Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2014-09-09 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 9, 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 9th day of September, 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, Director Chilcott, Chief Building Official Birchfield, 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 will be unable to attend the October PUP Committee meeting. The meeting will be held as scheduled with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson in attendance. In response to an inquiry from Trustee Holcomb related to assigning a Town Board member as liaison to the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) fiber optic committee, the Mayor said that the Town is well-represented with Town Administrator Lancaster’s participation. Town Administrator Lancaster will continue to report to the Town Board on activities of the EDC and the fiber optic subcommittee. He stated that the meetings are open to the public and that interested trustees may attend, however, an official liaison is not necessary and will not be appointed. Trustee Ericson noted that the single audit that was postponed in June will be completed by the end of September. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. The September 23rd study session agenda item will be changed to the consideration of hiring a planning consultant, with discussion at the meeting to define the qualifications and credentials to look for in a consultant. Several Larimer County tax issues will be before the electorate in November. A discussion to determine the Town Board’s position on these issues is needed. ASSISTANT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR POSITION. Town Administrator Lancaster presented a job description for the Assistant Town Administrator (ATA) position. He said candidates for this position should possess strong communication skills and have knowledge of public policy development. Job responsibilities will include policy development, risk management, and assisting with performing a wide variety of administrative functions in the day-to-day operations of the Town. Unlike the previous Deputy Town Administrator position, the Assistant Town Administrator would not have authority over Town departments, nor be considered the second in command. He noted that the position would be classified as Management Level 5 and have a salary range, inclusive of benefits, of $104,590 to $151,655. As is the case with existing administration positions, the salary expense for the ATA position will be divided between Utilities and the General Fund. Town Administrator Lancaster said that even though the impact to the 2014 budget will be minor, he would once again evaluate the budget before bringing the item forward for approval at the next Town Town Board Study Session – September 9, 2014 – Page 2 Board meeting. Once approved, advertising for the position will begin in an attempt to fill the position no later than mid-November. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a dinner break at 4:50 p.m., and resumed the meeting at 5:15 p.m. BOARD COMMUNICATION. Mayor Pinkham provided the Board with a draft Code of Conduct, and reviewed several scenarios with the Board which would require a response to a constituent, interaction with staff, or interaction with fellow Trustees. The situations ranged from receiving complaint phone calls or emails from residents about topics such as potholes, vacation homes, and police issues; to Board members requesting information and/or reports from staff or asking staff to distribute materials to the Board; to conversations between Trustees outside of Board meetings. The Mayor said that the best practice when responding to a resident’s call or email is to listen, thank them for the call/email, and inform them that it will be forwarded on to Town Administrator Lancaster who will then address the issue with the appropriate staff member. By following this procedure, the resident will not receive four or five different responses from trustees with varying information. Town Administrator Lancaster requested that he be copied on, or made aware of, any communication between the Trustees and staff related to a complaint or an information request. He noted that if a Board member has a concept for Board consideration, that information should be forwarded to the Town Administrator who will determine whether to distribute the information to the remainder of the Board, or schedule the item for inclusion on a future study session or Town Board meeting agenda. The same process should be followed when a Board member requests information from a department head. By funneling the request through the Town Administrator, staff will not be duplicating documents or preparing documents in different formats for each Board member. Regarding conversations outside of a board meeting, Attorney White said the Town has adopted policy governance which states that the Town Board places a high value on open, participatory government. He said that off-line communication, whether in person or through email, has the potential to lapse into decision-making outside of the board room, and should be avoided. He said limited communication is normal, but urged the Board not to overdo it. Two trustees may meet for coffee and talk but they should not attempt to persuade each other on any given topic or come to a conclusion based on one-on-one discussions outside of a board meeting. Quasi-judicial matters must not be discussed. Mayor Pinkham began reviewing the draft Code of Conduct and said conduct between Board members is the heart of the matter noting that the Board must embrace diversity and blend their views to preserve and protect the present and future of the community. He said it is important to agree to disagree and said that is how energy and ideas are generated to keep moving forward. He said as representatives of the Town, remaining considerate, respectful, and professional in all situations is key; and requested that Board members allow the mayor to orchestrate the procedures during public meetings. Attorney White reminded the Trustees that their written notes, voice mail messages, email messages, etc., are subject to disclosure through the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) with few exceptions. He noted that private email accounts are also subject to disclosure if Town business is being discussed. Attorney client privilege, security matters, and deliberative work products are exceptions to disclosure through CORA. Mayor Pinkham suggested that the discussion of the Code of Conduct be continued at the next Town Board Study Session scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2014. DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Town Board Study Session – September 9, 2014 – Page 3 Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield reported that prior to 2005, the Town had adopted and was utilizing the 1997 Uniform Building Code which included the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. However, in 2005, when the Town initially adopted the International Building Code (IBC), staff was instructed to exclude the adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Therefore, at this time, the Town does not have a code that specifically addresses maintenance. Under the existing building code, a safety issue must be determined to be an imminent danger before the building official has the authority to take action. As staff prepares to move forward with a proposal to adopt the 2012 I-Codes in 2015, direction is requested from the Board related to the inclusion or exclusion of the International Property Maintenance Code in the process. The adoption process includes public meetings with stakeholders about the code, perceived pros and cons of the code, and local amendments that may be necessary in order to support adoption of the code. If directed by the Board, staff will include the IPMC in these discussions. Discussion is summarized: current code is designed for construction not property maintenance; existing code is too subjective and arbitrary as it relates to maintenance; adopting the IPMC would provide the building official with specific definitions and guidelines for maintenance; amendments can be made to make the code fit our community; strive for voluntary consent and compliance with the code; initial enforcement would be by complaint; most tourist communities have adopted a maintenance code; the IPMC provides a basis of action and due process; is designed as a corrective mechanism if a public hazard exists; the IPMC contains a process for an owner to challenge a decision made by a building official; and ensure that the IPMC is consistent with provisions contained within the Estes Valley Development Code and the Municipal Code. The Board directed staff to move forward with public outreach related to consideration of adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code concurrently with the 2012 I-Codes. Building Official Birchfield noted that the Board will be kept informed of the process through regularly scheduled Community Development/Community Services Committee meetings. MISCELLANEOUS.  Town Administrator Lancaster reported that he contacted Colorado Municipal League (CML) staff regarding the feasibility of repealing Senate Bill 05-152 which prohibits local governments from offering cable television, telecommunications and high speed internet services. He stated that it is CML’s opinion that, from a lobbying standpoint, it would be a tough sell and a losing battle. However, a ballot question asking voters to return this authority to the municipality can be put to the electorate on a local level, and has a better chance of being successful. Town Administrator Lancaster noted that partnering with the other three Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) municipalities may be beneficial and provide regional cooperation in developing a model that may serve a larger constituency. The Economic Development Corporation (EDC) through its fiber optic sub- committee is involved in researching how to optimize the existing fiber and develop scenarios for discussion.  With the anniversary of the September 2013 Flood approaching, Mayor Pinkham recommended that Board members confer with PIO Rusch prior to making statements or dealing with the media. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk