HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2012-08-28
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 28, 2012
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 28th day of
August, 2012.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees, Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Richardson, Attorney White, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
TOWN ATTORNEY/MUNICIPAL JUDGE EVALUATION CRITERIA.
Attorney White stated the Town Board has three main reports; the Town Attorney,
Municipal Judge and Town Administrator, and of these three only the Town
Administrator has been evaluated in the past. There are no job descriptions for either
the Town Attorney or Municipal Judge positions; however, the Municipal Judge must
possess a high school degree or GED, a law degree is not required. He stated an
annual or biennial review of the court’s conduct and interaction amongst citizens and
staff could be conducted and used to determine reappointment of the Municipal Judge.
The Town Attorney is appointed per the Town’s Municipal Code after the biennial
election and currently serves the Town through an independent contract, which can be
terminated at any time. The attorney in larger communities tends to be a full-time
employee of the municipality.
The Municipal Judge is appointed as per the Colorado Statute 13-10-105 and can only
be removed for cause during the appointed 2-year term as stated by the statute, and is
not subject to the Town’s personnel manual. The position receives a biweekly salary
and may elect benefits.
The Board questioned the need to evaluate the Town Attorney and Municipal Judge,
and if evaluated how and what would be the criteria for each; criteria should be simple
such as teamwork and communication; the Judge currently provides an annual report to
the Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works (PUP) Committee and this should be the
time for discussion of the court’s performance during the past year; it was stated the
Board does not possess the background or expertise to evaluate the performance of the
judge or the court, and therefore should not evaluate the position; and it is difficult to
assess a job which is quantitative.
After further discussion, the Board consensus was to have the annual Municipal Court
report presented to the Town Board in February/March annually by the Judge and to
assess the court performance during this time. The Board requested staff develop job
descriptions for the Municipal Judge and Town Attorney positions. The Board
suggested requesting the assistance of Judge Brown and Attorney White to develop the
job descriptions outlining the specific needs for each position in Estes Park in the event
the positions become vacant.
QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE OF TRUSTEES.
Attorney White reviewed the difference between quasi-judicial and legislative hearings
and stated legislative matters involve items related to code amendments, budget,
contracts, Intergovernmental Agreements, annexations and all other items that are not
quasi-judicial. He stated a quasi-judicial proceeding involves an official action by the
Board in which an impartial decision will be made based upon the information presented
to the Town Board concerning the matter at the public hearing. Therefore ex-parte
communications concerning a quasi-judicial matter, liquor or land use issues, must be
avoided once an application or item becomes known to the Board. He noted some
projects may have both legislative and quasi-judicial items to be discussed and
approved by the Board and, therefore, he would advise the Board to treat the entire
issue as quasi-judicial. The Board was also advised not to donate or be involved in
fundraising efforts at any level on an issue related to a quasi-judicial matter. He stated
a family member or spouse may donate to a fundraising effort in their own name.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster reviewed a list of Town Board Study Session items which
address the items identified by the Board as important to complete before the end of the
year.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: questioned how an item has
been identified as a study session item versus an item to be discussed at a board
meeting; it was suggested to move certain items that may receive public comment to
the board meeting; move up items not currently scheduled such as town owned
property, role in economic development and financing options; refer B&B in E-1 zoning
district to the Planning Commission; bring the volunteer policy manual to the September
11th Board meeting; remove beetle mitigation discussion with the Park; the wildlife and
bear discussion should include an update as to where the community is, where the
community is headed, and where the Town is on enforcement; the Town is only one
player in addressing the wildlife/bear issues; and questioned the timing of the
discussion on how to distribute the FOSH funds and suggested the item be moved to
the end of the year.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk