City Council Agenda Packet 07-12-10

8/9/2019 City Council Agenda Packet 07-12-10

1/37

6:30 p.m. Pre-Meeting

CITY COUNCIL MEETINGCITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGJuly 12. 20107:00 p.m.

Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored bythe City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer, at 303-235-2826 atleast one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusioassistance.CALL TO ORDERPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL OF MEMBERSAPPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 28.2010CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK

a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3Minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster.b. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDAROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to beheard.

APPROVAL OF AGENDADECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS

1. Motion to approve award of RFP 10-08 On-Call Building Inspection Services to BuildingCode Services International, Inc.2. Resolution 35-2010 - amending Resolution 26-2010 Creating the Citizens' ExploratoryCommittee (CEC) for the purpose of public education and debate regarding theeffectiveness and efficiency of various forms of City Government.3. Motion to approve the Wheat Ridge United Neighborhood's (WRUN) "Election Forum2010" to be held in Council Chambers, and to sanction the use of City of Wheat RidgeVideo and Audio Services for Live Televised and Video On-Demand support.


2/37

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: July 12, 2010DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS (con't)

Page -2-

4. Motion to adjourn the Regular City Council Meeting and to convene a Special StudySession to discuss:1) Staff/Council Report(s)a) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Jefferson Countyrelated to Community Development Block Grant Funds.b) Wadsworth Corridor Coalition2) Public Works potential reductions of service3) Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan Review inspections4) Parks and Recreation Budget Analysisa) Maintenance Service Level Analysis

b) Anderson Building Cost Analysisc) Active Adult Center Cost Analysis5) Town Hall Meeting Discussion

CITY MANAGER'S MATTERSCITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERSELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERSADJOURNMENT


3/37

CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADOJune 28. 2010

Mayor DiTullio called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:30 p .m.Councilmembers present: Karen Adams, Karen Berry, Joseph DeMott, TracyLangworthy, Davis Reinhart, Wanda Sang, and Mike Stites. Also present: City Clerk,Michael Snow; City Manager, Patrick Goff; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; City Treasurer,Larry Schulz; Senior Planner, Meredith Reckert; Planner, Sarah Showalter; InterimAdministrative Services Director, Heather Geyer; staff; and interested citizens.Council Member Joyce Jay was absent.APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 14. 2010Motion by Mrs. Sang for approval of the Minutes of June 14, 2010; seconded by Mr.Stites; carried 7-0.PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIESPolice Department Citizen Awards (3)Chief Brennan recognized three citizens: Joseph Baran, Heidi Baran and Kit Blakely,and granted them the Citizen Award for their assistance to the Wheat Ridge Police incontaining and arresting a perpetrator who attempted to flee on foot on March 31 S\2010.American Cancer Society Relay for LifeNatalie Fedak was present to accept the proclamation for July 9-10 to be Wheat RidgeRelay Days. This year's Relay for Life event will take place on July 10th , 2010. Nataliethanked Council and citizens for their support and participation in the event.CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAKDick Matthews is one of a group of citizens currently circulating a petition to proposetwo Charter Amendments on the November election. He spoke in response to a CitizenAlert memo that was distributed to residents in District 3. Mr. Matthews claims that thememo misstates the proposed form of government and the operation of the proposedMayor's budgetary veto, as well as containing several spelling and grammar mistakes .Mr. Matthews contends that the proposed Mayor-Council-Administrator form ofgovernment would maintain that the City Administrator has authority to hire and firedepartment heads and the Chief of Police. He further asserts that the proposed form ofgovernment is the same as that employed by the City of Wheat Ridge from 1972 - 1996when the City was in political turmoil and the change at that time was initiated based onpersonality conflicts, not good sound choices for Wheat Ridge government.


4/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28,2010 Page -2-

Ms. Berry asked of Mr. Matthews whether the proponents of the petition drive havehired non-citizens; to which Mr. Matthews answered they had.Dean Gokey asked Council and citizens to support the Relay For Life event and cancerresearch in general. Mr. Gokey also spoke in favor of the citizen petition, askingcitizens to contact him if they are in support of the Charter Change and wish to sign thepetition.Charles Holcer expressed disappointment in the Council in not getting things done toaddress the City's revenue shortfalls and excessive spending since the seating of thenew Council with last November's election. He is further concerned that Council will beconsidering spending another $24,500 tonight to study the Administrative Salaries andstaffing at City Hall while these determinations should be done by in-house staff and byCouncil Members themselves. He also disagrees with public monies being spent tofund a committee to study the various forms of government when the City already hasexperience and history in both forms today. He believes the Council should considermore aggressive cost-cutting measures.Bob Wilson of Arvada is a candidate for RTD District L and spoke in favor of supportingthe completion of the Gold Line and to support those residents of the Metro Area whodo not drive with alternative, sustainable transit programs. He urged Wheat Ridgecitizens to elect him in November.1. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Resolution 32-2010 - amending the Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund Budgetto reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of$82,963.54 consisting of the 2010 Colorado Auto Theft Prevention AuthorityGrant of $75,463.54 and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program Grantfor Police Overtime in the amount of $7,500.00.B. Resolution 31-2010 - amending Resolution 25-2010 amending the publichearing date for Case No. ANX-10-02 pertaining to annexation of remnantparcels of right-of-way located in the East Half of Section 16, Township 3 South,Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State ofColorado.

Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Mrs. Langworthy.Motion by Mrs. Langworthy for approval of the Consent Agenda; seconded by Mrs.Adams; carried 7-0.


5/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -3-PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING2. Council Bill 08-2010 - An Ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of LawsArticle VII of Chapter 26 concerning Off-Premise Identification Signs, CommunityEvent/Sponsorship Banners, and Signs in the public right-of-way.Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.Council Bill 08-2010 was introduced on second reading by Council Member DeMott .City Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1463.Ms. Showalter presented the staff report (amended to this packet).Kerry Foreman is the owner of Lakeside Animal Hospital on Harlan Street. She wishesto construct a sign in the right-of-way, which under the current code she is not allowed .She contends that without such a sign in this visible location in the right-of-way, hercustomers cannot see or find her business . Passing this ordinance will make a positivechange conducive to the success of local businesses .Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing .Motion by Mr. DeMott to approve Council Bill 08-2010 (Ordinance 1463) on secondreading , and that it take effect 15 days after final publication;I further move to direct staff to make necessary amendment to the Ordinance to removeall reference to off-premise signs and instead amend Section 26-708.E.2 regardingmaster sign plans to include the language 'including off the subject property';I further move to direct staff to amend the Ordinance to modify the definition of a polesign to read 'A sign which is affixed to, or mounted on a freestanding pole, andanchored in the ground';I further move to direct staff to make necessary amendments to the Ordinance so thatthe regulations pertaining to community event/sponsorship banners on school propertymatch the Jefferson County School District policies for sponsorship banners and toamend the Ordinance to remove restrictions on duration for communityevent/sponsorship banners on city-owned properties.Seconded by Mrs. Sang;Motion by Ms. Berry to amend the Ordinance to strike the word pole from the definitionof Billboard; seconded by Mr. DeMott; carried 7-0.Motion carried 7-0, as amended.


6/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -4-3. Council Bill 09-2010 -An Ordinance amending a Planned IndustrialDevelopment Outline Development Plan for construction of a Public Fire Stationon property located at 5250 Oak Street.(Case No. WZ-10-03/Skyline Estates Filing 3/Arvada Fire Protection District)Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.Council Bill 09-2010 was introduced on second reading by Council Member DeMott.City Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1464.Mrs. Reckert presented the staff report (amended to this packet).Arvada Fire Chief John Greer asked the Council to approve this amendment to thePlan and assured that all measures have been and will be taken to minimize noiseimpacts to the neighborhood. With approval, construction of the new Fire Station willbegin and complete this summer.Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.Motion by Mr. DeMott to approve Council Bill 09-2010 (Ordinance 1464) on secondreading, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication for the following reasons:

1. The proposed ODP amendment for a specific plan is consistent with thestandards established on the underlying plan.2. The proposed use will provide a buffer and land use transition from the industrialuses on the south side of Ridge Road to the residential neighborhood to thenorth.3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request.

Seconded by Mrs. Langworthy; carried 7-0.4. Council Bill 10-2010 -An Ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Lawsto permit waiver of Use Tax.Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.Council Bill 10-2010 was introduced on second reading by Council Member Reinhart.City Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1465.Mr. Dahl presented the staff report.Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.Motion by Mr. Reinhart to approve Council Bill 10-2010 (Ordinance 1465) on secondreading, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs . Adams;ca rried 7-0.


7/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -5-5. Council Bill 11-2010 - An Ordinance extending the moratorium enacted bySection 2 of Ordinance 1453, Series 2009, on the submission, acceptance,processing, and approval of any application for a City of Wheat Ridge Permit orLicense related to the operation of a business or cooperative that sells orcultivates Medical Marijuana.Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.Council Bill 11-2010 was introduced on second reading by Council Member Sang. CityClerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1466.No staff report was presented.Matthew Durkin, Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney, encouraged the Council toextend the moratorium, citing the many abuses that have resulted on account of thestate constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana in Colorado. Mr. Durkinstated several statistics to indicate abuse of the initial intent of this amendment andasserted there is also evidence to show that it has provided the means for criminals tofurther fund illegal operations and presents further criminal activity to neighborhoods inColorado.Scott Storey, District Attorney of Jefferson County, urged Council to not even considerenacting an Ordinance allowing such business in Wheat Ridge. Mr. Storey contendsthat state citizens voted for a "caretaker" model in the original constitutionalamendment, not a "dispensary" model for medical marijuana . He believes the currentHB 10-1280 went beyond the intent of this amendment and will not be upheld legally.He further urged Council to reject a dispensary model, which will present manyproblems for the City.Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve Council Bill 11-2010 (Ordinance 1466) on secondreading, and that it take effect upon adoption; seconded by Mr. Reinhart; carried 6-1with Council Member DeMott voting No.


8/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -6-ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING6. Council Bill 12-2010 - An Ordinance approving the Annexation of two remnantparcels of right-of-way located in the East Half of Section 16, Township 3 South,Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Jefferson, State of

Colorado. .(Case No. ANX-10-02/City of Wheat Ridge)Council Bill 12-2010 was introduced on first reading by Mr. Stites.Motion by Mr. Stites to approve Council Bill 12-201 0 on first reading, order it published,public hearing set for Monday, August 9, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City CouncilChambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs.Sang; carried 7-0.7. Council Bill 13-2010 - An Ordinance concerning administrative enforcement and

making conforming amendments to Article V of Chapter 2 of the Wheat RidgeCode of Laws.Council Bill 13-2010 was introduced on first reading by Mr. Reinhart.Motion by Mr. Reinhart to approve Council Bill 13-2010 on first reading, order itpublished, public hearing set for Monday, July 26, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City CouncilChambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs.Langworthy; carried 7-0.DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS8. Resolution 33-2010 - amending the Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund Budget toreflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of$30,000 to the Wheat Ridge Business District (WRBD) for the purpose of fundingthe Revitalization Incentive Grant Program.Resolution 33-2010 was introduced by Council Member Mrs. Langworthy.Motion by Mrs. Langworthy to approve Resolution 33-2010; seconded by Mrs. Sang;carried 7-0.9. Resolution 34-2010 - amending the fiscal year 2010 General Fund Budget toreflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation and approving theaward of RFP-10-22 for the Employee Compensation/Structure Analysis toWaters Consulting Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $24,500.Resolution 34-2010 was introduced by Council Member Mr. Reinhart.Motion by Mr. Reinhart to approve Resolution 34-2010; seconded by Ms. Berry; carried5-2 with Council Members Stites and DeMott voting No.


9/37

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28,2010CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS

Page -7-

Mr. Goff congratulated the Wheat Ridge Police Department for the honor in receivingthe Pioneer Policing Award at the 2010 Annual Colorado Association of ChiefsConvention . The award was given for the Department's development of the Hold-upand Robbery Prevention Program, which seeks to educate area business owners inpreventing hold-up robberies.ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS

" 'Mayor DiTullio encouraged citizens to abide by the fireworks restrictions, beingcognizant of the fire hazards that are present and the impacts this has on the safety ofthe community.Meeting adjourned at 9:06p.m.

4 ~ ichael Snow, City ClerkAPPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 12, 2010 BY A VOTE OF __ o __Davis Reinhart, Mayor pro temThe preceding Minutes were prepared according to 47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e.they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by themembers. Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewingin the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions.


10/37

" (.. City ofp WheatRl.-dgeI T E M N O : ~ DATE: July 12,2010

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE AWARD OF RFP 10-08 ON-CALLBUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES TO BUILDING CODESERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

D PUBLIC HEARING[g] BIDS/MOTIONSD RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE:

D ORDINANCES FOR 1 T READING (mm/dd/yyyy)D ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (mm/dd/yyyy)

DYES

VNb:pJrnent

The need for on-call building inspection services arises from time to time when staff is notavailable, such as during vacation periods, or when demand for inspections exceeds thecapability of the Building Division at current staffing levels. To meet these needs, the services ofan outside inspection firm are employed. These services are provided contractually, on an asneeded basis, per the terms of an approved contract.PRIOR ACTION:On-call inspections services have been provided on an as-needed contract basis previously byCode Consultants International, Inc., at a rate of $30 per inspection. On June 07, 2010, threeproposals were received in response to RFP 10-08. Proposals were reviewed and ranked by astaff committee. One firm, Building Code Services International (BCSI), was short listed. Aninterview was conducted and references checked. The selected firm was Building Code ServicesInternational, Inc. of Lakewood, Colorado, based on their rate structure, availability,qualifications and experience, references and previous work with other agencies.FINANCIAL IMPACT:The funds for the on-call building inspection services proposal are budgeted in the contractservices line item, account number 01-122-700-704, of the 2010 Building Inspection budget of

V: \Fonns\CAFtemplate


11/37

Council Action FormJuly 12,2010Page 2

$343,160, which includes additional funds allocated for assistance from the contract firm withstorm related inspections.BACKGROUND:In a typical year, the need for on-call inspection assistance has resulted in an average of between500 and 900 inspections annually. While the need for these on-call inspections has dramaticallyincreased due to damage and increased workload related to the July 20, 2009 storm, staffanticipates a return to normal levels by early fall, with the need for assistance from thecontracted inspection firm returning to previous levels of 500-900 inspections annually.RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends, based on rate structure, availability, qualifications and experience, referencesand previous work with other agencies, approval of the contract award to Building Code ServicesInternational, Inc. of Lakewood, Colorado to provide building inspection services on an on-call,as-needed basis. The agreement is a term contact with renewal options at the discretion of theCity. Renewals will be automatic, pending performance and the rate structure remaining thesame.RECOMMENDED MOTION:"I move to approve the award of RFP-1 0-08, on-call building inspection services to BuildingCode Services International, Inc., in accordance with the rate structure stipulated in theirproposal, with base rate of $30 per inspection. The agreement may be renewed without furtherCouncil approval, pending acceptable performance and the rate structure remaining the same.""I further move that this allocation be paid from account number 0 1-122-700-704, and that thesefunds be encumbered in accordance with Ordinance #787, Series 1989."Or:"I move to deny award of RFP-l 0-08, on-call building inspection services to Building CodeServices International, Inc. , Lakewood, Colorado for the following reason(s) _______ "REPORT PREPARED BY:John Schumacher, Chief Building OfficialKen Johnstone, Director of Community DevelopmentLinda Trimble, Purchasing AgentATTACHMENTS:

1. Bid Tabulation Sheet2. BCSI Fee Schedule


12/37

EXHIBIT 2Section 3 - Fee Schedule

BCSI Inspection Fees

Code/Category Single-family Multi-family perunit Commercial perFloor, per wing or

Combination $30 for 1st +$10 x each additionalcategory (per trip)

Minimum charge $100 minimum fee per day will be charged. Example: If inspection. requests generate less than $100 in BCSI fees, a minimum fee willcharged to make up the difference of BCSI fees and $100.00.

BCSlln.spe'?tion Fees - Alternatei Wheat Ridge Current BCSllnspectlon FeeFee Category .:

.; 50% of Permit FeeResidential . ' . !oo :Commercial ! 60% of permit feeOther Reviews ( misc. or separate 75% of permit feebuilding, plumbing, mechanical,electrical, permits)

Note: The above fee table, BCSI Inspection is based on the current Wheat Ridge feeschedule. If changes to Wheat Ridge penn t fees are made, our fees will berenegotiated.

Inspection fees are billed at the end of the month inspections are perfonned.Tenns, Net 30

Building Code Services International Response to Wheat Ridge RFp1008

18


13/37

PROJECT: RFP-10-08 ON-CALL BLDG INSPECTION SERVICESBID DUE DATEITIME: 06/07/10 BY 4:00PM OUR CLOCK

REQUESTED BY:CDOPENED BY: LINDA TRIMBLE PURCHASING AGENT

WITNESSED BY: AMY VANDER MEER, PURCHASING TECHNICIAN~ ~ J 4 '

'Of ., City of ? WheatRt,dgeBUILDING CODE COLORADO CODE SAFEbuilt

VENDOR SERVICES INTL CONSULTING COLORADOLOCATION LAKEWOOD DENVER LOVELAND. .. ~ ' . - .. ~ . ~ '- \

-.

SIGNATURE PAGE NO YES YESACCEPTS VISA NO NO YESILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE NO NO YESQUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE YES YES YESCURRENT WORKLOAD/ APPROACH YES YES YESFEE SCHEDULE YES YES YES


14/37

r City ofW h e a t ~ d g e I T E M N O : ~ DATE: July 12,2010

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 35-2010 - A RESOLUTION AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 26-2010, CREATING THE CITIZENS'EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE (CEC) FOR THE PURPOSEOF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND DEBATE REGARDING THEEFFECTIVNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS FORMSOF CITY GOVERNMENT

D PUBLIC HEARINGD BIDS/MOTIONSRESOLUTIONSQUASI-JUDICIAL:

?'f7" / ,,,-/ ; j '< - - , ; .4'City AttorneyISSUE:

D ORDINANCES FOR 1 T READINGD ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING

D YES

Resolution No_ 24-2010 passed at the Regular City Council Meeting on May 24, 2010. TheResolution created the Citizens' Exploratory Committee (CEC) for the purpose of publiceducation and debate regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of various forms of CityGovernment. On June 14, 2010, the City Council approved a motion to reconsider ResolutionNo. 24-2010 in the form of Resolution No. 26-2010 by adding additional members to the CEC.The CEC is requesting that City Council amend the original "report by" date of July 14, 2010 inResolution No. 26-2010 to August 9,2010.PRIOR ACTION:Resolution No. 24-2010 creating the Citizens' Exploratory Committee (CEC) was introduced toCouncil on May 24, 2010, and passed 7-1. Resolution No 26-2010 amending Resolution No. 24-2010 and adding members to the CEC was approved by City Council on June 14,2010.

V: \Forms\CAFtemplate


15/37

Council Action FormJuly 12,2010Page 2

FINANCIAL IMPACT:NoneBACKGROUND:NoneRECOMMENDATIONS:To extend the July 14,2010 "report by" date to City Council as recommended by the CEC.RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:

"I move to approve Resolution 35-2010, a resolution amending Resolution No. 26-2010,Creating the Citizens' Exploratory Committee (CEC) for the purpose of public education anddebate regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of various forms of government changing the"report by" date of July 14,2010 to August 9,2010."Or,"I move to table indefinitely Resolution 35-2010, a resolution amending Resolution No. 26-2010for the following reason(s) "REPORT PREPARED BY:Gerald Dahl, City AttorneyATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed,Amendment to Resolution 35-2010


16/37

CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADORESOLUTION NO. 35Series of 2010TITLE: A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 26-2010,

SERIES 2010 CREATING THE CITIZEN'S EXPLORATORYCOMMITTEE (CEC) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICEDUCATION AND DEBATE REGARDING THEEFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS FORMSOF CITY GOVERNMENTWHEREAS, on May 24, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24,Series 2010, creating a Citizen's Exploratory Committee; andWHEREAS, the City Council has previously amended said Resolution to expandthe membership, duties and scope of the Committee; andWHEREAS, the Council wishes to further amend the Resolution to address thedue date for the report of the Committee.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of WheatRidge, Colorado, as follows:Paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 26, Series 2010 is hereby amended to alter theread in its entirety as follows:The Committee will report its findings on forms of government to the City Councilby August 9, 2010.

This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.DONE AND RESOLVED THIS - this 12th day of July, 2010.

Jerry DiTullio, MayorATTEST:

Michael D. Snow, City Clerk


17/37

r T E M N ODATE: July 12. 2010REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE THE WHEAT RIDGE UNITEDNEIGHBORHOOD'S (WRUN) "ELECTION FORUM 2010"TO BE HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND TOSANCTION THE USE OF CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE VIDEOAND AUDIO SERVICES FOR LIVE TELEVISED ANDVIDEO ON-DEMAND SUPPORT.

D PUBLIC HEARINGBIDS/MOTIONSD RESOLUTIONSQUASI-JUDICIAL:

City ClerkISSUE:

D ORDINANCES FOR 1 T READING (mmJdd/yyyy)D ORDINANCES FOR 2 ND READING (mmJdd/yyyy)DYES

Upon the request of Council Members Wanda Sang and Mike Stites, Council is beingasked to consider approval of the following:Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods (WRUN) is requesting permission of the Council to presenta candidate and issues forum in Council Chambers and on Government Access Channels 8 and22. The firm date has not been chosen, but it will be late September or very early October. Thepurpose of the program is to inform Wheat Ridge Voters of 20 10 Ballot Issues and Candidates.With the exception oflast year, WRUN has sponsored and conducted an annual election forumsince at least 1991. WRUN commits to the Council that the forum will be conducted in anunbiased manner. Although individual members may have opinions on certain candidates andissues, these will not influence the conduct of the forum. All candidates will be given an equaltime to speak and speakers will be invited to speak on both sides of ballot issues.


18/37

The forum will be in two parts, as follows:Part I: Candidates for national and State offices, for which voters in Wheat Ridge can vote, andcandidates for Jefferson County offices, will be allowed 2 or 3 minutes to speak. No questionswill be posed to speakers and there will be no debate.Part II: Pro and con speakers will present their opinions on the state ballot issues and any WheatRidge ballot issues. Depending on the number of state issues, some may be omitted if the lengthof the program cannot contain all. In that case, there may be a brief, and unbiased, explanationprovided on the issues taken from the state Blue Book, rather than full "pro" and "con" speeches.Tentatively, each will be allowed 2 l;2 minutes to speak. Because ofthe importance to WheatRidge voters, speakers pro and con on any Wheat Ridge issues will be allowed 3 minutes.Again, there is no debate and no questions will be posed to speakers.

WRUN will complete the required form and comply with all city rules for use of the City'sgovernment access cable channels.PRIOR ACTION:NoneBACKGROUND:The Wheat Ridge Election Forum has been held annually since at least 1991, with theexception of 2009. In past years, the event was videotaped and televised live onGovernment Access Channel 8 & 22, then re-broadcast on a varied schedule throughoutthe remainder of the election season until Election Day.FINANCIAL IMPACT:Video Services: $400

IRECOMMENDATIONS:NoneRECOMMENDED MOTION:"I move to approve the use of City Council Chambers for Wheat Ridge UnitedNeighborhood's Election Forum 2010. I further move for the City to provide video andaudio support for live televised broadcasting and a regular schedule of re-broadcasting ofthe event on WRTV Channel 8 and web-based Video On-demand through the ElectionDay ofNovember 2nd , 2010."REPORT PREPARED BY;Michael Snow, City ClerkATTACHMENTS;None.


19/37

SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AGENDACITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADOCity Council Chambers7500 W. 29th Ave.

July 12. 2010Upon adjournment from City Council Meeting

Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetingssponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public InformationOfficer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you areinterested in participating and need inclusion assistance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA1. Staff/Council Report(s)a) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Jefferson Countyrelated to Community Development Block Grant Funds.b) Wadsworth Corridor Coalition2. Public Works potential reductions of service3. Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan Review inspections4. Parks and Recreation Budget Analysis

a) Maintenance Service Level Analysisb) Anderson Building Cost Analysisc) Active Adult Center Cost AnalysisTown Hall Meeting Discussion


20/37

4.. r Cityof.W h e a t ~ d g e ~ O M M U N I 1 Y DEVELOPMENT

TO:THROUGH:FROM:

DATE:SUBJECT:

MemorandumMayor and City CouncilPatrick Goff, City Manager.Ken Johnstone, Community Development DirectorSally Payne, Senior PlannerJuly 1,2010 (for July l ih Study Session)IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG funds

The City has maintained an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Jefferson Countyregarding the City'S allocation ofCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds .Historically the IGA stated that the City, as a Participating Jurisdiction, wouldautomatically receive an annual allocation based on the percentage of low to moderateincome persons within the City.In the past few years, due to a variety of factors, the Jefferson County CommunityDevelopment Department has not spent down the allocation ofCDBG funds the Countyreceives from the Federal Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) at afast enough rate. They are currently over the allowed ratio of unspent funds per HUDregulations. Due to this, HUD has been scrutinizing the County's process and proceduresfor the expenditure ofCDBG funds. Many of the County's agreements and contractswith sub recipients regarding the expenditure ofCDBG funds have been reviewed byHUD. This has included the IGAs that the County has had with the ParticipatingJurisdictions in the Counties ofWheat Ridge, Golden, Edgewater and Mountain View.Based on their review, HUD is now requiring that the County remove the automaticallocation to the Participating Jurisdictions in the IGAs. The Participating Jurisdictionswill now have to compete for CDBG funds from the general pool of funds the Countymakes available to nonprofits and the jurisdictions. The allocations that would have goneto jurisdictions will now go to that general pool of funds. The annual applications forthese funds are reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) whomakes recommendations for projects to the Board ofCounty Commissioners. The Cityhas membership on the CDAB so it would be involved in discussions regarding the fairexpenditure of the funds. City staff will continue working closely with the CountyCommunity Development staff as we make this change in funding status. The Countyhas preliminarily indicated that once they are back in compliance with HUD and havetheir funding ratio at an allowable limit, they would reinstate the automatic allocation tothe Participating Jurisdictions.


21/37

IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG fundsJuly 1, 2010Page 2

A draft copy of the IGA is attached for your review. If you have any questions pleasecontact Ken Johnstone at 303-235-2844 or Sally Payne at 303-235-2852.

ATTACHMENTS:1. Draft copy of the IGA with Jefferson County


22/37

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTBetween

JEFFERSON COUNTYand the

CITY OF_____COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS(Federal Fiscal Years 20010 through 2011)

THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference purposes only this _ day of__ 2010, is betweenJefferson County, Colorado (the "County"), a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, and theCity of Wheat Ridge (the "Cities"), a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado located in JeffersonCounty.

RECITALSA. Pursuant to The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, 42 V.S.c. 5301

et (the "Act"), the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development ("HVD" ) administers awide range of local housing and community development activities and programs under Title I of theAct.

B. The primary objective of Title I of the Act is the development of viable urban communities, byproviding decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunitiesprincipally for persons of low and moderate income. To further this objective, the Federalgovernment provides Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds to local governmentsto conduct and administer housing and community development activities and projects (the "CDBGPrograms"). The CDBG Programs are governed by regulations contained in 24 C.F. R. Part 570 (the"Regulations").

C. A determination has been made by HUD that the County is eligible to qualify as an urban countyto receive funds from HUD by annual grant agreement.

C:\Documents and Settings\KVan Ert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IOC DBG- IGAdraft .doc 1


23/37

D. To become entitled on an annual basis to receive CDBG funds, a county must quality as an"urban county." Cities and other units of local governments may be included as part of the urban countyby entering into cooperation agreements. A city that has entered into an intergovernmental cooperationagreement with the County shall be considered to be a "Participating Jurisdiction."E. The qualification by HUD of an urban county remains effective for the next three successivefiscal years, September 1,2008, through August 31,2011 , (the "Program Years") regardless of changes inthe County's population during that period, except for failure of an urban county to receive a CDBGduring any year of that period.F. The County is submitting to HUD the required documentation to qualifY as an urban county so asto become eligible to receive annual CDBG funds for the Program Years (as "Entitlement County"). TheCities wish to be included as part of the urban county and to be eligible to participate in the County'sCDBG Programs for the Program Years.G. Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 29-1-201, et ~ . , the Cities and the County may enter into agreementsfor joint or cooperative action and may contract with each other to perform any governmental service,activity, or undertaking that each is authorized by law to perform.H. This Agreement sets forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, obligations, and the financial andother responsibilities of the parties.I. Accordingly, the parties have determined that is will be mutually beneficial and in the publicinterest of the parties to enter into this Agreement regarding the conduct of the CDBG Programs.

C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKJO\CDBG-JGAdraft .doc 2


24/37

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and cooperative actions contemplatedhereunder, the parties agree as follows:1. Inclusion of Cities. The Cities shall be included as a part of the County for CDBG qualificationand grant calculation purposes for the Program Years. The parties recognize their mutual benefit toseeking entitlement status so that there may be local control over CDBG monies and so that the partiesmay receive the benefits of yearly allocations of CDBG monies. The Cities understand that because theyhave elected to pursue entitlement status jointly with the County, HUD restricts the Cities during thePrograms Years from applying for grants under the small cities or state CDBG programs and fromparticipating in a HOME consortium, except through the urban county, regardless of whether the urbancounty receives a HOME formula allocation.2. Period of Performance. This Agreement shall remain in effect through the Program Years andsuch additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted and income received duringthe Program Years and the completion of the funded activities (the "Period of Performance"). Neither theCounty nor the Cities may terminate, withdraw, or be removed from the Program during the Period ofPerformance.3. Renewals. This Agreement will renew automatically for participation by the parties in successivethree-year (3-year) qualification periods, unless the Cities or the County provide written notice to theother party that it selects not to participate in a new qualification period. The terminating party shall senda copy of the notice of termination to the HUD field office by the date specified in HUD's urban countyqualification period. The County will notify the Cities in writing of the Cities' right to make this election.A copy of the County's notification must be sent to the HUD field office by the date specified in theurban county qualification notice. Failure by either party to adopt an amendment to the Agreementincorporating all changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in theurban county qualification notice applicable for a subsequent three-year urban county qualification periodand to submit the amendment to HUD as provided in the urban county qualification notice will void the

C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 3


25/37

automatic renewal of such qualification period. If the Agreement is renewed, the subsequent three-year(3-year) period will constitute the new Program Years.4. Mutual Cooperation. The Cities and the County agree to cooperate as follows:

a. To plan and prepare the COBG Programs, the Comprehensive Housing AffordabilityStrategy and Community Oevelopment Plan (the "Consolidated Plan"), and detailed descriptions ofCOBG Programs to be conducted or performed during each of the Program Years. The finalized activitiesand projects will be included in the Consolidated Plan and in the requests for COBG funds for theProgram Years. The parties acknowledge, however, the County has responsibility , as mandated by HUDfor selection of the COBG Programs to be included in the grant request and for submission of thatrequest. The parties recognize that HUD requires the County to execute all grant agreements and holdsthe County legally liable and responsible for the overall administration and performance of the COBGPrograms. Accordingly, the parties agree that the County shall have the administrative responsibilitynecessary to meet the requirements of HUO for those Cities selected COBG Programs to be performed orconducted by the Cities. The County will have full administrative responsibility for all programsperformed or conducted by the Cities. As further required by HUO and only to the extent required byHUO, the Cities and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or assist in undertaking communityrenewal and lower income housing assistance activities , as approved and authorized between the partiesin the COBG agreements, including the Consolidated Plan.

b. As required by HUD, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 570.501 (b) and 507 .503, Cities mayenter into separate COBG agreements (the "COBG Agreements") with the County for the actual conductof the COBG Programs, as approved and authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and theConsolidated Plan. As required by HUO, the parties agree to include standards relating to themanagement and disposition of assets and real property acquired through the COBG Programs, inaccordance with 24 C.P.R.570.

c. As required by HUD, to affirmatively further fair housing within their own jurisdictions.The County may not provide any COBG funding for activities in or in support of the Cities if the Cities

C:\Documents and Settings\KYanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IO\CDBG- IGAdraf't .doc 4


26/37

do not affirmatively further fair housing within their own jurisdiction or if the Cities impede the County ' sactions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. This provision is required because noncompliance by the Cities included in an urban county may constitute non-compliance by the urbancounty, which may provide cause for funding sanctions or other remedial action by HUD.5. Distribution of Funds.

a. Administrative Allocation. The County may retain no more than twenty percent(20%) of the total CDBG funds allocated to the County for purposes of general oversight, management,coordination, and related costs ("Administrative Allocation").6. Project Application an d Approval Process

a. Project applications from the County, the Cities and other eligible applicants willbe reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CD Advisory Board) using evaluationcriteria set forth in the applicable Consolidated Plan and the goals of the Board of CountyCommissioners. Higher priority shall be given to eligible proposals submitted by the County and theCities so long as proposals are consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan.

b. The decision for determining what funds receive block grant funding IS theresponsibility of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners.7. Advisory Board. In furtherance of the cooperative process of developing the CDBG Programs,and II I order to ensure coordination while respecting the role of the Cities, Jefferson County hasestablished a Community Development (CD) Advisory Board.

a. Membership. The CD Advisory Board shall be appointed by the Jefferson County Boardof County Commissioners and shall include at least one member from each participating jurisdiction. TheParticipating Jurisdictions shall advise the Board of County Commissioners of its nominee for theAdvisory Board.

b. Duties. The CD Advisory Board shall recommend the allocation of funds to the County,the Cities and other eligible applicants. Although HUD requires the County to maintain legal liability and

C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIO\CDBG-IGAdraft .doc5


27/37

responsibility for the overall administration and performance of the CDBG Programs, the County willgive strong consideration to the recommendations of the CD Advisory Board.8. Mutual Agreements. The parties agree as follows:

a. Books and Records. To maintain a complete set of books and records that account forthe CDBG monies and the supervision and administration of the CDBG Programs. The parties agree thatthey will provide access to these books and records to each other and to HUD , as necessary or requested,to confirm compliance with Federal laws and regulations.

b. Compliance with Laws. To take all actions necessary to comply with the following lawsand to assure compliance with County certifications required by:

I. Federal Laws and Regulations. The Housing and Community Development Actof 1974, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sections 104(b) and 109 of Title I of theHousing and Community Development Act of 1974; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S .c. 5301 , et 24C.F. R. Part 570, and especially 24 C.F. R. 570.501(b) applicable to subrecipients and 24 C.F. R. 570.503applicable to the minimum standards for a written agreement prior to disbursing any CDBG funds ; 24C.F. R. Part 570, et ~ . , relating to requirements governing any income generated from CDBG funds,("Program Income"); all rules, regulations, guidelines, circulars, and other requirements promulgated bythe various Federal departments, agencies, administrations, and commissions relating to the CDBG.

II. State and Local Law Compliance. The responsibilities of the parties shall besubject to applicable state laws, city and county ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations, and citycharter provisions.

III. Nonviolent Civil Rights Policies. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 5304(b)(2), the Countyand the Cities each have adopted and are enforcing and, if requested, will provide copies to each other ofthe following policies:

(a) Prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencIeswithin its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and

C:\Documents and Settings\KY anErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIO\CDB G- IGAdraft .doc 6


28/37

(b) Enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barringentrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of nonviolent civil rights demonstrationswithin its jurisdiction.

c. Expenditure of Funds. All CDBG funds that are approved by HUD for expenditure underthe grant agreements will be budgeted and allocated (i) to the County, no more than twenty percent (20%)of the total CDBG funds allocated to the County for administrative, general oversight, management,coordination, and related costs, as allowed by HUD, and (ii) to the specific CDBG Programs described inthe Consolidated Plan, which shall be expended only for the CDBG Programs for which the funds areprovided.

d. Lobbying Requirement. To the best of the knowledge and belief of each of the Cities andCounty:

I. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf ofit, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of Congress, or anemployee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the makingof any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, andthe extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, orcooperative agreement;

11. I f any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paidto any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a memberof Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a member of Congress in connectionwith this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, each party agrees that it will completeand submit a Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with itsinstructions.

111. Each party agrees that it will require the language of this paragraph be includedin the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts

C:\Documents and Scttings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IO\CDBG- IGAdraft.doc 7


29/37

under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certifY and di scloseaccordingly.9. Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. Any changes andmodifications to this Agreement shall be made in writing and shall be executed by both parties prior to theperformance of any work or activity involved in the change and be approved by HUD.10. Miscellaneous Provisions.

a. Choice of Law. This Agreement and the rights and duties of the parties shall beinterpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado applicable to contracts made and to beperformed entirely within the state.

b. Forum. The courts of the State of Colorado shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction ofany disputes or litigation arising hereunder.

c. Venue. Venue for any and all legal actions arising hereunder shall lie in the DistrictCourt in and for the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.

d. Officials Not to Benefit. No member of the Cities or County government, commissionersor individual elected officers shall receive any share or part of this Agreement or any benefit that mayarise therefrom.

e. Indemnification. To the extent allowed by law, the Cities and the County agree toindemnifY and hold each other harmless from and against any and all claims , losses, expenses, andattorney fees, including but not limited to damages for personal injury, theft or damage to property, bothpublic and private, resulting from or arising out of an act or omission resulting directly or indirectly fromthe performance or failure to perform under this Agreement, provided, however, that the indemnificationshall not cause a waiver ofthe Governmental Immunity Act for either the Cities or the County.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly authorizedand executed.

C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI O\CDBG IGAdraft.doc 8


30/37

,. . . . . . . City of[?WheatRt-dge~ P U B L I C W O R K SMemorandum

TO:THROUGH:FROM:

Mayor and City Council r\Patrick Goff, City Manager-JTim Paranto, Director of Public Works

DATE: June 10,2010 (for the June 1ih Study Session)SUBJECT: Public Works Potential Service Reductions

During the April 16-17, 2010 City Council Retreat several potential service reductions wereidentified. The City Council requested additional information concerning the reduction inservices provided by the Engineering Division, reducing the level of street snow and ice controlservice, reducing the maintenance provided by the Public Works Department to the Parks andRecreation Department and elimination of the traffic count program. Staff was also asked toprovide additional information concerning uses for lodger's tax revenue.Engineer ing Division ServicesAs outlined in earlier correspondence, the services currently being provided by the Public WorksEngineering Division have been reduced substantially to essential services. Based upon historiccapital investment project (CIP) funding, the current staffing does provide for the design andinspection of approximately $600,000 in small projects each year. Projects were notprogrammed in 2009 and are not budgeted for 2010. Staffing other projects and temporarilyassigning one technician to the Operations Division for one year have utilized the man-hoursmade available by the reduction in CIP projects. Staffing could be permanently adjusted if thereare no plans to return the CIP to historic levels. All future CIP projects could be designed andinspected through contracts with private engineering firms.Currently, the Engineering Division primarily assists the Parks and Recreation Department withdesign related services. The Parks and Recreation Department could obtain these services fromprivate engineering firms.Possible staffing reductions per yearCIP project design and inspectionParks supportTraffic count program

Total

2,140 man-hours250 man-hours.-llQ man-hours2,560 man-hours


31/37

Public Works Potential Reduction of ServicesJune 10 , 2010Page 2

Possible budget savings per yearReduce staff by 1.5 FTECost of outsourcing design of $600,000in small projects (15% fee basis)Cost of on-call engineering for Parks needs(Average $90 per hour)

$105,000

-$90,000-$22,500 -$112,500

Therefore, if funding is returned to the CIP there would be a net additional cost of $7,500It should also be noted that if the Cabela's Shopping Center project moves forward this year,there will be need for approximately 0.75 FTE for a one year period while the projectinfrastructure is constructed.Traffic Count ProgramElimination of the traffic count program would provide an $11,000 average yearly budgetsavings (assuming 170 man-hours). The City traffic count map is available on the City web siteand is accessed approximately ten times each day. The traffic information is typically sought bydevelopers, real estate agents, traffic engineering consultants and businesses. Additionally, Citystaff uses this information when analyzing requests for traffic control devices, reviewing trafficcontrol plans, determining the need for roadway improvements in conjunction with land usecases, preparing grant applications, etc.Street Snow and Ice ControlThe City provides snow removal service to three priorities of streets during snow storms asshown on the attached map. A reduction in snow removal service can be accomplished byreducing the streets serviced (Scenario #1) or by performing the service with fewer trucks.(Scenario #2).Scenario #1 , reduce streets servicedCurrent streets servicedPriority Level 1 streets: 27 milesPriority Level 2 streets: 18 milesPriority Level 3 streets: 41 milesSteep intersections: 1.0 miles

Proposed streets servicedPriority Levell streets: 27 milesPriority Level 2 streets: 18 miles (2 lanes only)Priority Level 3 streets: 0 milesSteep intersections: 1.0 miles

In 2009 the cost of snow and ice control was $303 ,000. Labor accounted for approximately 19%of the cost of this service. Approximately 75% ofthe snow removal effort is directed to thePriority Level 1 streets. Eliminating Priority Level 3 streets from routine plowing, and plowingonly two lanes on Priority Level 2 streets is estimated to reduce the cost of snow removal by15%. Priority Level 3 streets are those streets that are in the hilly residential areas of the City.


32/37

Public Works Potential Reduction of ServicesJune 10,2010Page 3

A reduction in snow removal would reduce the time spent by Staff driving plow trucks.Reducing snow removal also reduces over-time labor. It is estimated that reducing snowremoval service would provide approximately 400 man-hours available for other tasks. Staffwould return to performing other inclement weather duties, such as sign repair, sign construction,graffiti removal, etc. earlier than under the current service policy. Ultimately, the reduction insnow removal would allow additional pavement repairs to be performed; thereby reducing theamount of pavement repair out-sourced each year.Estimated snow removal cost reductionIncreased pavement patchingReduced pavement repair out-sourcingTotal savings

$44,000-$18,000$24,000$50,000

Scenario #2, three trucks deployed (instead of he current four truck service)There would be no savings in the cost of snow removal, but streets would be cleared from six totwenty-four hours later than currently performed. Reducing the size of the snow crews wouldfacilitate a reduction of two FTE in the staff. Additional work would have to be out-sourced toaccomplish the other services performed throughout the year by a reduced staff.Possible budget savingsTwo FTEs staff reductionOut-source street sweepingOut-source traffic signal maintenance

Net additional cost

$110,000-$108,000-$72,000 -$180,000$70,000

If street sweeping were out-sourced, the capital cost of replacing the two street sweepers($400,000) would not be necessary. However, when compared to performing the street sweepingin-house and assuming a six year useful life for street sweepers (the current sweepers are elevenyears old), this option becomes budget neutral.Lodger's Tax UsesThe 1998 ballot question establishing a hotel/motel tax designated that forty per cent (40%) ofthe lodger's tax be used for redevelopment and public improvements within the City. The CityAttorney has provided opinions that the revenues may be used for construction activities such aslandscaping, traffic signals, and concrete rehabilitation anywhere within the City. Mr. Dahl hasalso determined that the funds could be used to operate and maintain improvements constructedwith the lodger's tax. This portion of the lodger's tax may also be used for activities related toredevelopment and encouraging existing businesses to expand.


33/37

Public Works Potential Reduction of ServicesJune 10,2010Page 4

While the City has historically used the lodger's tax revenues to construct streetscapeimprovements in the hotell motel districts of the City, this money ($174,0001 year) could financeother on-going construction, maintenance and redevelopment activities including:

Maintenance of the streetscape along Kipling Streetand the 1-70 Frontage RoadsSidewalk, curb and gutter replacement (City-wide)Salary and benefits of the Economic Development SpecialistEconomic development marketing and organization membershipsSummary

Yearly$30,000$50,000$70,000$65,000

Engineering Staff could be reduced if the CIP is not expected to include design projects in 2011.However, the trained and experienced employees should be retained if the CIP is expected to befunded in 2012.While the elimination ofthe Traffic Count Program will provide a yearly savings of $11 ,000, theprogram data is heavily used and does promote development within the City.Changing the Snow and Ice Control Policy to eliminate Priority 3 streets will save $50,000 eachyear. Priority 3 streets are located in the hilly residential sections of the City and propertyowners along these streets have become accustomed to receiving snow removal service.Servicing these streets is a minimal cost in relation to the total City Budget.

The portion of the lodger's tax currently funding infrastructure improvements in the hotel! moteldistricts can be diverted to fund other programs, providing a $174,000 benefit to the GeneralFund Budget.As always, I am available to discuss these matters and provide supporting information.ATTACHMENT:

1. Snow Route Map


34/37

3100000

City of Wheat RidgeSnow Routes

LEGENDSnow RouteTYPE- Priority #1- Priority #2- Priority #3- Lakewood

COOT.,._ .., .J City of \fv'heat Ridge Boundary-- RoadCenterline

N!11,900 1,900 3,800! ! ! ! ~ ~ ~ ! " I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l ~ ~ ~ ! " ' ! ! !Staw P lan. COOrdifllltll ProjectionColorado Cen tra l ZoneDarum: NAD83

P'5CL6/ME" NOT1C'Thil ~ , . . . . , t " " o I l i ~ ....ddtomogl'f)hic~ t o n n . t i o n . R - " - u p O n t t . - a a : u r w : y . r ~ I I n d . l l l h o t t y o I l t 1 i 1 . l n l o n N l l o n i l ~ r e q u M f o ( . r ~ T h . C l l y o f WlealRidge. n JeIIefWn County CoIomo -. IOIc*I aubdlvWono f I h e S " " o f ~ h a e e c > m p i 6 & d f o f " U M ~ o o m p u I . r i l e d " 1 o " " " l I o n . T h i a i n f o r m a t i o n i a . v . i l a b l e l o ~ l n i d e n l i f y i n l g e n e n a l 11 of ooncem only. Th. c:ompuleril:. d infof!Mtion pl'oyidedshould on ly be ' ' 'd upon . h corroboraton oI 1h. MlIIodti.uaumplioM., end ,.. b by a qU lif'lIKIlndependenl IOUntI.81T h e U M r o f l h . n f O f l ' N ' I o n W ~ ~ a n d h o k l f f " ' ~ C l r t o of WI .. Ridg. from."., and "liabilitilts. damttgM."_U. end8 ......... ol-.etionIh.Nd . . . . o : o n M q u e n ~ o f h . ~ o n ,... infomllibonplOYidedh ....

City of Wheat Ridge, Co lorado7500 West 29th AvenueVVheat Ridge, CO 800 33-8001303.234.5900DATE: 051071200


35/37

.. City of: W h e a t ~ d g e ~ O M M U N I T Y DEVELOPMENT

TO:THROUGH:

FROM:DATE:

MemorandumMayor DiTullio and City CouncilPatrick Goff, City Manager. . .o)rKenneth Johnstone, Community Development DirectorJohn Schumacher, Chief Building OfficialJuly 1,2010 (for July 12th Study Session)

~ + e n L 3.

SUBJECT: Budget impact ofoutsourcing building inspections and plan reviews

The Building Division currently employs one combination inspector and one plansexaminer/combination inspector on a full-time employee basis to conduct field inspections andreview submitted plans required for issuance of permits. The combination inspector position is along standing position. The plans examiner/combination inspector position was filled inNovember of2009, as approved in the 2009 budget and recommended by the externalassessment ofthe Building Division conducted in early 2009 .Currently, all plan reviews are conducted by the Building Division staff, and all revenuesgenerated by these reviews are retained by the City. The City has a contract with CodeConsultants International, Inc. (CCI) to perform plan reviews, as needed. Per our contractterms, CCI would retain 100% of the plan review fee collected by the City. No contract planreviews have been conducted by CCI in the past three years.In a typical year, approximately ninety percent of all field inspections are performed by BuildingDivision staff, with the remaining field inspections performed on a per inspection fee basis by afirm contracted by the City. At this time the contracted firm is Code Consultants International,Inc ., and the per-inspection rate is $30. The figures for 2009 and 2010 in the chart below reflectcontract inspection costs related to the storm of July 20,2009, which increased the percentage ofcontract inspections performed by approximately fifty percent and inflated the actual expenditurefor contract inspections well above the normal range.The chart below reflects the total costs to the City to perform inspections and plan reviewsthrough use of full-time employment of inspectors and plans examiners (total net revenues frominspector/examiner positions) in comparison to the cost of performing plan reviews andinspections on a solely contract basis (total revenue change to perform inspections and reviewson a contract basis). These costs are calculated using the following formulas:Existing Staffing ModelTotal Cost to City (Column 4) = Staff Salaries and Benefits +Minimal Contract InspectionsNet Revenue to City (Column 6) = Plan Review Revenues - Total Cost (above)


36/37

Budget Impact of Outsourcing InspectionsJuly 1,2010Page 2

Outsourcing ModelTo outsource 100% of inspections and plan review, the City would lose all of the revenuegenerated from plan review fees. Those plan review fees would be transferred to a contract firmto pay for the plan review services. Additionally the City would need to pay for contractinspectors, which is typically a more costly approach than using in house inspectors. The totalrevenue change (loss) to outsource is represented in Column 8.Revenue Change for 100% Outsourcing (Column 8) = Additional Contract Inspection Cost -Total Net Revenues (Column 6). Parentheses are used to represent a net loss in revenue.

2007Column I Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 ColumnS

Actual Total Cost to City Total Net Total Cost to Total Revenue# of Plan Review Revenues from Change to PerformInspectors/ Total Salaries Expenditure to Perform Revenue Inspector Conduct 100% Inspections andExaminers For Contract Inspections and Received" /Examiner Contract Reviews on aInspections Reviews Positions Inspections Contract Basis

1 ($77,183) ($12,960) ($90,143) $352,022 $261,879 ($114,510) ($376,389)2008

1 ($80,164) ($20,070) ($100,234) $481,351 $381,117 ($150,300) ($531,417)2009

1.125 ($82,670) ($171,900) ($254,570) $165,972 ($88,598) ($319,140) ($230,542)

2010**2 ($139,056) ($116,640) ($255,696) $90,7026 ($164,970) ($349,290) ($184,320)* 100 percent of plan review revenue received is, by contract, paid to the contract inspection and review firm ifreviews are performed by that firm. The current contracted cost for plan reviews is one hundred percent of planreview fees collected. Some contract inspection and review firms charge the total plan review fee collected plus anadditional ten percent. No contract plan reviews have been conducted by the contracted firm since early 2007.** Annual figures for 2010 are projections based on costs and revenues during the first trimester, which is typicallythe slowest period of activity each year.In each of the above test cases, the result of outsourcing inspections and reviews would be asignificant loss of revenue, ranging from a projected $184,320 in 2010, to an actual loss of$531,417 in 2008, had these services been outsourced. The average annual loss in revenue from2007 to 2010 had inspection and plan review services been outsourced would be $330,667. Inaddition to the loss of revenue that would occur from outsourcing of inspection and plan reviewservices, other consequences would be reduced consistency in inspection and plan reviewpractices and procedures, a decline in customer service due to reduced or limited access toinspectors and plans examiners by customers, added expense incurred by the City to provideresponse to requests for assistance by emergency personnel, and an inability to provide over-thecounter permitting and consultation services without additional expense to the contract firm forthese services.

2


37/37

.I #. . , ~ r Ci ty of; V ! ' " W h e a t ~ d g e ~ A R K S AND RECREATION

~ f e m

MemorandumTO: Mayor and City CouncilTHROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager.9hFROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation DirectorDATE: June 14,2010 (for the July l ih Study Session)SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Department Budget Analysis

Strategic Planning Budget InformationAs requested by City Council during the recent strategic planning budget session, the Parks andRecreation Department has completed several presentations on revenue sources for thedepartment. The July 12,2010 Study Session presentation topics will provide information onthree specific programs.Topics to be covered include the following:

1) Information on the programs and service levels currently appropriated in the Parks,Forestry and Open Space Division Budget. The information will include the program, forexample, Right-of-Way Maintenance, the scope of work and tasks required to completethe program and the cost. Also included will be the impacts of a service level reductionfor that program.

2) Information on the cost of operating the Anderson Building, the programs that are offeredat that location, and revenue and service level reduction impacts3) Information on the programs and costs attributed to the Active Adult Center, and revenueand service level reduction impacts

City Council Agenda Packet 07-12-10

Documents

Transcript of City Council Agenda Packet 07-12-10