WORK SESSION AGENDA

March 5, 2019
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers – 1100 37th Street

CITY OF EVANS – MISSION STATEMENT

“To deliver sustainable, citizen-driven services for the health, safety, and welfare of the community.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NISP Policy Discussion (30 Minuets)

James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

2. City Attorney Services Alternatives (20 Minutes)

Scott Krob, City Attorney

3. Vacating Hunting Licenses in City Limits (15 Minutes)

Dan Krob, Assistant City Attorney

4. Update on Boards and Commissions (15 Minutes)

Karen Frawley, City Clerk

5. Council Discussion
 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT

DATE: March 5, 2019

AGENDA ITEM: Work Session Item #1

SUBJECT: Discussion on Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP)

PRESENTED BY: James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

Jessica Gonifas, CPA, Deputy City Manager
Randy Ready, Community Development and Public Works Director

ISSUE DESCRIPTION:
The City Council and Water and Sewer Board have held four joint work sessions to discuss the
City’s involvement in the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). These meetings have
addressed a variety of topics including the state of the City’s water supply, the impact water
availability has on future development, and the general scope, purpose, and cost of NISP. During
the most recent work session on January 15th, staff presented a cost model detailing the impact
NISP could have on resident water rates. At this meeting, Council requested more information
about how much additional development the water would support, the rate model with the
projected increase in units due to the development assumptions and the impact on residents if a
“budget billing” option was offered. During this work session, staff will answer these questions
and are seeking direction from Council regarding the City’s continued participation in NISP.

Background – Benefits of NISP

As a partner in NISP, the City of Evans would add 1,600-acre feet of raw water to its existing
water portfolio. Securing these additional water resources is increasingly important as water
becomes scarcer. Not only does NISP create a new water source for the City, but the project
provides a generous water storage allowance. Participants may retain up to 4.25 times their
allotment in years when water is available to store. For the City, this equates to 6,800 acre-feet of
additional water that could be stored in reserve for dry years. NISP water could be used to
incentivize and sustain development in Evans as the community continues to grow. The NISP
project is projected to be completed, with water available for municipal use, in approximately 15
years.

Review - Cost Components of NISP

The project requires extensive funding to pay for the raw water, related infrastructure and treatment
and transmission. The current estimated cost of the entire project is $1.2B (Evans share of 4% is
$48M) Staff cautions that there is significant uncertainty about the future cost based on inflation
to the project. For perspective, the 2002 estimate of the entire project was $400M.

To date the City has contributed approximately $1M to pay for a portion of the preliminary
permitting and design fees. In general terms, the costs are allocated as follows:
 • $48M raw water (4% of total project, 1,600-acre feet)
• $400 thousand annual operations and maintenance
• $30M treatment – average estimate based on contemplated treatment options

System Development Fee Implications

At the November 20, 2018 City Council work session, the Council directed staff to prepare
potential rate impact scenarios that include water system development fee revenue in the analysis
as well as scenarios with the City’s participation at a level lower than the 1,600 acre feet. As a
reminder, system development fees are the one-time fees a developer pays at the time of building
permit application and are intended to cover the necessary water system improvements to the
system to accommodate the additional development. Examples of these costs include water main
line upsizing, potential Greely plant expansion costs for treating water, and other system wide
capital expansion projects.

For this analysis, staff made system development fee revenue assumptions based on two levels of
development over the next 15 years: Low is based on the historic five-year average of single family
homes built in Evans and High is based on the expected number of single family homes to be built
in Evans in 2019 (320) continued for the next four years and a 50% reduction in that number for
the remaining 11 years. Staff also included the 15-year capital expansion and major maintenance
plans for the water system in the model. The current modeling assumes the forecasted system
development fees are used to fund the projected capital expansion projects first and any cash left
after that is used to fund the NISP project.

When forecasting a significantly complex capital project such as NISP, many assumptions must
be made that may change as the project goes forward. Below is a list of assumptions made in the
current rate modeling.

• Current Dollars – the costs used in the model are not adjusted for any inflation.
• No other rate increases – the estimated rate impacts do not include future base usage rate
increases unrelated to NISP.
• Debt – the models assume many factors related to debt issuance such as interest rates and
revenue rate requirements that may change over the life of this project impacting the annual
obligations and user rates. The model also assumes cash will be available at various points
over the 15-year timeframe to pay down previously issued debt. This may not be possible
based on the structure of the original debt issuances. It is not uncommon in pooled debt
issuance situations such as this for there to be a prohibition on early repayment.
• System Development Fees – the projections for future system development fee revenue is
based on an annual three percent increase in the fees. This is highly dependent on many
factors including the will of the City Council at the time of rate increase considerations.
These revenue projections are also premised upon current knowledge of pending
development, but these projects may occur on different timelines or not at all.
• Cash availability – The availability of cash to pay for portions of this project will ultimately
de determined by actual growth that occurs as well as future City Council policy decisions.
• Other water system capital expansion improvements – As mentioned above, these models
assume system development fees are used first to fund the projected capital expansion
projects with any remaining cash used to fund the NISP project. With a 15-year planning
 horizon, the funding included in the model for capital expansion projects was based on an
estimate and historical averages in some cases. As staff has discussions with prospective
developers on more clear development plans, these capital needs will likely change and
may impact the assumptions in the models.

The model has been updated since the January 15th meeting to include the additional growth units
in the rate calculations. For discussion purposes, staff modeled a reduction in participation from
1,600-acre feet to 800-acre feet. The following table shows the potential impacts for the various
scenarios after 15 years, including the NISP raw water, treatment plant and operations &
maintenance.

Assumptions for the system development fee revenue projections include the following:

Lower System Development Fees – Project is funded with system development fees remaining
after capital expansion projects. System development fee projection is based on 80 single family
units per year which is the five-year historical average. A three percent inflationary factor is built
in.
High System Development Fees – Project is funded with system development fees remaining after
capital expansion projects. System development fee projection is based on the 2019 estimated units
(320 Single Family Units) for the first 5 years, then increased by 200 single family units annually
for the remaining years. A three percent inflationary factor is built in.

Below is a summary of the estimated total rate increases.

Estimated Base Rate Impact - Residential Per Month In 2034 for NISP Raw
water, treatment plant and operations & maintenance

1,600 Acre Feet 800 Acre Feet

Lower System Development Fees $ 61 $ 31
Higher System Develoment Fees $ 43 $ 15

The attachment shows the estimated annual rate increased necessary under both the lower and
higher system development fee scenarios.
“Budget Billing” Option
Below are graphs which compare the potential rates to the other communities in our standard
group. The water usage is an average of 12 months, which would represent a potential monthly
bill using a “budget billing” option.

Average Water Bill Comparison w/Estimated NISP

Costs in 2034
NISP 1,600 Ac Ft Assumes no increases in
$140
water bills unrelated to NISP
$119
$120
$101
$100

$80 $73 $72

$58 $57
$60 $53 $52 $51 $49
$42
$40

$20

$-
Evans Evans Ft. Lupton Milliken Evans Johnstown Berthoud Windsor Kersey Greeley Loveland
(NISP (NISP (Current)
Lower Sys Higher Sys
Dev) Dev)

Average Water Bill Comparison w/Estimated NISP

Costs in 2034
NISP 800 Ac Ft Assumes no increases in
water bills unrelated to NISP
$100
$89
$90
$80 $73 $73 $72
$70
$58 $57
$60 $53 $52 $51 $49
$50 $42
$40
$30
$20
$10
$-
Evans Ft. Lupton Evans Milliken Evans Johnstown Berthoud Windsor Kersey Greeley Loveland
(NISP (NISP (Current)
Lower Sys Higher Sys
Dev) Dev)
Growth Implications

Development Until NISP – Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs)

NISP water is projected to be available for municipal use in 15 years, or around the year 2034.
In the meantime, all development must bring water to the City in order to build. Based on the
City’s current records, there are an estimated 2,000 uncommitted EQRs in the Evans water
bank belonging to various entities. These banked EQRs represent units of water that have
already been dedicated to the City, but for which development has not occurred. For the
purposes of discussion, staff created a model to estimate how many residential units these
EQRs could produce. The model assumes half of new developments will have non-potable
systems and that all development will be split evenly between single family and multi-family.
Due to its variable nature and difficulty to predict, commercial development was not modeled.

EQR/Unit Units EQRs Req

SF w/o Non-Pot 1 500 500
MF w/o Non-Pot 1 500 500
SF with Non-Pot 0.6 1,063 638
MF with Non-Pot 0.35 1,035 362
Total: 3,098 2,000

Note: EQR projections assume EQR holders will either redeem their water for development or will validly transfer
their EQRs to be used by another developer between now and 2034.

The table above illustrates that under these assumptions, 2,000 EQRs could support just under
3,100 new residential units. This means that in the low-growth scenario (the City’s historic
five-year average), uncommitted EQRs would support development through 2034 when NISP
comes online. Alternatively, if development patterns resemble the high-growth scenario,
uncommitted EQRs will support development only for the next 10 or 11 years, depleting
around the year 2030. In this high-growth scenario, new development will not have access to
banked EQRs in the years immediately preceding NISP. This could result in a halt on new
development unless new water sources can be provided to the City.

Development with NISP

When NISP comes online the City will have a new water source in its portfolio. This additional
water could be leveraged (i.e., sold to developers) to encourage development. Staff created a
model like the EQR model above to demonstrate how many units NISP could support at both
our current level of participation 1,600 acre-ft and a reduction to 800 acre-ft. The same
parameters were applied – half non-potable availability and an even split between single family
and multi-family.

1600 Ac-Ft
EQR/Unit Units EQRs Req Ac Ft Req
SF w/o Non-Pot 1 600 600 390
MF w/o Non-Pot 1 600 600 390
SF with Non-Pot 0.6 1,330 798 519
MF with Non-Pot 0.35 1,325 464 301
Total: 3,855 2,462 1,600
The table above illustrates that with these assumptions, 1,600 acre-ft of NISP could support
about 3,800 residential units. Assuming NISP comes online in 2034, this would support
low growth development for decades and would support high growth development for
another 20 years, or until the year 2052.

800 Ac-Ft

EQR/Unit Units EQRs Req Ac Ft Req

SF w/o Non-Pot 1 300 300 195
MF w/o Non-Pot 1 300 300 195
SF with Non-Pot 0.6 665 399 259
MF with Non-Pot 0.35 663 232 151
Total: 1,928 1,231 800

Note: The NISP unit projections are based on the current City Code requirement of .65 ac-ft of C-BT water per
EQR. NISP will likely have a different yield than C-BT and may be calculated differently in the future.

At a reduced level of participation, the table above illustrates that with the same assumptions,
800 acre-ft of NISP could support 1,900 new residential units. Assuming NISP comes online
in 2034, this would support low growth development for about 25 years and would support
high growth development for about 10 years, or until the year 2043.

The graphs on the following page show the impact of development on the City’s water
availability as described above. The underlying conclusion that could be drawn is that NISP
participation at the 1,600 acre-ft. level could facilitate growth for 10 years longer than
participation at the 800 acre-ft. level (and 1,927 more housing units), assuming market capacity
for building the equivalent of 200 housing units per year through this time-frame.
Growth’s Potential Impact on Other City Rates
At the January 15th City Council Work session, the City Council asked staff to research the
potential reduction in other city rates as the City grows and the cost of service is potentially spread
amongst more residents. While the impact on general City rates is difficult to estimates (due to the
significant impact of sales tax revenue on the per resident cost of services) staff believes that within
the water enterprise itself, growth will help to spread the current fixed costs of fund amongst more
accounts and may result in lower annual increases to these rates.

Next Steps
Decisions
1) Confirm level of participation
a. Full Participation 1,600-acre feet
b. Reduced Participation < 1,600-acre feet

FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Costs to the City are based on level of City participation. A range of
cost estimates are presented above.

REQUESTING FROM CITY COUNCIL:

Additional questions for further research and preliminary comments of next steps.

ATTACHMENTS:

• Estimated annual rate increases

 Estimated Base Rate Impact - Residential Per Month In 2034 for NISP Raw
water, treatment plant and operations & maintenance

1,600 Acre Feet 800 Acre Feet

Lower System Development Fees $ 61 $ 31
Higher System Develoment Fees $ 43 $ 15

Rate Phasing Forecast - 1,600 Acre Feet

Interest Only 1st Issuance 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTAL
No Rate Smoothing
1,600 Acre Feet, Lower Sys Dev $ 0.97 $ 1.41 $ 0.50 $ 22.28 $ - $ - $ 7.81 $ - $ - $ 23.64 $ - $ - $ - $ 4.57 $ - $ - $ 61
1,600 Acre Feet, Higher Sys Dev $ 0.31 $ 0.73 $ - $ 19.05 $ - $ - $ 5.75 $ - $ - $ 17.78 $ - $ - $ - $ 3.31 $ - $ (4.29) $ 43
Rate Smoothing
1,600 Acre Feet, Lower Sys Dev $ 5.41 $ 6.03 $ 6.74 $ 6.70 $ 5.85 $ 5.95 $ 6.03 $ 6.13 $ 3.94 $ 3.94 $ 1.14 $ 1.14 $ 1.14 $ 1.14 $ - $ - $ 61
1,600 Acre Feet, Higher Sys Dev $ 4.61 $ 4.93 $ 5.31 $ 4.99 $ 4.88 $ 4.88 $ 5.38 $ 2.96 $ 2.96 $ 2.96 $ 0.83 $ 0.83 $ 0.83 $ 0.83 $ - $ (4.29) $ 43

Rate Phasing Forecast - 800 Acre Feet

Interest Only 1st Issuance 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTAL
No Rate Smoothing
800 Acre Feet, Lower Sys Dev $ 0.49 $ 0.71 $ 0.25 $ 11.14 $ - $ - $ 3.91 $ - $ - $ 11.82 $ - $ - $ - $ 2.28 $ - $ - $ 31
800 Acre Feet, Higher Sys Dev $ 0.16 $ 0.37 $ - $ 8.12 $ - $ - $ 1.39 $ - $ - $ 8.25 $ - $ - $ - $ 1.65 $ - $ (4.95) $ 15
Rate Smoothing
800 Acre Feet, Lower Sys Dev $ 3.27 $ 3.49 $ 3.04 $ 2.79 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 3.94 $ 3.94 $ 3.94 $ 0.57 $ 0.57 $ 0.57 $ 0.57 $ - $ - $ 31
800 Acre Feet, Higher Sys Dev $ 2.19 $ 2.40 $ 2.03 $ 2.03 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ - $ (4.95) $ 15

Growth and System Development Fee

Assumptions 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Lower - Accumulation of Units 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800 880 960 1,040 1,120 1,200 1,280
Lower System Development Fee Revenue $ 700,000 $ 661,967 $ 681,826 $ 702,281 $ 723,349 $ 745,050 $ 767,401 $ 790,423 $ 814,136 $ 838,560 $ 863,717 $ 889,628 $ 916,317 $ 943,807 $ 972,121 $ 1,001,284
Higher - Accumulation of Units 320 640 960 1,280 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 3,800
Higher - System Development Fee Revenue $ 2,642,560 $ 2,721,837 $ 2,721,837 $ 2,721,837 $ 2,721,837 $ 1,401,746 $ 1,443,798 $ 1,487,112 $ 1,531,726 $ 1,577,677 $ 1,625,008 $ 1,673,758 $ 1,723,971 $ 1,775,690 $ 1,828,961 $ 1,883,829

Assumptions
Current Dollars – the costs used in the model are not adjusted for any inflation.
No other rate increases – the estimated rate impacts do not include future base usage rate increases unrelated to NISP.
Debt – the models assume many factors related to debt issuance such as interest rates and revenue rate requirements that may change over the life of this project impacting the annual obligations and user rates. The model also assumes cash will be available at various points over the 15-year
timeframe to pay down previously issued debt. This may not be possible based on the structure of the original debt issuances. It is not uncommon in pooled debt issuance situations such as this for there to be a prohibition on early repayment.
System Development Fees – the projections for future system development fee revenue is based on an annual three percent increase in the fees. This is highly dependent on many factors including the will of the City Council at the time of rate increase considerations. These revenue projections are
also premised upon current knowledge of pending development, but these projects may occur on different timelines or not at all.
Cash availability – The availability of cash to pay for portions of this project will ultimately de determined by actual growth that occurs as well as future City Council policy decisions.

Other water system capital expansion improvements – As mentioned above, these models assume system development fees are used first to fund the projected capital expansion projects with any remaining cash used to fund the NISP project. With a 15-year planning horizon, the funding included in
the model for capital expansion projects was based on an estimate and historical averages in some cases. As staff has discussions with prospective developers on more clear development plans, these capital needs will likely change and may impact the assumptions in the models.
 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT

DATE: March 5, 2019

AGENDA ITEM: Work Session Item #2

SUBJECT: Transition of Assistant City Attorney to City Attorney and Options

for Providing General Legal Representation and Municipal
Prosecution Services to the City of Evans

PRESENTED BY: James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

Scott Krob, City Attorney

ISSUE DESCRIPTION:

We had hoped to have this discussion with Council at the beginning of the year. However, to a
limited extent it has been delayed due to the schedules of the people involved, but to a much larger
extent it has been postponed because I have had the assistant city attorney tied up with resolving
the central issues in the EQR litigation.

As I mentioned to you previously, our goal at Krob Law Office is and always has been to ensure
that the City of Evans receives high quality legal representation at a reasonable cost. As Council
knows, in 2016, the City Council decided it wanted to transition toward an in house city attorney.
Council elected to appoint an assistant city attorney to act in that capacity with the plan of
promoting the assistant city attorney to the city attorney position after they had the opportunity to
become familiar with the City, its personnel, processes and legal needs. During that time, Council
agreed it would be beneficial to keep Krob Law Office in the position of city attorney to assist
with the transition. Since June 2016 Dan Krob has served as the assistant city attorney. At this
time we are proposing that Dan assume the role of city attorney for the City’s general legal
representation and municipal prosecutions and that Krob Law Office provide a back-up, supporting
role, as needed.

The purpose of this workshop is to examine what the City has spent annually over the past few
years (2015 through 2018) on general legal services and municipal prosecutions, and to present
and discuss three options for moving forward with the transition to the new city attorney. As
reflected in the attached chart, during the past four years the City has spent between $231,028 and
$288,098 on general legal services and municipal prosecutions. This number varies substantially,
in part because the annual legal needs of the City vary from year to year. With the anticipated
upturn in development we are beginning to see and the rapid increase in municipal court filings
that we have already seen, we anticipate that the City’s need for legal services going forward will
similarly continue to increase.

We have also attached a survey provided by Julie Roeder of salaries paid to other in house
municipal attorneys. The average salary, according to that survey is $156,465. With these
materials in mind, our suggestion is that the City Council consider three options:

Option A – In house city attorney with in house support staff

Attached is a proposed contract for Dan Krob to provide in house full time general legal
representation and municipal prosecution services to the City at an initial salary of $150,000 plus
benefits. If the City desires to provide the city attorney with in-house support staff, we anticipate
that would need to be between a one-third and half time position and would cost the City
somewhere in the neighborhood of $35,000 to $40,000 per year for someone with legal training
or a paralegal, and in the neighborhood $20,000 to 30,000 per year for someone with no legal
training (not recommended).

The total cost including salary and support staff under Option A is estimated to be between
$170,000 and $190,000 plus benefits.

Option B – In house city attorney with support staff provided by Krob Law Office

At the request of the City, when the assistant city attorney position was first created, Krob Law
Office agreed to provide support staff services for the first year at no charge. These included
primarily paralegal and secretarial services as well as access to an electronic legal research library.
That has continued now for two and a half years at no charge to the city. The cost to Krob Law
Office of providing those services is approximately $30,000 per year. If Council concludes that
Krob Law Office can provide better and more cost effective support staff services, Krob Law
Office would provide those at a charge to the City of $30,000 per year. Under this option, the city
attorney employment contract would be the one that is attached, but Krob Law Office would
provide support staff. Accordingly, the total cost including salary and support staff under Option
B is estimated to be $180,000 plus benefits.

The primary concern expressed by City staff with the transition is that the City would still have
access to the other attorneys at the Krob Law Office and what that would cost and look like. I
have enjoyed representing the City of Evans and do not intend in any manner to sever that
relationship. Option A and Option B include unlimited access to enable the new City Attorney to
confer with me and the other attorneys in our office, at no charge to the City.

Option C – Continued contract representation of the City through Krob Law Office

The final option is to promote Dan to the City Attorney position and to have the City’s legal
services provided through the Krob Law Office under our existing agreement with the City. If the
City wishes to pursue this option Dan would be available full time, and the firm would simply
charge the rates the City is currently paying (Scott Krob $195/hour; Dan Krob $175/hour) for the
actual attorney services provided. Krob Law Office would provide all support staff and benefits.
Assuming, conservatively, the City needed 6 hours of attorney time from Dan per day, the total
cost of this option (though it could vary either way substantially based on the actual legal needs of
the City) is estimated to be $262,500 (assuming 30 hours per week for 50 weeks).

Please note, that these options relate only to providing general legal representation and municipal
prosecution services. I suggest that Krob Law Office continue to represent the City in the EWV
and EQR litigation on the same basis as it is currently until those matters are concluded.

In terms of advantages and disadvantages for each of the options, the advantages of Options A and
B are that they provide some certainty as to what the City will spend in general legal services and
municipal court prosecution services and will likely save the City thousands of dollars in legal fees
annually. The advantage of Option C is that the City pays only for the services it actually needs,
which makes it easier for the City to increase the legal services it obtains during legally busy times
and to reduce those fees if things slow down.

I look forward to discussing these matters with you and welcome any comments or suggestion you
have.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A

DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL:

Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the option of legal services Council would like to
pursue.
 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT

DATE: March 5, 2019

AGENDA ITEM: Work Session Item #3

SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 693-19 An Ordinance to Prohibit Hunting within

the City Limits of Evans, Colorado by Deleting Section 9.32.150
of the Evans Municipal Code

PRESENTED BY: James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

Karen Frawley, City Clerk

ISSUE DESCRIPTION:

Section 9.32.150 of the Evans Municipal Code permits the City Clerk to grant a revocable permit
that allows hunting on designated parcels of land within the City. City Staff and Police have
concerns for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and visitors of Evans regarding the
discharging of firearms within the City during hunting. As such, Staff recommends removing
the section of the Code that allows hunting permits within the City thereby effectively banning
hunting within the City limits.

The proposed ordinance also provides that any existing permit will end at the end of this year.
According to the City’s records, there is currently a single valid permit issued which is scheduled
to expire November 1, 2019. The proposed ordinance would allow this permit to remain valid
until it expires or is revoked for cause.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY:

N/A

REQUESTING FROM CITY COUNCIL:

Staff recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance No. 693-19 to amend remove section
9.32.150 from the Evans Municipal Code and thereby prohibit hunting within the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Ordinance No. 693-19

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

“I move to approve Ordinance No. 693-19 as proposed”

“I move to deny Ordinance No. 693-19 as proposed for the reasons stated”
 CITY OF EVANS, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NO. 693-19

AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT HUNTING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF

EVANS, COLORADO BY DELETING SECTION 9.32.150 OF THE EVANS
MUNICPAL CODE

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Evans, Colorado (the “City
Council”), pursuant to Colorado statute and the Evans City Charter, is vested with the
authority of administering the affairs of the City of Evans, Colorado (the “City”); and

WHEREAS, City staff periodically reviews and suggests revisions of the City of
Evans Municipal Code (the “Code”) in order to clarify, update, or modify sections of the
Code for the best interest of the citizens of the City; and

WHEREAS, Section 9.32.150 of the Code currently authorizes the City Clerk or
his designee to grant a revocable permit to hunt within the City limits under certain
conditions; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Chief of Police believe that permitting
hunting, including but not limited to, the discharge of firearms within the City limits is a
potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare to the residents and visitors of the City
of Evans; and

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees hunting within the City limits should not be
permitted; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow the existing validly issued permits
under Section 9.32.150 of the Code to continue in effect until expiration or revocation,
but in any event no longer than November 1, 2019; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal Section 9.32.150 of the Code and
not issue any new hunting permits after November 1, 2019.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF EVANS, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:

1. Section 9.32.150 – Revocable permits for hunting - shall be deleted in its entirety
from the Evans Municipal Code.

2. Those permits issued as of the date of this Ordinance shall remain valid subject to
the terms and conditions upon which they were issued until revoked or expiration, but in
any event no later than November 1, 2019.

3. Severability. If any article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this

Ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each part or
parts thereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts be declared unconstitutional
or invalid.

4. Repeal. Existing ordinances or parts of ordinances covering the same matters

embraced in this ordinance are hereby repealed and all ordinances or parts of ordinances
inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed except that this
repeal shall not affect or prevent the prosecution or punishment of any person for any act
done or committed in violation of any ordinance hereby repealed prior to the effective
date of this ordinance.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019.

ATTEST: CITY OF EVANS, COLORADO

__________________________________ BY: ______________________________

Karen Frawley, City Clerk Brian Rudy, Mayor

PASSED AND ADOPTED ON A SECOND READING THIS ___ DAY OF

____________, 2019.

ATTEST: CITY OF EVANS, COLORADO

__________________________________ BY: ______________________________

Karen Frawley, City Clerk Brian Rudy, Mayor
 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT

DATE: March 5, 2019

AGENDA ITEM: Work Session Item #4

SUBJECT: Discussion Related to Evans Boards & Commissions

PRESENTED BY: James L. Becklenberg, City Manager

Karen Frawley, City Clerk

ISSUE DESCRIPTION:

In late 2018, the Council directed staff to advertise for vacancies on various boards and
commissions. The purpose of this work session is to receive direction on the process Council
would like staff to take to fill the open vacancies.

There are currently three vacancies on the Zoning Board of Appeals and one vacancy on the Water
& Sewer Board. Attached to this report are lists of existing board and commission members and
their terms of service. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council about the process for filling
vacancies.

In the past, staff has conducted interviews and made recommendations to the City Council. This
could be the process utilized to fill the current vacancies. Alternatively, the Council could choose
to take a more active role in reviewing and interviewing candidates. The City Clerk has received
five applications from interested residents for the three Zoning Board of Appeals vacancies, and
two applications from interested residents for the single Water and Sewer Board vacancy with
several applicants indicating interest in serving on other board or commission. The City also
received several applications for the newly reconvened Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,
which will serve in an advisory capacity to staff, and is therefore not part of the Council
appointment process.

The Planning Commission currently has five members and there are currently not any vacancies.
Nevertheless, due to the volume of upcoming development cases, staff is recommending that the
Council appoint an alternate member to serve the commission as needed, on occasions when
quorum attendance requirements may not otherwise be satisfied. Staff suggests that the prescribed
roll of the alternate would be to attend planning commission meetings, assume a seat with the
commission at the dais, be allowed to participate in discussions, but not vote unless a fourth vote
is required to ensure a quorum for the purposes of taking action on applications. If directed by the
Council to facilitate the appointment of an alternate, staff would confirm interest in this role among
existing applicants and that this pool would constitute the applicants for this role.

The remainder of this report first recaps the Home Rule Charter or Evans Municipal Code
provisions governing each board and commission, then suggests some questions for the City
Council’s discussion and points on which staff requests direction:
PLANNING COMMISSION (HOME RULE CHARTER-CHAPTER XII-12.1)
There shall be a City Planning Commission which shall consist of five members, all of whom shall
be qualified electors residing within the City and all of whom shall be appointed by the City
Council for a term of five years. Members of the City Council shall be prohibited from serving on
the Planning Commission. Three members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Any
member of the Commission may be removed by the Council for cause, after public hearing, if a
hearing is requested by such member. The Commission shall adopt rules of procedure (bylaws),
which shall include its process for election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, scheduling of
meetings, and proceedings of meetings. All meetings and records of the Commission shall be open
to the public. City staff shall keep minutes of the Commission's proceedings, showing the vote of
each member upon every question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall
also keep records of its official actions.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (HOME RULE CHARTER-CHAPTER XII-12.5)

There shall be a Zoning Board of Appeals which shall consist of five members, all of whom shall
be qualified electors residing within the City and all of whom shall be appointed by the City
Council for a term of five years. Members of the City Council shall be prohibited from serving on
the Zoning Board of Appeals. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. Any member
of the Board may be removed by the Council for cause, after public hearing, if a hearing is
requested by such member. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure (bylaws), which shall include
its process for election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, scheduling of meetings, and
proceedings of meetings. All meetings and records of the Board shall be open to the public. City
staff shall keep minutes of the Board's proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon every
question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall also keep records of its
official actions.

WATER & SEWER BOARD (EVANS MUNCIPAL CODE-CHAPTER 2.24)

2.24.020 - Membership - appointment and qualifications.
The Water and Sewer Board shall consist of five (5) members, appointed by the City Council, at
least four (4) of whom shall reside within the City limits. One (1) member may be appointed who
resides outside the City limits. The Mayor and City Manager shall be nonvoting members of the
board. Any member wishing reappointment to the Water and Sewer Board shall so inform the City
Manager by written letter prior to the expiration of his or her term.

2.24.030 - Term of office.

The term of office shall be three (3) years, beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of the respective
years. The existing members of the Water and Sewer Board shall automatically be members of
the Water and Sewer Board for the period remaining on their existing terms on the Water Board.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A

DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL:

Staff is seeking direction from the Council on 1) the process for filling boards and commission
vacancies from applications received, and 2) whether an alternate shall be appointed to the
planning commission.

Staff suggests the following points for discussion and direction about the appointment process:
 The process used most recently: staff interviews qualified applicants and
recommends appointees to the Council for further consideration and final
appointment;
 A process whereby Council would designate 2-3 members to join 2-3 staff
members to interview qualified applicants and recommend appointees to the
Council for final appointment; or
 A process whereby the Council, as a body, interviews qualified applicants
and determines the appointees.
 EVANS PLANNING COMMISSION
PC MEMBER TITLE APPOINTED EXPIRATION
Deborah Linn Chairman 5/20/2016 5/16/2021

Billy Castillo Vice-Chair 7/7/2015 7/7/2020

Julie Lowe Commissioner 5/20/2015 5/20/2020

Steve Bernardo Commissioner 5/16/2017 5/16/2022

Dan Usery Commissioner 5/16/2017 5/16/2022

 WATER AND SEWER BOARD
NAME TITLE APPOINTED EXPIRATION
Jeff Oyler Chairman 7/18/2017 6/30/2020

James Krenzel Vice-Chairman 7/18/2017 6/30/2020

Glenn Snyder Boardmember 7/18/2017 6/30/2020

Randy Blewer Boardmember 7/18/2017 6/30/2020

Vacancy
 EVANS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NAME TITLE APPOINTED EXPIRATION
Martin "Marty"
Chairman 3/15/2010 3/15/2015
Schanwolf
John Clark Boardmember 2/21/2012 1/1/2017

Vacancy

Vacancy

Vacancy