HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2015-09-08
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 8, 2015
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 8th day of
September, 2015.
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, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
FINAL REVIEW OF 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN.
The Board reviewed an updated draft of the 2016 strategic plan and provided staff with
feedback related to changes and revisions. Town Administrator Lancaster remarked
that the new format of the document is easier to read and noted that highlighted projects
would either require additional funding in the 2016 budget, or may require additional
funding if the projects move forward to implementation.
Storm Water Master Plan and Feasibility of a Storm Water Utility – This is an
extensive project that would involve creation of a master plan and a model for a
storm water utility for Estes Park. Currently, the Town addresses drainage
issues on an individual basis, usually after damage has occurred, with repairs
taking place after a storm or flooding event. Staff noted that drainage is reviewed
during the implementation of projects, however, storm water and drainage is not
looked at as a “system” at this time. Town Administrator Lancaster said it is
difficult to separate storm water planning and transportation planning and
suggested storm water be a topic of discussion at a study session to provide an
opportunity to define a storm water utility and master plan and to identify how it
would be beneficial to the community. He noted that a storm water utility would
be a fee-based, self-supported enterprise fund and added that staff’s current
workload would prohibit this project from being done in-house.
Bond Park Improvements – The Board requested that this item be changed from
“Reevaluate and Implement Phase 5 of Bond Park Improvements” to
“Reevaluate Phase 5 of Bond Park Improvements”. The Board asked for
information about the status of Open Space funds as some of the monies have
been used for flood repair. Finance Officer McFarland will provide information on
the balance of the fund as well as identify how the funds have been utilized.
Develop plans for the Town’s 100th anniversary in 2017 – Staff suggested that
funds be budgeted in 2016 for planning purposes for recognition of the Town’s
100th anniversary in 2017. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig noted that research indicates
that an event such as this may provide as much as four years’ worth of economic
increase for the community with events scheduled in the year leading up to the
anniversary year and residual increases continuing for two years after the
anniversary year. She suggested seeking the assistance of people in the
community who have experience with this type of event. Town Administrator
Lancaster said that a planning committee will be formed in late 2015 and begin
meeting in early 2016.
Citizen’s Survey – This is a budgeted item for 2016. PIO Rusch noted that the
survey questions will be tweaked for 2016, and said that implementation of the
project will not require a large amount of staff time.
Document Management System – Staff proposed that IT funds be utilized to
conduct a needs assessment related to the acquisition and implementation of an
enterprise document management system. Discussion with Town Clerk
Town Board Study Session – September 8, 2015 – Page 2
Williamson is required in order to proceed with this project to answer questions
about the Town’s needs and requirements for such a system before moving
forward with the assessment.
Board of Appeals – A 5-7 year goal (included in item “e” under Outstanding
Community Services) speaks to encouraging the Board of Appeals to look at the
Town’s regulations and codes and give suggestions as it relates to economic
development. The Board requested that this sentence be identified as item “f”
under this category.
Resources – A 5-7 year goal will be added under Governmental Services and
Internal Support. Town Administrator Lancaster will re-word the current
language to clarify that the Board will be responsive to staffing needs in order to
provide the community with the level of service expected from the Town.
Transportation – Director Muhonen suggested changing item “b” to read “The
street rehabilitation efforts will result in an average pavement condition index of
70 or above for the Town street network by 2024.” The Board approved of the
change in wording.
Housing – The Board discussed the wording of the first 2016 objective in the
Outstanding Community Services category which specifically speaks to
“seasonal” housing needs. Trustee Nelson stated that he would prefer the Town
to focus on workforce housing, not specifically seasonal workforce housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated that in previous discussions the wording seasonal
workforce housing had been chosen since the Estes Park Housing Authority
(EPHA) and the Economic Development Corp. (EDC) are both working on
housing issues as well. She said “workforce” is too broad and that “seasonal” is
a subset of workforce housing. She said the Town’s role as a catalyst should be
to provide water and electricity, roads, and codes that are supportive of housing
development. The Mayor noted that the availability of housing is an issue for
people who provide essential services, such as police officers, school teachers,
and medical personnel and suggested that this is an issue for the school district,
fire district, and hospital district, as well. The Board discussed combining #1 and
#2, but chose to keep them as separate objectives. Town Administrator will
reword slightly to reflect the Board’s discussion and issues that interfere with the
development of seasonal workforce housing.
Neighborhood Plans – Trustee Phipps stated the Board should be sensitive to
the work that the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has been doing
related to neighborhood plans and requested #3 under Outstanding Community
Services be reworded. He proposed the wording include that the Board consider
neighborhood development plans with the EVPC (after the conclusion of the
downtown neighborhood plan) be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Town Administrator Lancaster will rework the wording of this item.
Additional comments included: show sensitivity to staff time and effort involved while
creating and prioritizing the strategic objectives and timetables; some of the objectives
create both financial and human resource concerns; and priorities may be easier set
during upcoming budget discussions. Related to the future study sessions agenda
items, Trustee Phipps requested that a study session be held related to defining the
Town’s role in economic development as it relates to the EDC, Visit Estes Park (VEP),
and other organizations. The Board requested that this item be placed in the “Items
Approved – Unscheduled” category. Additionally, Trustee Phipps proposed that the
agenda item for the September 22nd study session be changed to read: International
Property Maintenance Code (Dangerous Buildings Code) and new International Building
Code Discussion.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:38 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 5:49 p.m.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES.
Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant, has been working with the Community
Development Department to review and analyze the current revenues and expenses
Town Board Study Session – September 8, 2015 – Page 3
generated by the Planning Division and the Building Division. The current fee
schedules, which were last revised over ten years ago, cover approximately 34% of the
costs for Planning, and approximately 56% of the costs for Building. The Community
Development Department has devised three potential development review fee schedule
models for Planning, and three potential valuation and audit procedure models for
Building which will improve cost recovery and maintain fairness and equity among
different construction projects. Staff is requesting direction from the Board related to the
appropriate level of cost recovery for the Community Development Department, the type
of fee schedule the Board may be interested in adopting, and proposing that changes to
the fee schedule and/or model be effective January 2016.
The Planning models presented for consideration included:
Option 1: Traditional Fee Model (currently being utilized) – This model would
require the adoption of an updated version of the fee schedule based on a
defined level of expense coverage that would be determined by the Board.
o Advantages: Simple, standardized model; consistent with current fee
structure format.
o Disadvantages: No mechanism for accurate assessment of per-project
staff time; more complex projects are subsidized by smaller projects.
Option 2: Cost Reimbursement Model – This model tracks costs associated with
an application. A refundable cash deposit sufficient to cover the cost of
administration, inspections, publication of notices, public hearing expenses and
reproduction of materials would be collected from the applicant and staff would
track time and all expenses associated with the application. If costs exceed the
initial amount collected, a detailed invoice would be sent for the outstanding
balance. Any funds not expended would be refunded to the applicant upon
completion or termination of the project.
o Advantages: Development pays its own way; accurate assessment and
cost recovery per project; applicants have ability to reduce their review
fees by submitting complete, code-compliant applications.
o Disadvantage: More complex implementation.
Option 3: Combination Model – This model would require a cost reimbursement
structure for more involved, complex applications, with simpler applications being
assessed a flat fee.
o Advantages: Accurate assessment and cost recovery per project;
standardized fees for less complex projects; applicants have ability to
reduce their review fees by submitting complete, code-compliant
applications.
o Disadvantages: No mechanism to assess staff time for smaller projects;
more complex implementation.
The Building models presented for consideration included:
Option 1: Maintain existing system – The current permit valuation system would
continue.
o Advantage: No changes required.
o Disadvantages: No improvement in cost recovery; inequity among job
types.
Option 2: Utilization of the International Code Council Valuation System with the
Colorado Regional Cost Modifier of 0.99 – This model would use the most recent
International Code Council Building Valuation Data with the Colorado modifier to
estimate the value of building permit review projects.
o Advantages: Greater equity and uniformity for all construction and
development types; consistent with other Colorado communities.
o Disadvantages: More complex implementation than current system;
statewide modifier does not accurately reflect Estes Park’s construction
valuations.
Option 3: Locally-Based Assessment Model and Standardized Audit Procedure
– This model proposes the adoption of a per square foot calculation based on a
range provided by a pool of local contractors taking into consideration
Town Board Study Session – September 8, 2015 – Page 4
construction types typical to Estes Park such as custom, speculation, or log
home.
o Advantages: Improved cost recovery through accurate valuation; greater
equity across project types.
o Disadvantages: Requires feedback from stakeholders prior to
implementation; complex implementation.
Comments are summarized: development community has high expectations and
receives high level of service from Town staff; with the strengthening of the economy,
volume and expenses are increasing, however, fees have not changed; there is no
competition here compared to communities in the valley that are vying for development;
need to communicate with the stakeholders in the development community and give
examples of how to minimize and mitigate charges; cost reimbursement could end up
being less expensive than standard fees in some cases; learning curve for Planning is
the necessity for time-tracking and detailed invoicing, which will require training; there is
inequity in valuation of projects; valuations are not accurate when compared to actual
construction costs; Community Development Department is subsidized by the general
fund; the level of cost coverage is a policy decision; and development benefits the
community as a whole and community values are supported through planning.
The Board requested that staff provide examples of development and building projects
to illustrate how the proposed models would affect the fees charged to developers and
builders as compared with current development and building fee schedules.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Due to a lack of time, this agenda item was not discussed. The topic will be included on
the next study session agenda.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Due to a lack of time, this agenda item was not discussed. The topic will be included on
the next study session agenda.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk