a not to exceed cost of
$135,249.27, to be included on the consent agenda at the May 14, 2013, Town
Board meeting. The funds are budgeted in the Community Reinvestment Fund as
a 2013 project entitled “Transportation Hub Irrigation”.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates –
o Spring Runoff – Dir. Zurn reported that problems related to high water are
not anticipated for this spring with snowpack at approximately 100% of
normal. An extreme warm weather event or heavy rain event could
change this outlook, however. In an average year, high water usually
occurs the last week of May and first week of June.
There being no further business, Trustee Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:44 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Civil Engineer
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Award Construction Contract for Fairgrounds Irrigation System
Background:
Public Works has received bids for installation of an irrigation system at the Stanley
Park Fairgrounds. The project will provide mainline irrigation service for the entire
Fairgrounds. The irrigation system is sized to handle the current use and future
approved concept uses. Included with this memo is the Irrigation Master Plan that
shows the entire system that will be installed with this project. The project was
advertised for public bid on April 3rd, 2013, and a bid opening was held on April 17th.
Two firms responded with the following results:
Firm Name Base Bid ($)
Urban Farmer, Inc. $122,953.88
Alpine Garderns, Inc. $130,134.27
Staff evaluated the submitted bids and is making a recommendation for award to Urban
Farmer, Inc. It has been determined that this is the lowest responsible bidder.
Schedule:
Pending approval from the Town Board on May 14th, a Notice To Proceed will be issued
to the contractor. Mobilization and construction will begin the week of May 20th. A four-
week construction schedule is planned.
Budget:
Urban Farmer, Inc. has provided a total bid of $122,953.88. Adding a 10% contingency
($12,295.39) to this bid gives us a not-to-exceed budget of $135,249.27.
This project is budgeted in the Community Reinvestment Fund as a 2013 Project
entitled “Transportation Hub Irrigation.” Pending Town Board approval, a contract will be
executed with the selected bidder.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends award of the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park – Irrigation System
Construction Contract to Urban Farmer, Inc., with a not-to-exceed fee of $135,249.27.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of award of the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park – Irrigation
System Construction Contract to Urban Farmer, Inc., with a not-to-exceed fee of
$135,249.27.
Tree Board Minutes
March 19, 2013
Members Present:
Barbara Williams, Apryle Craig, Celine Lebeau
Members Absent:
Rex Poppenpohl, Scott Roederer, John Ericson
Others Present:
Brian Berg, Susie Parker (sitting in for Jen Imber)
Quorum: No for New Business; Yes for Previous Business
1. Arbor Day Celebrations and Corresponding Budget
Celine Lebeau gave a status update on the plans and details for the two Arbor Day events. Last
year’s budget for Arbor Day was $825.00 which did not include the cost of the trees. She moved
for approval of $1,000.00 for Arbor Day budget, not including the cost of the trees, Barbara
Williams and Apryle Craig seconded it and noted that Rex Poppenpohl gave his verbal approval
to be cast in his absence, for a total of four votes in favor.
The cost of the trees will be $625.00 (three trees at the Middle School and two trees at Eagle
Rock School for all the work they are doing regarding this project). Placement of the trees still
needs to be finalized. Apryle Craig moved for approval to take the cost of the trees from the
general Tree Board budget, Celine Lebeau and Barbara Williams seconded it and Barbara
Williams noted that Rex Poppenpohl gave her his verbal approval to be cast in his absence, for a
total of four votes in favor.
Work is still being done on the proposed press release. Apryle Craig will spend some time on
reviewing the draft and will email it to the board members for approval and then will deliver it to
Kate Rusch.
Celine Lebeau is also designing a new logo for the t-shirts. She showed the members some
preliminary ideas. The “Plant – Grow – Breathe” theme was well received. She will send out
logos to the all Board members within a week for a final decision.
Mike Richardson will provide the tree cookie again this year.
2. Final Approval of Newspaper Article
The article on Arbor Day that has been drafted has been worked on by Rex Poppenpohl and Kate
Rusch. Apryle Craig will review this article in conjunction with the press release mentioned
above and will forward it to Kate Rusch for finalization.
3. Plans for Tree Board Involvement in “America in Bloom” Program
It was relayed that John Ericson has suggested that the Tree Board and Keri Kelly of the Parks
Department give brief presentations to the Town Board just to keep them advised of what’s
being done on this project.
Brian Berg asked for feedback on making the Scott’s Pond tree planting the first project we do
under the American in Bloom program. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) is donating
$1,495.00 to take part in this project in conjunction with the Tree Board on improvements at
Scott’s Pond.
4. Bureau of Reclamation Meeting – Topo Maps
Barbara Williams is setting up and making the arrangements for the meeting on the
topographical maps, hopefully during the first week of April.
5. Rec District Master Plan and Tree Board Involvement
Rex Poppenpohl will talk to the Rec District about the Tree Board’s involvement in their master
plan.
6. Japanese Trees
This item was tabled until the next meeting.
7. ISA Brochures
Brian Berg passed around several ISA brochure examples. Once approved, the brochures will be
put on the Town website and here at Town Hall on display for the public to take in the probably
in the main lobby area and upstairs at Community Development and hopefully at the Estes
Valley Library. Brian Berg did receive permission from ISA to post the brochures on the Tree
Board’s website. They do require that we advised them specifically which brochures we were
using and we must give them credit for the information posted. They will then send us a
permission letter. The brochures could not be voted on by the Board at this meeting due to not
having a quorum for new business. It was tabled until the next meeting. Brian Berg will send
out an email to all the Board members with all of the information.
8. TPZ – Tree Protection Zone
Discussion was held regarding the need for better defined parameters to be documented in either
the Town policies or municipal or development codes, making it a requirement that care be taken
and certain steps be followed to protect the areas around trees during construction by the
construction workers, such as installing the orange fencing outside of the dripline, not inside.
This topic requires further discussion in the near future.
9. Vacancies on Tree Board
Discussion was held regarding the press release and the newspaper advertisement for the two
vacant positions on the Board. Susie Parker will work with Kate Rusch on finalizing due dates
and publishing the information.
10. Next Tree Board Meeting
The next Tree Board meeting will be held on Monday, April 15, 2013, at 4:30 p.m.
Page 1
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Renewal Application Filed by Casa Grande of Estes Park, Inc., dba Casa
Grande of Estes Park, 210 E. Elkhorn Avenue, #220 & 206
Background:
On August 3, 2012, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the Liquor
Enforcement Division during which an employee of Casa Grande of Estes Park illegally
sold and served alcohol to an underage person and/or did not ask for identification and
sold and served the underage person alcohol.
This is a violation of the State Liquor Code and has been handled by the State Liquor
Enforcement Division. This type of violation can include a fifteen (15) day suspension of
the liquor license with five (5) days served and ten (10) days held in abeyance. In lieu
of an active suspension, the licensee can elect to pay a fine and enter into a Stipulation
agreement, and therefore, the five (5) day suspension would be deemed automatically
stayed. Casa Grande did enter into an agreement with five (5) days served and ten (10)
days held in abeyance with a $914.45 fine paid to the Colorado Department of Revenue
on or before October 26, 2012. If further violations occur within a year of the stipulation,
the licensee will serve all or any days of the suspension held in abeyance.
Several members of the Casa Grande staff are registered for an upcoming T.I.P.S.
training session scheduled to be held on Saturday, May 18th. All necessary paperwork
and fees have been submitted for the renewal. This is the first violation for this
licensee.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal application for Casa Grande of Estes Park.
Page 1
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Tavern Liquor License Application for The
Overlook Bar & Grille, 165 Virginia Drive.
Background:
An application for a new Tavern Liquor license was filed with the Town Clerk’s office on
April 4, 2013, by M & S, Inc., dba The Overlook Bar & Grille. This application was sent
to the Liquor Division for a concurrent review in order to have the license approved by
the State at the same time as the Town. This will enable the new restaurant to begin
the sale of alcohol as soon as possible.
All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted and the applicant fulfilled the T.I.P.S.
training requirement by completing a training session on February 23, 2013. Please
see the attached hearing procedure for more information.
Budget:
None.
Staff Recommendation:
None.
Sample Motion:
Finding.
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license.
Motion.
I move to approve/deny the new Tavern Liquor License for The Overlook Bar & Grille.
