HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2010-05-25
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 25, 2010
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of May,
2010.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson,
Koenig, Levine and Miller
Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, Finance Officer
McFarland, Public Information Officer Rush, Town Clerk
Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
SALES TAX 1ST QUARTER REVIEW & FINANCIAL UPDATE
Finance Officer McFarland provided a presentation on Proposition 101 and
Amendments 60 and 61 that would be considered by the Colorado electorate during the
General election in November. Proposition 101 would change vehicle registration to a
flat fee; eliminate the Town’s ability to collect sales tax on vehicle leases and rentals; no
sales tax or use tax on the first $10,000 of a vehicle sale; reduce ownership taxes on
new and used Class A vehicles; and eliminate taxes and fees for telephone tax and
cable TV franchise fees. The proposed changes could impact the General fund by
$418,000 to $580,000. Amendment 60 would allow non-resident property owners to
vote in tax elections; property tax voting only in November; TABOR tax and debt ballot
questions must be voted on separately; limit what can be included on county tax bill;
future property tax increases would be required to expire in 10 years; De-Brucing
actions would expire; and require Enterprise funds and Authorities to pay property tax
and requires local government to reduce mill levy by the amount collected from said
entities. Amendment 61 would prohibit the issuance of debt prior to a vote, including
the refinancing of debt; voter-approved debt must be bonded and repaid within 10
years; limits debt to no more than 10% of the assessed taxable value of real property in
the Town; all existing debt must be repaid; and requires tax rate to be reduced equal to
the amount of the planned average annual repayment of debt.
The Board stated concern with the affect the proposed Proposition and Amendments
would have for the Town and the other local special districts. The Board agreed
theTown should begin discussions with the other districts to oppose the issues. The
Town should look at the services that would be eliminated if the issues pass; the fees
that would not be collected (lost revenue); and the impact and the increase in other fees
such as water or electric fees to pay for future upgrades.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the CIP that takes actual data and forecasts 5
years in the future for the General Fund. The projected fund balances with current
assumptions demonstrates the General Fund would dip below the 30% fund balance in
2011 and decrease to 6% by 2013.
SALES TAX
Finance Officer McFarland provided an overview of the first quarter financial report.
Sales tax for the first quarter trails the budget by 8% and if the trend continues
collections could come in at $6.56 million, down from the budgeted $6.9 million.
Indicators used by staff to predict 2010 sales tax indicate a collection range of $6.56 to
Town Board Study Session – May 25, 2010 – Page 2
$6.78 million, a shortfall of $120,000 - $340,000. Town staff has begun to identify items
in the 2010 budget that may be cut if the trend continues.
PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION / OPEN DISCUSSION.
PIO Rusch reviewed her process for responding to public information requests. She
reviewed interview basics for the Board. The Board requested PIO Rusch provide
interview training for the Board.
Trustee Elrod commented on the need for the Town Board to have a common email
address through the Town’s network. Open discussion followed on a list of questions
presented by Trustee Elrod, including how to determine the type of response; who will
respond; should all communication receive a response; should communication received
by one Trustee be shared with the entire Board; should replies be shared with the entire
Board; and when is it appropriate for the Mayor to unilaterally articulate a position of the
Town without consensus for the entire Board.
Board discussion followed on the topics: many of the issues have been discussed in the
past and the Board has not come to consensus on how to respond or react; the Mayor
should respond if correspondence is received by the entire Board; items sent to the
Board should be sent to the Town Administrator for follow up; CML recommends all
communication should go through the Town Administrator for acknowledgement and
action if necessary; communication responses have been inconsistent and would
continue to be inconsistent without a formal policy; and a letter from the Mayor on the
Board’s behalf should be shared with the entire Board if time allows.
Discussion of proactive communication would continue at the next Town Board Study
Session.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk