6:30 p.m.

Pre-Meeting

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 WEST 29 TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING

July 12. 2010

7:00 p.m.

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

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 28.2010

CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK

a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3
Minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster.

b. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA
ROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to be
heard.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS

1. Motion to approve award of RFP 10-08 On-Call Building Inspection Services to Building
Code Services International, Inc.

2. Resolution 35-2010 - amending Resolution 26-2010 Creating the Citizens' Exploratory

Committee (CEC) for the purpose of public education and debate regarding the
effectiveness and efficiency of various forms of City Government.

3. Motion to approve the Wheat Ridge United Neighborhood's (WRUN) "Election Forum
2010" to be held in Council Chambers, and to sanction the use of City of Wheat Ridge
Video and Audio Services for Live Televised and Video On-Demand support.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: July 12, 2010 Page -2-

DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS (con't)

4. Motion to adjourn the Regular City Council Meeting and to convene a Special Study
Session to discuss:

1) Staff/Council Report(s)
a) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Jefferson County
related to Community Development Block Grant Funds.
b) Wadsworth Corridor Coalition

2) Public Works potential reductions of service

3) Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan Review inspections

4) Parks and Recreation Budget Analysis

a) Maintenance Service Level Analysis
b) Anderson Building Cost Analysis
c) Active Adult Center Cost Analysis

5) Town Hall Meeting Discussion

CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS

CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS

ADJOURNMENT
 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO

June 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, Tracy
Langworthy, 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; Interim
Administrative Services Director, Heather Geyer; staff; and interested citizens.

Council Member Joyce Jay was absent.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 14. 2010

Motion by Mrs. Sang for approval of the Minutes of June 14, 2010 ; seconded by Mr.
Stites; carried 7-0.

PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES

Police 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 in
containing and arresting a perpetrator who attempted to flee on foot on March 31 S \
2010.

American Cancer Society Relay for Life

Natalie Fedak was present to accept the proclamation for July 9-10 to be Wheat Ridge
Relay Days. This year's Relay for Life event will take place on July 10th , 2010. Natalie
thanked Council and citizens for their support and participation in the event.

CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK

Dick Matthews is one of a group of citizens currently circulating a petition to propose

two Charter Amendments on the November election. He spoke in response to a Citizen
Alert memo that was distributed to residents in District 3. Mr. Matthews claims that the
memo misstates the proposed form of government and the operation of the proposed
Mayor's budgetary veto, as well as containing several spelling and grammar mistakes.
Mr. Matthews contends that the proposed Mayor-Council-Administrator form of
government would maintain that the City Administrator has authority to hire and fire
department heads and the Chief of Police. He further asserts that the proposed form of
government is the same as that employed by the City of Wheat Ridge from 1972 - 1996
when the City was in political turmoil and the change at that time was initiated based on
personality conflicts, not good sound choices for Wheat Ridge government.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28,2010 Page -2-

Ms. Berry asked of Mr. Matthews whether the proponents of the petition drive have
hired non-citizens; to which Mr. Matthews answered they had.

Dean Gokey asked Council and citizens to support the Relay For Life event and cancer
research in general. Mr. Gokey also spoke in favor of the citizen petition, asking
citizens to contact him if they are in support of the Charter Change and wish to sign the
petition.

Charles Holcer expressed disappointment in the Council in not getting things done to
address the City's revenue shortfalls and excessive spending since the seating of the
new Council with last November's election. He is further concerned that Council will be
considering spending another $24,500 tonight to study the Administrative Salaries and
staffing at City Hall while these determinations should be done by in-house staff and by
Council Members themselves. He also disagrees with public monies being spent to
fund a committee to study the various forms of government when the City already has
experience and history in both forms today. He believes the Council should consider
more aggressive cost-cutting measures.

Bob Wilson of Arvada is a candidate for RTD District L and spoke in favor of supporting
the completion of the Gold Line and to support those residents of the Metro Area who
do not drive with alternative, sustainable transit programs. He urged Wheat Ridge
citizens to elect him in November.

1. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Resolution 32-2010 - amending the Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund Budget
to reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of
$82,963.54 consisting of the 2010 Colorado Auto Theft Prevention Authority
Grant of $75,463.54 and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program Grant
for Police Overtime in the amount of $7,500.00.

B. Resolution 31-2010 - amending Resolution 25-2010 amending the public

hearing date for Case No. ANX-10-02 pertaining to annexation of remnant
parcels 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.

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.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -3-

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING

2. Council Bill 08-2010 - An Ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning Off-Premise Identification Signs, Community
Event/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 wishes
to 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, her
customers cannot see or find her business. Passing this ordinance will make a positive
change 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 second
reading , and that it take effect 15 days after final publication;

I further move to direct staff to make necessary amendment to the Ordinance to remove
all reference to off-premise signs and instead amend Section 26-708.E.2 regarding
master 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 pole
sign to read 'A sign which is affixed to, or mounted on a freestanding pole, and
anchored in the ground';

I further move to direct staff to make necessary amendments to the Ordinance so that
the regulations pertaining to community event/sponsorship banners on school property
match the Jefferson County School District policies for sponsorship banners and to
amend the Ordinance to remove restrictions on duration for community
event/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 definition
of Billboard; seconded by Mr. DeMott; carried 7-0 .

Motion carried 7-0, as amended.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -4-

3. Council Bill 09-2010 -An Ordinance amending a Planned Industrial

Development Outline Development Plan for construction of a Public Fire Station
on 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 the
Plan and assured that all measures have been and will be taken to minimize noise
impacts to the neighborhood. With approval, construction of the new Fire Station will
begin and complete this summer.

Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.

Motion by Mr. DeMott to approve Council Bill 09-2010 (Ordinance 1464) on second
reading, 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 the
standards established on the underlying plan .
2. The proposed use will provide a buffer and land use transition from the industrial
uses on the south side of Ridge Road to the residential neighborhood to the
north.
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 Laws
to 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 second
reading, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs. Adams;
ca rried 7-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -5-

5. Council Bill 11-2010 - An Ordinance extending the moratorium enacted by

Section 2 of Ordinance 1453, Series 2009, on the submission , acceptance,
processing, and approval of any application for a City of Wheat Ridge Permit or
License related to the operation of a business or cooperative that sells or
cultivates Medical Marijuana.

Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.

Council Bill 11-2010 was introduced on second reading by Council Member Sang. City
Clerk Michael Snow assigned Ordinance No. 1466.

No staff report was presented.

Matthew Durkin, Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney, encouraged the Council to
extend the moratorium, citing the many abuses that have resulted on account of the
state constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana in Colorado . Mr. Durkin
stated several statistics to indicate abuse of the initial intent of this amendment and
asserted there is also evidence to show that it has provided the means for criminals to
further fund illegal operations and presents further criminal activity to neighborhoods in
Colorado .

Scott Storey, District Attorney of Jefferson County, urged Council to not even consider
enacting an Ordinance allowing such business in Wheat Ridge. Mr. Storey contends
that state citizens voted for a "caretaker" model in the original constitutional
amendment, not a "dispensary" model for medical marijuana. He believes the current
HB 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 many
problems for the City.

Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.

Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve Council Bill 11-2010 (Ordinance 1466) on second
reading, and that it take effect upon adoption; seconded by Mr. Reinhart; carried 6-1
with Council Member DeMott voting No.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28, 2010 Page -6-

ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING

6. Council Bill 12-2010 - An Ordinance approving the Annexation of two remnant

parcels 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 Council
Chambers, 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 Ridge
Code 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 it
published, public hearing set for Monday, July 26, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs.
Langworthy; carried 7-0.

DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS

8. Resolution 33-2010 - amending the Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund Budget to
reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of
$30,000 to the Wheat Ridge Business District (WRBD) for the purpose of funding
the 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 to
reflect the approval of a supplemental budget appropriation and approving the
award of RFP-10-22 for the Employee Compensation/Structure Analysis to
Waters 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; carried
5-2 with Council Members Stites and DeMott voting No.
 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 28,2010 Page -7-

CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS

Mr. Goff congratulated the Wheat Ridge Police Department for the honor in receiving
the Pioneer Policing Award at the 2010 Annual Colorado Association of Chiefs
Convention . The award was given for the Department's development of the Hold-up
and Robbery Prevention Program, which seeks to educate area business owners in
preventing hold-up robberies.

ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS

" 'Mayor DiTullio encouraged citizens to abide by the fireworks restrictions, being
cognizant of the fire hazards that are present and the impacts this has on the safety of
the community.

Meeting adjourned at 9:06p.m.

4~-
Michael Snow, City Clerk

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 12, 2010 BY A VOTE OF _ _ to __

Davis Reinhart, Mayor pro tem

The 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 the
members. Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing
in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions.
..~
~ "~
.(
. City of
p WheatRl.-dge
ITEMNO:~
DATE: July 12,2010

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE AWARD OF RFP 10-08 ON-CALL

BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES TO BUILDING CODE
SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

D PUBLIC HEARING D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (mm/dd/yyyy)

[g] BIDS/MOTIONS D ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (mm/dd/yyyy)
D RESOLUTIONS
DYES

VNb:pJrnent

ISSUE:
The need for on-call building inspection services arises from time to time when staff is not
available, such as during vacation periods, or when demand for inspections exceeds the
capability of the Building Division at current staffing levels. To meet these needs, the services of
an outside inspection firm are employed. These services are provided contractually, on an as-
needed basis, per the terms of an approved contract.

PRIOR ACTION:
On-call inspections services have been provided on an as-needed contract basis previously by
Code Consultants International, Inc., at a rate of $30 per inspection. On June 07, 2010, three
proposals were received in response to RFP 10-08. Proposals were reviewed and ranked by a
staff committee. One firm, Building Code Services International (BCSI), was short listed. An
interview was conducted and references checked. The selected firm was Building Code Services
International, 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 contract
services line item, account number 01-122-700-704, of the 2010 Building Inspection budget of

V:\Fonns\CAFtemplate
Council Action Form
July 12,2010
Page 2

$343,160, which includes additional funds allocated for assistance from the contract firm with
storm related inspections.

BACKGROUND:
In a typical year, the need for on-call inspection assistance has resulted in an average of between
500 and 900 inspections annually. While the need for these on-call inspections has dramatically
increased due to damage and increased workload related to the July 20, 2009 storm, staff
anticipates a return to normal levels by early fall, with the need for assistance from the
contracted inspection firm returning to previous levels of 500-900 inspections annually.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends, based on rate structure, availability, qualifications and experience, references
and previous work with other agencies, approval of the contract award to Building Code Services
International, 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 the
City. Renewals will be automatic, pending performance and the rate structure remaining the
same.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the award of RFP-1 0-08, on-call building inspection services to Building
Code Services International, Inc., in accordance with the rate structure stipulated in their
proposal, with ~ base rate of $30 per inspection. The agreement may be renewed without further
Council 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 these
funds 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 Code
Services International, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado for the following reason(s) _______ "

REPORT PREPARED BY:

John Schumacher, Chief Building Official
Ken Johnstone, Director of Community Development
Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent

ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bid Tabulation Sheet
2. BCSI Fee Schedule
 EXHIBIT 2
Section 3 - Fee Schedule

BCSI Inspection Fees

Commercial per
Multi-family per
Code/Category Single-family Floor, per wing or
unit

$30 for 1st +

Combination $10 x each additional
category (per trip)

$100 minimum fee per day will be charged. Example: If inspection

Minimum charge . requests generate less than $100 in BCSI fees, a minimum fee will
charged to make up the difference of BCSI fees and $100.00.

BCSlln.spe'?tion Fees - Alternate

i Wheat Ridge Current

BCSllnspectlon Fee
Fee Category .:

.;
50% of Permit Fee
Residential . ' . !ooI :

! 60% of permit fee

Commercial
75% of permit fee
Other Reviews ( misc. or separate
building, plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, permits)

Note: The above fee table, BCSI Inspection is based on the current Wheat Ridge fee
schedule. If changes to Wheat Ridge penn it fees are made, our fees will be
renegotiated.

Inspection fees are billed at the end of the month inspections are perfonned.

Tenns, Net 30

Building Code Services International Response to Wheat Ridge RFp·10·08

18
PROJECT: RFP-10-08 ON-CALL BLDG INSPECTION SERVICES
BID DUE DATEITIME: 06/07/10 BY 4:00PM OUR CLOCK
~~J4'
'Of ., ~ City of
? WheatRt,dge
REQUESTED BY:CD
OPENED BY: LINDA TRIMBLE PURCHASING AGENT
WITNESSED BY: AMY VANDER MEER, PURCHASING TECHNICIAN
•

BUILDING CODE COLORADO CODE SAFEbuilt

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

SIGNATURE PAGE NO YES YES

ACCEPTS VISA NO NO YES
ILLEGAL ALIEN COMPLIANCE NO NO YES
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE YES YES YES
CURRENT WORKLOAD/ APPROACH YES YES YES
FEE SCHEDULE YES YES YES
~ ~ ~
~ r City of
? Wheat~dge
ITEMNO:~
DATE: July 12,2010

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 35-2010 - A RESOLUTION AMENDING

RESOLUTION NO. 26-2010, CREATING THE CITIZENS'
EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE (CEC) FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND DEBATE REGARDING THE
EFFECTIVNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS FORMS
OF CITY GOVERNMENT

D PUBLIC HEARING D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING

D BIDS/MOTIONS D ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
~ RESOLUTIONS

QUASI-JUDICIAL: D YES
?'f7
" / ,,,-
/ ; j '
<--,; ~ .4'

City Attorney

ISSUE:
Resolution No_ 24-2010 passed at the Regular City Council Meeting on May 24, 2010. The
Resolution created the Citizens' Exploratory Committee (CEC) for the purpose of public
education and debate regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of various forms of City
Government. On June 14, 2010, the City Council approved a motion to reconsider Resolution
No. 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 in
Resolution No. 26-2010 to August 9,2010.

PRIOR ACTION:
Resolution No. 24-2010 creating the Citizens' Exploratory Committee (CEC) was introduced to
Council 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
Council Action Form
July 12,2010
Page 2

FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None

BACKGROUND:
None

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 and
debate 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. 26-2010
for the following reason(s) "

REPORT PREPARED BY:

Gerald Dahl, City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed,Amendment to Resolution 35-2010
 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 35
Series of 2010

TITLE: A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 26-2010,

SERIES 2010 CREATING THE CITIZEN'S EXPLORATORY
COMMITTEE (CEC) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND DEBATE REGARDING THE
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS FORMS
OF CITY GOVERNMENT

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24,
Series 2010, creating a Citizen's Exploratory Committee; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has previously amended said Resolution to expand
the membership, duties and scope of the Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Council wishes to further amend the Resolution to address the
due date for the report of the Committee.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat

Ridge, Colorado, as follows:

Paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 26, Series 2010 is hereby amended to alter the
read in its entirety as follows:

The Committee will report its findings on forms of government to the City Council
by August 9, 2010.

This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

DONE AND RESOLVED THIS - this 12th day of July, 2010.

Jerry DiTullio, Mayor

ATTEST:

Michael D. Snow, City Clerk

 rTEMNO : ~
DATE: July 12. 2010

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE THE WHEAT RIDGE UNITED

NEIGHBORHOOD'S (WRUN) "ELECTION FORUM 2010"
TO BE HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND TO
SANCTION THE USE OF CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE VIDEO
AND AUDIO SERVICES FOR LIVE TELEVISED AND
VIDEO ON-DEMAND SUPPORT.

D PUBLIC HEARING D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (mmJdd/yyyy)

~ BIDS/MOTIONS D ORDINANCES FOR 2 ND READING (mmJdd/yyyy)
D RESOLUTIONS

QUASI-JUDICIAL: DYES

City Clerk

ISSUE:

Upon the request of Council Members Wanda Sang and Mike Stites, Council is being
asked to consider approval of the following:

Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods (WRUN) is requesting permission of the Council to present
a candidate and issues forum in Council Chambers and on Government Access Channels 8 and
22. The firm date has not been chosen, but it will be late September or very early October. The
purpose 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 forum
since at least 1991. WRUN commits to the Council that the forum will be conducted in an
unbiased manner. Although individual members may have opinions on certain candidates and
issues, these will not influence the conduct of the forum. All candidates will be given an equal
time to speak and speakers will be invited to speak on both sides of ballot issues.
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, and
candidates for Jefferson County offices, will be allowed 2 or 3 minutes to speak. No questions
will 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 Wheat
Ridge ballot issues. Depending on the number of state issues, some may be omitted if the length
of the program cannot contain all. In that case, there may be a brief, and unbiased, explanation
provided 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 Wheat
Ridge 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's
government access cable channels.

PRIOR ACTION:
None

BACKGROUND:
The Wheat Ridge Election Forum has been held annually since at least 1991, with the
exception of 2009. In past years, the event was videotaped and televised live on
Government Access Channel 8 & 22, then re-broadcast on a varied schedule throughout
the remainder of the election season until Election Day.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Video Services: $400
I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None

RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the use of City Council Chambers for Wheat Ridge United
Neighborhood's Election Forum 2010. I further move for the City to provide video and
audio support for live televised broadcasting and a regular schedule of re-broadcasting of
the event on WRTV Channel 8 and web-based Video On-demand through the Election
Day of November 2 nd , 2010."

REPORT PREPARED BY;

Michael Snow, City Clerk

ATTACHMENTS;
None.
 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO

City Council Chambers

7500 W. 29th Ave.

July 12. 2010

Upon adjournment from City Council Meeting

Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings

sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information
Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are
interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. Staff/Council Report(s)
a) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Jefferson County
related to Community Development Block Grant Funds.
b) Wadsworth Corridor Coalition

2. Public Works potential reductions of service

3. Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan Review inspections

4. Parks and Recreation Budget Analysis

a) Maintenance Service Level Analysis
b) Anderson Building Cost Analysis
c) Active Adult Center Cost Analysis

~ Town Hall Meeting Discussion

 ~ ~ 4~
.. ~ r City o f .
~ Wheat~dge
~OMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT

Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council

THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager. ¢

FROM: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director

Sally Payne, Senior Planner

DATE: July 1,2010 (for July lih Study Session)

SUBJECT: IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG funds

The City has maintained an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Jefferson County
regarding the City'S allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds .
Historically the IGA stated that the City, as a Participating Jurisdiction, would
automatically receive an annual allocation based on the percentage of low to moderate
income persons within the City.

In the past few years, due to a variety of factors, the Jefferson County Community
Development Department has not spent down the allocation of CDBG funds the County
receives from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at a
fast enough rate. They are currently over the allowed ratio of unspent funds per HUD
regulations. Due to this, HUD has been scrutinizing the County's process and procedures
for the expenditure ofCDBG funds. Many of the County's agreements and contracts
with sub recipients regarding the expenditure of CDBG funds have been reviewed by
HUD. This has included the IGAs that the County has had with the Participating
Jurisdictions in the Counties of Wheat Ridge, Golden, Edgewater and Mountain View.

Based on their review, HUD is now requiring that the County remove the automatic
allocation to the Participating Jurisdictions in the IGAs. The Participating Jurisdictions
will now have to compete for CDBG funds from the general pool of funds the County
makes available to nonprofits and the jurisdictions. The allocations that would have gone
to jurisdictions will now go to that general pool of funds. The annual applications for
these funds are reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) who
makes recommendations for projects to the Board of County Commissioners. The City
has membership on the CDAB so it would be involved in discussions regarding the fair
expenditure of the funds. City staff will continue working closely with the County
Community Development staff as we make this change in funding status. The County
has preliminarily indicated that once they are back in compliance with HUD and have
their funding ratio at an allowable limit, they would reinstate the automatic allocation to
the Participating Jurisdictions.
IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG funds
July 1, 2010
Page 2

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft copy of the IGA with Jefferson County

 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT

Between

JEFFERSON COUNTY

and 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 between

Jefferson County, Colorado (the "County"), a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, and the

City of Wheat Ridge (the "Cities"), a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado located in Jefferson

County.

RECITALS

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

et ~. , (the "Act"), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (" HVD" ) administers a

wide range of local housing and community development activities and programs under Title I of the

Act.

B. The primary objective of Title I of the Act is the development of viable urban communities, by

providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities

principally for persons of low and moderate income. To further this objective, the Federal

government provides Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds to local governments

to conduct and administer housing and community development activities and projects (the "CDBG

Programs"). 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 county

to receive funds from HUD by annual grant agreement.

C:\Documents and Settings\KVan Ert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK I O\CDB G- IGAdraft.doc 1

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 county

by entering into cooperation agreements. A city that has entered into an intergovernmental cooperation

agreement 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 successive

fiscal years, September 1,2008, through August 31,2011 , (the "Program Years") regardless of changes in

the County's population during that period, except for failure of an urban county to receive a CDBG

during any year of that period.

F. The County is submitting to HUD the required documentation to qualifY as an urban county so as

to become eligible to receive annual CDBG funds for the Program Years (as "Entitlement County"). The

Cities wish to be included as part of the urban county and to be eligible to participate in the County's

CDBG Programs for the Program Years.

G. Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 29-1-201, et ~., the Cities and the County may enter into agreements

for 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 and

other responsibilities of the parties.

I. Accordingly, the parties have determined that is will be mutually beneficial and in the public

interest 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

 AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and cooperative actions contemplated

hereunder, the parties agree as follows:

1. Inclusion of Cities. The Cities shall be included as a part of the County for CDBG qualification

and grant calculation purposes for the Program Years. The parties recognize their mutual benefit to

seeking entitlement status so that there may be local control over CDBG monies and so that the parties

may receive the benefits of yearly allocations of CDBG monies. The Cities understand that because they

have elected to pursue entitlement status jointly with the County, HUD restricts the Cities during the

Programs Years from applying for grants under the small cities or state CDBG programs and from

participating in a HOME consortium, except through the urban county, regardless of whether the urban

county receives a HOME formula allocation.

2. Period of Performance. This Agreement shall remain in effect through the Program Years and

such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted and income received during

the Program Years and the completion of the funded activities (the "Period of Performance"). Neither the

County nor the Cities may terminate, withdraw, or be removed from the Program during the Period of

Performance.

3. Renewals. This Agreement will renew automatically for participation by the parties in successive

three-year (3-year) qualification periods, unless the Cities or the County provide written notice to the

other party that it selects not to participate in a new qualification period. The terminating party shall send

a copy of the notice of termination to the HUD field office by the date specified in HUD's urban county

qualification 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 the

urban county qualification notice. Failure by either party to adopt an amendment to the Agreement

incorporating all changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the

urban county qualification notice applicable for a subsequent three-year urban county qualification period

and 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

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 Affordability

Strategy and Community Oevelopment Plan (the "Consolidated Plan"), and detailed descriptions of

COBG Programs to be conducted or performed during each of the Program Years. The finalized activities

and projects will be included in the Consolidated Plan and in the requests for COBG funds for the

Program Years. The parties acknowledge, however, the County has responsibility, as mandated by HUD

for selection of the COBG Programs to be included in the grant request and for submission of that

request. The parties recognize that HUD requires the County to execute all grant agreements and holds

the County legally liable and responsible for the overall administration and performance of the COBG

Programs. Accordingly, the parties agree that the County shall have the administrative responsibility

necessary to meet the requirements of HUO for those Cities selected COBG Programs to be performed or

conducted by the Cities. The County will have full administrative responsibility for all programs

performed or conducted by the Cities. As further required by HUO and only to the extent required by

HUO, the Cities and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or assist in undertaking community

renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, as approved and authorized between the parties

in 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 may

enter into separate COBG agreements (the "COBG Agreements") with the County for the actual conduct

of the COBG Programs, as approved and authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and the

Consolidated Plan. As required by HUO, the parties agree to include standards relating to the

management and disposition of assets and real property acquired through the COBG Programs, in

accordance 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\KYan Ert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IO\CDBG- IGAdraf't.doc 4

do not affirmatively further fair housing within their own jurisdiction or if the Cities impede the County' s

actions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. This provision is required because non-

compliance by the Cities included in an urban county may constitute non-compliance by the urban

county, 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 and Approval Process

a. Project applications from the County, the Cities and other eligible applicants will

be reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CD Advisory Board) using evaluation

criteria set forth in the applicable Consolidated Plan and the goals of the Board of County

Commissioners. Higher priority shall be given to eligible proposals submitted by the County and the

Cities so long as proposals are consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan.

b. The decision for determining what funds receive block grant funding IS the

responsibility of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners.

7. Advisory Board. In furtherance of the cooperative process of developing the CDBG Programs,

and III order to ensure coordination while respecting the role of the Cities, Jefferson County has

established a Community Development (CD) Advisory Board.

a. Membership. The CD Advisory Board shall be appointed by the Jefferson County Board

of County Commissioners and shall include at least one member from each participating jurisdiction. The

Participating Jurisdictions shall advise the Board of County Commissioners of its nominee for the

Advisory 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\KVan Ert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 5

responsibility for the overall administration and performance of the CDBG Programs, the County will

give 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 for

the CDBG monies and the supervision and administration of the CDBG Programs. The parties agree that

they 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 laws

and to assure compliance with County certifications required by:

I. Federal Laws and Regulations. The Housing and Community Development Act

of 1974, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sections 104(b) and 109 of Title I of the

Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S .c. 5301 , et ~., 24

C.F. R. Part 570, and especially 24 C.F. R. 570.501(b) applicable to subrecipients and 24 C.F. R. 570.503

applicable to the minimum standards for a written agreement prior to disbursing any CDBG funds ; 24

C.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 by

the various Federal departments, agencies, administrations, and commissions relating to the CDBG.

II. State and Local Law Compliance. The responsibilities of the parties shall be

subject to applicable state laws, city and county ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations, and city

charter provisions.

III. Nonviolent Civil Rights Policies. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 5304(b)(2), the County

and the Cities each have adopted and are enforcing and, if requested, will provide copies to each other of

the following policies:

(a) Prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencIes

within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and

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

6
 (b) Enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring

entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of nonviolent civil rights demonstrations

within its jurisdiction.

c. Expenditure of Funds. All CDBG funds that are approved by HUD for expenditure under

the 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 in

the Consolidated Plan, which shall be expended only for the CDBG Programs for which the funds are

provided.

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

County:

I. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of

it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of Congress, or an

employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making

of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and

the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or

cooperative agreement;

11. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid

to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member

of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a member of Congress in connection

with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, each party agrees that it will complete

and submit a Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its

instructions.

111. Each party agrees that it will require the language of this paragraph be included

in 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

under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certifY and disclose

accordingly.

9. Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. Any changes and

modifications to this Agreement shall be made in writing and shall be executed by both parties prior to the

performance 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 be

interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado applicable to contracts made and to be

performed entirely within the state.

b. Forum. The courts of the State of Colorado shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction of

any disputes or litigation arising hereunder.

c. Venue. Venue for any and all legal actions arising hereunder shall lie in the District

Court in and for the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.

d. Officials Not to Benefit. No member of the Cities or County government, commissioners

or individual elected officers shall receive any share or part of this Agreement or any benefit that may

arise therefrom.

e. Indemnification. To the extent allowed by law, the Cities and the County agree to

indemnifY and hold each other harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, expenses, and

attorney fees, including but not limited to damages for personal injury, theft or damage to property, both

public and private, resulting from or arising out of an act or omission resulting directly or indirectly from

the performance or failure to perform under this Agreement, provided, however, that the indemnification

shall 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 authorized

and executed.

C:\Documents and Settings\KVan Ert\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OL KI O\CDBG· IGAdraft.doc

8
 ~ ~ ,
....... City of
[ ?WheatRt-dge
~PUBLIC WORKS

Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council r\ ~

THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager -¥J

FROM: Tim 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 were
identified. The City Council requested additional information concerning the reduction in
services provided by the Engineering Division, reducing the level of street snow and ice control
service, reducing the maintenance provided by the Public Works Department to the Parks and
Recreation Department and elimination of the traffic count program. Staff was also asked to
provide additional information concerning uses for lodger's tax revenue.

Engineering Division Services

As outlined in earlier correspondence, the services currently being provided by the Public Works
Engineering Division have been reduced substantially to essential services. Based upon historic
capital investment project (CIP) funding, the current staffing does provide for the design and
inspection of approximately $600,000 in small projects each year. Projects were not
programmed in 2009 and are not budgeted for 2010. Staffing other projects and temporarily
assigning one technician to the Operations Division for one year have utilized the man-hours
made available by the reduction in CIP projects. Staffing could be permanently adjusted if there
are no plans to return the CIP to historic levels. All future CIP projects could be designed and
inspected through contracts with private engineering firms.

Currently, the Engineering Division primarily assists the Parks and Recreation Department with
design related services. The Parks and Recreation Department could obtain these services from
private engineering firms.

Possible staffing reductions per year

CIP project design and inspection 2,140 man-hours
Parks support 250 man-hours
Traffic count program .-llQ man-hours

Total 2,560 man-hours

Public Works Potential Reduction of Services
June 10, 2010
Page 2

Possible budget savings per year

Reduce staff by 1.5 FTE $105,000

Cost of outsourcing design of $600,000

in small projects (15% fee basis) -$90,000
Cost of on-call engineering for Parks needs
(Average $90 per hour) -$22,500
-$112,500

Therefore, if funding is returned to the CIP there would be a net additional cost of $7,500

It 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 project
infrastructure is constructed.

Traffic Count Program

Elimination of the traffic count program would provide an $11,000 average yearly budget
savings (assuming 170 man-hours). The City traffic count map is available on the City web site
and is accessed approximately ten times each day. The traffic information is typically sought by
developers, real estate agents, traffic engineering consultants and businesses. Additionally, City
staff uses this information when analyzing requests for traffic control devices, reviewing traffic
control plans, determining the need for roadway improvements in conjunction with land use
cases, preparing grant applications, etc.

Street Snow and Ice Control

The City provides snow removal service to three priorities of streets during snow storms as
shown on the attached map. A reduction in snow removal service can be accomplished by
reducing the streets serviced (Scenario # 1) or by performing the service with fewer trucks.
(Scenario #2).

Scenario #1, reduce streets serviced

Current streets serviced Proposed streets serviced

Priority Level 1 streets: 27 miles Priority Levell streets: 27 miles
Priority Level 2 streets: 18 miles Priority Level 2 streets: 18 miles (2 lanes only)
Priority Level 3 streets: 41 miles Priority Level 3 streets: 0 miles
Steep intersections: 1.0 miles Steep 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 the
Priority Level 1 streets. Eliminating Priority Level 3 streets from routine plowing, and plowing
only two lanes on Priority Level 2 streets is estimated to reduce the cost of snow removal by
15%. Priority Level 3 streets are those streets that are in the hilly residential areas of the City.
Public Works Potential Reduction of Services
June 10,2010
Page 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 snow
removal service would provide approximately 400 man-hours available for other tasks. Staff
would 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 in
snow removal would allow additional pavement repairs to be performed; thereby reducing the
amount of pavement repair out-sourced each year.

Estimated snow removal cost reduction $44,000

Increased pavement patching -$18,000
Reduced pavement repair out-sourcing $24,000

Total savings $50,000

Scenario #2, three trucks deployed (instead of the current four truck service)

There would be no savings in the cost of snow removal, but streets would be cleared from six to
twenty-four hours later than currently performed. Reducing the size of the snow crews would
facilitate a reduction of two FTE in the staff. Additional work would have to be out-sourced to
accomplish the other services performed throughout the year by a reduced staff.

Possible budget savings

Two FTEs staff reduction $110,000
Out-source street sweeping -$108,000
Out-source traffic signal maintenance -$72,000
-$180,000

Net additional cost $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 sweeping
in-house and assuming a six year useful life for street sweepers (the current sweepers are eleven
years old), this option becomes budget neutral.

Lodger's Tax Uses

The 1998 ballot question establishing a hotel/motel tax designated that forty per cent (40%) of
the lodger's tax be used for redevelopment and public improvements within the City. The City
Attorney has provided opinions that the revenues may be used for construction activities such as
landscaping, traffic signals, and concrete rehabilitation anywhere within the City. Mr. Dahl has
also determined that the funds could be used to operate and maintain improvements constructed
with the lodger's tax. This portion of the lodger's tax may also be used for activities related to
redevelopment and encouraging existing businesses to expand.
Public Works Potential Reduction of Services
June 10,2010
Page 4

While the City has historically used the lodger's tax revenues to construct streetscape
improvements in the hotell motel districts of the City, this money ($174,0001 year) could finance
other on-going construction, maintenance and redevelopment activities including:
Yearly
Maintenance of the streetscape along Kipling Street
and the 1-70 Frontage Roads $30,000
Sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement (City-wide) $50,000
Salary and benefits of the Economic Development Specialist $70,000
Economic development marketing and organization memberships $65,000

Summary

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 be
funded in 2012.

While the elimination ofthe Traffic Count Program will provide a yearly savings of $11 ,000, the
program 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 each
year. Priority 3 streets are located in the hilly residential sections of the City and property
owners 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! motel
districts can be diverted to fund other programs, providing a $174,000 benefit to the General
Fund Budget.

As always, I am available to discuss these matters and provide supporting information.

ATTACHMENT:
1. Snow Route Map
 City of Wheat Ridge

Snow Routes
LEGEND

Snow Route
TYPE
- Priority #1
- Priority #2
- Priority #3
- • Lakewood

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

1
1,900
! 1,900
!!!!~~~!"Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~!"'!!! Feet
3,800

Staw Pla n. COOrdifllltll Projection

Colorado Cen tral Zone
Darum: NAD83

P'5CL6/ME" NOT1C€'
Thil ••~,....,t""oIli~ .... ddtomogl'f)hic
~tonn.tion.R-"-upOntt.-aa:urw:y.r~IInd.lllhotty
E
oIlt1i1.lnlonNllonil~requMfo(.r~. Th.Cllyof ~
Wleal Ridge. in JeIIefWn County. CoIomo -. fIOIlic*I aubdlvWon
ofIheS""of~ . haeec>mpi6&dfof"UM~oompuI.riled
~
"1o"""lIon.Thiainformationia.v.ilablelo~lnidenlifyinlgenenal
1I1lI•• of ooncem only. Th. c:ompuleril:.d infof!Mtion pl'oyided
j
1.........
should only be ''''d upon .....h corroboration oI 1h. fMlIIodti.
uaumplioM., end , ..ub by a qUillif'lIKIlndependenl IOUnltI.
8o TheUMroflh. lnfOfl'N'IonWI ~~andhoklff"'~Clrt

1
of WI... Ridg. from."., and "liabilitilts. damttgM. "_U. end
8 ol-.etionIh.Nd .... o:onMquen~ofh.~on
,... infomllibonpl'OYidedh..... .

~
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado ~
7500 West 29th Avenue
VVheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001
~
303.234.5900 ~
3100000 DATE: 051071200 ~
 ..~
~ ~ ~
~ City of
~+enL 3.
":¥ Wheat~dge
~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Memorandum
TO: Mayor DiTullio and City Council

THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager...o)r

Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director

FROM: John Schumacher, Chief Building Official

DATE: July 1,2010 (for July 12th Study Session)

SUBJECT: Budget impact of outsourcing building inspections and plan reviews

The Building Division currently employs one combination inspector and one plans
examiner/combination inspector on a full-time employee basis to conduct field inspections and
review submitted plans required for issuance of permits. The combination inspector position is a
long standing position. The plans examiner/combination inspector position was filled in
November of2009, as approved in the 2009 budget and recommended by the external
assessment ofthe Building Division conducted in early 2009.

Currently, all plan reviews are conducted by the Building Division staff, and all revenues
generated by these reviews are retained by the City. The City has a contract with Code
Consultants International, Inc. (CCI) to perform plan reviews, as needed. Per our contract
terms, CCI would retain 100% of the plan review fee collected by the City. No contract plan
reviews have been conducted by CCI in the past three years.

In a typical year, approximately ninety percent of all field inspections are performed by Building
Division staff, with the remaining field inspections performed on a per inspection fee basis by a
firm 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 reflect
contract inspection costs related to the storm of July 20,2009, which increased the percentage of
contract inspections performed by approximately fifty percent and inflated the actual expenditure
for contract inspections well above the normal range.

The chart below reflects the total costs to the City to perform inspections and plan reviews
through use of full-time employment of inspectors and plans examiners (total net revenues from
inspector/examiner positions) in comparison to the cost of performing plan reviews and
inspections on a solely contract basis (total revenue change to perform inspections and reviews
on a contract basis). These costs are calculated using the following formulas:

Existing Staffing Model

Total Cost to City (Column 4) = Staff Salaries and Benefits + Minimal Contract Inspections
Net Revenue to City (Column 6) = Plan Review Revenues - Total Cost (above)
 Budget Impact of Outsourcing Inspections
July 1,2010
Page 2

Outsourcing Model
To outsource 100% of inspections and plan review, the City would lose all of the revenue
generated from plan review fees. Those plan review fees would be transferred to a contract firm
to pay for the plan review services. Additionally the City would need to pay for contract
inspectors, which is typically a more costly approach than using in house inspectors. The total
revenue 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.

2007
Column I Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 ColumnS
Total Net Total Revenue
Actual Total Cost to City Total Cost to
# of Plan Review Revenues from Change to Perform
Expenditure to Perform Conduct 100%
Inspectors/ Total Salaries Revenue Inspector Inspections and
For Contract Inspections and Contract
Examiners Received" /Examiner Reviews on a
Inspections Reviews Inspections
Positions 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 if
reviews are performed by that firm. The current contracted cost for plan reviews is one hundred percent of plan
review fees collected. Some contract inspection and review firms charge the total plan review fee collected plus an
additional 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 typically
the slowest period of activity each year.

In each of the above test cases, the result of outsourcing inspections and reviews would be a
significant 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 from
2007 to 2010 had inspection and plan review services been outsourced would be $330,667. In
addition to the loss of revenue that would occur from outsourcing of inspection and plan review
services, other consequences would be reduced consistency in inspection and plan review
practices and procedures, a decline in customer service due to reduced or limited access to
inspectors and plans examiners by customers, added expense incurred by the City to provide
response to requests for assistance by emergency personnel, and an inability to provide over-the-
counter permitting and consultation services without additional expense to the contract firm for
these services.
2
 ~fem ~.
..,~ • .I #
r City of
;V!'" Wheat~dge
~ARKS AND RECREATION

Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council

THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager.9h

FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director

DATE: June 14,2010 (for the July lih Study Session)

SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Department Budget Analysis

Strategic Planning Budget Information

As requested by City Council during the recent strategic planning budget session, the Parks and
Recreation Department has completed several presentations on revenue sources for the
department. The July 12,2010 Study Session presentation topics will provide information on
three 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, for
example, Right-of-Way Maintenance, the scope of work and tasks required to complete
the program and the cost. Also included will be the impacts of a service level reduction
for that program.

2) Information on the cost of operating the Anderson Building, the programs that are offered
at that location, and revenue and service level reduction impacts

3) Information on the programs and costs attributed to the Active Adult Center, and revenue
and service level reduction impacts