1
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of M & S, Inc.,
dba THE OVERLOOK BAR & GRILLE for a New Tavern Liquor License located at
165 Virginia Drive.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed April 4, 2013.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 23, 2013, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14, 2013.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 2.9 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation.
The property is zoned CD – Downtown Commercial which allows this
type of business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on May 3, 2013 .
The premises was posted on May 2, 2013 .
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled ____ Scheduled X Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director
Keri Kelly, Parks Division
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: America In Bloom
Background:
For the first time, Estes Park will participate in the America in Bloom program, and
community members and businesses are invited to become involved at the ground
level. America in Bloom is a non-profit, nationwide program promoting beautification
through education and community involvement, while utilizing flowers, plants, trees, and
other lifestyle enhancements. Locally known as Estes Park in Bloom, the project is a
community-wide effort involving businesses, residents and Town government.
America in Bloom is the only organization of its kind offering an award program with on-
site, one-on one mentoring and coaching by a team of expert judges. The team will be
in Estes Park July 11 and 12 and will provide the local committee with a detailed, written
evaluation following its visit. The evaluation is based upon six criteria: floral displays,
urban forestry, landscaped areas, heritage preservation, environmental efforts, and the
overall impression/cleanliness of the community. Since America in Bloom was founded
in 2001, nearly 200 cities in 40 states have participated. Our local Estes Park in Bloom
steering committee has started preparing for the judges arrival and are excited to
spread the word throughout the community.
America in BloomPlanting Pride Planting Pride in Our Communities
What is America In Bloom?zA program that promotes communitybeautification and lifestyle enhancements.zEach year America in Bloom sponsors an annual nationwide competition.
National Awards ProgramOur Community will be evaluated and given Our Community will be evaluated and given a bloom rating in 7 areas:Floral DisplaysLandscaped AreasUrban Forestry Ei l EffEnvironmental EffortsHeritage PreservationCommunity InvolvementOverall ImpressionOverall ImpressionMunicipal, Business & Residential
The Benefits of Participating zAmerica in Bloom will provide our community with a detailed evaluation with recommended improvements d h tand enhancements.zCelebrate and recognize Estes Park!zThe AIB program is designed to bring people from every demographic gp p y g ptogether to create meaningful, visible, constructive projects.America in Bloom Coshocton OhioAmerica in Bloom Coshocton Ohio
Estes Park in Bloom! Judges will visit Estes Park July 11thand 12th!Awards are announced at the annual lbAmerica In Bloom symposium in September!Estes Park in Bloom steering committee:Town of Estes Park Visit EstesEstes Valley Restaurant AssociationEstes Valley Restaurant AssociationEstes Valley Recreation and Park DistrictEstes Valley Partners for Commerce
THANK YOUF i f ti th t t i l dFor more information on the program or to get involved:www.americainbloom.orgTown of Estes Park Town of Estes ParkKate Rusch Keri KellyPublic Information Officer Parks Divisionkrusch@estes orgkkelly@estes orgkrusch@estes.orgkkelly@estes.org
Administrative Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Director
Amy Spallinger, HR Generalist
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Outsourcing Payroll
Background:
Due to a staffing change in the spring of 2012, the Administrative Services Department
had the opportunity to consider outsourcing payroll using a third party software to
administer the Town of Estes Park's payroll with enhanced functionality over the current
HTE software. Several demonstrations with payroll providers were scheduled to
evaluate the feasibility and fit in meeting the Town's needs. During the discovery
process it was realized that each provider had unique tools/solutions that varied in
design and price, and posting a Request for Proposal would allow the Town to evaluate
the core criteria and cost of each provider.
The Town received three RFP responses which were reviewed by a team of employees
tasked with evaluating each provider using the criteria set forth in the RFP. The team
unanimously selected Paylocity as they met a number of the criteria including: a great
support team with local support in Denver, desired features included in the base
package, fifty percent of Paylocity's staff are information technology specialist providing
implementation and report writing support, the total cost including start up fees were the
lowest, the visual components of the web interface was the most intuitive and is 100%
customizable, and the software resides on a cloud which requires no software download
and provides real-time access 24/7.
The benefits realized from outsourcing payroll are both immediate and long term for the
employees and the Town of Estes Park. Employees will have the ability to access their
information, i.e. payroll stub, direct deposit form, year to date figures, and accrual
balances, and have limited ability to update personal information such as their address,
withholding allowances, and direct deposit allocations. Hours worked will be logged
electronically by the individual employee and will not be processed until approved,
eliminating erroneous time cards, time spent tracking down missing time cards,
redistribution of non-approved time cards back to supervisors, and time spent entering
and interpreting hand written/paper time cards. Administrative Services would have the
ability to control and access data anywhere and at any time, as well as monitor those
with access to information. Quarter and Year-end processing will be handled by the
payroll company which results in time savings and liability involved in updating tax
tables, and printing of W-2's. Administrative Services intentions are to use the system
to its full capabilities, which will provide a clear communication channel and consistent
system for not only payroll, but for training, performance evaluations, and application
tracking in the future.
Budget:
Each department will be charged approximately $6.73 per person per payroll, which
includes the yearly fee to process year-end tax paperwork, i.e. W-2s. The initial startup
costs of approximately $4,000 will be absorbed by cost savings in Administrative
Services due to a vacancy not filled until April 2013.
Staff Recommendation:
The Administrative Services Department is currently negotiating a contract with
Paylocity and plans to move forward with implementation in July. A live demonstration
is scheduled for staff at the all employee meeting May 31, 2013 and a leadership team
demonstration will be scheduled in June as implementation progresses.
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Pay Philosophy
Background:
At the Town Board meeting on April 9, 2013, the Town Board approved contracting with
ESM Consulting Inc. to perform a Classification and Compensation study. One of the
objectives of the study was to develop a salary structure that enables the Town to
maintain a competitive position with the other comparable municipalities and like
industries.
A steering committee was formed to work directly with the consultant to address the
objectives of the study. The members of the committee, Frank Lancaster, Jackie
Williamson, Reuben Bergsten, Wes Kufeld and Alan Fraundorf, met with ESM
Consulting, Inc. recently to discuss and develop a draft pay philosophy for the Town,
see attached. The pay philosophy will identify the Town’s comparable market, i.e. other
municipalities, companies, districts, etc. and how the salaries are compared (market
rate %).
Eric Marburger/ESM Consulting Inc. will be present at the meeting to discuss in more
detail how the philosophy was developed and to answer questions.
Budget:
None.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is supportive of the draft philosophy and is looking for feedback and direction from
the Town Board before bringing a final pay philosophy forward for approval.
Sample Motion:
None. This item is being presented as a report only at this time.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
Page 2
Pay Philosophy Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to maintaining a competitive compensation
program that attracts and retains a dedicated and versatile workforce. The Town will
annually compare its salaries to a predetermined market area in order to maintain a
competitive salary structure. The market area primarily consists of other public
organizations, and a few private entities, with which the Town competes for employees.
This currently encompasses Larimer County, southern and central Weld County and
Boulder County south, including the Hwy 36 corridor. In recognition of the varying
service requirements Estes Park faces, the market will include those Colorado resort
communities that experience significant fluctuations between their resident population
and their seasonal visitors. Data will also be included for job classes that have
comparable positions in the private sector.
These competitive salary levels are coupled with a comprehensive and strong fringe
benefit package that compares favorably with the designated market area. This
package includes health and welfare benefits at a low cost to Town employees, a very
strong retirement package and a variety of paid time off options that provide a work-life
balance for Town staff.
The Town of Estes Park recognizes that its employees face some challenges in the
areas of the cost and availability of near-by housing, commute times and child care. By
including other resort communities in our comparison market the Town hopes to
ameliorate these concerns. We believe that the total compensation package offered by
the Town should be competitive and balance the needs of employees with the financial
constraints of the Town. The Town of Estes Park remains committed to being not just
“A Great Place to Visit, a Great Place to Live” but also “A Great Place to Work”.
Page 3
Given the current survey participants of the Colorado Municipal League and the
Mountain States Employers Council, the following public organizations would be
included in the Town’s market:
City of Aspen
Town of Avon
City of Black Hawk
Town of Breckenridge
Breckenridge Sanitation District
City and County of Broomfield
City of Boulder
Boulder County
City of Brighton
City of Central City
Colorado Springs Utilities
Town of Cripple Creek
Town of Dacono
Town of Dillon
City of Durango
E-470 Toll Authority
Empire Electric Association
Town of Erie
City of Evans
Town of Firestone
Town of Frederick
Town of Frisco
City of Fort Collins
City of Glenwood Springs
City of Greeley
Holy Cross Energy
Hyland Hills Park and Recreation
District
Town of Johnstown
City of Lafayette
La Plata Electric Association
Larimer County
Left Hand Water District
Little Thompson Water District
City of Longmont
City of Louisville
City of Loveland
Town of Lyons
Town of Mead
Town of Palisade
Platte River Power Authority
Town of Platteville
Poudre Valley REA
Saint Vrain Sanitation District
Town of Silverthorne
Town of Snowmass Village
City of Steamboat Springs
Summit Utilities
Town of Superior
Town of Telluride
United Power
Town of Vail
Weld County
City of Westminster
Town of Windsor
Town of Winter Park
In addition to the public agencies, we will include the results of a specialized wage study
from the Colorado Rural Electric Association and will include other private sector data.
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Town Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Lori Mitchell, Senior Center Manager
Derek Fortini, Museum Director
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Senior Center and Museum Master Plan Preferred Alternatives
Report:
After five months of study, planning and community engagement, the Master Plan is
nearing its final stages of completion. Staff is working with the Town’s professional
consultants, Anderson Hallas Architects, PC, to identify separate development or re-
development options for the Town’s Senior Center and Museum facilities.
The public outreach process included three public meetings, distribution of Master Plan
flyers, a neighborhood mailing, and development of a dedicated web page, regular
email communication with subscribers, periodic news releases and three stakeholder
meetings with members from key constituent groups. Also included were an extensive
online survey and a random-sample telephone survey. The level of community
response in meetings and surveys has been remarkable and valuable to the planning
team.
Consultants analyzed existing attendance data, online and telephone survey results and
utilized input from staff, citizens and stakeholders as well as professional analysis of
several potential sites to arrive at the recommended locations and design alternatives
for both facilities.
The final Senior Center and Museum Master Plan will be considered for adoption by the
Town Board, tentatively scheduled for the Tuesday, May 28 meeting.
Anderson Hallas Architects, PC, is pleased to present its report featuring preferred and
alternative concepts for each facility.
Staff Recommendation: N/A
Recommended Motion: N/A
Community Services Memo
Estes Park Museum and Senior CenterAnderson Hallas Architects, PC5/10/20131Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
CitSProject Scope of Work•Community Survey•Community Process•Existing Site/Building Assessment•Alternative Site(s) Assessment•Programming and Space Planning•SiteandBuildingAlternativesSite and Building Alternatives•Preferred AlternativesFi lRt•Final Report5/10/20132Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Planning ProcessTown StaffMuseumSeniorCenterConsultantsArchitectureLdAhittSenior CenterFairgroundsPublic Works/UtilitiesLandscape ArchitectureCommunity SurveyPublic Information OfficeStakeholdersEVPRDTrusteesSenior Center Inc.EPMuseumFriendsCommunity Community SurveyPublic OutreachEP Museum Friends3 Study Sessions3 Community Meetings5/10/20133Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Visitation Trends (10 year Growth)MMuseum2002* – 2012 = 135% increase* Facility expansion in 2004Senior Center2002 –2012 = 88% increase5/10/20134Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Community Survey –Key FindingsHigh Response Rate to Survey (telephone, on‐line, paper)High Resident Usage (Museum and Senior Center)Museum–HighSatisfactionMuseum High SatisfactionSenior Center –High SatisfactionMuseumProgramsEstesParkHistory/YouthandChildren/ToursMuseum Programs –Estes Park History/Youth and Children/ToursSenior Center Programs – Fitness and WellnessMuseum Facilities –rated lower than overall ratingSenior Center Facilities –rated lower than overall ratingSummary – programs, services and facilities well used and received by community.5/10/20135Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Museum ProgramSeniorCenterProgramProposed Facility ProgramsMuseumProgramBuilding 19,130 SFParking Required 102StormWaterSenior Center ProgramBuilding 14,600 SFParking Required 81StormWaterStorm WaterOutdoor ProgramsMinimum 3 Acres RequiredStorm WaterSmall Outdoor PlazaMinimum 2.5 Acres Required5/10/20136Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Museum Progression19691979199920045/10/20137Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Senior Center Progression1979198419985/10/20138Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Assessment of SitesStanleyLake EstesDowntown5/10/20139Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
SiteExisting Site and Facilities‐3 acres ‐Parking Museum –20‐ParkingSeniorCtr‐53‐Parking Senior Ctr. ‐53BuildingsMuseum –9,300 sf,(inc. collections/out bldgs)Senior Ctr. – 6,500 sf5/10/201310Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Site ContextLake EstesFairgroundsStanley ParkTransitSchools5/10/201311Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Fairgrounds Master Plan5/10/201312Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Alternative Town SitesStanleyLake EstesDowntownReview of Town Properties80 + parcelsPrimarily small sites5/10/201313Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Alternative Sites Assessment5/10/201314Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Alternative Sites Assessment5/10/201315Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
ExistingSiteExpansion–MuseumandSeniorExpansionAlternative Concepts ExploredExisting Site Expansion Museum and Senior ExpansionNE Fairgrounds Site –MuseumSE Fairgrounds Site –Museum or Senior CenterExistingSiteMuseumExisting Site –MuseumExisting Site –Senior CenterLot 4 and 5 –Museum and Senior Center*Elementary School Site –Senior Center/Community Center= Preferred Concept5/10/201316Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Preferred Concept A –Museum at NE Fairgrounds‐4.5 acres‐Parking112Parking 112‐Museum 19,000 sf‐Fairgrounds Storm Water‐Visibility5/10/201317Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plany‐$6 ‐$7 million
Museum Floor PlanPreferred Concept A –Museum at NE Fairgrounds5/10/201318Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Museum ElevationsPreferred Concept A –Museum at NE FairgroundsEast&WestEast & West ElevationsNorth & South Elevations5/10/201319Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
3Preferred Concept B1 –Senior Center at Existing Site‐3 acres‐Parking 82‐Senior Center 14,800 sfRetainingWalls‐Retaining Walls‐Visibility‐$4.5 ‐$5 million5/10/201320Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Senior Center Floor PlanPreferred Concept B1 –Senior Center at Existing Site5/10/201321Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Senior Center ElevationsPreferred Concept B1 –Senior Center at Existing SiteEast&WestEast & West ElevationsNorth & South Elevations5/10/201322Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Preferred Concept B –Senior Center/Community CenterLake EstesFairgroundsStanley ParkTransitSchools5/10/201323Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
5/10/201324Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Preferred Concept B –Senior Center/Community Center‐4.9 acres (+/‐)‐Parking 210‐Ex School Demo5/10/201325Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Thank you!Anderson Hallas Architects, PC5/10/201326Anderson Hallas ArchitectsMay 9, 2013Mundus BishopEstes Park Museum & Senior Center Master Plan
Projected 2013 ending fund balance, Original Budget: $1,965,954 *Changes to 2012 between Budget passage and EOY 520,869subtotal: 2,486,823Changes to 2013 Forecast (through May 2013): Revenues: Addback of Grant incomes from 2012 ‐ prior 446,000 Additional Grant to Parking Structure project 400,000 MPEC/Stall barn project financing 6,075,000subtotal: 6,921,000 Expenditures: O&M (legal fees) 1,500 Addback of Grant expenditures from 2012 ‐ prior 339,694 Current est of 2012 rollovers (orig: $620,881) 580,028 Additional Expenditure to Parking Structure project 200,625 Reductions to 2013 Budget (THUB irrigation, STIP)(105,278) MPEC/Stall barn project 7,655,600subtotal (amount requested in Resolution #08‐13): 8,672,169Projected 2013 ending fund balance, Revised Budget: $735,654 ** ($200k set‐aside for Museum storage facility included in fund balances)COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDSUMMARY OF BUDGET CHANGESFrom Original (November 2012) to Amended (May 2013):
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Dave Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTED RIGHTS EXTENSION
Development Plan 07-13, South Saint Vrain Addition, Wapiti Crossing;
Lexington Lane, LLC/Applicant
Background: This is a request by Lexington Lane LLC for a one-year time extension of
development plan approval and vesting period. Approval would extend plan approval
through May 20, 2014; disapproval would allow the plan to expire on May 20, 2013.
Development Plan 07-13 was approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on
May 20, 2008. The development plan provided for development of 42 dwelling units on
a 6-acre parcel zoned “RM” Multi-Family, located at the SW corner of South Saint Vrain
Ave (Hwy 7) and Lexington Lane; site plan attached.
Initial approval was valid for three years. In April 2011, the Town Board approved a
two-year extension.
Since initial approval, no development activity has occurred, and construction plans
have not been submitted for review/approval.
This request has been routed to affected agencies for review and comment,
surrounding property owners have been notified by mail, and legal notice placed in the
local newspaper, as required by the development code. However, the item was not
included in the Town Board agenda that was published in the Friday May 10
newspaper. Due to this procedural flaw, Staff recommends the public hearing be
continued to the May 28 Town Board meeting to allow for full public notice.
Staff findings:
1) Approval of the vested rights time extension would be inconsistent with the
purpose of development plan review, which is to ensure compliance with the
zoning standards and provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC;
§3.8.A).
2) The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has been created and adopted the 2009
International Fire Code (IFC) since the last approval extension.
3) The Estes Valley Fire Protection District recommends disapproval: ‘The Wapiti
Crossing Development has not been reviewed under the 2009 IFC for code
compliance.’
4) The Estes Park Public Works Department ‘does not approve this time extension
request. When this development does decide to move forward, we will require a
new submittal that meets current standards.’ For example, the Traffic Impact
Analysis would need to be reviewed for changes in traffic since initial approval.
Attachments:
• Review agency/neighborhood comments
• Application/Statement of Intent
• Approved site plan
Budget: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Continue public hearing to the May 28, 2013 Town Board
meeting.
Sample Motion: I move to continue the public hearing to the May 28, 2013 Town
Board meeting to allow for full public notice.
Wapiti Crossing Development Plan
Lexington LnLexington LnLi LVillage Green Ln18-Hole Golf CourseLexington LnPine Knoll DrWapiti Crossing Development Plan
Wapiti Crossing Development Plan
Wapiti Crossing Development Plan – North Landscaping
Wapiti Crossing Development Plan – South Landscaping
Wapiti Crossing Development Plan - Elevations
Wapiti Crossing – Multi-family building
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Director
Date: May 14, 2013
RE: Police Retirement Plan & FPPA Coverage
Background:
Administrative Services presented a review of the Town retirement plans at the April 9,
2013 Town Board Study Session, which illustrated the percentages contributed by the
Town to individual PERA (all employees except Management and Police), ICMA
Management and ICMA Police retirement accounts have never been equal. However,
the disparity between the plans increased significantly during 2005 – 2011 to a point in
which there was a 3.7% - 4.5% difference in contribution rates (13.7% - PERA, 10%
ICMA Management and 9.2% - ICMA Police).
In 2011, Administration took a step towards closing the gap by approving a change to
the ICMA contributions: Management from 10% to 13.7% and Police from 9.2% to
11.10%. To date there remains a 2.6% difference between the ICMA Police retirement
plan in the Town’s contribution rate.
At the meeting, staff recommended the Town contribute the same amount to each
employee’s retirement plan moving forward. PERA employer contribution rates are set
by PERA and may not be modified by the employer. Therefore, it is recommended the
Town adopt a policy to contribute to all employee retirement plans at the rate
established by PERA moving forward and update ICMA contracts annually to reflect
such changes if necessary for both ICMA Management and ICMA Police plans. Staff
also recommended the Town retroactively contribute to the Police employee ICMA
retirement plans at the 13.7% rate starting January 1, 2011.
The Town Board requested staff address a number of issues including the tax
implications to the employee, the total cost to the Town, clarify with ICMA that lump sum
payments were allowed, what account would the retroactive payments be made, and
should those employees who have left since January 1, 2011 be included in the
retroactive payments.
Administrative Services Memo
Page 2
Staff contacted ICMA and reaffirmed there are no tax implications as taxes on the
401(a) accounts is tax deferred and lump sum payments would be accepted. Any
change to the contribution rate would require a new contract with ICMA to update the
Police retirement plan. Finance Officer McFarland contacted the auditors to determine
if there would be tax or accounting issues with the retroactive payments. The auditors
stated an accounting entry to book the liability at the end of 2012 would be required and
an assurance there would be no penalties assessed by ICMA. The total cost of the
retroactive payments for current employees to date is approximately $80,000 and would
be funded through the appropriate Police personnel accounts (Patrol, Community
Service or Support Services). The Police department has realized employee savings
since the first of the year with the delay in filing positions such as the dispatcher in April,
dispatch supervisor in March and the search continues to fill the final Police Officer
position. Staff is not recommending retroactive payment for the employees who have
separated from the Town since January 2011 as they received the benefits in place at
the time of their employment with the Town.
In addition, the Town joined FPPA in 1986 to provide death and disability coverage for
the Police. At that time the dispatchers (mostly female) were conducting searches of
female subjects, and therefore, qualified as members of FPPA. This practice ceased
many years ago, however, the Town continues to pay contributions and enroll new
dispatchers in FPPA. After a review of the coverage with FPPA, it was determined the
dispatchers are not qualified members and would not be covered by FPPA if a claim
was made even though the Town is paying for coverage. In essence, the Town is
paying for coverage our employees are not eligible to receive. The Town pays 2.6% for
FPPA coverage per dispatch employee per payroll. Staff would therefore recommend
removing the dispatchers from FPPA and applying the 2.6% towards their retirement,
thereby providing them a direct benefit to their retirement plan at no additional cost to
the Town.
Budget:
Approximately $77,000 would be required for the retroactive contributions for January 1,
2011 through April of 2013 for current employees. The remainder of 2013 would be
approximately $25,000 - $40,000 in contributions based on hours worked, i.e. overtime
costs. The Town would also realize a $5,000 - $7,000 in savings through the removal of
FPPA coverage for the dispatch personnel.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends increasing the ICMA Police retirement contribution from 11.1% to
13.7%, retroactively contribute 2.6% to current Police retirement accounts as of January
1, 2011, and discontinue FPPA coverage for dispatchers effective May 12, 2013.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny increasing the ICMA Police retirement contribution from 11.1%
to 13.7%, retroactively contributing 2.6% to current Police retirement accounts as of
January 1. 2011, and discontinue FPPA coverage for dispatchers effective May 12,
2013.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: May 14th, 2013
RE: Approval of Policy Governance: Board/Staff Linkages
Background:
The Town Board has been working on adopting the Policy Governance model of
governance for the Town. Previously the Board official adopted the first section of Policy
Governance concerning Board Governance and the section on Staff Limitations. This is
the third policy section of the Town’s Policy Governance Manual concerning Board/Staff
Linkages which defines the Board’s expectations from the Town Administrator and the
Town Attorney and how the Board will measure those expectations. This was reviewed
by the Board at the last Study Session and revised, incorporating the comments from
that discussion.
Budget:
n/a
Adopted 5-14-2013
1
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
GOVERNING POLICIES MANUAL
Table of Contents
Category 2. Board/Staff Linkage
Policy 2.0 Governance - Management Connection
Policy 2.1 Delegation to the Town Administrator
Policy 2.2 Town Administrator Job Description
Policy 2.3 Monitoring Town Administrator Performance
Policy 2.4 Town Attorney
Adopted 5-14-2013
2
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.0 POLICY TITLE: GOVERNANCE - MANAGEMENT CONNECTION
The Board of Trustees’ official link to the operation of departments of Town Government and
staff is the Town Administrator.
2.1 The Board of Trustees’ job is generally confined to establishing the broadest
policies; implementation and subsidiary decision making is delegated to the
Town Administrator.
2.2 As the Board’s primary link to the operations of Town government, the Town
Administrator’s performance will be considered to be synonymous with
organizational performance (within the scope of the Town Administrator’s
authority).
2.3 Monitoring Town Administrator performance is synonymous with monitoring
organizational performance against Board policies and Staff Limitations. Any
evaluation of Town Administrator performance, formal or informal, may be
derived only from these monitoring criteria.
Adopted 5-14-2013
3
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/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.
Adopted 5-14-2013
4
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.2 POLICY TITLE: TOWN ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
As the Board’s primary link to the operations of Town government, the Town Administrator’s
performance will be considered to be synonymous with organizational performance (within the
scope of the Town Administrator’s authority).
The Town Administrator’s job contributions can be stated as performance in two areas:
2.2.1 Board outcomes are met and policies are followed.
2.2.2 Town government operation within the boundaries established in Board policies on STAFF
LIMITATIONS.
Adopted 5-14-2013
5
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.3 POLICY TITLE: MONITORING TOWN ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE
The Board of Trustees will systematically and rigorously monitor Town Administrator job
performance to determine the extent to which goals are being achieved and whether operational
activities fall within boundaries established in management limitations policies. Accordingly:
2.3.1. The purpose of monitoring is simply to determine the degree to which Board policies
are being met. Information which does not do this will not be considered to be
monitoring. Monitoring will be as automatic as possible, using a minimum of Board
time so that meetings can focus on creating the future.
2.3.2. A given policy may be monitored in one or more of three ways:
(a) Internal Report: Disclosure of compliance information to the Board of Trustees
from the Town Administrator.
(b) External Report: Discovery of compliance information by a disinterested party
who is selected by and reports directly to the Board of Trustees. Such reports
must assess executive performance only against policies of the Board, not
those of the external party unless the Board has previously indicated that
party’s opinion to be the standard.
(c) Direct Board Inspection: Discovery of compliance information by a Board
member or the Board of Trustees as a whole. This is a Board inspection of
documents, activities or circumstances directed by the Board which allows a
“prudent person” test of policy compliance.
2.3.3 In every case, the Board of Trustees will judge whether (a) the Town Administrator’s
interpretation is reasonable, and (b) whether data demonstrate accomplishment of, or
compliance with, the Town Administrator’s interpretation.
2.3.4 In every case, the standard for compliance shall be “any reasonable Town Administrator
interpretation” of the Board of Trustees’ policy being monitored however, the Board of
Trustees is the final judge of reasonableness, and will always judge with a “reasonable
person” test (what a reasonably prudent person would do in that context). Interpretations
favored by individual board members or by the Board of Trustees as a whole do not
constitute a “reasonable person” test.
2.3.5 Actions determined to be not compliant with a reasonable interpretation of Board of
Trustees’ policies will be subject to a remedial process agreed to by the Town Board.
2.3.6. The Board of Trustees will conduct an annual formal evaluation of the Town
Administrator in March which will include a summation examination of the monitoring
data acquired during that period.
Adopted 5-14-2013
6
Town Administrator Performance Expectations Review Schedule
Policy Metho Frequen Schedule
3.0 General Executive Constraint Internal Annually March
3.1 Customer Service Internal Annually March
3.2 Treatment of Staff Internal Annually March
3.3 Financial Planning/Budgeting Internal Quarterly Apr., July,
Oct., Jan.
3.4 Financial Condition & Activities Internal Annually March
External Annually June
3.5 Asset Protection Internal Annually March
3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup
and replacement
Internal Annually March
3.7 Emergency Preparedness Internal Annually April
3.8 Compensation and Benefits Internal Annually September
3.9 Communication and Support to the Board Internal Annually March
3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Internal Annually March
3.11 Quality of Life Internal Annually March
3.12 Internal Procedures Internal Annually July
Adopted 5-14-2013
7
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.4 POLICY TITLE: TOWN ATTORNEY
The Town Attorney represents the Board of Trustees as specified in the Estes Park Municipal Code
2.24.020 (3) and anyone acting on its behalf so long as they are not acting in conflict with the Board of
Trustee or its policies.
2.4.1 Ethical Obligation of Town Attorney
2.4.1.1 The Town Attorney at all times will be guided by, and subject to, the Colorado Rules
of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and specifically Rule 1.13 Organization as Client
2.4.2 Accountability of the Town Attorney -
2.4.2.1 The Town Attorney shall report directly to the Town Board. The purpose of the
Town Attorney is to ensure that the Board’s actions take place with competent and
prudent legal counsel and representation.
2.4.2.2 The Town Attorney is accountable to the Board acting as a body, never to any
individual Board member or group of members, nor to the Town Administrator.
2.4.2.3 If individual Board members request information or assistance without Board
authorization, the Town Attorney may refuse such requests that require, in his/her
opinion, an inappropriate amount of staff time or funds or is disruptive. In such a
case, the requesting member may choose to bring the request to the Board.
2.4.2.4 Town Attorney accountability is for all resources, including personnel, under his or
her control. Therefore, any accomplishments or violations due to actions of a
subordinate of the Town Attorney are considered to be accomplishments or
violations by the Town Attorney.
2.4.2.5 The Town Attorney may accomplish the “Job Products” of the position in any
manner not imprudent, unethical, or in violation of the prohibitions listed below
under “Limitations on Town Attorney Authority.”
2.4.2.6 The Town Attorney may use any reasonable interpretation of Board policies as
they pertain to his/her authority and accountability. The Town Attorney is
authorized to establish all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions and
develop all activities as long as they are consistent with any reasonable
interpretation of the Board’s policies.
2.4.3 Job Products of the Town Attorney
Adopted 5-14-2013
8
2.4.3.1 Timely opinion on documents and contemplated decisions or actions of the Board,
the Town Administrator or other Town Officials holding the authority to make such
decisions. Requests to the Town Attorney to provide opinions about the wisdom of
policy of decisions shall be discouraged.
2.4.3.2 Timely opinion on the legal ramifications of pending or actual laws, regulations,
court decisions, and pending or threatened litigation.
2.4.3.3 Timely opinion on the legality or propriety under the law of the Board’s processes.
2.4.2.4 Timely opinion on the legality or propriety under the law of pending or actual acts
or omissions of any Trustee, Board, Committee, Commission, the Town
Administrator or other Town employee or official.
2.4.3.5 When requested or appropriate, alternate language or action to achieve Board or
Town Administrator intentions in a lawful manner.
2.4.3.6 Timely and thoughtful advice and recommendations on the range of legal options
available.
2.4.3.7 The Town Attorney shall endeavor to provide professional advice based upon the law
as determined by the Town Attorney and also other considerations as may be
appropriate to the decision. The Town Attorney should refrain from influencing
policy based upon the personal belief of the attorney.
2.4.3.8 Litigation:
(i) Advice regarding avoidance of litigation or settlement of potential litigation.
(ii) Timely provision to the Board and the Town Administrator on the status of
settlement negotiations and all threatened/actual litigation.
(iii) Settlement of litigation, with authority as obtained from the Board.
(iv) Diligent and competent representation of the Board, the Town, and the Town’s
officer’s agents and employees in litigation.
(v.) The Town may carry out its obligation to defend Town officials and employees
from third party claims by using the services of the Town Attorney’s office. The
Town Attorney will be responsible for determining conflicts of interest in such
defense and advise the Board and individuals involved. The Town Attorney may
advise the Board to retain separate counsel to represent the Town, its individual
officials, and/or employees.
2.4.3.9 Adequately brief the board on emerging legal issues and trends affecting the Town.
2.4.4 Limitations on Town Attorney Authority. The Town Attorney shall not:
2.4.4.1 Exercise authority over Town Administrator or staff.
Adopted 5-14-2013
9
2.4.4.2 Violate applicable codes of professional ethics and conduct.
2.4.4.3 Treat the public or staff in a disrespectful or unfair manner.
2.4.4.4 Incur expenditures or fiscal encumbrances beyond those authorized under Board
Policy.
2.4.4.5 Unreasonably withhold information from the Town Administrator, nor shall the Town
Attorney fail to cooperate with the Town Administrator in the performance of his/her
official functions.
2.4.5 Evaluation of Town Attorney performance.
2.4.5.1 Town Attorney accountability is only for job expectations explicitly stated by the Board
in this document. Consequently, the provisions herein are the sole basis of any
subsequent evaluation of Town Attorney performance, though he or she may use any
reasonable interpretation of the Board’s words.
2.4.5.2 The Board of Trustees will monitor the Town Attorney’s performance with respect to
these expectations on a routine basis.
2.4.5.3 Any modification to the compensation paid the Town Attorney shall be as specified in
the Estes Park Municipal Code, section 2.24.030.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: May 14th, 2013
RE: Policy Approval: Policy 102 – Town Committees, Policy 103 – Town Board
Procedures and Tool boxes
Background:
Policy 102 – Town Committees– This policy is revised based on Board discussion on
selection and appointment of committee members at the last Board Study session.
Policy 103 is a housekeeping item. As part of the policy review process, we are working
to standardize the format for all current town policies so they can be readily accessed
and to aid in indexing and tracking revisions. This policy incorporates the existing
Town Board Tool Boxes, in their existing format, into a standard Town Policy. There is
one revision, as directed by the Board, to the tool box for meeting procedure options
(103.4.1) clarifying the use of motions to reconsider.
Budget:
n/a
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
1
102.1 Purpose: To establish a uniform Policy and Procedure process for Town of Estes Park
committees and to provide reference for cross training and training new personnel.
102.2 SCOPE: This Policy and Procedure applies to all Town citizen volunteer boards, commissions
and task forces, herein collectively referred to as “committees” and the appropriate staff
who support the functions of these entities. This Policy and Procedure does not apply to
internal staff committees, committees not appointed by the Town Board or outside
independent committees.
102.3 RESPONSIBILITY: The Town Administrator and Town staff shall be responsible for the
implementation of this Policy and Procedure.
102.4 PROCEDURES
NOTE: In instances where federal or state regulations and laws differ from this policy/procedure, the
federal and state laws and regulations will be followed.
102.4.1 DEFINITIONS:
102.4.1.1 COMMITTEE TYPES: Committees serve many different roles within the Town. It
is important that staff and committee members fully understand the role of each
committee and the authority and responsibility for the committee and its members. To
help define these roles, each committee will be designated as to type, as defined below:
102.4.1.2 Advisory Committees: An advisory committee serves a forum of citizens to
advise and assist the Town Board and/or a requesting Town department, providing
them with technical and non‐technical advice on issues. Advisory committees are not
authorized to make decisions on behalf of the Town. The Town Board will consider the
input of advisory committees, as well as other community members, in making
decisions on issues. The Town Board may or may not take action that is in agreement
with the advice of a Town advisory committee. Advisory committees may not speak
for the Town or take independent positions on issues with the public or the press. Its
purpose is to advise the Town Board or the requesting department only.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
2
102.4.1.2.1 Constituent Advisory Committee: This type of advisory committee is
used as a polling type committee used to develop a sampling of community
reaction and opinion on an issue or program(s). The membership on this type of
committee should be broad based and accurately reflect the total diversity of the
larger public. Example: The Transportation Advisory Committee
102.4.1.2.2 Content –Advice‐giving Committee: This type of advisory committee is
created to give advice to the Town Board or appropriate department to aid with
decision making processes. Varied interests and opinions are encouraged, and the
advisory committee may be asked to develop specific proposals and products for
Town Board or department consideration. Membership is selected to encourage a
wide variety of input from respected individuals from the community with
specialized expertise. This advisory committee may or may not be a demographic
reflection of the community as a whole. Example – The Tree Board
102.4.1.2.3 Working Group: This type of advisory committee may reflect both the
content or advisory type of committee, but is further charged with implementation
of a project or program. Example – The Police Auxiliary
102.4.1.3 Quasi‐judicial Committees: Some committees and commissions are defined in
state statute and have certain statutory responsibilities and authorities, as designated
by statute. Often these committees have the authority to hold formal hearings, accept
testimony, and make decisions which have some level of legal standing. These
decisions may or may not be subject to review by the Town Board. Members of these
committees must be cognizant of protecting the unbiased quasi‐judicial nature of the
committee and its formal hearings. Activities of these committees are limited to those
authorities granted in statute or specifically by the Town Board. Example – The
Planning Commission
102.4.1.4 Decision‐making Committees: Decision‐making committees are bodies that
either statutorily or as granted by the Town Board have authority to make decisions
which may include some of the following: approving citizen requests and applications,
allocating resources, hiring or firing employees or adopting regulations. The specific
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
3
authority of each decision‐making committee is defined in statute or in the bylaws as
approved by the Town Board. Examples – The Board of Adjustment, Board of Appeals
102.4.1.5 Ad‐Hoc Task Forces: Task forces are special ad‐hoc panels created by the Town
Board for a specific project or task. Task forces are limited in duration and are not
ongoing entities. The responsibilities of the task force shall be designated by resolution
by the Town Board at the time the Town Board authorizes the formation of the task
force. The Town Board will consider the input of task forces, as well as other
community members, in making decisions on issues. The Town Board may or may not
take action that is in agreement with the advice of a Town task force. Task forces may
not speak for the Town, and are to advise the Town Board or the appropriate
department only, and are not to take independent positions on issues with the public
or the press. Examples – Bond Park Committee, Transportation Visioning Committee
102.4.1.6 Outside and Independent Committees– These are committees that may or may
not be appointed wholly or partially by the Town Board, but are independent
autonomous committees, often serving a governance role for another entity. This
includes, but is not limited to the Estes Valley Library Board, the Local Marketing
District, the Estes Park Housing Authority, and Western Heritage Inc.
102.4.1.7 TOWN BOARD LIAISON: The Town Trustee assigned to the committee pursuant to
Governing Policy 1.7
102.4.1.8 STAFF LIAISON: A staff position responsible for the coordination and communication
with the assigned committee and the day‐to‐day support for the committee.
102.4.2 TERMS: The term for committee membership shall be defined in the bylaws of each
committee. Terms for outside committees are the responsibility of the specific committee and
not the Town of Estes Park.
102.4.2.1 Terms for all committee members will be staggered with the exception of ad‐
hoc or temporary committees, which may have a finite sunset.
102.4.2.2 Mid‐term appointments to positions that become vacant may be made at any
time or may be postponed to the regular term period, at the discretion of the Town Board.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
4
102.4.2.3 Unless otherwise specified by statute, members of a committee serve at the
pleasure of the Town Board, have no property interest or entitlement in their membership
or office and may be removed at any time for any reason by the Town Board.
102.4.3 RECRUITMENT:
102.4.3.1 The Town Clerk will publicize and advertise committee vacancies each year,
and on an as‐needed basis throughout the year, utilizing paid advertising, press releases to
electronic and print media, the Town website, and other produced materials that might
engage interested residents. Applications shall be available on the Town website, at Town
Hall and at the Estes Valley Library.
102.4.3.2 RECRUITMENT Current committee members are encouraged to help recruit
potential committee members, especially when specific targeted populations or expertise
is required. Staff and Trustees may encourage individuals to apply for any open committee
position, however they must be clear that the authority to appoint to a committee is solely
the responsibility of the Board of Trustees, and there is no implied promise or guarantee of
appointment.
102.4.3.3 APPLICATIONS: All citizens interested in serving on a committee shall complete an
official Town application. These applications will be available from the Town Clerk’s office
and on the Town website. Applications must be returned by the deadline to the Town
Clerk’s office. Online applications are accepted from the Town website.
Citizens may apply for up to three committees at a time. When applying for more than one
committee, applicants should prioritize their requests on the committee application form.
102.4.3.4 ELIGIBILITY: Eligibility for any committee shall be defined in the bylaws of each
committee. However, except by special circumstance as approved by the Town Board, all
members of any Town committee shall be residents of the Town of Estes Park. No
individual who is currently serving a sentence after being convicted of a felony may serve
on any Town board. Due to the time commitment involved, and to allow as many citizens
the chance to participate in Town committees, serving on more than one Town committee
at a time is discouraged. However, the Town Board reserves the right to appoint
individuals to multiple committees when, in the opinion of the Town Board, it is in the best
interest of the Town.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
5
102.4.4 SELECTION PROCESS: The Town Board will seek the most qualified diverse applicants
with applicable special interest and expertise. In general, only the Town Board will select
appointments to a Town committee. Existing committee members may assist with the
recruitment of new members, but should not screen, interview or make recommendations for
appointments, unless specifically requested to do so by the Town Board.
102.4.4.1 Selection to the committees will be carried out as follows:
102.4.4.1.1 The Town Board or its designee(s) will review the applications.
102.4.4.1.2 The Trustees or their designee(s) may screen applicants to select a pool for
interviewing.
102.4.4.1.3 The Trustees or their designee may conduct reference checks or background
checks on applicants when, in the opinion of the Town Board or its designee(s), it is in
the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Estes Park. No such checks will be
completed without the informed consent of the applicant.
102.4.4.1.4 Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.
102.4.4.1.4.1 Personal interviews shall be conducted prior to any appointment to a
Town committee, unless specifically waived by the Town Board, or as
excepted below.
102.4.4.1.4.2 Prior to candidate interviews, the Town Board or its designee(s)
assigned to conduct the interviews shall develop selection and evaluation
criteria for review of the candidates.
102.4.4.1.5 The Trustees may request assistance from the staff liaison and other
committee members.
102.4.4.1.6 Recommendations from the interview team will be made to the Town
Board, which will make the appointment(s).
102.4.4.2 Incumbent committee members who are eligible for reappointment will be
contacted by the Town Clerk’s office to assess their interest in being reappointed.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
6
Members who desire reappointment will be considered along with all other applicants.
Incumbents may be interviewed by the Town Board or its designee, at the discretion of the
Town Board.
102.4.4.3 By agreeing to serve on a Town committee, the member agrees to abide by this
policy of the Town Board. Any committee member who violates the terms of this Policy
and Procedure or the bylaws of the committee may be asked to resign or be removed from
the committee by the Town Board.
102.4.5 NOTIFICATION: The Town Clerk’s office will notify applicants of scheduled interviews. The
Town Clerk’s office will promptly notify applicants and incumbents requesting reappointment,
of appointments and the status of their applications
102.4.6 VACANCIES:
102.4.6.1 The Town Clerk’s office will keep all applications on file for one year. If
vacancies occur during the year, the position may be filled from the current list of
applicants using the selection process delineated or through advertising for interested
volunteers. For difficult to recruit committees, applications may be kept on file for two
years.
102.4.6.2 Resignations from any committee should be addressed in writing to the Town
Board or Town Administrator.
102.4.7 COMMITTEE ALTERNATES:
102.4.7.1 No Town committee will have members designated as alternates. All members,
other than those designated as ex‐officio or associate, shall have full membership and
voting privileges on all Town committees.
102.4.7.2 Where federal or state laws or municipal ordinances require alternates Section
102.3.7.1 is waived.
102.4.7.3 Alternate/non‐voting members who wish to become regular members must
complete an application for the appropriate committee.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
7
102.4.8 STAFF SUPPORT: Staff support is available to committees through the staff liaison assigned
to support each committee.
102.4.8.1 It is the responsibility of the Town Board, in coordination with the staff liaison to
provide the necessary budget and other resources for any committee to perform its assigned
duties.
102.4.8.2 It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to ensure the committee has adequate and
reasonable staff support within budgeted resources.
102.4.8.3 Staff support and staff liaisons will not be members of the committee to which they
are assigned.
102.4.8.4 It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to make requests for the Trustees' liaison to
attend assigned committee meetings through the Town Clerk.
102.4.9 TRUSTEES’ LIAISON: Individual Trustees may be assigned as liaisons to a committee by the
Town Board. The role of the Trustee liaison is:
102.4.9.1 To serve as the primary two‐way communication channel between the Town Board
and the committee.
102.4.9.2 If so designated by the Town Board, to review applications, interview candidates and
make recommendations to the Town Board for approval.
102.4.9.3 Serve as the primary Town Board contact with the committee.
102.4.9.4 Attend assigned committee meetings when requested or whenever appropriate, in
the opinion of the Trustee liaison. Trustee liaisons are not expected to attend every
meeting of the committee.
102.4.9.5 Any Trustee may attend the meeting of any committee; however they should notify
the official Town Board liaison in advance of attending. This notification will allow the
liaison to know when a quorum of the Town Board may be attending the committee
meeting and to notify the Town Clerk so the appropriate public notifications can be made,
in compliance with the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
8
102.4.9.6 The liaison is not a member of the committee and when in attendance at a committee
meeting, shall be there as an observer for the Town Board. Participation in committee
discussions should be minimal and restricted to clarification of Town Board positions or
collection of information to bring back to the full Town Board.
102.4.10 ORIENTATION AND TRAINING: Staff liaisons should provide new committee members
with pertinent materials that will assist new members in becoming fully functioning members
of the committee, including a copy of the bylaws and a copy of this policy. Staff liaisons should
clearly inform all new members of the role of the committee and the responsibilities and
authority of the committee. Established committee members are encouraged to share their
experience and knowledge with new members. New members are encouraged to attend
meetings before their term begins. All new committee members shall receive and
acknowledge the receipt of the Town of Estes Park Volunteer Manual.
102.4.11 BYLAWS: Each committee shall adopt bylaws that are consistent with these policies. A
copy of the bylaws shall be sent to the Clerk’s office prior to adoption, for staff and Town
Board review. This Policy and Procedure shall be incorporated, by reference, into the bylaws of
all Town committees, The bylaws shall include a description of the objectives and duties or
tasks of the committee, as set by the Town Board or the appropriate department.
102.4.12 RECOGNITION: The Town Board shall recognize the Town’s volunteers annually, in a
manner determined by the Town Board.
102.4.12.1 The Town Board will send a letter of appreciation to all outgoing committee
members in good standing.
102.4.13 OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
102.4.13.1 Any documents, articles, reports or correspondence, recommendations or other
products produced by a Town committee shall be the sole property of the Town of Estes
Park.
102.4.13.2 No committee or member of a committee may copyright or in any other way
take ownership for any documents, articles, recommendations or other products produced
as a function of the Town committee.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
9
102.4.13.3 All documents and correspondence produced as part of the regular business of
any committee shall be subject to the same open records policies applicable to all Town
documents and correspondence.
102.4.13.4 All documents and publications of any Town committee must be clearly
identified as belonging to or originating from the Town of Estes Park.
102.4.14 OPEN MEETINGS: All meetings and actions of any committee shall be in full compliance
with state statutes governing open meetings. It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to be
familiar with these statutes and regulations.
102.4.15 DECISION MAKING:
102.4.15.1 Any actions, recommendations or discussions of any committee shall be limited
to the defined objectives of the body as described in the approved bylaws.
102.4.15.2 A common point of misunderstanding with committees and citizens is the role
of the committee in decision making and the type of decision making to be employed by
the committee for a particular issue. The Town Board realizes that not one method of
decision making fits all situations; however it is important that the type of decision be
declared early in the process of public discourse. The type of decision process is dependent
on the issue involved, the time frame available and the amount of public participation
desired.
102.4.15.3 It is the responsibility of the staff liaison to assist the committee in its decision‐
making process and to train new and existing members in the appropriate responsibilities
and authorities of the committee and its members. Staff liaisons are not to exert undue
influence during the decision‐making process, but only to keep the decision making of the
committee in agreement with the objectives set by the Town Board.
102.4.16 COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT:
102.4.16.1 COMPENSATION: Citizens who serve on Town committees do so as volunteers.
There will be no financial compensation or reimbursement of expenses, except as noted
below, for any volunteers on any committee.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
10
102.4.16.2 MILEAGE: Committee members may request reimbursement for mileage to
attend any committee function if the member must travel greater than 10 miles from their
residence. Mileage will be reimbursed at the rate currently adopted for Town travel by the
Town Board. The staff liaison is responsible for approving mileage reimbursements for
committees within the budget provided by the Town Board.
102.4.16.3 MEALS: Meals may be provided by the Town as part of regular meetings of the
committee, as budgeted.
102.4.16.4 EXPENSES: Members of committees may be reimbursed for out‐of‐pocket costs
associated with the business of the committee provided the expenditures have been
previously budgeted by the Town Board and authorized in advance by the assigned staff
liaison or Town Administrator. (For example, office supplies, copies, printing, etc.) Other
expenses may be reimbursed if, in the judgment of the staff liaison, such reimbursement is
in the best interest of the Town.
102.4.17 INSURANCE COVERAGE:
102.4.17.1 General liability (liability other than auto, including general, law enforcement
and professional) is provided to all volunteers.
102.4.17.2 Volunteers are not covered by the Town’s workers’ compensation coverage.
Any injuries incurred while volunteering is the responsibility of the individual volunteer.
102.4.17.3 Specific to automobile insurance, both physical damage and legal liability for
bodily injury or death is covered for all volunteers driving town vehicles, subject to
coverage limits pursuant to the Town’s coverage. In addition, liability is covered for all
volunteers driving their personal vehicles on Town business; however the following claims
are excluded from coverage.
102.4.17.3.1 Bodily injury or death to passengers (including friends and family) who
are not on official town business.
102.4.17.3.2 Physical damage to non‐Town owned vehicles used on Town business.
102.4.17.4 Property insurance is not provided to any personal property of the volunteer.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
11
102.4.18 CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
102.4.18.1 A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or
interests conflict so that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the
person’s actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage.
102.4.18.2 Members of committees shall not use their membership for private gain, and
shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or
individual.
102.4.18.3 A member of any committee who has a personal or private interest in a matter
proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the committee; shall not vote on the
item; and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the
matter.
102.4.19 GIFTS:
102.4.19.1 Acceptance of or giving of any gifts by a committee member, which could lead to
a conflict of interest, is prohibited. In particular, no member of any committee may accept
or give a gift in excess of the value specified in Article XXIX of the Colorado State
Constitution, from any individual, organization, contractor, or any other entity which does
business with the Town or has any control of or interest in Town business related to the
activities of his or her particular committee.
102.4.20 MINUTES:
102.4.20.1 Minutes shall be recorded of all meetings of any Town committee that are subject
to the Colorado Open Meetings Act. Approved or draft minutes should be posted as soon
as practicable after the meeting in question. Committees are strongly encouraged to post
draft minutes prior to the final approval of the minutes at the next meeting of the
committee. At a minimum, minutes shall be published on the Town website within seven
days of approval by the committee.
102.4.20.2 Minutes should record any formal actions taken by the committee. Minutes are
not intended to be verbatim transcripts of the meeting. The amount of detail included in
the minutes beyond the recording of actions is left to the discretion of each committee.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN COMMITTEES
102
12
102.4.21 AGENDAS:
102.4.21.1 Agendas for all public committee meetings will be posted on the Town website a
minimum of six days prior to the meeting, whenever possible.
102.4.22 WAIVERS:
102.4.22.1 Any section of this policy can be waived by a majority vote of the Town Board.
___________________________________
William C. Pinkham
Mayor
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013
References: Governance Policy Manual POLICY 1.9 ANNUAL PLANNING AND AGENDAS
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN BOARD PROCEDURES AND TOOL BOXES
103
103.1 Purpose: To establish a uniform procedures and process for how the Town Board will
conduct its meeting and other Town Board official business
103.2 SCOPE: This Policy and Procedure applies to the Board of Trustees and other parties
conducting business with the Board.
103.3 RESPONSIBILITY: The Mayor, Mayor Pro‐Tem and Town Trustees shall be responsible for
the implementation of this Policy and Procedure.
103.4 PROCEDURES: The Town Board will conduct its business in a manner consistent with the
following Tool Box guidelines, adopted by the Town Board in March 2011 as amended.
103.4.1: Tool Box for Meeting Procedure Options
103.4.2: Code of Conduct for the Estes Park Board of Trustees
103.4.3: Town Board Meeting Order of Business
103.4.4: Town Board Motions
___________________________________
William C. Pinkham
Mayor
2
103.4.1
Tool box for: Meeting Procedure Options
(Adopted March 2011)
Motions: Purpose, Properties
Basic Motion:
Purpose: Places an action item on the floor for discussion
The motion is stated in the positive.
“Yes” vote supports motion.
“No” vote opposes the motion.
Divide complex issues into individual motions.
Second is required.
Amend a Motion:
Purpose: To change a portion of the Basic Motion.
The amendment uses the original basic motion wording with a change in
wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
Second is required.
Substitute Motion:
Purpose: To completely remove/replace the Basic Motion.
The substitute motion is a new motion with new wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
The Mayor determines if motion qualifies as Substitute Motion.
Second is required.
Table Motion:
or
Continue Motion:
Purpose: Stops an action item discussion for more information.
The Mayor generally states a new meeting date to discuss item.
The Mayor may send item back to committee/staff for revising.
The Mayor will recommend to Table or Continue as appropriate.
Occurs when information is lacking or no decision can be made on action
item.
Second is required.
Motion to
Reconsider:
Purpose: Re-open discussion on a finalized action item.
Only a Board Member voting in the majority for the motion that finalized
the action item may request a reconsideration motion and only at the same
meeting at which the original action was taken.
Second is required.
Point of Order:
Purpose: To correct meeting proceedings and help the Mayor.
State “point of order” and what procedure was missed by the Mayor.
No Second is required.
Second a Motion:
Purpose: To open discussion on an action item.
Notes: The person providing the second does not need to agree with the
motion.
The originator of the motion or changed motion will need to repeat the
motion for the benefit of the Town Clerk’s record and Town Board clarity of
motion.
3
103.4.2
Code of Conduct for the Estes Park Board of Trustees
This Policy prescribes guidelines for behaviors of Town Trustees and appointed officials
in the performance of their official duties and interaction with both the Public and Town
Administration. Some ethical requirements are enforced by Federal, State or local laws.
Others rely on training or on an individual’s desire to do the right thing.
“Ethics” means positive principals of conduct and is defined as the rules or
standards governing the conduct of a person or member of a group or profession.
Trust:
Trustees treat their office as a public trust. The Town’s resources and
powers are to be used for the benefit of the public.
Trustees shall act in good faith, be honest and honorable in all dealings
and strive to provide a balanced approach in establishing policy.
Trustees refrain from decisions in which their financial or personal
interests are specifically affected by a decision and shall adhere to
applicable Colorado Law governing conflict of interest.
Trustees do not accept personal gifts except as specifically allowed by
Colorado Law.
Respect:
Trustees interact with the public, administration, employees and each
other in a respectful manner.
Trustees treat those providing input at Town meetings with respect.
Trustees respect and adhere to their oath of office
Accountability:
The Board of Trustees exercises its authority with open meetings and
access to public records.
The Board of Trustees hold executive sessions only for reasons allowed
by Colorado Revised Statutes.
Trustees are positive advocates for the Town and are accessible to the
citizens of Estes Park.
Leadership:
The Board of Trustees upholds the laws and ordinances of the Town of
Estes Park and the State of Colorado.
The Board of Trustees represents the citizens of Estes Park, and strives to
meet the adopted mission and vision statements for the betterment of the
community.
The Board of Trustees establishes policies for the governance and safety
of the community, sets fiscal policy and decides long term priorities.
The Board of Trustees acts as a body to strive for a balanced approach to
meet the current and future needs of its citizens.
Colorado Statute reference: CRS 24-18-101, et seq.; 24-18-201, et seq. and CRS 24-6-
402. Adopted 02/10
4
103.4.3
Town Board Meeting
Order of Business
(Adopted March 2011)
• Call meeting to order
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Proclamations and Presentations
• Public Comment
• Town Board Comments
• Liaison Reports
• Town Administrator’s Report and Public Comment Follow-up
• Consent Agenda
• Action Items (repeat process for each action item)
• State discussion item with topic to be discussed
• Staff Report
• Town Board clarification of Staff Report - questions/discussion
• Public Comment
• Formal Motion/Second (if Ordinance is present, Town Attorney/Town Clerk reads prior
to motion)
• Motion modifications/amendments if desired
• Debate/Discuss motion
• Motion modifications/amendments if desired
• Mayor calls for vote
• Vote
• Additional Staff Reports
• Executive Session (if needed)
• Adjournment
__________________________________________________________________________
__
Every Board meeting will end no later than 10:00 p.m., except that (1) any item of
business commenced before 10:00 p.m., may be concluded before the meeting is
adjourned and (2) the Town Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later
than 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter
which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Board meeting,
and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been
considered by the Board, will be continued to the next regular Town Board meeting and
will be placed first on the agenda for such meeting.
The Town Board reserves the right, by majority vote, to further extend the meeting to
conclude any business the Board deems necessary.
5
103.4.4
Town Board Motions
(Adopted March 2011)
1 The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision
for consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member
committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.”
2 The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is
under discussion, he or she would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be:
“I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion to
amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in
some way.
3 The substitute motion: If a member wants to completely do away with the
basic motion under discussion and put a new motion before the governing body, he
or she would “move a substitute motion.” A substitute motion might be: “I move a
substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year.”
Motions to amend and substitute motions are often confused. But they are quite
different, and so is their effect, if passed.
A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but to modify it in
some way.
A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor and substitute a
new and different motion for it…
Voting on motions when there are several on the floor.
The first vote is on the last motion. In the example above, the substitute motion
would be voted on first. If passed, the other two (Basic and Amend) would not
require a vote because they become moot. If the substitute in the above example
passes, it replaces both the Basic and the amendment to the Basic motion.
If the substitute fails, then a vote is needed on the amendment. If the amendment
passes, the basic motion is moot because it was replaced by the amendment.
However, if the amendment fails, the basic motion needs to be voted on. If it
passes, it is final. If the basic fails, then the chair determines if a new motion is in
order, or does the action item need to be tabled for more information, returned to
committee, have staff gather more information, etc. A time for future review of the
action item should be established.
*Instructional scenario quoted verbatim from: Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple
Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century, 2003, League of California Cities.