Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2014-07-22 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 22, 2014 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 22nd day of July, 2014. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Clerk Williamson, Project Manager Zurn, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Norris reported that following interviews for the Park Advisory Committee, Merle Moore is being recommended for appointment to fill one of the vacancies. He said the remaining positions will be re-advertised and said a background in cultural, visual, or creative arts would be a benefit to the committee. He also reported that Reeves Brown of the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) said that the department is receptive to helping with cash flow and reimbursement timing issues, high speed fiber planning, and coordination of a mountain housing summit. Trustee Phipps asked about the scheduling of a meeting about housing with other Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) members, however, no information was provided as to when the meeting would take place. Trustee Ericson noted that it is important to recognize the financial impact of the flood, but also important to be able to look at non-flood related items as well and move forward with financial decisions. He inquired about materials for the upcoming pre- budget meeting; requested a liaison report be provided on activities of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC); and asked that Project Manager Zurn provide periodic reports on the FLAP project. Trustee Holcomb said there is a Town-owned property on Dry Gulch Road that the Crossroads organization has expressed an interest in, via their Executive Director Virgil Good. Town Administrator Lancaster said he has spoken with Mr. Good and will follow- up on this conversation. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Consideration of Adoption of Dangerous Building Section to the Building Code will be scheduled as soon as possible. Additionally, the Mayor requested that a discussion related to communication between Board members and how to bring ideas forward for the purpose of a study session also be a priority for scheduling. The Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for the Parking Structure will remain on the list for a future Town Board Study Session, however, will be a low priority item. Trustee Holcomb asked if a study session to discuss a vision for the community as outlined in the Downtown Colorado Inc., report would be appropriate. Discussion is summarized: the Town has created a vision statement as part of strategic planning; to Town Board Study Session – July 22, 2014 – Page 2 create a vision for the community would be redundant; report suggestion was for a downtown vision; and this would be under purview of the EDC, Visit Estes Park (VEP), and the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce. In response to a question about a new policy for the use of unused contract contingency funds, Town Administrator Lancaster responded that a separate policy is not being developed at this time, and stated that contingency funds remaining at the end of a project automatically are returned to the General Fund, or other appropriate fund such as the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF). Attorney White cautioned the Trustees about participating in ex parte communications, which he defined as having conversations outside of a noticed, public meeting on a quasi-judicial matter. He reminded the Board that there should be no communication with anyone on a quasi-judicial matter, including members of the Planning Commission until a final, non-appealable decision has been made. VISITOR CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES. Project Manager Zurn reported that due to the effects of the September 2013 flood on the private sector construction market and material prices, the cost for the parking structure has increased 20% to 30% over the original estimates, based on information received from Walker Parking Consultants. He said that the original design is approximately $1.3 million over budget and that after removing many architectural features and restrooms from the preferred design, the project is still $900,000 over budget. He presented the Board with options to decrease costs which included, but are not limited to, eliminating decorative timber, stone, and metal design elements; building a two-story structure; and eliminating restrooms. He stated that at this point he is looking into cutting costs, and has not approached the partners in the project regarding additional funding. The Trustees expressed concern over the fact that the design was developed through a public outreach process and concurred that the public should also be included in defining changes to the original, desired design. Project Manager Zurn recommended moving forward with getting bids for a minimum design that would include options that can be added to the structure. This would provide updated financial information and hard numbers that could be presented to the public when considering changes to the design. He said that the projected increases received from Walker Parking Consultants seem accurate and that the impact of flood recovery on construction and material prices will continue for years, noting that costs are trending upwards. If the project moves forward, Project Manager Zurn said that a September bid opening would be needed in order to allow for construction of the project to be completed by next summer season. VACATION HOME REGULATIONS & ENFORCEMENT. Town Clerk Williamson said staff is seeking feedback about the regulations currently in place related to vacation homes and whether or not these regulations are valid or need revision. Additionally, staff is looking for input from the Board on enforcement of these regulations. She stated that vacation home regulations put in place in 2004 were intended to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods. She noted that in 2010, vacation home regulations were moved from the Estes Park Municipal Code to the Estes Valley Development Code so that the regulations could be enforced in the county as well as within the Estes Park Town limits. At that time, Larimer County passed a resolution requiring vacation homes located within the Estes Valley Development Code area, but outside of the Town limits, to obtain an operating permit on an annual basis at no cost to the property owner. Vacation homes operating within the Town limits are required to purchase a business license at a cost of $150 per year. Enforcement is on a complaint-basis only; staff does not actively monitor compliance with vacation home regulations. Currently if an official complaint is received the Town Clerk notifies the property owner of the violation; after two violations the business license may be revoked. The Municipal Code contains a process by which the property owner may contest the written warning or revocation of the business license; however, Town Board Study Session – July 22, 2014 – Page 3 there is currently no recourse for the complainant. Attorney White stated that this is a very active industry within the Estes Valley with hundreds of vacation homes being operated and stated it is a use by right subject to restrictions. He said the industry requires reasonable regulations that are enforceable, and noted that violations can be cited to municipal court. The Association for Responsible Development (ARD) has been reviewing housing and vacation homes and has provided the Clerk’s office with some suggested enforcement and regulation changes which include more responsibility placed on property managers; and new regulations to address noise, lights, trash, traffic, safety, and hot tubs. The Board’s discussion is summarized: the current code does not contain anything that deals with property managers; property managers are currently not required, however a local contact number is required on the application; property manager or contact person should be available 24/7 to take calls, answer questions, handle issues and/or emergencies; at this time it would be difficult to cite a property manager into municipal court; municipal court fines can be as much as $2500 per day; it would be necessary to go to district court to shut down a vacation home; current regulations do not seem to be effectively protecting the residential character of neighborhoods; should be level playing field with vacation homes paying the same rates and fees as other commercial businesses; vacation homes create a public safety issue when guests are unaware of posted fire bans, etc.; and requirement to convert to commercial utility rates will be included in the Utility policy manual which will affect in-Town properties as well as those in the Estes Valley Development Code area. Conversation continued: propose consideration of raising the business license fee, and look into whether Larimer County would adopt the same fee to help fund enforcement and to level the playing field; consider a tiered system related to occupancy on larger properties in the Estes Valley; a large home with eight bedrooms on a large acreage should not be limited to eight guests; request statistics related to number of complaints; be fair to the property owners who are following the rules; conflict is inevitable between full-time residents and vacationers; if regulations cannot be enforced propose moving to guidelines for vacation rentals; Visit Estes Park has expressed interest in helping vacation home rental owners understand and abide by the regulations; and there are companies that exist that can be hired to help identify properties being operated as vacation homes. Based on the Board’s comments and conversation, staff will compile information related to vacation home complaints that have been received, will draft suggestions about enforceability, consider requiring a property manager for each vacation home, and suggest codes changes to the regulations to be brought back to the Board by the end of the year. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a ten-minute dinner break at 5:30 p.m., and resumed the meeting at 5:40 p.m. FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY. The Fish Hatchery Property is approximately 70 acres in size and is home to the hydroplant museum, the picnic shelter and restrooms, homes that are rented to Town employees, and several storage buildings. The west end of the property borders the Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Center and the Aspenglen Campground. The Town would retain the portion of the property where the museum and picnic pavilion are located due to its historic value, but the remainder of the property could be used for other purposes, or sold. The Larimer County Assessor’s office has the land valued at $1,415,490, however, the Assessor’s office does not update values of tax exempt properties, therefore, a current appraisal of the property is needed. Over the years, ideas on how to use the property have been received and include: retain the property as open space under a conservation easement; develop the property as a public park for recreation; sell the property for development of a resort facility, workforce housing, Town Board Study Session – July 22, 2014 – Page 4 vacation rental housing, or a non-lodging commercial development; trade the property; or use the property in partnership with private development for workforce attainable housing with options of the Town retaining ownership or the Town granting the property in exchange for deed restrictions on the sale and ownership of the housing. The Boards discussion is summarized: the property may be a good site for a community college; there are wetlands and wildlife corridors on the property; there has been some interest from the Land Trust but nothing specific at this time; need to consult with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) regarding trail location and be sure to preserve the trail easement; request staff to research various uses for the property including housing, recreational; and commercial; provide a list of options which would include benefits, opportunities, barriers, and problems so that the pros and cons can be debated; also tap into the community’s creative ideas for the property, keep an open minded attitude; the site could be divided into smaller properties and sold; and an appraisal is needed to determine the property’s value. Staff will arrange for an appraisal to be done as soon as possible and work on putting together additional information regarding options for the property to bring back to the Board during the first or second quarter of 2015. ASSISTANT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR POSITION. The Deputy Town Administrator (DTA) position has been vacant since September 2013. Town Administrator Lancaster said that, rather than to hire a DTA who would be second in command, have authority over departments, and automatically fill the role of Town Administrator, he would propose hiring for the position of Assistant Town Administrator. A person in this position would work on projects, updating processes, grant applications, policy, and help cover meetings, among other duties, but would not provide supervision over departments. He said the position would be more comparable to the department head level in experience and compensation and said he would like to find an individual with some experience in municipal management. Administrator Lancaster said he wants to review the budget in a month to see how things stand and also work with ESM Consulting Service to get marketplace information for such a position before bringing the topic forward in August or September for discussion. He stated his preference would be to fill the position this year rather than to wait until 2015. Discussion ensued regarding staffing levels in the Community Development Department and the Special Events Department. Topics discussed included the following: are staffing levels in both planning and enforcement adequate?, options to consider include hiring employees and/or contracting for services; propose the addition of a position to coordinate events with the expense of the position shared with Visit Estes Park (VEP); individual would be Town employee, however, the risk and the benefit would be shared with VEP; this individual would be the “boots on the ground” and make all arrangements for events; and staff will have further conversations with the VEP executive director about this position. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk