HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Packet 10/22/20126:45 p.m. Pre-Meeting
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
October 22, 2012
7:00p.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director, 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
ROLLCALL OF MEMBERS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 8, 2012
PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES
Starburst Award for Discovery Park
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
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
Council Bill20-2012-An Ordinance approving the Comprehensive Rezoning of
property along West 38th Ave. between Sheridan and Wadsworth to the Mixed Use-
Neighborhood (MU-N) Zone District (Case No . WZ-12-04)
Council Bill23-2012-An Ordinance approving a City-Initiated Rezoning of property
located at 7750 Three Acre Lane from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C) (Case NO. WZ 12-05)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: October 22, 2012 Page -2-
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING con't
3. Council Bill 25-2012 -An Ordinance amending Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws concerning certain Escrow Agreements as security for Public Improvements
4. Public Hearing on the 2013 Proposed Budget
DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
5. Motion to approve the First Amendment to the T-Mobile West Tower Lease
§. Resolution 51-2012-A Resolution approving a Cooperative Agreement with the
Environmental Protection Agency for acceptance of a $400,000 Brownfields
Assessment Grant and amending the Fiscal Year 20912 General Fund Budget to reflect
the approval of a Supplemental Budget Appropriation in the amount of $50,000
7 . Resolution 52-2012 -A Resolution approving submittal of the application for a 2013
Local Government Grant to Jefferson County Open Space for Development of a District
II Neighborhood Park
8. Motion to award RFQ-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation Design/Build Contract to
White Construction Group in the amount of $134,449 and approve a Contingency
Amount of $13,445
9. Motion to cancel the Study Session of November 5, 2012 due to the General Election
Date of November 6, 2012
CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS
CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS
ADJOURN to Executive Session
1. City Manager Annual Evaluation
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
October 8, 2012
Mayor DiTullio called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00p.m.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Davis Reinhart Bud Starker
Joyce Jay Kristi Davis
Mike Stites George Pond
Joseph DeMott Tracy Langworthy
Also present: City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; Police Chief,
Daniel Brennan; Public Works Director, Tim Paranto; Community Development Director,
Ken Johnstone; Parks and Recreation Director, Joyce Manwaring; City Treasurer, Larry
Schulz; other staff, interested parties and interested citizens.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 24, 2012
Motion by Mr. Stites for approval of the Minutes of September 24, 2012; seconded by
Mr. Starker; carried 8-0.
CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK
Gay Porter DeNileon from the Cultural Commission announced three upcoming events
they have planned called "Meet the Artist". These are opportunities to meet local artists.
• Thursday, October 18th, at Gat's Paw Yoga, 44th & Cody from 7-9pm meet
Deborah Sanders, a glass works artist. Her "Birds on a Wire", a series of glass
birds, is on display at the Arvada Center.
• Nov 15th I at 1st Bank Center, photographer, Patty Berry Levy
• Jan 17th, painter Katie Hoffman
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Mr. Reinhart to defer agenda Item No. 6 to a future Study Session for
discussion; seconded by Mr. Starker; carried 8-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
,L Council Bill21-2012-An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning the
creation of an Industrial-Employment Zone District.
Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes October 8, 2012 Page2
Mr. Stites introduced Agenda Item 1.
Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance No. 1523.
Creating the 1-E zone district will provide more flexibility for the development of industrial
areas by changing some special uses to allowed uses, adding more modern uses to the
list of permitted uses, updating development standards and providing for application
directly to 1-E rather than requiring the Planned Industrial Development process which is
lengthy, expensive and difficult.
Staff Report
Mr. Johnstone added that this action is consistent with the goals for the comprehensive
plan to provide more job opportunities. This will affect 4% of the City's land that is
currently zoned Industrial and is located primarily along the 1-70 corridor. Some set-
backs requirements were reduced and building facade standards were also upgraded.
Public Comment none
Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Stites to approve Council Bill No. 21-2012, an ordinance amending
Chapter 26 concerning the creation of an industrial-employment zone district and that it
take effect 15 days after final publication ; seconded by Mr. Reinhart and Mr. DeMott;
carried 8-0.
2. Council Bill 22-2012-An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning the
review process for Public Schools .
Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pond introduced Agenda Item 2.
Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance No. 1524.
Currently the City requires a Special Use Permit (SUP) process for the opening of public
and private schools. The state has adopted legislation regulating how much
municipalities can and can't do with regard to the siting and construction/expansion of
public and charter schools. As a result our code is in conflict with state law. Adoption of
this ordinance will bring our Code into compliance with Colorado law and eliminate
neighborhood meetings, public input and public hearings.
Staff Report
Ken Johnstone added that the SUP process will stay in place for trade schools, private
schools, colleges and universities to address things like traffic, parking, activity level and
neighborhood impact.
City Council Minutes October 8, 2012 Page 3
Public Comment none
Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Pond to approve Council Bill No. 22-2012, an ordinance amending
Chapter 26 concerning the review process for public schools and that it take effect 15
days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Stites; carried 8-0
3. Council Bill 24-2012-An Ordinance amending Chapter 21-107 of the Wheat
Ridge Code of Laws to permit waiver of Insurance Requirements for certain
Long-Term Right-Of-Way Permits.
Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Langworthy introduced Agenda Item 3.
Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance No. 1525.
Staff Report
Some right-of-way permits authorize semi-permanent improvements such as fences,
walls, etc. Such permits are currently good for five years . This amendment would:
• allow such "long-term" permits to be issued without a defined termination date,
• continue to require City indemnification, and
• remove the requirement that insurance certificates be provided to the City.
Long-term permits would be recorded against the affected properties to ensure that
future property owners would be aware of the permits.
Public Comment none
Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mrs. Langworthy to approve Council Bill No. 24-2012, an ordinance
amending Chapter 21-107 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to permit waiver of
insurance requirements for certain long term right-of-way permits on second reading
and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Starker; carried 8-
0.
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
4. Council Bill No. 25-2012-An Ordinance amending Section 5-45 of the Wheat
Ridge Code of Laws concerning certain Escrow Agreements as Security for
Public Improvements.
City Council Minutes October 8, 2012 Page4
Mr. Reinhart introduced Agenda Item 4.
The City currently owns 14 escrows for public improvements associated with
commercial and industrial properties. If ever done, these improvements will be far, far
into the future. The amount of money involved is $124,172.20, and includes projects
that range from 2 years ago to 15 years ago. The Council could either deposit the funds
into the City's Public Improvement Fund or refund the money to the original depositors.
Council has agreed to refund the money to the original depositors.
Motion by Mr. Reinhart to approve Council Bill No . 25-2012, an ordinance amending
Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning certain escrow agreements
as security for public improvements, on first reading, order it published, public hearing
set for Monday, October 22, 2012 at 7 :00 p.m . in the City Council Chambers, and that it
take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. DeMott; carried 8-0.
DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
Q.. Resolution No. 50-2012 -A Resolution approving the recommendation of the
Cultural Commission to accept a bronze fox sculpture donated by the Arts
Council of Wheat Ridge.
Resolution No . 50-2012 was introduced by Mrs. Jay.
The Cultural Commission has recommended that Council accept the donation.
Motion by Mrs. Jay to approve Resolution No. 50-2012-A Resolution approving the
recommendation of the Cultural Commission to accept a bronze fox sculpture donated
by the Arts Council of Wheat Ridge; seconded by Mr. Starker and Langworthy;
Public Comment
Tom Abbott of the Arts Council of Wheat Ridge explained the process they went
through raising funds, having the sculpture done by local bronze artist Bonnie Trujillio-
Dixon, and getting it donated to the City. He thanked the Cultural Commission and Mrs.
Marwaring for their work on the accession and placement of the sculpture. The
sculpture will be incorporated into some new landscaping work that will happen soon in
front of City Hall and he thanked the City for putting the sculpture in such a prominent
place.
Don MacDougall of the Arts Council also spoke and wanted everyone to know that Mr.
Abbott has generously donated the large rock on which the sculpture will be mounted.
The motion carried 8-0.
City Council Minutes October 8, 2012 Page 5
§. Motion to award RFQ-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation Design/Build
Contract to White Construction Group in the amount of $134,449 and approve a
contingency amount of $13,445 .
This agenda item was postponed.
CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS none
ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS
Janelle Shaver reminded folks that tomorrow (Oct. 9) is the last day to register to vote
this November. She also explained an error that will appear on Wheat Ridge ballots.
An Edgewater Fire District question was inadvertently added to Wheat Ridge ballots as
a Wheat Ridge Fire District question . When this was discovered it was too late to
remove the question from those ballots. You need not vote on the Wheat Ridge Fire
District issue. Any votes for it are irrelevant and will not be counted.
Mayor DiTullio mentioned a new flier that is circulating which advertises the
businesses along 44th Avenue.
Mr. DeMott thanked Heidi at Swiss Flowers for her time creating the "44" flier and
paying for the printing. The card will be available at businesses all along the 44th
Avenue Corridor from Ward Road to Harlan. Shoppers are encouraged to check it out.
Mrs. Langworthy thanked Councilmembers Stites and Pond for attending the Walk to
School Day at Prospect Valley Elementary School.
Mr. Stites suggested the idea that neighbors could share the cost and go together on
the purchase of a snow blower for their neighborhood . Sharing the cost would make it
less expensive and make it easier for everyone to get the job done.
Meeting adjourned at 7 :39pm
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON October 22 ,2012 BY A VOTE OF to
Mike Stites, Mayor pro tern
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 .
... ~l~
... ~ r City of •
:prWheatRi_dge
ITEM NO:
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 20-2012 AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE REZONING OF
PROPERTY ALONG 38TH A VENUE BETWEEN SHERIDAN
AND WADSWORTH TO THE MIXED USE-
NEIGHBORHOOD (MU-N) ZONE DISTRICT (CASE NO.
WZ-12-04)
D PUBLIC HEARING
D BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (09/24/2012)
C8J ORDINANCES FOR 2 ND READING (10/22/2012)
0 YES
The City's adopted plans , including Envision Wheat Ridge and the 38th Avenue Corridor Plan,
call for the redevelopment of381h Avenue with mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development. The
current zoning on 38th Avenue contains outdated development standards and makes compact,
mixed use development difficult to achieve. The Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) zone
district, adopted by City Council in 2010, was designed to promote quality, mixed use
development on corridors like 38th Avenue.
In order to advance the City's goal of promoting a mixed use main street on 381h Avenue, the
City initiated a comprehensive rezoning of properties along the corridor, between Sheridan and
Wadsworth, to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N).
PRIOR ACTION:
City Council adopted a resolution to initiate the rezoning on July 9 , 2012. City Council also held
a Study Session on the rezoning on June 4 , 2012. Planning Commission recommended approval
of the ordinance at a public hearing on September 6 , 2012. Draft meeting minutes from the
Planning Commission Public Hearing are included as Attachment 3.
WZ-12-04
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. However,
the new zoning should enable redevelopment that will advance the City's goals for economic
development and the creation of a diverse and resilient tax base.
BACKGROUND:
The property to be rezoned includes 159 properties on or near 381h Avenue between Sheridan and
Wadsworth. The properties in the rezoning area contain a wide range ofland uses including
restaurant , retail , service, office, multifamily and some single family residential.
Existing Zoning
The existing zoning is primarily commercial but includes many zone districts: Neighborhood
Commercial (N-C), Restricted-Commercial (R-C), Commercial-One (C-1), Commercial-Two
(C-2), Planned Commercial Development (PCD), Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD),
and Residential-Three (R-3). There are a few properties with lower density residential zone
districts: Residential-Two (R-2), Residential-One A (R-IA), and Residential-One B (R-IB).
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
The proposed rezoning area is surrounded by both commercial and residential zoning. To the
west , the area is bordered by commercial and mixed use zoning on Wadsworth. To the east , there
is a mix of commercial and residential zoning on Sheridan. The north and south are residential
zone districts. The majority of the residential areas to the north and south contain single-and
two-family homes but there are some multi-family properties adjacent to the rezoning area ,
especially to the south.
Adopted Plans for 381h A venue
The City is proposing that the subject property be rezoned to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N),
a zone district designed for neighborhood commercial corridors that is intended to support mixed
use development. It allows for commercial and neighborhood-serving retail uses , as well as
residential uses (including single-family, two-family, and multi-family). The proposed zoning is
consistent with the City's adopted plans for the 38th Avenue corridor.
Comprehensive Plan (2009)
Envision Wheat Ridge, the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2009, establishes 38th Avenue as the
City's main street. It identifies the street, between Sheridan and Wadsworth , as one of five
priority redevelopment areas and notes that the existing "checkerboard" zoning is a challenge to
redevelopment. The plan calls for a subarea, or corridor plan , to be developed for 38th Avenue to
develop specific recommendations related to land use , urban design, and economic development.
3811 Avenue Corridor Plan (2011)
The 38th Avenue Corridor Plan, adopted in 2011 , establishes a vision for the revitalization of the
corridor into a mixed use main street. The Corridor Plan's Land Use and Urban Design
Recommendation 4.3-1 calls for rezoning the street to mixed use zoning in order to remove the
outdated patchwork of zoning and to establish zoning that supports the vision for a mixed use
main street. The plan recommends MU-N as the most appropriate zone district to fulfill this goal.
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page3
Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N)
The MU-N zone district is intended for neighborhood main streets and commercial corridors. It
encourages medium-density mixed use development. It allows for neighborhood-serving
commercial and retail uses, as well as residential and civic land uses.
Allowed Uses
The MU-N zone district allows a range of commercial, retail, civic, and residential uses. The
current commercial and residential zone districts on 38th A venue contain regulations that make
mixing land uses (such as live-work units or a mixed use building with retail on the ground floor
and apartments above) very difficult to achieve. Under the MU-N zoning, these restrictions
would be removed.
The MU-N zoning does contain several conditional uses, which are uses that are more likely to
impact adjacent properties. These conditional uses include car repair, drive-through uses, gas
stations, and large-scale retail uses (over 60,000 GSF in size). New or expanding conditional
uses require an additional administrative review, through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), to
ensure that the building and site design have as few negative impacts as possible. Gas stations
and drive-through uses also have separation requirements to ensure that they do not dominate
one particular area.
Building Height and Density
The MU-N zone district matches the height and density restrictions contained in the City
Charter. For residential density, the limit is 21 units per acre. For building height, buildings with
residential uses may not exceed 35 feet and all other buildings may not exceed 50 feet.
Open Space Requirements
Under the MU-N zoning, 15% of the net development area must be open space for single-use
development. Mixed-use development has a 10% open space requirement. At least 75% of all
open space must be usable open space, such as parks and plazas.
Residential Transitions
In an effort to protect existing residential neighborhoods, the MU-N zone district contains
specific requirements for new development that is adjacent to residential uses . Where any
parking lot or drive-through abuts a lot that has a residential use, screening must be provided,
including a six-foot tall wall/fence or hedge and a six-foot wide landscaped buffer. For any new
building that is adjacent to a lot with a single-or two-family residential use that has residential or
agricultural zoning, the following regulations apply:
• A minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer for 1-2 story buildings. The buffer must be 15
feet wide for a three story building, and 20 feet wide for buildings four stories or taller.
• In addition to the landscaped buffer, buildings over two stories must step the upper floors
back an additional five feet per story for the 3rd and 4th stories.
• Any portion of a building within 1 00 feet of a residential use may not be taller than four
stories (except where an arterial or collector street separates the new building from the
residential use).
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page4
Architectural Standards
With the goal of ensuring high-quality development, the MU-N zone district contains
architectural standards. The design standards include:
• Requirements for fac;ade articulation and material quality and variation
• A build-to requirement that places buildings close to the street, with parking at the side or
in the rear
• Transparency requirements at the ground floor to help create active and interesting
ground floor facades
• Screening and placement requirements for drive-throughs
• Screening requirements for utilities and loading areas
Process
Outreach to Property Owners
Outreach to property owners regarding mixed use zoning started in the spring of 2010, when the
City was working on the content of the mixed use code. In April 20 I 0, the City hosted a Mixed
Use Zoning Forum for 38th Avenue. Based on survey results from that meeting, which included
property owners, business owners, and residents who live close to the street, there was 87%
interest in a City-initiated rezoning to mixed use. At the time, the City chose to delay a
legislative rezoning until the 38th A venue Corridor Plan was complete.
Once the Corridor Plan was adopted, staff, per the direction of City Council, re-initiated outreach
to property owners on the topic of the rezoning. At this time, a specific rezoning area was
developed based on the following criteria:
Property has frontage on 38th A venue
Property does not front on 38th Avenue, but is in the 38th Avenue Urban Renewal Area
Property does not front on 38th Avenue, but currently has commercial zoning and touches
a property that does front 3 81h A venue
Does not create split-zoning for the same property
Include commercially-zoned residential properties that are adjacent to rezoning area and
will become conforming under the MU-N zoning
Using these criteria, staff developed a rezoning area and contacted all property and business
owners in that area via two targeted mailings . First, 164 property owners and 182 businesses
with active business licenses in the area were notified by mail of an informational meeting
regarding the potential rezoning. The meeting was held on April 11 and approximately nine
people attended. City staff gave a presentation about the proposed zoning and the process for a
City-initiated rezoning. There were several questions from the meeting attendees about how the
proposed zoning would impact their property, especially for car repair and car sales businesses.
Second, on April 1 0, 2012, staff mailed a feedback form to all 164 property owners and 182
business owners. The form included a map of the proposed rezoning area, information on why
the City is considering a rezoning, and asked for a response within 30 days . Of the surveys
received, 73% of property owners said that they would like to be included in the rezoning, 18 %
(6) said that they would not, and 9% (3) said that they were undecided. Per the direction of City
Council, staff contacted all of those who responded negatively or undecided to ensure that they
had the correct information. After that outreach, four property owners still did not want to be
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 5
rezoned. These four properties are not included in the rezoning area. There was also one property
owner who remained undecided and City Council removed that property from the rezoning area
upon first reading of the ordinance.
Based on input from City Council, the rezoning ordinance also includes an option for property
owners to be removed from the rezoning area within 30 days after the adoption of the ordinance.
The Community Development Director will remove any property for which an owner submits a
written request for removal within this 30-day period.
All property owners within the rezoning area were also notified by mail ofthe neighborhood
meeting on August 8 and recently received a letter notifying them about the public hearing dates
for both Planning Commission and City Council.
Rezoning Criteria
City Council 's decision on the proposed rezoning shall be based on the facts outlined in section
26-112.E. Staff has provided an analysis ofthe zone change criteria, outlined as follows :
1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community
and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area.
The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and will
not adversely affect the surrounding area. The new zoning is not anticipated to allow uses that
are more intensive than the existing zoning allows. The MU-N zoning contains required
residential transitions for new development that will help protect the character of these
neighborhoods. Any proposed new development will be reviewed for traffic impacts and
drainage through the required Site Plan review process. More intensive uses, such as car repair
and drive-throughs, would have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to evaluate site design
and impacts on the surrounding area.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses aUowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist
or are under capacity.
Prior to new development under the MU-N zoning, a Site Plan Review application will be
required. This application will includ e a referral to all impacted utility agencies. In the event
that current capacity is not adequate, utility upgrades will be required when the future
development scenario is known.
S taff concludes that this criterion has been met.
3. City Council shaD also fmd that at least one (1) of the foUowing conditions exists:
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page6
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance,
with the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and
other related policies or plans for the area.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies and goals in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the 38th A venue Corridor Plan. Both plans call for creating a Main Street with a mix
of uses, including commercial and residential, that will activate the street and encourage
redevelopment. The proposed MU-N zoning, which encourages mixed use development and
contains design standards, directly fits with these goals.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the
City of Wheat Ridge is in error.
There is no known error in the existing recorded zoning.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that
it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the
changing character of the area.
The 38 1h Avenue corridor has seen significant change over the past few decades.
Underutilized land and vacancies led City Council and Urban Renewal Authority to adopt the
38th Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan, which designated an Urban Renewal Area on the
corridor in 2001. More recently, 38th Avenue has been the target area for major City
investments in the form of a lane reconfiguration and beautification project, as well as
funding to develop a branding/marketing strategy to capture new growth along the corridor.
The proposed MU-N zoning is intended to complement these efforts to revitalize the street
and encourage redevelopment of the corridor.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that
was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge
comprehensive plan.
The proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 7
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed MU-N zone district would encourage the type of quality, mixed use development
that is called for in the City's plans for 38 1h Avenue . Key aspects of the MU-N zone district that
would promote the mixed use redevelopment of this site include:
• A streamlined development review process
• A wide range of allowable land uses
• Architectural standards , such as build-to requirements and ground floor transparency, that
encourage quality design
• Requirements for residential transitions that will help protect the existing residential
neighborhood close to the site.
For these reasons, the proposed rezoning would help advance redevelopment of a priority
redevelopment area within the City, enabling high-quality mixed use development that
fulfills the City's adopted plans for a main street on 38th Avenue.
Per Council's previous direction to remove any property owners who do not wish to be
included in the rezoning area, staff is recommending that the property at 6965-85 W. 38th
A venue is removed from the rezoning map since the owner remains undecided.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 20-2012 , an ordinance approving the comprehensive
rezoning of property along 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth to the Mixed
Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) zone district on second reading and that it take effect 30 days
after final publication."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely the ordinance approving the rezoning of property along
38 1h Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth to the Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N)
zone district for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED BY;
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 20-2012
2 . Neighborhood Meeting Notes
3 . Draft Planning Commission Meeting Notes
TITLE:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 20
ORDINANCE NO. ___ _
Series 2012
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
REZONING OF PROPERTY ALONG WEST 38TH AVENUE
BETWEEN SHERIDAN AND WADSWORTH TO THE MIXED
USE-NEIGHBORHOOD (MU-N) ZONE DISTRICT (CASE NO.
WZ-12-04)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by Section
26-113 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to initiate rezoning of property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat adopted a resolution on July 9,
2012 initiating the rezoning of property located along 38th Avenue to Mixed Use-
Neighborhood (MU-N); and
WHEREAS, the Envision Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009
and the 38th Avenue Corridor Plan was adopted in 2011; and
WHEREAS, both plans recommend that the 38th Avenue corridor redevelop into
a mixed use main street with commercial, retail, and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the existing zoning designations in this area are outdated and make
mixed use development difficult to achieve; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning of the property to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N)
would support City's adopted policies for the corridor to redevelop over time with a mix
of uses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission held a public hearing
on September 6, 2012 and voted to recommend approval of rezoning to Mixed Use-
Neighborhood (MU-N).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to the findings made based on testimony and evidence presented
at the public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, Mixed Use-Neighborhood
(MU-N) zoning is approved for the following land :
Attachment 1
The area located generally along West 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth,
as shown on the map below. The area to be rezoned includes adjacent right-of-way,
extending to the centerline of that
· L JF J r 4JROAVE
Iii ~-~lt 42NOAVE ~ 1
:-2 Jf:ll:! 1.---~
Section 2: Approval of this zoning does not create a vested property right. Vested
property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of Section 26-121
of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge.
Section 3: Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds , determines , and declares
that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat
Ridge , that it is promulgated for the health , safety and welfare of the public and that this
Ord i nance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection
of public convenience and welfare . The City Council further determines that the
Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative objective sought to be
attained .
Section 4: Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section ,
subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid , the validity of the remaining sections , subsections and clauses shall
not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of the ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed .
Section 5: Effective Date . This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after final
publication , as permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter. Prior to said effective date , any
owner of real property within the area rezoned described in Section 1 hereof may
request that his or her property be removed from the area rezoned. Such request shall
be in writing , shall describe with particularity the property requested to be removed from
the area rezoned , shall be signed by all owners of record of said real property, and shall
be de livered to the Director of Community Development. Upon receipt of a proper,
signed request within the time period specified in this Section 5, said property shall be
removed from the area rezoned and shall retain the zone designation applicable to it
prior to the passage of this Ordinance.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 7 to 0 on
this 24th day of September, 2012, ordered it published with Public Hearing and
consideration of final passage set for Monday, October 22nd, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and that it takes
effect 30 days after final publication
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to __ , this day of , 2012 .
SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of _______ , 2012.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication: September 27, 2012
Second Publication: __________ _
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Effective Date: ____________ _
.. ~"~
.... r-City of --~Wheat&_dge ~OMMUNilY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29'h A ve . Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235 .285 7
Meeting Date:
Attending Staff:
Location of Meeting:
Land Use Proposal:
Attendees:
Existing Zoning:
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
August 8, 2012
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
City-initiated rezoning ofW. 38th Avenue to Mixed Use-
Neighborhood (MU-N)
Gene Wallachy
Cathy Fonk
Cletus Kaup
Marcella Kaup
Gladys Leonardi
Deb Ogden
Justen Ogden
Caroline Mallory
Choc Kettering
Pamela Sixta Matthews
Ellen Goodnight
Philip Czajkowski
Judy Wonning
Rob McLeod
Rene Redford
Margaret Gese
Pat Huizinga
Glick Huizinga
Dan Huizinga
Denise Balkas
James Johnson
Larry Disher
Earl Wonning
Britta Fisher
Bill Cosselmon
Paul Slingsby
Bea Slingsby
Tom Lix
Gary Goodnight
Chris Boardman
Judy Thornton
Sam Ciotola
Steve Dyer
Daniel Feimster
Todd
Jill Farnham
A.J. Barron
Jean Nations
Pete Croonquist
B.J . Dores
Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted Commercial (R-C),
Commercial-One (C-1), Commercial-Two (C-2), Planned
Commercial Development (PCD), Planned Mixed Use
Development (PMUD), Residential-Three (R-3), Residential -Two
(R-2 ), Residential -One A (R-1A), and Residential -One B (R-IB).
Attachment 2
www.ci.wh eatridge.co.u s
Comprehensive Plan: Main Street Corridor; Neighborhood Commercial Corridor;
Neighborhood Buffer; Primary Gateway
Existing Site Conditions: The proposed area for rezoning encompasses approximately 100 acres and
160 properties along 38th A venue between Sheridan and Wadsworth. The properties that compose the
rezoning area consist of a wide range of commercial and residential uses. The existing zoning is
primarily commercial but includes many zone districts : Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted-
Commercial (R-C), Commercial-One (C-1), Commercial-Two (C-2), Planned Commercial Development
(PCD), Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD}, and Residential-Three (R-3). There are a few
properties with lower density residential zone districts: Residential-Two (R-2), Residential-One A (R-
1 A), and Residential-One B (R-1 B). The properties in the rezoning area contain a wide range of land
uses including restaurant/retail , service, office, multifamily and some single family residential.
Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The proposal is a City-initiated , comprehensive rezoning of
the 38th Avenue corridor. 38th Avenue is designated in the City's plans as the main street for Wheat
Ridge . The Comprehensive Plan, Envision Wheat Ridge , identifies the street as one of five priority
redevelopment areas in the City. In October 2011 , the City adopted the 38t h Avenue Corridor Plan,
which contai ns a detailed strategy for revitalizing the corridor into a vibrant main street with a range of
uses, including commercial , retail , and residential. One of the major recommendations in the Corridor
Plan is to rezone 381h Avenue to the Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) zone district. This zoning is
intended for neighborhood commercial corridors. It allows for commercial and neighborhood serving
retail uses , as well as residential uses (including single family , two family , and multi-family). The
zoning would enable the quality, mixed-use development envisioned for the corridor over time. On July
9 , 2012 , City Council adopted a resolution to initiate the rezoning of 38th A venue.
The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting:
• Staff presented a 30-minute overview of the proposal. The presentation addressed the following
topics :
o Purpose of the neighborhood meeting
o History of the formation of the four mixed use zone districts
o History of the City 's planning efforts along the corridor, including Envision Wheat Ridge
and the 38th Avenue Corridor Plan
o Overview of the current zoning and proposed rezoning area
o Explanation of the criteria used to establish the proposed rezoning boundary
o Overview of the Mixed Use-Neighborhood zone district, including: allowable uses ,
architectural standards , and residential buffers and transitions
o Overview of the rezoning process
o Overview of the site development process (assuming MU-N zoning is approved),
including the concept plan and site plan review procedures
• Staff informed attendees of the anticipated Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings. The hearings are required parts of the rezoning process at which members of the
public will be able to comment on the proposal. Staff anticipates public hearings in September
and October, and official notification of the public hearing dates will be posted on the City
website and in the Transcript newspaper.
2
The following issues were discussed regarding the rezoning proposal:
• Since there is only one vacant lot on the corridor [at Depew and 38 1h], how does the zoning help the
whole corridor?
It's true that there is very little undeveloped land on the corridor, but there are also vacant and
aging buildings throughout the corridor. The zoning will not only affect the development of the
vacant parcel, but it will also affect future tenants of existing buildings. The MU-N zoning will
give more flexibility for future tenants, and it will also allow rehab of buildings to become mixed
use with commercial and residential tenants. The MU-N zoning will be more attractive to new
businesses despite there being very little vacant land.
• Does the rezoning process overrule existing covenants?
The city does not enforce private covenants, so the zoning is not affected. Whoever enforces the
covenants (such as an HOA) could absolve the covenants or theoretically challenge a new use in
court.
• The MU-N zone district has lower parking ratios than the current zoning. What does that mean?
Standard commercial zone districts such as C-1 and R-C ask[or lots off-street parking and the
MU-N district relaxes that standard. Many properties on 38'' Avenue are small parcels, and
current standards are a burden because the sites cannot accommodate large off-street parking
lots and still have space for a business. The MU-N zoning will allow reduced parking
requirements where bike parking is provided and where there is adjacent on-street parking on
W. 38'11 Avenue.
It should be noted that the reduced parking standards are not applicable to all use categories.
The standards have been primarily relaxed for retail and restaurant uses. Schools, hospitals,
and other higher-intensity uses will still need to provide sufficient off-street parking. [There was
discussion of specific parking issues related to existing businesses; Sarah offered to talk to
residents off-line regarding existing parking complaints that may be handled through Code
Enforcement.}
• Over the last 45 years, I've seen lots of changes on W. 38th Avenue-how long will this effort last?
Staff appreciates that there have been lots of different planning initiatives over the years. The
recently adopted corridor plan sets a framework for the street for the next 20 years. Zoning is
actually one ofthe more permanent features ofW. 38'11 Avenue-most ofthe zoning that is in
place today has been in place since at least the 1970s. Staff hopes that the MU-N zoning would
likewise stay in place long enough to result in changes to the uses and buildings on the corridor.
There is momentum amongst the Leadership Committee and there are 14 new businesses that
have opened on 38'11 Avenue this year alone. Staff is hopeful the momentum continues and the
zoning will be an integral part in continuing to attract new uses to the corridor.
• How will the reconfiguration of the road and the presence of bike lanes affect snow removal in the
winter? I'm afraid it will cost the City more money.
While not related to the z oning of private property, the issue of snow removal was raised by the
Leadership Committee early in the process. The committee has met with the Public Works
Department to develop a strategy. In the case of a snow event, there are two options: pile the
snow or remove the snow. Because snow removal and transport is costly, snow will be plowed
3
into a designated on-street parking space. Large snow events may result in the temporary loss of
on-street parking spaces until the snow pile has melted.
• How will zoning impact street intersections?
While everything on 38'" Avenue is connected and affects the experience of the corridor-such as
street design, building and site designs, businesses, and land uses-zoning only dictates how you
can use and develop private property. Zoning has no impact on street design.
• What has been the reaction to the street redesign?
We have received lots of comment including positive and negative feedback. Out of respect for
people's time, please limit comments to the proposed rezoning and we can discuss the street at
the end of the meeting or privately.
• What are the requirements for landscaping next to the street and sidewalk?
The zoning requires landscaping between the sidewalk and a parking area, but not necessarily
between the sidewalk and a building. A different document-the Streetscape Design Manual-
has requirements for landscaping between the street and the sidewalk. This area is called the
tree lawn and a good example is adjacent to the new Chase Bank near 38'" and Vance. When a
building expands by 50% or more, or when a site is completely redeveloped, the tree lawn is a
required improvement.
• The goal seems to be to make 38 1h A venue a more vibrant area with more vibrant businesses, but
there are large areas on 38 1h that are pretty set in stone-for example, some office buildings, and the
tall Highlands apartment, and nursing homes. How will those areas change and how do you get
consistency from Sheridan to Wadsworth?
Consistent zoning on the corridor is the best hope for a consistent physical environment, but we
do recognize that it will not mean eve1ything changes. The City-initiated zone change paves the
way for private development to initiate change. The City cannot force existing structures to
come into conformance with the MU-N zoning; we cannot incentivize investment through zoning,
but we have other economic development tools for that purpose.
Existing uses such as Highlands South are integral parts of the corridor that provide density and
residents to support local businesses. The corridor plan recognizes that the entire street will not
be the exact same, and for that reason the plan breaks the street into three districts: a main
street district, a residential district, and a more traditional commercial district on the east end.
While the uses and densities and buildings may vary the MU-N zoning accommodates all three
districts.
• I live on 38th Avenue in a single family home that is zoned Restricted Commercial (RC). What is
the benefit to me to rezone to MU-N?
A single family home zoned RC is currently considered a legal nonconforming use because the
zoning doesn 'tallow for new single family homes. In the MU-N district a single family home is a
permitted use, so by rezoning you would become a legal and conforming use which is considered
a benefit.
• How does the zoning affect neighborhood restaurants or liquor laws?
The zoning encourages restaurant uses, but does not affect liquor licensing. The City has a
Council-appointed Liquor License Authority that reviews and approves liquor license requests.
4
Several new licenses have been issued lately, but again neither the current nor the proposed
zoning has an impact on that process.
• Assuming the corridor is rezoned, what is the City's position when a residential property owner is
approached by a commercial developer but doesn't want to sell?
The City has no role in a private negotiation or land transaction. If a commercial developer
comes to the City looking for property, we can try to help match them with a willing seller.
• Is my property in the rezoning area?
Sarah offered to look at the large scale map with anyone trying to determine if they are within
the proposed rezoning area.
• If the zoning changes is the City going to look for businesses to relocate to 38th A venue?
Regardless of the zoning, the City's Economic Development Manager is always looking to
attract businesses to 38h Avenue and to all parts of Wheat Ridge. The MU-N zoning will likely
be more attractive to potential businesses and developers because it is more predictable and
more flexible in terms of permitting residential and commercial uses.
• Will the neighborhood have input regarding which new businesses come to 38th Avenue?
Businesses open and close on a daily basis throughout the city, and there is typically no public
review. In the mixed use districts, most site approvals are administrative. There is an
opportunity for public input if a development site is 10 acres or larger. This will be a rare
occurrence on 3811 Avenue but is possible if someone assembles land.
• Where can I find the descriptions of other zone districts?
Descriptions of all zone districts are available on the City's website (www.ci. wheatridge.co. us )
on the Community Development Department's "Zoning" web page. Citizens may also contact
the department or Sarah directly.
• The handouts say that a conditional use is reviewed by the Community Development Director for
impacts such as gas , noise, etc? There is shooting range on 38th Avenue already that I can hear
constantly from my house. Is there anything that you can do about that noise?
It sounds like there could be nuisance issues. For an existing business that is generating noise,
the Police Department enforces and monitors noise nuisance and impacts and you could contact
their code enforcement officers.
• Are the recent physical changes to 38th A venue permanent and will there be additional public
meetings?
The changes along 38h Avenue are considered a pilot project that will be in place and monitored
for a period of about 12 to 18 months. At that point, staff, City Council, and the Leadership
Committee among others will assess what worked and what didn 't work related to the street
design. If the community wants permanent changes related to the street design, there will be
additional public meetings and financing will be a major consideration.
While the street changes and the zoning are both recommendations of the 3811 Avenue Corridor
Plan , they are not related. The proposed rezoning does not affect the street design.
5
• To whom can I give comment regarding the street design?
For more information or to provide comment, y ou may contact Sarah Showalter or Mark
Westberg.
• What is the grandfathering policy? Can an auto repair shop be sold and reopen?
A few existing uses-such as auto sales with outdoor display lots, auto repair with overnight
outdoor parking of vehicles, and car washes-would be legally nonconforming under the
proposed zoning. Legally nonconforming means that the use legally existed prior to the rezoning
but is not allowed under the new MU-N zoning.
Legally nonconforming uses are "grandfathered" in, meaning that they can remain in place and
are granted the following protections: they are allowed to remain in existence and transfer
ownership; they are allowed to rebuild if damaged; and they are allowed to expand by up to
2 5 %. The right to a nonconforming use is lost if the use is discontinued for 12 or more
consecutive months.
• Will the zone change affect property taxes?
Property taxes are assessed by the Jefferson County Assessor, and there is no correlation
between the zoning of a property and the assessed value. If investments are made under the
MU-N zoning on a property, then the improvements may have an effect on taxes. Likewise, if the
corridor revitalizes as a whole then property values may raise as the market goes up.
• I like the idea of having a tree lawn and landscaping between the street and the sidewalk. Will the
citizens be taxed to install something like that?
The Streetscape Design Manual is the document that outlines landscaping requirements between
the street and the sidewalk. When a building expands by 50% or more, or when a site is
completely redeveloped, the tree lawn is a required improvement which the developer must
install.
If the community wants a corridor wide installation of a permanent tree lawn and landscaping,
that would be part of permanent improvements after the pilot project. This would require public
meetings and financing would be a major consideration. If, for example, a tax initiative was
proposed to fund street improvements, it would have to be approved by the voters as a ballot
initiative.
In addition to the questions raised at the meeting, staff also received a few emails or phone calls
from neighbors in the surrounding areas. These consisted of questions about the intent of the
rezoning as well as one email in support of the rezoning.
6
,.~'~ .... ~ City of
?WheatRi_dge
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
September 6, 2012
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair TIMMS at 7:00p.m. in the City Council
Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
3.
4.
Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman
Monica Duran
Dick Matthews
Steve Timms
Amanda Weaver
Scott Ohm
en Johnst"One, Community Development
Director
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
auren Mikulak, Planner I
Deborah Baker, Recording Secretary
It was moved y o missioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner
BRINKMAN to a, pr e the order of the agenda. Motion passed 6-0.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-August 16, 2012
It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN
to approve the minutes of August 16, 2012, with the following amendment: On page
3 in paragraph 6, replace CHAIR TIMMS with STAFF. Motion passed 6-0.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda.)
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2012 Attachment 3
-1 -
Joyce Jay
4435 Carr St., Wheat Ridge, CO
Ms. Jay expressed her thanks for the work that the Planning Commission has done which
has allowed such great progress on 38 1h Avenue. She informed the Commission of the
Celebrate Ridge at 38 Grand Opening on Saturday, September 22"d. She expressed her
hope that the Commissioners will attend and help with a ribbon cutting and balloon
launch at lpm. There will be festivities throughout the day. Please contact her or Steve
Art for more information
7. PUBLIC BEARINGS
A . Case No. WZ-12-05: An application filed by the City of Wheat Ridge for a City-
initiated rezoning of property located at 7750 Three Acre Lane to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C).
This case was presented by Lauren MikU ak. She entered into public record the contents
of the case file , zoning ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and digital presentation. All
notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore , there is jurisdiction to hear
this case.
The proposed rezoning area includes one parcel whic was inadvertently excluded from
the July 2011 rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to C . Staff discovered the
omission when an agent contacted the City regarding devel ment options for the
property. The owner of the property was notified and requested that the parcel be rezoned
to MU-C as was originally intended. The subject property is currently zoned R-3 and
provides for single and two-family residential development but does not allow for
commercial uses.
Staff concludes that a City-initiated rezoning of the property will correct a past error,
increase development opportunities for the property, and fulfill the original intent of the
Wadsworth corridor rezoning. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the
zone change request, staff recommends approval.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked ifthe property owner has a development plan for the
site that is consistent with the mixed use zoning. Ms. Mikulak explained that the property
is currently on the market and staff is unaware of any development proposals for the site.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the minutes of the neighborhood meetings can
indicate who is a property owner or who is a renter, to indicate their interest in attending
the meetings. Ms. Mikulak explained that typically only name and address have been
requested when attendees sign in at a neighborhood meeting, but in the future they can ask
for more identifying information.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 2012
-2 -
Chair TIMMS asked if the unimproved area between the fence and the street is part of the
lot or part of the right-of-way. Ms. Mikulak explained the majority of this area is part of
the subject property.
Chair TIMMS closed the public hearing as no members of the public were present.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner OHM
to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-12-05, a request for a City-initiated zone
change from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) for property
located at 7750 Three Acre Lane, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan.
2. The subject property was inadvertently excluded from the July 11, 2011
rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to MU-C, and the proposed zone change
will correct the omission and fulfill the original intent of the Wadsworth
corridor rezoning.
3. Any applicant for future development under the proposed zoning will provide
adequate utility upgrades where needed.
4. The proposed zone cllange will not result in a significant adverse effect on the
surrounding area.
Motion passed 6-0.
B. Case No. WZ-12-04: A ity-initia ed rezoning of the 38th Avenue Corridor to Mixed
Use Neighborhood (MU-N).
P · r to introduction o is case, Cha·r TI S requested that he be recused from the case
ecause his property is surrounded on two sides by the rezoning area. It was moved by
Com"missioner WE ER a d seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to accept
Chair TIMMS' recu al. The otion passed 5-1, with Commissioner MATTHEWS
voting o. Commission r TIMM eft the Council Chambers following the vote.
This case wa resented by Sarah Showalter. She entered into record the case file and
packet materia Comp ehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, and contents of the digital
presentation.
The existing zoning for this area, which includes 160 properties, is mostly commercial but
contains residential zoning as well. There is a wide range ofland uses including
restaurant/retail, service, office, multifamily, and some single family residential. The City
is proposing that the subject property be rezoned to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N), a
zone district intended for neighborhood commercial corridors that is intended to support
mixed use development. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone
change request, staff is recommending approval of this request.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 2012
-3 -
There was no one wishing to speak on this case.
Commissioner OHM asked staff to clarify whether the number of property owners
excluded from the original rezoning area is three or four. Staff confirmed that it was four.
Commissioner OHM asked if existing car repair shops would become legally
nonconforming since they will require a conditional use permit (CUP) under the new
zoning. Ms. Showalter replied that the CUP is only required for new or expanding uses
and that existing car repair shops cannot become nonconforming just because they do not
have a CUP. However, the overnight outdoor storage of cars is not permitted under the
MU-N zoning so that portion of an existing business could become legally nonconforming.
Commissioner DURAN asked ifbusinesses with outdoor storage of vehicles overnight
would be required to stop that action once the zo ·ng is in place. Ms. Showalter explained
that they would not have to cease the storage of outdoor stora e overnight since that use
would be protected as a legally nonconforming use. They woul lo e the right to that
nonconforming use if the property were vacant for 12 consecutive onths or if the use
were discontinued voluntarily.
Commissioner MATTHEWS stated that he would like the wording on page 6 changed to
be very specific that any reques to b removed from the rezoning area within 30 days of
the ordinance's publication will be approved.
In reply to Comnussioner MATTHEWS' question regarding property taxes in mixed
development, Ms. Showaltenesponded th~t zoning aoes not impact the assessment of
taxes. The property is valued as a whole and the portion of the property that is
commercial is taxed at the commercial rare, and the portion that is residential is taxed at
the residential rate.
Commissioner WEAVER pressed co cern that mixed use zoning along the corridor
could potentially become prob ematic where it extends deeper than one property off of 38th
Avenue into residential neighborhoods. Ms. Showalter responded that the City is sensitive
to that point. The existing zoning map on page 2 shows that the areas where the proposed
rezoning goes back deeper are already zoned commercial in almost all locations. The MU-
N zoning actually has stricter requirements for buffering next to residential uses than the
current commercial zoning so staff sees the proposed change to MU-N as an improvement
for those adjacent residential areas.
Commissioner WEAVER asked about the implications to areas currently zoned R-3 if
commercial uses were to encroach into neighborhoods. Ms. Showalter confirmed that
could occur in a few places. For example, a comer coffee shop adjacent to a residential
area would be desirable. The City wants to encourage development where people will
enjoy getting out in their neighborhood and walking to nearby businesses.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2012
-4 -
Commissioner WEAVER asked ifthere is a review process for uses such as drive-through
business. Ms. Showalter responded that a drive-through would be required to have a
conditional use permit, which requires additional review.
Commissioner OHM referred to the City Ordinance in Exhibit 3, stating that the ordinance
language protects the owners who want to be removed from the rezoning area, but he
agrees with Commissioner MATTHEWS ' recommendation to be specific in the revisions
suggested on page 6.
Commissioners MATTHEWS , BRINKMAN , and WEAYER all asked for explanation for
specific locations where the rezoning boundary does not appear to follow a clear line.
It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded b Commissioner DURAN to
recommend APPROVAL of Case No. Wb:12-04, are est for a City-initiated zone
change to Mixed Use-Neighborhood for ro erties locate o 38th Avenue between
Sheridan and Wadsworth for the folio i
1.
area.
2. Adequate infrastructure exists and will be u
development applications.
3. The change of zone is in conformance with the Ci o Wheat Ridge
Comprehensive Plan and 38th A venue Corridor Plan.
4. A change in character in the area has occurred so that it is in the public interest
to encourage redevelopment of the area.
Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner TIMMS recusing himself.
Chair TIMMS returned to the Council Chambers at 7:59 p .m.
C. Case No. ZOA-12-04: An ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
concerning industrial employment zoning.
This case was presented by Sarah Showalter. Notice for this public hearing was provided
as required by the Code of Laws. She stated that the proposed zoning code change is to
update the City's existing Light Industrial zone district (I) to become the Industrial-
Employment (I-E) zone district. The proposed ordinance will fulfill goals related to land
use and economic development in Envision Wheat Ridge. The proposed changes will
include changes to the Permitted Use Table, changes to Development Standards , and
changes to the rezoning process .
The City does not have much industrial zoning at the present time; it is presently north and
mostly above the I-70 corridor. The light purple areas on the map are where there is a
planned industrial development with its own specific zoning. The dark purple areas
indicate light industrial. Most of these areas correspond to the dark purple that are on the
Planning Commission Minutes
Sep tember 6, 2012
-5 -
structure plan map from our Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Showalter pointed out areas in
dark purple on the map in which the City wants specifically to attract employment based
uses. Some of these areas will be well covered by the zoning change because they have
the existing I zoning.
In terms of what is being proposed to update the zone district, the major change is adding
contemporary uses that are not in the code today including renewal energy production ,
recycling centers , and flex space. Another proposed change is to update the special uses
to permitted uses that staff feels are appropriate to be permitted in an industrial
employment area , including body art , printing and engr ving, and contractor storage areas.
Staff also took the opportunity to remove outdated uses or orne that are redundant and put
them in more comprehensive use categories. It is also proposed to specifically allow PV
panels and wind turbines as permitted accessory ses in this zone district.
Staff is also proposing some updates to the development sta ar s which is hoped will
make new development easier and attract investment in some o these areas . One is a
reduction in landscape requirements to 15% from 20%, which is a ropriate for an
industrial type development.
Staff also proposes to reduce 11 the setbacks that apply where adjacent to a public street.
Now the setbacks are quite lar e, fo exa ple a front setback is as high as 50 feet.
Especially because the ASDM s recently updated to include requirements for light
industrial type buildings that ensur a minimum quality for facades visible from the street,
staff thinks it is appropriate to allow etbacks to be in the 10-foot range, which is what is
being propose .
Another pt posed change is to enable the option to do straight rezoning to I-E districts.
Currently thrs cannot be done as an applicant has to go through the planned development
process, which akes longev, and involves more up front time and money. This proposal
will enable straigR ezo ing in which the applicant will still have to have a public hearing
and solicit neighbornood input but they are not required to specific a development plan up
front as part of rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. It changes the light industrial zone district
so that it conforms with the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan and overall it creates
a more flexible and attractive industrial option.
Commissioner MATTHEWS questioned whether it is common to have design standards
for industrial in the zoning code, or is it more common to leave design standards for a
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 2012
-6 -
separate manual. Ms. Showalter responded that it is a little more common to use planned
development negotiation as a way to negotiate design standards, or to usethe City's
current model of a separate design manual that establishes guidelines.
Commissioner BRINKMAN pointed out typographical corrections that are needed and
questioned why wholesale had been added to the list of permitted uses since it seems more
a type of a selling than a land use and overlaps with other uses in the table. Ms.
Showalter replied that wholesale is seen as a use in the sense that it requires warehousing
and is not a retail use. Where there is overlap, whatever the most restrictive requirement
will apply. For example, if a use is a special use that also has a wholesale component, I,
then the applicant would have toobtain a special use permit.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner
WEAVER to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26
concerning the creation of industrial-employment zoning.
Motion passed 6-0.
There was no one to speak o
D.
Ms. Showalter presented this case. S e noted that nothing has changed since the study
session on this topic a couple of mont sago. taffh s learned that the City's current
regulations for review of public school ar not in comphance with state law so the
proposed changes are needed to conform to state law. The code for some time has
required special use permits for public an rivate schools to site or expand in residential
or agricultural areas. State law has specific an age about how local jurisdictions cannot
prevent a public school from locating on a specific site. Because a Special Use Permit
(SUP) may require a public hearing and denial before City Council, thus preventing a
school from locating at a site, the city attorney has advised that the SUP requirement is
removed for public and charter schools.
The first proposed code change is to remove the special use permit process for public
schools. The City would like to maintain some type of review for a new school or a
school proposing major expansion. Many times schools near residential areas can have a
significant impact on a neighborhood. Staff proposes to use an existing administrative
review process called a Site Plan review. It is appropriate because it doesn't have the
same the kind of process as a special use permit, but does give some protection to the
neighborhood since staff can require a traffic study.
Staff recommends approval in order to comply with state law.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2012
-7-
It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner OHM
to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26
concerning the review process for public schools.
Motion passed 6-0.
There was no one to speak on this case.
Chair TIMMS closed the public hearing.
8. OTHER ITEMS
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked about the status of amendments to the sign code.
Staff responded that this code change is on heir list , but there are two things affecting it
at this time. City Council will be looking at property standards for commercial properties ,
and signage is a big part of that , and i ·s currently on hold. Also , Meredith Reckert is
going to be out of the office for a coupl of months this fall and no zone code changes
will be initiated during that time due to sh rt-staffing t's going to be a slow time during
then , but it is definitely on the to-do list. In e eantime, staff will begin research on the
topic, including attending a session at the stat A conference this fall on electronic
signs.
Commissioner BRINKMAN emphasized that she is serious about her earlier request of
obtaining more information about the attendees at neigfiborhood meetings. She thinks it
is very important to know if the people attending are proper,ty owners versus renters , or
what interest they have in attending a neighborhood meeting.
There were no other items to come before the Commission. The next Planning
Commission meeting is scheduled for October 4 , 2012.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner
DURAN to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Motion carried 6-0.
Steve Timms, Chair
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 2012
Deborah Baker, Recording Secretary
-8 -
... ~~.,
~ • .... City of • JP'Wheat~dge
ITEM NO: ____E_.:_
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 23-2012 -AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
A CITY-INITIATED REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 7750 THREE ACRE LANE FROM RESIDENTIAL-THREE
(R-3) TO MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL (MU-C) (CASE NO.
WZ-12-05)
D PUBLIC HEARING
D BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (09/24/2012)
~ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (10/22/2012)
rgj YES
In 2011, City Council approved a legislative rezoning ofthe Wadsworth Corridor to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C). It has come to staff's attention that a 1.15-acre parcel just west of
Wadsworth at 7750 Three Acre Lane was inadvertently excluded from the zone change process.
This application is a City-initiated rezoning, and approval of the enclosed ordinance will rezone
the subject parcel to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C).
PRIOR ACTION:
City Council approved Ordinance 1496 in July 2011 to legislatively rezone the Wadsworth
Corridor to Mixed Use-Commercial (Case No. WZ-11-03). In early 2012 , staff realized the
subject parcel was inadvertently left out of the rezoning area. This information was presented to
City Council at a study session on June 4 , 2012 at which time staff was directed to proceed with
the zone change process.
Planning Commission recommended approval at a public hearing on September 6 , 2012. The staff
report and meeting minutes from the Planning Commission public hearing are enclosed.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed rezoning is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. The rezoning
may, however, expand development opportunities for the property, which promotes the City's
economic development goals.
BACKGROUND:
The City's adopted plans, including Envision Wheat Ridge (2009) and the Wadsworth Subarea
Plan (2007) call for mixed use, higher density redevelopment along Wadsworth Boulevard. In
particular, the plans call for a mixed-use town center along Wadsworth between W. 38 1h and
W. 441h Avenues , with a variety of retail, commercial, civic, and residential uses.
To this end, the City rezoned the Wadsworth corridor to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) in July
2011 after a series of public meetings and hearings. The rezoning boundary was intended to
include all parcels within the Wadsworth urban renewal area , consistent with a 2009 charter
amendment which exempts these urban renewal properties from certain height and density caps.
The parcel at 7750 Three Acre Lane was inadvertently left out of the city-initiated zone change. Staff
discovered the omission when an agent contacted the City regarding development options for the
property. The subject parcel is 1.15-acres, undeveloped , and zoned Residential-Three (R-3).
The Wadsworth Urban Renewal Plan, 01iginally adopted in 2001 , indicates that the subject
property is definitively included in the urban renewal area (URA). At some point in the last 10
years , however, a digital boundary file of the URA was incorrectly drawn in the City 's GIS
database , did not include the subject parcel , and resulted in the property not being rezoned.
Staff met with the property owner to explain the error, and the owner has requested that the subject
parcel be rezoned to MU-C, as was originally intended. A city-initiated rezoning of the parcel will
correct the omission, increase development opportunities for the property, and fulfill the original
intent of the corridor rezoning.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the City 's comprehensive plan-
En vision Wh eat Ridge-and Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan. Both plans call for higher density
mixed use development along Wadsworth Boulevard and within the boundary of the urban
renewal area. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a quality, mixed use town center between W .
38th Avenue and W. 44th Avenue, and Three Acre Lane is located centrally within that area.
The application has been through the standard referral process with no concerns raised by any
outside agencies or City departments. A separate referral process will be required as part of future
site development.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 23-2012, an ordinance approving a city-initiated rezoning of
property located at 7750 Three Acre Lane from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C) on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication ."
Council Action F orm
October 22 , 2012
Page 3
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely the ordinance to approve a city-initiated rezoning of property
located at 7750 Three Acre Lane from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-
C) for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 23-2012
2 . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, September 6 , 2012
3. Planning Commission StaffReport
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS
COUNCIL BILL NO. 23
ORDINANCE NO. ___ _
Series of 2012
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CITY-INITIATED REZONING
OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7750 THREE ACRE LANE FROM
RESIDENTIAL-THREE (R-3) TO MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL
(MU-C) (CASE NO. WZ 12-05)
WHEREAS, Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes
procedures for the City's review and approval of requests for land use cases; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by Section
26-113 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws ("Code") to initiate rezoning of property; and
WHEREAS, the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan adopted in 2007 and the
Envision Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan adopted in 2009 both recommend that the
Wadsworth corridor redevelop over time with a higher density, mixed use development
pattern; and
WHEREAS, the Wadsworth corridor was legislatively rezoned to Mixed-Use
Commercial (MU-C) in 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the corridor rezoning was intended to include all properties within
the urban renewal areas along Wadsworth Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the Wadsworth Corridor Urban
Renewal Area but was inadvertently excluded from the 2011 rezoning of the Wadsworth
corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission held a public hearing
on September 6, 2012 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the
property to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Pursuant to the findings made based on testimony and evidence
presented at a public hearing before the Wheat Ridge City Council, a zone
change to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) is approved for the following described
land:
THE WEST 303 FEET OF THE NORTH 165 FEET OF THE SOUTH 350 FEET
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69
Attachment 1
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON,
STATE OF COLORADO
Also known by street and number as 7750 Three Acre Lane, Wheat Ridge, CO.
Section 2. Vested Property Rights. Approval of this zone change does not
create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26-121 of the Code of Laws of the City of
Wheat Ridge.
Section 3. Safety Clause. The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds, determines,
and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power
of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health , safety, and
welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The
City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 4. Severabilitv: Conflicting Ordinance Repealed . If any section,
subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses
shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication, as provided by Section 5 .11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on
this 24th day of September, 2012, ordered it published with Public Hearing and
consideration on final passage set for Monday, October 22, 2012 at 7:00 o'clock p.m.,
in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and that it
takes effect 15 days after final publication.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 2012 .
SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of ______ , 2012.
Jerry DiTullio , Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
1st publication: September 27, 2012
2nd publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Effective Date:
Approved as to Form
Gerald Dahl , City Attorney
Joyce Jay
4435 Carr St., Wheat Ridge, CO
Ms. Jay expressed her thanks for the work that the Planning Commission has done which
has allowed such great progress on 38th Avenue. She informed the Commission of the
Celebrate Ridge at 38 Grand Opening on Saturday, September 22nd. She expressed her
hope that the Commissioners will attend and help with a ribbon cutting and balloon
launch at I pm. There will be festivities throughout the day. Please contact her or Steve
Art for more information
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. WZ-12-05: An application filed by the City of Wheat Ridge for a City-
initiated rezoning of property located at 7750 Three Acre Lane to Mixed Use-
Commercial (MU-C).
This case was presented by Lauren Mikulak. She entered into public record the contents
of the case file , zoning ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and digital presentation. All
notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore , there is jurisdiction to hear
this case.
The proposed rezoning area includes one parcel which was inadvertently excluded from
the July 20 II rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to MU-C. Staff discovered the
omission when an agent contacted the City regarding development options for the
property. The owner of the property was notified and requested that the parcel be rezoned
to MU-C as was originally intended. The subject property is currently zoned R-3 and
provides for single and two-family residential development but does not allow for
commercial uses.
Staff concludes that a City-initiated rezoning of the property will correct a past error,
increase development opportunities for the property, and fulfill the original intent of the
Wadsworth corridor rezoning. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the
zone change request, staff recommends approval.
Commissioner BRJNKMAN asked if the property owner has a development plan for the
site that is consistent with the mixed use zoning. Ms . Mikulak explained that the property
is currently on the market and staff is unaware of any development proposals for the site .
Commissioner BRJNKMAN asked if the minutes of the neighborhood meetings can
indicate who is a property owner or who is a renter, to indicate their interest in attending
the meetings. Ms. Mikulak explained that typically only name and address have been
requested when attendees sign in at a neighborhood meeting, but in the future they can ask
for more identifying information .
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 2012
Attachment 2
-2 -
Chair TIMMS asked if the unimproved area between the fence and the street is part of the
lot or part of the right-of-way. Ms. Mikulak explained the majority of this area is part of
the subject property.
Chair TlMMS closed the public hearing as no members of the public were present.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner OHM
to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-12-05, a request for a City-initiated zone
change from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) for property
located at 7750 Three Acre Lane, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan.
2. The subject property was inadvertently excluded from the July 11, 2011
rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to MU-C, and the proposed zone change
will correct the omission and fulfill the original intent of the Wadsworth
corridor rezoning.
3. Any applicant for future development under the proposed zoning will provide
adequate utility upgrades where needed.
4. The proposed zone change will not result in a significant adverse effect on the
surrounding area.
Motion passed 6-0.
B. Case No. WZ-12-04: A City-initiated rezoning of the 38th Avenue Corridor to Mixed
Use Neighborhood (MU-N).
Prior to introduction of this case, Chair TIMMS requested that he be recused from the case
because his property is surrounded on two sides by the rezoning area. It was moved by
Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to accept
Chair TIMMS' recusal. The motion passed 5-l, with Commissioner MATTHEWS
voting no. Commissioner TIMMS left the Council Chambers following the vote.
This case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered into record the case file and
packet materials, Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, and contents of the digital
presentation.
The existing zoning for this area, which includes 160 properties, is mostly commercial but
contains residential zoning as well. There is a wide range of land uses including
restaurant/retail , service, office, multifamily, and some single family residential. The City
is proposing that the subject property be rezoned to Mixed Use-Neighborhood (MU-N), a
zone district intended for neighborhood commercial corridors that is intended to support
mixed use development. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone
change request, staff is recommending approval of this request.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 6 , 20 12
-3 -
... ~~~
.. .,. City of
TP:Wlieat&_,dge ~MMUNilY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak
DATE OF MEETING:
CASE NO. & NAME:
Septem her 6, 2012
WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane
ACTION REQUESTED: A City-initiated rezoning to the Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zone district for
the property located at 7750 Three Acre Lane
LOCATION OF REQUEST : 7750 Three Acre Lane
APPROXIMATE AREA: 49 ,995 Square Feet (1.15 Acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Three (R-3)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use Town Center I Neighborhood Buffer
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FLLE & PACKET MATERiALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
LOCATION MAP
SITE
Attachment 3
Case No . WZ-1 2-05 I Three Acre Lane
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
I. REQUEST
On July 9, 2012 City Council adopted a resolution to initiate the rezoning of a ro located at 7750
Three Acre Lane to the Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zone district 'Exhibit 1 Resolution 36-2012 .
The proposed rezoning area includes one parcel which was inadvertently excluded from the July 20 II
rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to MU-C. The subject parcel is 1.15-acres and is currently
undeveloped 'Exhibit 2 Le al Descri tion & Ma .
D. BACKGROUND I EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background
The City's adopted plans, including Envision Wheat Ridge (2009) and the Wadsworth Subarea Plan
(2007) call for mixed use , higher density redevelopment along Wadsworth Boulevard. In particular,
the plans call for a mixed-use town center along Wadsworth between W. 38th and W. 44th Avenues,
with a variety of retail , commercial , civic, and residential uses.
To this end, the City rezoned properties along the Wadsworth corridor to Mixed Use-Commercial
(MU-C) in July 20 II after a series of public meetings and hearings. The rezoning boundary was
intended to include all parcels within the Wadsworth urban renewal area, consistent with a 2009
charter amendment which exempts these urban renewal properties from certain height and density
caps.
The parcel at 7750 Three Acre Lane was inadvertently left out of the city-initiated zone change. Staff
discovered the omission when an agent contacted the City regarding development options for the property.
The Wadsworth Urban Renewal Plan, originally adopted in 2001 , indicates that that the subject
property is definitively included in the urban renewal area (URA). At some point in the last 10 years,
however, a digital boundary file of the URA was incorrect!>-: drawn, did not include the sub'ect parcel ,
and resulted in the property not being rezoned in 201 1 hibit 3, Wadsworth UJU. & Zonin .
Staff met with the property owner to explain the error, and the owner has requested that the subject
parcel be rezoned to MU-C, as was originally intended. A city-initiated rezoning of the parcel will
correct the omission , increase development opportunities for the property, and fulfill the original intent
of the corridor rezoning.
Existing Conditions
The property at 7750 Three Acre Lane is currently zoned Residential-Three (R-3), a zone district
which provides for high quality, safe, quiet and stable medium to high-density residential
neighborhoods.
The R-3 zone district allows for single-, two -, and multi-family housing, but does not allow for
commercial uses. Building height is limited to 35 feet , and residential densities are limited to one
dwelling unit per 3,630 square feet of land area--or about 12 units per acre. The property is located in
the Traditional Overlay of the Architectural and Site Design Manual. All new development would be
Case No. WZ-1 2-05 I Three Acre Lan e 2
subject to the standards of the ASDM including requirements related to build-to areas, parking
placement, screening, and building design.
The surrounding properties include a variety of land uses and zoning designations. To the north and
west are properties zoned Residential-Two (R-2) containing single-and two-family homes. To the
south and east are properties zoned Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C). The properties to the south
include multi-family residential apartments; the properties to the east are commercial uses including a
recycling center, feed and pet supply business, and offices.
This land use pattern is common along the Wadsworth corridor o.=~;;;...;.;......;..o..=-:;..:..o..;..;.;;c:o...;;.;..;;;..;;;o~:o.<J
properties which were rezoned to MU-Cin 2011 are also oriented such that they abut commercial uses
on one side and residential on the other.
III. PROPOSED ZONING
The City is proposing that the subject property be rezoned to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) as was
originally intended. The MU-C zone district allows for a wider range of uses-including residential ,
commercial, and civic--and encourages mixed use development. The proposed zoning corrects a past
error and is consistent with the City's adopted plans for this area.
The following table compares the existing and proposed standards that apply to the subject property.
R-3 "ith \SD\1
\I i \l'd l 'l·-Comml-rl·ia I ( \"Uilll'' multi-fa m i 1\
' dl·\dopllll'lll).
20 feet
6 stories (90') for mixed use*
4 stories (62') for single use
*heig ht is limited to 4 stories within 1 00
feet of the residential properties to the
north and west
0 -20'
(50% of the build-to area shall contain
building mass)
5 feet
0 feet (adjacent to commercial)
1 story = I 0 feet (adjacent to residential)
2 story = 1 0 feet
3 story = 15 feet
4 story or more = 20 feet
Case No. WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane
No minimum
35-foot maximum
0 -12 '
(60% of the build-to area shall
contain building mass)
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
3
( ('011li1111£'d) \Jl-C 1{-3 "ith \Sil\1
Laadsc:ape I Opea I 0% open space for mixed use 30% landscape for all uses
Space(mia) 15% open space for single use At least 65% must be living
At least 35% must be living
Lot Coverage 90% for mixed use 40%
(DIU) 85% for single use
Dea ity (m ) No maximum density for multi-family 12 units per acre
development (3,630 square feet per dwelling unit)
Ardaiteetunl Determined by mixed use code Determined by Architectural and
Staadanl Site Design Manual (ASDM)
u Allows residential and commercial Allows single-, two-, and multi-
development family residential development
Given the location of the subject property and adjacent low-density residential development, it should
be noted that the MU-C zone district includes standards related to residential transitions which make
the zone district more appropriate in transitional areas. To protect existing residential neighborhoods,
the following regulations apply for new MU-C development adjacent to single-or two-family:
• Screening is required wherever a parking lot abuts a residential use, including a 6-foot
fence/wall or a hedge with a 6-foot landscape buffer.
• A minimum J 0-foot wide landscape buffer for J -2 story buildings. The buffer is increased to
15 or 20 feet for 3-or 5-story buildings, respectively.
• ln addition to a landscape buffer, buildings over 2 stories must provide a 5-foot step back for
each additional upper floor.
• Any portion of a building within 100 feet of a residential use (such as to the north and west of
the subject lot) may not be taller than 4 stories.
Proces
Section 26-113 of the zoning code authorizes the City to initiate a rezoning of private property and
establishes a process for doing so. The first step in the process was for City Council to adopt a
resolution indicating the area to be rezoned-this occurred on July 9, 2012.
The second step in the process was to hold a neighborhood meeting for all property owners within 600
within a 600-foot radius of the ro ert . The City held this meetin on July 25, 2012 and a summary
of the meeting is attached . Exhibit 5 Nei hborhood Meet in Summa
At a public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council to
approve, approve with modifications, or deny the rezoning proposal. The Commission's
recommendation shall be based on the facts presented at the hearing in consideration of the criteria for
review which are specified in Section 26-112.E and analyzed below under "Zone Change Criteria."
Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council will hold a public
hearing on the proposal and vote to approve, approve with modifications, or reject the city-initiated
zone change.
Case No . WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane 4
IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA
Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in section 26-122.E. The Planning
Commission shall base its recommendation in consideration bt the extent to wHich the following
criteria have been met: .. _; ~ · · · · .... _ · · : · .. ·
1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and
will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area.
The change of zone promotes the health , safety, and general welfare of the community and will not
adversely affect the surrounding area. While the new zoning would allow for higher density
development on the now vacant lot, any proposed development will be reviewed for traffic impacts,
drainage , and buffering. Depending on the development scenario, it is possible that development of
the site could be equally intensive under either the exiting R-3 or the proposed MU-C zone district.
Any proposed development under the new MU-C zoning would be required to complete traffic and
drainage studies and to meet storm water drainage and water quality requirements. The development
standards and architectural controls of the MU-C zone district will support compatibility of future
development with surrounding land uses.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are
under capacity.
Prior to future development, a Site Plan Review application will be required. This application will
include a referral to all impacted utility agencies. In the event that current capac.ity is not adequate,
utility upgrades will be required when the future development scenario is known.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
3. The Planning Commission shall also find that at least one (1) of the following conditions
exists:
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with
the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other related
policies or plans for the area.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the City 's comprehensive plan-
Envision Wheat Ridge-and Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan. Both plans call for higher density
mixed use development along Wadsworth Boulevard and within the boundary of the urban renewal
area. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a quality , mixed use town center between W. 38th Avenue
and W. 44th Avenue, and Three Acre Lane is located centrally within that area.
Case No . WZ-1 2-05 I Three Acre Lane 5
The proposed MU-C zoning encourages mixed use development and establishes specific design
standards, making it will be a critical tool for achieving the vision outlined in the City's long range
plans.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City
of Wheat Ridge is in error.
While an inadvertent error occurred 20 II, by excluding the parcel from the city-initiated zone
change of the Wadsworth Corridor, Staff has found no evidence of any error on the official zoning
maps. The subject parcel is currently zoned Residential-Three (R-3) as it appears on the City's
zoning map.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that it is
in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing
character of the area.
The most notable change in the area was the July 2011 rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor to
MU-C which was intended to include the subject parcel. There has been recent residential and
commercial development activity along the corridor. This includes the upgrade of the property at
4203 Wadsworth to a bank and construction of a senior housing complex at 4340 Vance Street.
The proposed zone change will fulfill the original intent of the corridor rezoning. The subject
property is currently underutilized and has never been developed. The proposed MU-C zoning
may provide an incentive for future investment and development on the subject site.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that was
not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan.
The proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that a city-initiated rezoning of the property will correct a past error, increase
development opportunities for the property, and fulfill the original intent of the Wadsworth corridor
rezoning. Staff finds that the proposed zone change is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Wadsworth Subarea Plan and is consistent with changes in the area. Finally, staff
concludes that the zone change will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area
and any new development under the new z oning will, through the site plan review process, be required
to provide utility upgrades where needed. Because the z one change evaluation criteria support the
zone change request, staff provides a recommendation of approval.
Case o. WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lan e 6
VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS
Option A:
"I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-12-05 ! a 'request for a city-initiated zone-change
from Residential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU .. CYfor property located at 7750 Three· · '
Acre Lane, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City 's
Comprehensive Plan and the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan .
2. The subject property was inadvertently excluded from the July 2011 rezoning ofthe
Wadsworth corridor to MU-C , and the proposed zone change will correct the omission and
fulfill the original intent of the Wadsworth corridor rezoning .
3 . Any applicant for future development under the proposed zoning will provide adequate utility
upgrades where needed.
4 . The proposed zone change will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding
area."
Option B:
"I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-12-05 , a request for a city-initiated zone change
from Resi.dential-Three (R-3) to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) for property located at 7750 Three
Acre Lane, for the following reasons:
I.
2.
3. "
Case No . WZ-1 2-05 I Three Acre La ne 7
EXHIBIT 1: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. ~
Series of 2012
TITLE: A RESOLUTION BEGINNING A CITY-INITIATED REZONING OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7750 THREE ACRE LANE TO MIXED
USE..CO ERCIAL (MU..C)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by Section
26-113 of the Wheat R idge Code of Laws rcode") to initiate rezoning of property; and
WHEREAS , the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan was adopted in 2007 and the
Envision Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009; and
WHEREAS , both plans recommend that the Wadsworth corridor redevelop over
time with a higher density, mixed use development pattern ; and
WHEREAS, the Wadsworth corridor was leg slatively rezoned to Mixed -Use
Commercial (MU-C) i n 2011 : and
WHEREAS , the corridor rezon i ng was intended to include all properties within
the urban renewa l areas along Wadsworth Boulevard ; and
WHEREAS , the subject property is within the Wadsworth Corridor Urban
Renewal Area but was inadvertently excluded from the 2011 rezoning of the Wadsworth
corridor; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-113 of the Code requires City Council to beg in the
process of a city-initiated rezoning by adopting a resolution doing so and referring the
matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation , wh ich
would be preceded by a ne ghborhood meeting .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Wheat Ridge. Colorado, aa follows:
A. The City Council hereby initiates a rezoning of the property located at
n50 Three Acre Lane to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C).
DONE A 0 RESOLVED this 9
ATTEST:
Case o. WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane 8
EXHIBIT 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION & MAP
Legal Description
The area to be rezoned to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) is comprised of:
THE WEST 303 FEET OF THE NORTH 165 FEET OF THE SOUTH 350 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 23 , TOWNSHlP 3 SOUTH , RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6rn PRINClPAL
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO
Also known by street and number as 7750 Three Acre Lane, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 ; as depicted in
the map below.
.!-
(/)
~ a:::
~ .I
~ t--I --
./
1\_/
42ND·AVE
f----,.----
I
I t; ' THREE ACRE tN ~ ·-:
a::: -~ -
~ ~I t77SO
~ L
u
m
:i:
lr
0 I ~ ---........ / ~ ;.,.---_.1ST ·AVE ~~~---L-1 I -
j -I H ~
Case o. JfiZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane 9
EXHIBIT 3: WADSWORTH URA & ZONING
The map below, taken from the adopted Wadsworth Urban Renewal Plan (2001}, jndicates that the
subject property at 7750 Three Acre Lane is indeed included in the boundary for the urban renewal
area and should have been rezoned to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C).
al~>-:llL
0 u.J ~I-:~ uz 0 \l I:~ZI: S h2z=:\~ ~ o<olL u: ~10100 IJ)~<(>o=>liZ~
~ <(1..)
Case o. WZ-1 2-05 I Thr ee Acre Lane
\l t:
~
~ _.
~ ~ ! ; 1
~ f ._ ...
I I •
E
ii
8 • •
10
The tan shading in the image below shows that at some point the boundary of the urban renewal area
(URA) was incorrectly drawn into the City 's mapping database, excluding the subject parcel. The blue
dashed line indicates the adopted URA boundary.
The digital file shown above was used as the boundary for the 2011 city-initiated rezoning of the
Wadsworth Corridor to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C). For that reason, the subject property was
inadvertently left out and still zoned Residential-Three (R-3)--instead ofMU-C-as shown in the
zoning map below.
Case No . WZ-1 2-05 1 Three Acre Lane 11
EXHIBIT 4: ZONING MAP
In the zoning map below, the subject site is outlined in red. Dutlined in blue are the properties which
were included in the 2011 city-initiated rezoning to Mixed Use-Commercial.
Case o. WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane
.J t ...
12
EXHIBIT 5: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
,~.".(
...... .,. City of • .. ra!WlieatBj_dge ~MMUNilY DEVELOPMENT
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W . 29th Ave . Wheat Ridge . CO 80033 -8001 P : 303 .23 5.2846 F: 30 3 .235 .2 85 7
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
Meeting Date: July 25, 2012
Attending Staff: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
Location of Meeting: City Hall -7500 W. 29th A venue, 2nd floor conference room
Property Address: 7750 Three Acre Lane, Wheat Ridge, CO
Property Owner(s): Patty Pyell and Terri Pearman
Property Owner(s) Present? Yes
Applicant: City of Wheat Ridge
Existing Zoning: Residential-Three (R-3)
Existing Comp. Plan: Mixed Use Town Center I Neighborhood Buffer
Existing Site Conditions: The property is located at 7750 Three Acre Lane, two lots west of
Wadsworth Boulevard. The property is currently zoned Residential-Three (R-3), but is surrounded by
a variety of land uses and zoning designations. To the north and west are properties zoned Residential-
Two (R-2) containing single-and two-family homes. To the south and east are properties zoned
Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C). The Jots to the east include commercial uses; to the south are multi-
family residential apartments.
Based on Jefferson County records, the subject property has an area of 49,995 square feet (1.15 acres).
The property is currently vacant.
Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The City of Wheat Ridge is the applicant for this city-
initiated zone change. In July 2011 , City Council approved a legislative rezoning of the Wadsworth
Corridor to Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C), per Case No. WZ-11-03. It has come to staff's attention
that a single parcel-located at 7750 Three Acre Lane-was inadvertently left out of the city-initiated
zone change.
Case No. WZ-12-05 I Three Acre Lane 13
Staff has met with the property owner to explain the error, and the property owner has requested that
the parcel be rezoned from Residential-Three (R-3) to MU-C, as was originally intended. Staff is
requesting approval from Council to proceed with a legislative rezoning for the property at 7750 Three
Acre Lane.
The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting:
• In addition to staff, the property owner was in attendance. Five members of the public attended the
neighborhood meeting, including:
o Jim Hoy, 12 Three Acre Lane
o Tammy and David Kaiser, 7765 Three Acre Lane
o Jerry Roach , 7805 W. 421 51 A venue
o Kit Campbell, 4105 Yarrow Court
• Staff discussed the site, its zoning, and the history related to the Wadsworth Corridor rezoning, the
location ofthe urban renewal area boundary, and the inadvertent exclusion of the subject lot from
the previous city-initiated zone change process.
• The applicant and members of the public were informed of the process for zone change.
• The members of the public were informed of their opportunity to make comments during the
process and at the public hearing. Publication of the hearing will be in the Transcript.
• Staff reviewed the development standards and permitted uses associated with the MU-C zone
district.
The following issues were discussed regarding the city-initiated zone change:
• Who is this zone change coming from?
This is a city-initiated zone change. Staff realized the error and contacted the property owner to
see if they were interested in a zone change. Staff presented the omission and proposed zone
change to City Council at a study session, and Council adopted a resolution at a public meeting to
initiate the rezoning process.
• Could a gas station or fast food restaurant locate on the property?
It depends. A motor fueling station is a conditional use, as is any eating establishment with a
drive-thru. The MU-C zone district limits drive-thru uses by establishing required separations.
Fastfood drive-thrus must be located at least 500ft apart from another fast food drive-thru. Other
types of drive-thru uses, such as a coffee shop or bank, must be located at least 500ft from one
another. An eating establishment without a drive-thru is one of the many uses that is permitted.
• Will Three Acre Lane ever connect to Yarrow Court using eminent domain?
Staff is unaware of any plans to connect Three Acre Lane to Yarrow.
• How do you justify MU-C on a street surrounded by residential uses?
The site has remained undeveloped under the current R-3 zoning designation, though the zoning
allows it to be developed single-family, two-family, or multi-family residences. The MU-C zoning
will still allow development of a two-family or multi-family residence, but will expand the possible
use options to include commercial uses or ideally a mix of commercial and residential uses. MU-C
zoning on this particular lot will mean the property serves as a buffer between the more intensive
Case No. WZ-1 2-05 I Three Acre Lane 14
commercial uses along Wadsworth and the lower density residential uses on Three Acre Lane and
to the west.
While commercial uses would be permitted, the zone district has strict architectural controls, step
back, and buffering requirements to protect the existing residential uses and mitigate the potential
impacts of a heavier-than-residential use.
• Will we be looking at a huge building and parking lot?
If developed, the visual impact will certainly increase since the only improvement currently on the
property is a six-foot fence. In addition to a primary structure, however, the site will need to
accommodate open space and landscaping, drainage facilities, and off-street parking. These
elements will be the limitingfactors in determining the size and footprint of a structure. The MU-C
zoning requires parking to be located on the side or rear of the lot, so the primary view for the
homes across Three Acre Lane will not be an expansive parking area.
• Do you know how the site will develop?
No. A zone change to mixed use does not require that a development scenario be determined. Staff
and Council accept zone change requests without a site plan because we are confident that the
development standards and architectural requirements in the MU-C code will result in a high-
quality development.
Once a site is zoned mixed use, a site plan review is required. The site plan is reviewed
administratively and confirms that the site and building meet all requirements of the zoning code.
In addition, staff reviews drainage and traffic impacts.
• Can the public review a traffic study?
There is no traffic study associated with the zone change request because the end use is unknown.
Depending on how the property is eventually developed, a traffic study may be required with the
site plan. There is no public notification process when staff receives a traffic study, but once
submitted a traffic study becomes part of the public record and the public is welcome to meet with
staff and review the submittal documents.
• One of the property owners was present at the meeting. She explained their difficulty in utilizing
or selling the property, and expressed their hope that the MU-C zoning makes the property more
attractive to a future user.
• Attendees were informed that public hearings will likely be scheduled for September and October.
The fundamental concern that was expressed was simply not knowing if or how the property would
develop in the future. To some extent, that concern remains no matter what the zoning because the
site is currently undeveloped.
• Aside from the five neighbors who attended the meeting, staff received no comment from others in
the area regarding the proposal.
C ase N o. WZ-I 2-05 I Thr ee Acre Lane 15
... ~'~
... # ~ City of •
?WlieatRi._dge
ITEM NO:~
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 25-2012 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 5-45 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS
CONCERNING CERTAIN ESCROW AGREEMENTS AS
SECURITY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
D PUBLIC HEARING
D BIDS /MOTIONS
0 RESOLUTIONS
~JCIAL:
7
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (1 0/8/2012)
[g) ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (10/22/2012)
The City Code requires construction of certain public improvements as a condition of building
permit issuance. The governing ordinance was amended in late 2011 eliminating the use of
escrows to ensure construction of any required public improvements. Escrows currently held for
commercial and industrial building permits are to be retained indefinitely. The proposed
ordinance would allow the refunding of all escrows if the associated public improvements have
not been constructed within ten years.
PRIOR ACTION:
The City Council discussed the proposed ordinance change at its August 6 and September 17 ,
2012 Study Sessions .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND:
In October, 2011 , the City Council amended Chapter 5 ofthe City Code, eliminating the
requirement of escrows for public improvements associated with some building permits. There
were many escrows in place at the time of the ordinance amendment. Existing escrows on
residential properties will be returned to the original property owner if they are not utilized by
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 2
the City to complete the improvements within ten years. However, the prior ordinance language
required that escrows on commercial and industrial properties be held indefinitely.
The City is currently holding 14 escrows for public improvements associated with building
permits on commercial and industrial properties.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the return of the commercial and industrial
property public improvement escrows after ten years , the same as the escrows held for residential
building permits.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the ordinance as attached.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 25-2012 , an ordinance amending Section 5-45 ofthe Wheat
Ridge Code of Laws concerning certain escrow agreements as security for public improvements,
on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2012 , an ordinance amending Section 5-45
of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning certain escrow agreements as security for public
improvements , for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED BY;
Tim Paranto , Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 25-2012
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER REINHART
Council Bill No. 25
Ordinance No. ___ _
Series 2012
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-45 OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING CERTAIN ESCROW
AGREEMENTS AS SECURITY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, has
authority to regulate the development of land and the construction of public
improvements in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has previously
adopted Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws requiring public improvements
as a condition of building permit issuance; and
WHEREAS, a prior version of Section 5-45 permitted posting of security by
development covenant and escrow when immediate construction of the required
improvements would be impractical; and
WHEREAS, the City currently holds escrowed funds for public improvements for
certain industrial and commercial projects, for which the public improvements originally
planned have not been constructed and may never be required in the nature and
location originally contemplated by the associated escrow; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend Code Section 5-45 to permit the
City to credit such escrowed funds to the Public Improvements Fund of the City, after
notice and opportunity for hearing being given to the original developer.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 5-45 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Public
improvements required" is amended by the addition of a new subsection (i) to
read as follows :
(i) THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SHALL HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO CLOSE ANY ESCROW HELD BY THE CITY
UNDER THE PRIOR VERSION OF THIS SECTION, FOR
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AND REFUND
THE MONIES TO THE ORIGINAL DEPOSITOR, UPON
SATISFACTION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE ESCROW HAS BEEN HELD BY THE CITY FOR TEN
(10) YEARS OR MORE;
Attachment 1
2. WRITIEN NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SHALL BE GIVEN BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE LAST
KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE DEVELOPER;
3. THE DIRECTOR MUST FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL
PURPOSE OF THE ESCROWED FUNDS HAS BEEN OR
CANNOT BE FULLFILLED.
Section 2. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses
shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed .
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on
this 81h day of October, 2012, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on final
passage set for Monday, October 22, 2012 at 7:00p.m., in the Council Chambers,
7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and that it takes effect 15 days after
final publication.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to_, this day of , 2012.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2012.
ATIEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
First Publication: October 11 , 2012
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
"' ~ l .(
.. ~ .. City of • JP'Wheat~dge
ITEM NO :~
DATE: October 22 , 20I2
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
[gj PUBLIC HEARING
D BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR I ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
D YES
Sections I 0. 7 and I 0.9 of the Wheat Ridge City Code require that a public hearing on the
proposed budget be held before its final adoption and that the budget be adopted by resolution on
or before the final day (December 15 , 2012) established by state statute for the certification of
the next year 's tax levy to the county. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 22 , 20I2
to receive input from citizens on the budget. Adoption of the 2013 Budget has been scheduled
for the November 26 , 2012 City Council meeting. Staff will provide a short presentation on the
proposed 2013 budget which includes the following :
• Presentation of a balanced budget without using reserves
• $16 million in proposed expenditures directly linked to City Council strategic goals
• Proposed General Fund budget in the amount of$27,746 ,549
• Proposed Capital Investment Program (CIP) Fund in the amount of $13 ,092 ,000
• Proposed Special Revenue Funds in the amount of$4,896 ,755
• Proposed budget (all funds) in the amount of$45,735 ,304
Prior to this public hearing, two public input opportunities were held for citizens to provide input
on the budget. Additionally, the proposed budget was made available for review by the public at
the following locations:
Wheat Ridge City Hall
City Clerk's Office
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge Library
5475 West 32nd Avenue
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page2
The 2013 Proposed Budget is also avai lable for p urchase based on the City fee schedule from the
City Clerk's Office. Additionally, the proposed budget and PowerPoint presentation from the
budget retreat are available for review at www.ci .wheatridge.co .us .
PRI OR ACTIO N :
• July 23 , 20I2 -first public meeting to provide opportunities for citizens to
comment on the budget
• August I3 , 20I2-second public meeting to provide opportunities for citizens to
comment on the budget
• September 21 , 2012 -proposed 20 I3 Budget distributed to City Council and
made available for public review
• October I , 20I2 -City Manager presented the proposed budget to City Council
during a Study Session
• October 22,2012 -as required by Section I0.7 ofthe Wheat Ridge City Charter a
public hearing will held to provide additional opportunities for citizens to
comment on the proposed budget prior to adoption of the budget
• Notification of the public hearing was made in the Wheat Ridge Transcript
FINANCIAL IM PACT:
A total budget (all funds) is proposed in the amount of$45 735 ,304.
B ACKGROUND :
At the October I , 2012 Budget Retreat, City Council provided staff with consensus to bring the
proposed budget to public hearing and to add $10,000 to the Legislative Program budget (1 02)
for a contribution to the Feed the Future Backpack program. This program benefits school
children by providing them with a backpack full of nutritious food over the weekends during the
school year. In order to keep the budget balanced, staff decreased the Police Department Patrol
budget by $10,000. This change is reflected on pages 30 and 31 of the General Fund
Expenditures Summary attached.
The 2013 Proposed Budget Message found on pages 1 -6 of the budget book are included
below:
O verall S u mma ry
Wheat Ridge's total proposed General Fund operating budget for 2013 is $27 ,746,549 , excluding
transfers. The City's total 2013 operating budget represents a 0.3% increase compared to the
adjusted 2012 Budget. The projected 2013 General Fund ending fund balance is $7 ,667 ,017 or
27% of expenditures. The total City Budget for 2013, which includes the General Fund , CIP and
Special Revenue Funds is $45 ,735 ,304.
Sales tax , the City's largest revenue source, is projected to increase in 2 012 by 2.4% compared to
2011 actual revenue, and decrease by 1.5 % compared to 2012 projected revenue. Total General
Fund revenues for 201 2 are projected to increase by 2.4% compared to 2011 actual revenue, and
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 3
decrease by .06% compared to 2012 projected revenue. Sales tax is expected to increase by 3.0%
in 2013 and total General Fund revenues should experience about a 2.8% increase.
The estimated 2012 Budget ending fund balance is $8 ,627 ,017 or 30% of operating expenditures.
The proposed 2013 Budget ending fund balance is projected to decrease to $7 ,667,017 , or 27%
of operating expenditures, to allow for an $860,000 transfer to the CIP Budget and a $100,000
transfer to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund. The fund balance will not be used to
balance the General Fund operating budget in 2013.
Wheat Ridge Goals 2017
The Mayor, City Council and staff work together annually to develop and update a strategic plan
including a vision , goals and action agenda. Staff used these goals as a guide to develop
strategies and priority projects for the 2013 Budget.
The Mayor and Council identified four key strategic prioritized goals for the next five years:
1. Financially Sound City Providing Quality Services
2. Economically Viable Activity Centers
3. Choice of Desirable Neighborhoods
4 . More Attractive Wheat Ridge
In addition , at the May 2012 retreat , the Mayor and City Council agreed to continue the
2011 /2012 Action Agenda for another year as many of the agenda items are large multi-year
projects that require additional staff time or council direction to complete. The proposed 2013
Budget includes the following expenditures to address the 2017 Goals and the 2012 /2013 Action
Agenda:
Goal 1: Financially Sound City Providing Quality Services
• Employee Compensation
o Implementation of new Compensation Plan $450,000 (610)
o Implementation of the new Performance Management Program (PMP) $28,500
(112 & 117)
• Service Priorities and Funding
o Priority Based Budgeting (Year 2) $15 ,000 (106)
• Paid Time Off (PTO) Cash-Out $50,000 (112)
• Fleet Replacement $385,000 -$2 million in fleet replacement needs are being deferred
for 2013 (303)
• Preventative street maintenance $1 ,600,000 (CIP)
• Lakewood Crime Lab services $68 ,900 (212)
• Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund for future equipment replacement $100,000
(610)
• Employee safety and wellness programs $13 ,100 (112)
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page4
Goal2: Economically Viable Activity Centers
• Clear Creek Crossing Development Agreement
o 32nd and Youngfield interchange improvements $5,517,000 (CIP) -Partially
Grant funded
• 38th A venue Corridor Plan
o 38th A venue marketing plan implementation $120,000 (120 and I 05 to WR2020)
o 38th Avenue events $67 ,000 (105)
o 38th Avenue street improvements $100,000 (CIP)
o 38th Avenue Corridor marketing map and directory $7 ,000 (1 05)
• Brownfields EPA Grant $350,000 (123)-Grantfunded
• Live Local Events $20 ,000 (1 05 to WR2020)
• Wheat Ridge Business District (WRBD) loan program $90,000 (1 05 to WRBD)
• Building up Business Loan Program (BUBL) $100,000 (1 05 to WR2020)
• Wadsworth Planning Environmental Linkage (PEL) project $1 ,200,000 (CIP)-Partially
Grant funded
• Urban renewal funding for Renewal Wheat Ridge (RWR) projects $400,0000 (105 to
RWR)
Goal3: Choice of Desirable Neighborhoods
• Aging Population Needs Assessment and Plan
o Aging needs assessment $3 ,000 (111)
• Block parties $2 ,500 (1 05 to WR2020)
• CDBG Energy Efficiency grant program administration $6 ,000 (105 to WR2020)
• Home Investment Loan Program (HIP) $50,000 (1 05 to WR2020)
• 29th A venue storm sewer improvements $850,000 (CIP)
• Installation of 39 new bus benches $250,000 (CIP) -Partially Grant funded
• District 2 neighborhood park $875 ,000 (CTF and OS)-Partially Grant funded
• Police Department community oriented neighborhood programs $17 ,655 (211)
• Police Department greenbelt patrol $17 ,280 (211)
Goal4: More Attractive Wheat Ridge
• Bus shelter and bench maintenance and cleaning $36 ,000 (303)
• 38th Avenue annual plantings $2 ,000 (604)
• Dumpster days $5,000 (1 05 to WR2020)
• East Wheat Ridge targeted maintenance and upgrades $20,000 (1 05 to WR2020)
• Kipling Street multi-use path and lighting $2 ,835 ,000 (CIP)-Partially Grant funded
• Gateway signage program $100 ,000 (CIP)
• City Hall plaza improvements $200,000 (CIP)
• Parks maintenance projects $50,000 (CTF)
• Large-item pickup program $5 ,000 (303)
• 50th Avenue median improvements $10,000 (604)
Additionally, the following budget expenditures , that are not directly related to any one of the
City Council goals but are worthy of noting, are also included in the proposed 2013 Budget:
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 5
• Zoppe Family Circus $105,376 (102)
• Outside Agency Requests $10 ,000 (102)
• ADA compliance consultants and upgrades and for new ADA regulations $42,300 (602
and 605)
• Carnation Festival cash contribution $12 ,500 and in-kind assistance $28 ,000 (1 02)
• City Council table sponsorships $3 ,000 (102)
PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING
The City has engaged the Center for Priority Based Budgeting to facilitate the transition from a
more traditional incremental budgeting process to a priority-driven budgeting process. The
Center's mission is to "lead communities to Fiscal Health and Wellness." Priority Based
Budgeting is another tool that will allow department staff and the City's management team to
improve the programs and services provided by aligning resource allocation with the results the
City is working to achieve.
Although the Priority Based Budgeting process was not been fully ingrained into the 2013
Budget process, the goal is to continue developing this model for a more direct integration into
the 2014 budget process. However, the data collected during this year's process has provided
valuable information to enable staff and policy makers to look at the budget data through a
different lens.
One aspect of the Priority Based Priority process we did incorporate into the 2013 Budget
process was the focus on annual budget variances. Budget variances generally occur because
certain line-items must be budgeted based on projected use such as staffing, fuel , and utilities.
However, circumstances such as employee turnover, the weather or the economy dictate what
those true expenditures will be on an annual basis. We made approximately $300,000 in
reductions to those line-items where budget variances generally occur. However, if we
experience an unusually bad winter or fuel prices skyrocket, for example, mid-year supplemental
budget appropriations may be required.
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
The total 2013 Proposed Budget is $45 ,735 ,304. The Budget is based on projected revenues of
$40 ,486 ,276. In addition, the beginning fund balance for 2013 is projected at $14 ,822 ,762 which
brings the total available funds to $55 ,309,038 . This will provide for a projected ending fund
balance of $9 ,573 ,734 which is a 3% decrease compared to the 2012 Budget. Detailed revenue
and expenditure tables are presented in the Revenue and Expenditure Summary section of this
Budget (an updated copy is provided in this packet).
General Fund
General Fund revenue is projected at $27 ,746,549 which is a 2.8% increase compared to 2012
estimated revenues . In addition , the beginning fund balance for 2013 is projected at $8 ,627 ,017
which brings the total available funds for the General Fund to $36 ,373 ,566.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page6
General fund expenditures total $27 ,746 ,549 , excluding transfers. General Fund expenditures
represent a 0.3% increase compared to the adjusted 2012 Budget and a 3.1% increase compared
to the estimated 2012 Budget. This will provide for a projected ending fund balance of
$7 ,667,017 or 27% of expenditures which is an 11% decrease compared to the 2012 estimated
Budget.
Capital Investment Program Fund
CIP Fund revenue is projected at $9 ,637,000 ($860 ,000 transferred from the General Fund)
which is a 289% increase compared to the 2012 estimated revenue of $2 ,477 ,500. The CIP Fund
will receive a significant amount of grant revenue in 2013. In addition , the beginning fund
balance for 2013 is projected at $3 ,479,917 which brings the total available funds for the CIP
Fund to $13 ,116 ,917.
The proposed 2013 CIP includes the following major projects:
• $5.5 million for the 32nd and Youngfield interchange improvements -Partially Grant
funded
• $2.8 million for Kipling Street Pedestrian improvements -Partially Grant funded
• $1.2 million for Wadsworth Planning Environmental Linkage project -Partially Grant
funded
• $1.6 million for preventative street maintenance projects
• $850 ,000 for major drainage projects to address the drainage issues at 29th and Chase
Streets
• $340 ,000 City Hall Improvements -Courtyard and remodel of Police Crime Lab
• $250 ,000 for bus bench installation -Partially Grant funded
• $150 ,000 for Public Improvement Projects
• $100 ,000 for Revitalization Projects on 38th Avenue Corridor
• $100 ,000 for the Gateway Signage Program
• $150 ,000 Police Radio Repeater Site
CIP expenditures total $13 ,092 ,000 which is a 26 % increase compared to the adjusted 2012
Budget and a 258 % increase compared to the estimated 2012 Budget. This will provide for a
projected ending fund balance of$24,917.
Typically the CIP Budget is funded primarily with General Fund undesignated reserves. The City
Council adopted a General Fund reserve policy in 2011 setting the minimum reserve level at
17%. In order to maintain this minimum reserve balance in the General Fund in 2013 and
beyond , the General Fund will no longer be able to fund the CIP Budget after 2013. To continue
funding CIP projects , City Council will need to consider substantial cuts in the City's operating
budget or new revenue sources.
Without additional funding , the proposed CIP Budget for 2014 to 2022 will be limited to the
following projects:
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page 7
• $740,000 for Tabor Street improvements associated TOO site in 2015 (100% Grant
funded)
• $1,700,000 between 2016 and 2022 for preventative street maintenance
Open Space Fund
Open Space revenue is projected at $1,148,720 which is a 14% increase compared to the 2012
estimated revenue of$1,008,000. In addition, the beginning fund balance for 2013 is projected at
$473,558 which brings the total available funds for the Open Space Fund to $1,622,278.
Open Space projects for 2013 include parks and open space sign fabrication; open space
improvements; funding for the construction of a District II park; parks equipment storage
facility; Anderson Park master plan; City contribution towards the Jefferson County Open Space
River Corridor project; and improvements to Happiness Gardens. Funding is also appropriated
for five Parks employees. Open Space expenditures total $1,574,782 which is a 2.6% decrease
compared to the adjusted 2012 Budget and a 12% decrease compared to the estimated 2012
Budget. This will provide for a projected ending fund balance of$47,496.
The future Five-Year Open Space Budget proposes the continuation of miscellaneous open space
improvements, park maintenance projects, trail replacement and repair, a new soccer field, public
works and parks operations facility and funding for five Parks employees.
Conservation Trust Fund
Conservation Trust revenue is projected at $281,000, which is a 3.5% decrease compared to the
2012 estimated revenue of $291,100. In addition, the beginning fund balance for 2013 is
projected at $291,973 which brings the total available funds for the Conservation Trust Fund to
$572,973.
Conservation Trust projects for 2013 include Recreation Center maintenance projects; District II
park site development; park maintenance projects; resurfacing of tennis/basketball courts; and
initial funding for the replacement of the Anderson Building. Conservation Trust expenditures
total $524,600, which is a 2.1% decrease compared to the adjusted 2012 Budget and a 72%
increase compared to the estimated 2012 Budget. Tlus will provide for a projected ending fund
balance of $48,373.
The future Five-Year Conservation Trust Budget proposes to provide funds for Recreation
Center maintenance needs; park maintenance projects; resurfacing of tennis/basketball courts;
and Boyds Crossing and Prospect Park playgrounds.
Recreation Center Operations Fund
Recreation Center Operations revenue for 2013 is projected at $2,140 ,357, which is a 0.2%
increase compared to the 2012 estimated revenue of$2,135,544. In addition, the beginning fund
balance for 2013 is projected at $1,379,639 which brings the total available funds for the
Recreation Center Operations Fund to $3,519,996.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 8
Recreation Center expenditures total $2 ,395 ,076 , which is a 2.4% decrease compared to the
adjusted 2012 Budget and a 4.1% increase compared to the estimated 2012 Budget. This will
provide for a projected ending fund balance of $1 ,124,920.
Miscellaneous Special Revenue Funds
Several other miscellaneous Special Revenue Funds are also included in this Budget to track
revenues and expenditures that are legally restricted for specific purposes or to simplify the
budgeting process. Those funds include Police Investigation, Municipal Court, Capital
Equipment Replacement , Crime Prevention , and Public Art Fund. Detailed revenue and
expenditure information for these funds can be found in the Special Revenue Funds and the Line
Item Accounts sections of the Budget.
Compensation, Benefits and Staff"mg
Personnel-related expenses account for the largest portion of the City's Budget; therefore,
maintaining this investment is a high priority. Unfortunately, due to the economic recession, the
City's existing pay plan consisting of market adjustments and step increases has been deferred
for the past three years. In the current pay plan as appro ved by City Council , the City strives to
remain at the 70th percentile of the market for law enforcement (sworn) positions and 55th
percentile for all civilian positions.
In 2009 staff did not receive market adjustments and two mandatory furlough days were
instituted. In 2010 staff did not receive market adjustments or step increases. In 2011 , staff
received a one-time stipend of approximately $700 in-lieu of market adjustments and step
increases. In 2012 civilian staff received a 3 percent increase with sworn officers receiving a
step adjustment of2 to 5.8 percent, depending on rank.
In 2012 , staff conducted a compensation review process and a survey of the 2012 pay scales for
City positions was conducted. The survey indicated that for the City to maintain the 70th and
55th percentiles and to remain competitive, our compensation plans required upward adjustments
of, on average, 1.6 % for civilian positions and 1.5% for police officer positions. However, I felt
it was prudent to forgo any mid-year adjustments to the compensation plan while we were in the
middle of an extensive compensation plan review and analysis .
To remain competitive and to retain and attract the best employees , it will be crucial to adopt a
new compensation plan that provides competitive pay and merit incentives as finances allow .
Staff is continuing development of a 2013 Compensation Plan that will be presented to Council
by the end of 2012. The new compensation plan will include pay-for-performance for certain
positions within the City. Staff has budgeted $450 ,000 in the 2013 Central Charges budget to
implement the new plan once approved by City Council.
The City continues to provide a competitive benefit package to employees to include medical ,
dental , life and disability benefits. Staff works closely with the City's benefit broker, IMA ,
throughout the year to ensure that the City is controlling benefit costs while providing a
competitive benefit package to its employees. Medical premiums will experience no increase for
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page9
2013 while dental premiums will increase 3%. Life and short-term disability premiums will also
remain constant; however long-term disability is quoted to increase 8% and the City has
experienced service issues with the carrier so we have asked IMA to obtain quotes for these
services from other carriers.
The City currently provides Kaiser Permanente for employee medical benefits. In 2013 the City
will be moving towards a consumer model of health care paired with a Health Savings Account
(HSA) in 2013. A High Deductible High Plan (HDHP) will be added to the plan as an option
along with the traditional HMO and Deductible HMO. The premiums for both the employee and
the City are lower for a HDHP but the out-of-pocket costs to the employee are higher. The goal
of the consumer driven HDHP is to encourage employees to manage costs through effective use
of health care.
To incentivize employees to transition from the HMO with no deductible to a HDHP with a
$1,500 deductible, the City will provide one-time seed money in the amount of $1 ,000 for
employees in the family and employee + 1 plans, and $700 for employees in the single plan. The
seed money will be deposited into a HSA to be used for medical expenses not covered by the
insurance plan such as deductibles and coinsurance.
In addition, the City will also be providing incentives to encourage employees to participate in
the City's Wellness program to improve employee health and to reduce the risk of long-term
health issues that have a significant impact on the City's premiums. Although the City will not
realize significant premium reductions at the outset of the transition to a HDHP, the goal of this
Integrated Wellness and Health Plan strategy is to control and reduce employee benefit costs
over time.
The 2013 staffing level will remain the same at 226.015 FTE's in all funds. Staffing levels
continue to remain well below the 233.755 FTE's authorized in 2002 before the budget reduction
program and elimination of positions in 2003 and 2004.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hold the scheduled public hearing on the 2013 proposed budget. No formal action is
required. The adoption of the budget is scheduled for November 26, 2012.
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2013 Proposed Revenues & Expenditures Summary Revised
,.•4,
~
WhCity of D -irltT. eat1.~e
Operating Funds
General
Funcla
Fund Balance Percentage
Capital Funds
Capital Investment Program
otal Capital Funde
Special Revenue Funds
Police Investigation
Open Space
Municipal Court
Conservation Trust
Equipment Replacement
Crime Prevention/Code
PublicArt Fund
Recreation Center
Total Operating Funds
Total Capital Funds
Total Special Revenue
Funds
(Less Transfers)
NO TOTAL
Attachment 1
2013 Proposed Budget
Budget Summary by Fund
Fund Beginning
Balance
(1/1/13)
+ Revenues = Expenses = Balance Funds
Available (12/31/13)
$8 ,627,017 + $27 ,746,549 = $36 ,373 ,566 $28 ,706 ,549 = $7 ,667,017
$8,827,017 + $27,748,548 • $38,373,188 • $28,701,148 • $7,t17,01
$3,479,917 +
$3,479,117 +
$42 ,276 +
$473 ,558 +
$33 ,078 +
$291 ,973 +
$270 ,069 +
$211 ,701 +
$13 ,534 +
$1 ,379,639 +
$2,711,828 +
$8 ,627,017 +
$3 ,479 ,917 +
$2 ,715 ,828 +
+
$14,822,782 +
26.7%
$9 ,637 ,000 = $13,116,917 $13 ,092 ,000 = $24 ,917
$8,837.-• $13,118,917 • $13,092,000 •
$25 = $42 ,301
$1 ,148,720 = $1 ,622 ,278
$30 ,550 = $63 ,628
$281 ,000 = $572 ,973
$101 ,000 = $371 ,069
$307 ,800 = $519 ,501
$53 ,275 = $66 ,809
$2 ,140,357 = $3 ,519 ,996
.. 2,727 • se.m.-
$27 ,746,549 = $36 ,373 ,566
$9 ,637 ,000 = $13,116 ,917
$4 ,062 ,727 = $6 ,778 ,555
($960 ,000) = ($960 ,000)
$40,488,278 • --·-
2 5
$30 ,000 = $12 ,301
$1 ,574 ,782 = $47,496
$24 ,000 = $39 ,628
$524 ,600 = $48 ,373
$0 = $371 ,069
$348,297 = $171 ,204
$0 = $66 ,809
$2 ,395 ,076 = $1 ,124,920
. ....,,., . •
$28 ,706 ,549 = $7 ,667 ,0 17
$13 ,092 ,000 = $24 ,917
$4 ,896 ,755 = $1 ,881 ,800
($960 ,000) =
. $41,738,304 •
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
Budget Summary by Fund
._." . '
20 73 Proposed Budget
~of Wlieat~dge
General Fund Revenues
SALES TAXES
Sales Tax
Sales Tax Audit Revenue
URA-Wheat Ridge Cyclery
URA-Town Center
URA-Walgreens
TOTAL SALES TAXES
OTHER TAXES
Real Property Tax
Liquor Occupational Tax
Auto Ownership Tax
Xcel Franchise Tax
Telephone Occupation Tax
Lodgers Tax
Admissions Amusement Tax
TOTAL OTHER TAXES
USE TAXES
Use Tax -Retail/Professional
Use Tax -Building
Use Tax -Auto
TOTAL USE TAXES
LICENSE
Amusement Machine License
Arborist License
Contractors License
Liquor License Fee
Building Permits
Street Cut Permits
Cable TV Permits
Elevator Inspection Fees
Pawn Shop License Fees
Business License Fees
TOTAL LICENSE
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Revenues
2011
Actual
$14 ,643 ,189
$152 ,250
$47,429
$376 ,358
}Q
$15,219,226
$765 ,892
$49 ,200
$49 ,542
$1 ,274 ,962
$329 ,265
$471 ,257
$45,842
$2,985,960
$945 ,747
$561 ,566
$1,006,334
$2,513,647
$6 ,720
$1 ,665
$110 ,845
$12 ,502
$356 ,692
$59 ,760
$350 ,631
$26 ,040
$10 ,000
$72,878
$1,007,733
2012
Adjusted
26
$15 ,225 ,130
$325 ,000
$25 ,000
$210 ,000
}Q
$15,785,130
$775 ,000
$55 ,000
$51 ,000
$1 ,200 ,000
$300 ,000
$450 ,000
$45,000
$2,876,000
$1 ,069 ,000
$659 ,000
$1,019,000
$2,747,000
$8 ,500
$1 ,700
$100 ,000
$10 ,000
$450 ,000
$80 ,000
$345 ,000
$26 ,880
$10 ,000
$77,584
$1,109,664
2012
Estimated
$15 ,000 ,000
$225 ,000
$52,000
$393 ,000
}Q
$15,670,000
$760 ,000
$55 ,000
$53 ,000
$1 ,225 ,000
$325 ,000
$453 ,000
$43,000
$2,914,000
$1 ,000 ,000
$675,000
$1,200,000
$2,875,000
$8 ,500
$1 ,760
$90 ,000
$10 ,000
$400 ,000
$70 ,000
$350 ,000
$25 ,000
$10 ,000
$72,261
$1,037,521
2013
Proposed
$15,450 ,000
$250 ,000
$52 ,000
$400 ,000
}Q
$16,152,
$765 ,000
$55 ,000
$53 ,000
$1 ,250 ,000
$325 ,000
$453 ,000
$43 .000
$2,944,00
$1 ,000 ,000
$675 ,000
$1,200,000
$2,875,
$8 ,500
$1 ,800
$90 ,000
$10 ,000
$400 ,000
$70 ,000
$350 ,000
$25 ,000
$10 ,000
$74.429
$1,039,729
__ .. ,
~ C•ty of Wheat~e
2011
Actual
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Cigarette Tax $98 ,327
County Road and Bridge $309 ,225
Arvada Ridge Redevelopment $100 ,000
Highway Users Tax $995 ,811
Motor Vehicle Registration $107 ,509
Wheat Ridge Fire Radio $24 ,394
E911 Reimbursements $46,489
EPA Brownfields Grant $0
Adm. Serves . IT-SIPA $5 ,000
P&R -Xcel Tree Grant $4 ,000
Police-CATPAAuto Theft Grant $90 ,644
Police -Seat Belt Safety Grant $6 ,588
Police -Drug Overtime Grant $18,130
Police -COPS Grant $100 ,301
Police -Bryne Grant $30 ,022
Police -Child Safety Grant $4 ,902
Police -Ballistic Vest Grant $6 ,291
Police -LEAP Energy Grant $67 ,170
Police -LEAF Grant $4 ,999
Scientific & Cultural Grant $2 ,205
Pol ice -Metro Denver DUI $2 ,200
Police-Checkpoint Colorado $0
Police-HVI DE $0
CDBG Grant $84 ,798
Live Well Colorado Grant $12 ,250
JCHD Bicycle Count iQ
TOTAL
INTIRGOVERNMENTAL ~.121
2012
Adjusted
$100 ,000
$350 ,000
$100 ,000
$1,024 ,645
$100 ,000
$29 ,529
$40 ,000
$0
$0
$0
$51 ' 131
$2 ,500
$15 ,000
$128 ,137
$51 ,089
$0
$5 ,250
$0
$12 ,000
$2 ,100
$0
$7 ,000
$0
$0
$0
~2.0QQ
2 7
20 73 Proposed Budget
2012 2013
Estimated Proposed
$92 ,000 $90 ,000
$350 ,000 $300 ,000
$100 ,000 $100 ,000
$980 ,000 $988 ,346
$115 ,000 $115 ,000
$32 ,500 $34 ,000
$36 ,000 $35,000
$0 $350 ,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$51 ,131 $51 ' 131
$2 ,500 $2 ,500
$15 ,000 $7 ,500
$128 ,137 $128 ,137
$45 ,885 $35 ,580
$0 $5 ,000
$5 ,500 $5 ,200
$62 ,880 $0
$5 ,000 $5 ,000
$2,400 $2 ,400
$0 $0
$7 ,000 $0
$10 ,460 $12 ,000
$12 ,892 $0
$0 $0
~2,00Q iQ
U.GI8.285 12.281,
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Revenues
20 73 Proposed Budget
SERVIC ES
Zoning Applications
Planning Reimbursement Fees
Engineering Fees
Misc. Zoning Fees
Plan Review Fees
Pavilion/Park Rental Revenue
Athletics Revenue
Active Adult Center Revenue
Parks Historic Facilities
Gen . Prog . Revenue
Anderson Building Revenue
P&R Security Deposits
Outdoor Swimming Fees
Police Report Fees
Pawn Shop Ticket Fees
Sex Offender Registration
Police Drug Destruction Fees
Police Fees
Police Duty Reimbursement
TOTAL SERVICES
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Revenues
2011
Actual
$92 ,840
$4 ,395
$9 ,118
$771
$157 ,070
$22 ,812
$132 ,473
$211 ,581
$0
$173 ,864
$13 ,343
$0
$171 ,696
$11 ,721
$24 ,386
$8 ,772
$740
$4 ,075
~17,510
$1 ,067 ,167
... '-•>~
~of WlieatRl_dge
2012 2012 2013
Adjusted Estimated Proposed
$40 ,200 $30 ,000 $37 ,400
$3 ,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000
$6 ,500 $4 ,000 $4 ,000
$2 ,000 $1 ,000 $1 ,000
$135 ,000 $120 ,000 $120 ,000
$29 ,000 $28 ,000 $27 ,500
$142 ,945 $126 ,810 $144 ,650
$210 ,500 $204 ,210 $210 ,590
$25 ,000 $22 ,500 $24 ,000
$171 ,556 $175 ,000 $177 ,352
$14 ,000 $8,000 $10 ,000
$0 $0 $0
$160 ,000 $165 ,751 $165 ,751
$8,700 $11 ,800 $11 ,000
$22 ,000 $24 ,000 $22 ,000
$7 ,000 $7 ,200 $7 ,000
$400 $400 $400
$4 ,150 $4 ,700 $4 ,500
~25,000 ~25,000 ~25,000
$1 ,006 ,961 $962 ,371 $996 ,14
28
~ .. 4 ~
~ ~tyof Ri9g 20 13 Proposed Budget eat e
2011 2012 2012 2013
Actual Adjusted Estimated Proposed
FINES & FORFEITURES
Municipal Court Fines $133 ,178 $130 ,000 $134 ,000 $135 ,000
Nuisance Violations Fees $66 ,517 $68 ,000 $52 ,000 $52 ,000
Handicap Parking Fees $660 $900 $400 $800
Traffic $530 ,544 $495 ,000 $486,000 $510,000
General $79,151 $70 ,000 $85 ,000 $85 ,000
Other $23 ,251 $15 ,000 $16,000 $19 ,000
Parking $2 ,715 $1 ,500 $3 ,420 $4 ,000
No Proof of Insurance ~24,356 ~25,000 ~22,000 ~25,000
TOTAL FINE & FORFEITURES $880,372 $805,400 $798,820 $830,
INTEREST
Interest Earnings ~163,408 ~150,000 $150,000 ~160,000
TOTAL. INTEREST $163,401 150,000 $150,000 $180
OTHER
Cable Peg Fees $41 ,725 $44 ,200 $44 ,200 $44 ,200
Passport Processing Fee $6 ,150 $6 ,000 $6 ,000 $5 ,000
Zoppe Family Circus $0 $0 $60,000 $60 ,000
Miscellaneous Income ~339. 123 ~364,405 ~325,0QO $372,883
TOTAL OTHER $386,998 $414,605 $435,200 $482,
otal General Fund $26,315,766 $26,915,131 $26,899,197 $27,746,549
ransfers In $55,774 $98,520 $98,520 $0
und Balance Carryover $11,084,074 $10,631 ,489 $10,631,479 $8,627,017
otal Funds Available $37,455,614 $37,645,140 $37,629,196 $36,373,566
29 Revenues & Expenditures Summary
~ ~ • 4
~ C1tyof
2013 Proposed Budget WlieatR.Ldge
General Fund Expenditures
2011
Actual
Legislative
Legislative Services ~26~.49a
otal $263,498
City Manager's Office
City Manager $259 ,330
Economic Development ~803,140
Otal $1,062,470
City Attorney
City Attorney ~284,298
Otal $284,298
City Clerk's Office
City Clerk ~155,907
Otal $155,907
City Treasurer
City Treasurer ~~6.Q59
otal $36,059
Central Charges
Central Charges ~2,427,542
otal $2,427,542
Municipal Court
Municipal Court ~692,730
otal $692,730
Revenues & Expenditures Summary 30
2012 2012 2013
Adjusted Estimated Proposed
~42Q.4a9 ~412,2Q2 ~41~,717
$420,489 $412,202 $415,71
$253 ,552 $252 ,052 $252 ,672
~774,227 ~7!24,796 ~1.104,a~2
$1,027,779 $1,016,848 $1,357,
~258,000 ~258,000 ~262,000
$258,000 $258,000 $262,00
~132,070 ~132,070 ~132,070
$132,070 $132,070 $132,07
~~5.278 ~34,778 ~35,778
$35,278 $34,778 $35,77
~2,666,700 ~2,483,220 ~2,961,660
$2,666,700 $2,483,220 $2,961,66
~751,241 ~742,556 F54,542
$751,241 $742,556 $754,54 I
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Expenditures
Administrative Services
Administration
Finance
Human Resources
Sales Tax
Purchasing and Contracting
Information Technology
I
Community Development
Administration
Planning
Building
Long Range Planning
Police
Administration
Grants
Community Services Team
Communications Center
Crime Prevention Team
Records Team
Training and Public Information
Patrol
Investigations Bureau
Crime & Traffic Team
Special Investigations
Emergency Operations
otal
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Expenditures
2011
Actual
$347 ,638
$225 ,133
$409,434
$218 ,324
$107 ,513
~1,236,083
$2,544,125
$189 ,894
$208,445
$287 ,370
$664 ,578
$301 ,875
$279 ,343
$703 ,206
$246,215
$259,076
$221 ,027
$3,863,326
$1,620 ,003
$345 ,005
$63
~13,561
$8,517,278
31
2012
Adjusted
$421 ,934
$238 ,328
$508,806
$233 ,051
$121,817
~1,899,015
$3,422,951
$217 ,812
$223 ,831
$370 ,335
$743 ,185
$333,490
$260 ,019
$771 ,577
$297 ,647
$271 ,758
$241 ,371
$3,907,771
$1 ,895 ,178
$363 ,901
$0
~14, 195
$8100,092
20 73 Proposed Budget
2012
Estimated
$421,434
$238 ,328
$508 ,807
$225 ,327
$104 ,683
~1 ,864,015
$3,362,594
$194 ,985
$220,584
$316 ,927
$736 ,310
$314 ,665
$260 ,019
$765 ,822
$292 ,387
$271 ,758
$241 ,084
$3,905 ,671
$1 ,895 ,178
$349 ,261
$0
~14, 195
$9,046,350
2013
Proposed
$385 ,960
$240 ,946
$532 ,805
$223,072
$103 ,187
$207 ,345
$224,416
$337 ,542
$721 ,346
$249 ,247
$241 ,613
$753,475
$298 ,269
$226,471
$263 ,200
$3,831 ,573
$1 ,842 ,550
$407 ,263
$0
~10,945
$8,845,16
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
20 13 Proposed Budget
2011
Actual
Public Works
Administration $152 ,268
Engineering $963 ,338
Operations ~2,846, 117
otal $3,961,723
Parks and Recreation
Administration $205 ,268
Recreation $188 ,019
Parks Maintenance $1 ,245 ,331
Forestry $286 ,812
Natural Resources $235 ,961
Anderson Building $65 ,798
Athletics $171 ,942
General Programs $228 ,070
Outdoor Pool $145 ,403
Active Adult Center $596 ,456
Historic Buildings $0
Facility Maintenance ~406,542
otal $3,n5,602
Total General Fund $24,559,123
Transfers $2,265,000
Total With Transfers $26,824,123
Revenues & Expenditures Summary 32
.. ••.,
~of Wheat R.i_,dge
2012 2012 2013
Adjusted Estimated Proposed
$156 ,848 $155 ,848 $157 ,966
$1 ,093 ,103 $1 ,092 ,896 $998 ,340
~3,281 '133 ~3. 138,123 ~3. 105,285
$4,531,084 $4,386,867 $4,261,591
$232 ,270 $232 ,270 $227 ,848
$200,480 $197 ,579 $233 ,173
$1 ,364 ,381 $1 ,350 ,058 $1 ,350 ,983
$328 ,433 $327 ,328 $370 ,749
$269 ,351 $261 ,369 $284 ,695
$84 ,510 $70 ,386 $79 ,498
$229 ,423 $185 ,310 $189 ,091
$237 ,326 $234 ,982 $254 ,236
$257 ,814 $220 ,229 $252 ,006
$577 ,113 $516 ,107 $558 ,373
$69 ,151 $67 ,818 $62 ,855
~548,116 ~544,114 ~472,896
$4,398,368 $4,207,550 $4,336,403
$27,658,886 $26,902,243 $27,746,54
$2,100,000 $2,100,000 $960,
$29,758,886 $29,002,243 $28,706,
Revenues & Expenditures Summary
General Fund Expenditures
... ~•., .. ., City of
:_rWheat:Ri_dge
ITEMNO:_l.
DATE: October 22 ,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE T-MOBILE WEST TOWER LEASE
D PUBLIC HEARING
[2J BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2N° READING
f'a:wM ~
City Manager ~
T-Mobile has a lease agreement for space on the City's cmmnunication tower. T-Mobile wishes
to upgrade the equipment on the City property to provide better service to its customers. The
magnitude of the changes requires an amendment to the existing agreement.
PRIOR ACTION:
The City Council entered into a contract with T-Mobile on September 14 , 2006.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND:
T-Mobile West entered into a lease agreement in 2006 for use of the City's communication
tower as a cellular telephone site. To address the increasing demand for cell phone service, T-
Mobile needs to replace some of the existing antennas on the tower. The 2006 contract requires
such a change of equipment be approved by a contract amendment.
City Staff required that T-Mobile perfonn a structural analysis of the tower with the proposed
new equipment in place. The new equipment will not require modification of the tower.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the proposed T-Mobile West tower lease amendment be approved by the City
Council.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 2
REC O MMEN DED M OTIO N:
"I move to approve the First Amendment to the T-Mobile West Tower Lease."
Or,
"I move to deny the First Amendment to the T-Mobile West Tower Lease for the following
reason( s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Tim Paranto , Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tower Lease Amendment
Site N DNOJ471A
Site Name: Wheat Rldce Muaiclpal Tower
FIRST AMENDMENT TO TOWER LEASE WITH OPTION
TIHS AMENDMENT TO TOWER LEASE WITII OPTION ("Amendment") is made and
entered into by and between City of Wheat Ridge, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Colorado
("Landlord"), and T-Mobile West, LLC (''Tenant").
Recitals
The parties hereto recite, declare and agree as follows :
A. Landlord and Tenant (or as applicable, their respective predecessors in interest) entered into a
Tower Lease with Option dated September 14, 2006 (including any prior amerxlments, the "Lease"), with
respect to Premises located at 7500 West 29th Ave., Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033.
B. Landlord and Tenant desire to enter into this Amendment in order to modify and amend
certain provisions of the Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained
and other good and valuable co ideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Landlord and Tenant covenant nd agree a foiJows:
~
1. Effective as of 2012, Tenant will have the right to modify its Antenna Facilities
as described and depicted o Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, and Landlord hereby consents to and approves of the modifications described and depicted on
Exhibit A in all respects.
2. Tenant's notice addresses in the Lease are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the
following :
If to Tenant:
T-Mobile West LLC
12920 SE 38111 Street
Bellevue, WA 98006
Attn: Lease Compliance
Site #DN03471A
3. The terms and conditions of the Lease are incorporated herein by this reference, and
capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meanings such terms are given in the
Lease. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Amendment shall in no way modify, alter or amend the
remaining terms of the Lease, all of which are ratified by the parties and shall remain in full force and
effect. To the extent there is any conflict between the terms and conditions of the Lease and this
Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment will govern and control.
4 . Landlord represents and warrants to Tenant that the consent or approval of no third party,
including, without limitation, a lender, is required with respect to the execution of this Amendment, or if
any such third party consent or approval is required, Landlord has obtained any and all such consents or
approvals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date of
execution by the last party to sign.
Attachment 1
City of Wheat Ridge, a
Municipal Corporation
By:. ___________ _
Name : ----------------------Title :. ____________ _
Date : _________________ _
T -Mobile West, LLC
t U tJ ~I JUJ
2
Exhibit A
3
Exhibit A, continued
•
&
>
... )... • •
I I
I I
~ ~ ,~-
I ~-~ I
I ':$ I ~?
4
'~ I' ... .,. City of
JP"WheatR!_dge
ITEMNO:k
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 51-2012 -A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A $400,000
BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT GRANT AND AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2012 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT
THE APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000
0 PUBLIC HEARING
D BIDS/MOTIONS
[2J RESOLUTIONS
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
QUASI-JUDICIAL: D YES
C~ty~:;~1:n~~
ISSUE:
The Community Development Department applied for and received a $400,000 Brownfields
Assessment Grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake environmental
assessments on potentially contaminated properties within the City of Wheat Ridge. The City is
required to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with EPA regarding the expenditure ofthese
funds.
It is anticipated approximately $50,000 of these funds will be expended in 2012 requiring a
supplemental budget appropriation. The remaining $350,000 bas been included in the 2013
proposed budget.
PRIOR ACTION:
City Council was notified ofthis grant award in June when the EPA announced the recipients of
the 2013 Brownfields Assessment Grant funding.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No matching funds are required for the grant.
B ACKGROUND :
Brownfields are vacant or underutilized industrial or commercial properties that have the
potential to be environmentally contaminated by current or previous uses. Since the City of
Wheat Ridge is primarily built out without the opportunity for greenfield development, the City
is focused on redevelopment of existing properties including brownfields sites. A challenge to
the redevelopment of these properties is the potential for environmental contamination due to
land uses at the site. Many potential developers and property owners do not want to take the
risk of redeveloping properties where environmental contamination could be present. The grant
will allow the City to perform Phase I and II Environmental Assessments to determine if
environmental contamination is present, thereby eliminating any uncertainty associated with
redeveloping existing properties.
An important community revitalization strategy is working with private property owners to
understand brownfield issues on their sites. The presence of contamination impedes a
property's ability to be resold or redeveloped. Working to resolve these issues benefits both the
owner and the community at-large. The grant funds will help defray the costs of identifying
contamination and will lead to strategies to clean up sites and eliminate one barrier to
revitalization. The grant will assist with removing hurdles for new businesses to locate in the
City.
While the funds can be used on public or private property anywhere within the City limits, the
target area for use of the grant funds is the Wadsworth Blvd. urban renewal area. WR2020 has
prepared an inventory of 75 properties in the urban renewal area which will be used as the basis
for determining which properties assessments will be pursued for. A workplan has been
prepared and approved by EPA outlining site selection, community involvement and a project
timeline. The workplan is attached.
Community outreach will be undertaken as part of the project. Notification will be sent to
property owners infonning them of the availability ofthe grant funds. A Phase I Assessment
involves a record search of current and previous uses of the property and does not require
property owner permission. Phase II Assessments are undertaken when the Phase I Assessment
indicates there could be environmental contamination based on land uses at the site. Phase II
Assessments involve soil and groundwater testing and do require permission of the property
owner.
The southwest corner of381h Ave. and Wadsworth Blvd. is currently being looked at for
potential redevelopment. Given the history of uses at this site including an automotive
dealership, gas station and dry cleaners there is the potential for contamination to be present.
The EPA has approved use of the grant funds at this site to assist the property owners in
determining if environmental contamination is an iss ue. The total amount anticipated for Phase
I and Phase II Assessments at this site is approximately $31 ,000 .
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Cooperative Agreement and the supplemental
budget appropriation in the amount of $50,000.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution 51-2012, a resolution approving a Cooperative Agreement with
the Environmental Protection Agency for acceptance of a $400,000 Brownfields Assessment
Grant and amending the fiscal year 2012 General Fund budget to reflect the approval of a
supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of$50,000."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Resolution No. 51-2012 , a resolution approving a Cooperative
Agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency for acceptance of a $400,000 Brownfields
Assessment Grant and amending the fiscal year 2012 General Fund budget to reflect the approval
of a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $50,000 for the following reason(s)
"
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Sally Payne, Senior Planner
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Dev elopment Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 51-2012
2. Cooperative Agreement between EPA and the City ofWheat Ridge
3. City ofWheat Ridge Brownfields Assessment Grant Workplan
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 51
Series 2012
TITLE: A RESOLUTION APROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR
ACCEPTANCE OF A $400,000 BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT
GRANT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 GENERAL FUND
BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000
WHEREAS, the City applied for and received a $400,000 Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Assessment grant to undertake environmental
assessments of potentially contaminated properties within the City of Wheat Ridge; and
WHEREAS, the EPA brownfields funds are specially designated for the
completion of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments as well and as clean-
up plans as needed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge will serve as the point of contact and grant
administrator of the EPA grant funds; and
WHEREAS, request for proposals for consultant services to assist with the
technical work of the grant will be in accordance with federal and City established
policies and ordinances concerning the acquisition of services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is required to enter into a Cooperative
Agreement with the EPA concerning the expenditure of these funds which must be
signed by the Mayor; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that approximately $50,000 of these funds will be
expended in 2012 requiring a supplemental budget appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the remaining $350,000 has been included in the 2013 proposed
budget; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Charter requires that amendments to the
budget be effected by City Council adopting a Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat
Ridge, Colorado, as follows:
A. The City Council authorizes the acceptance of EPA Brownfields Assessment
Grant in the amount of $400 ,000 and approval of a Cooperative Agreement
with EPA
Attachment 1
1
B. The City Council approves a supplemental budget appropriation for 2012 in
the amount of $50,000 to be budgeted in account number #01-123-700-750
with an appropriate increase in revenues
DONE AND RESOLVED this 22"d day of October, 2012.
Jerry DiTullio , Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
2
-681 1-BF 9 080 0 P age 1
GRANT NUMBER (FAIN): 96810801
~#-f.O ~ .. 1't, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION NUMBER: 0 DATE OF AWARD
0 ft 0 PROGRAM CODE: BF 09/20/2012 lwa ' PROTECTION AGENCY TYPE OF ACTION MAILING DATE
New 09/27/2012 'fL.~"#~ Cooperative Agreement PAYMENT METHOD: ACH#
ACH PEND
RECIPIENT TYPE: Send Payment Request to:
Municipal Las Vegas Financial Center-
LVFC
RECIPIENT: PAYEE:
City of Wheat Ridge City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29th Avenue 7500 West 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 W heat Ridge, CO 80033-8001
EIN: 84-0595832
PROJECT MANAGER EPA PROJECT OFFICER EPA GRANT SPECIALIST
Sally Payne W illiam Rothenmeyer Sarah Hulstein
7500 West 29th Avenue 1595 Wynkoop Street Grants, Audit and Procurement, 8TMS-G
Wheat Ridge , CO 80033-8001 Denver, CO 80202-1129 E-Mail: Hulstein.Sarah@epa.gov
E-Mail : Spayne@ci.wheatridge.co.us E-Mail: rothenmeyer.william@epa.gov Phone: 303-312-6014
Phone: 303-235-2852 Phone: 303-312-6045
PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
City of Wheat Ridge Brownlields Assessment Cooperative Agreement
This project provides funding lor City of Wheat Ridge (the City) to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct cleanup planning and community involvement
re lated activities lor brownlields sites in the City.
BUDGET PERIOD I PROJ E CT PERIOD TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COST I TOTAL PROJECT PERIOD COST
10101 /2012 -09/3012015 10/01 12012 -09/30/2015 $400,000.00 $400,000.00
NOTICE OF AWARD
Based on your application dated 08/09/2012, including all modifications and amendments, the United States acting by and through the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), hereby awards $400,000. EPA agrees to cost-share 100.00% of all approved budget period costs incurred, up to and not exceeding
total federal funding of $400,000. Such award may be terminated by EPA without further cause i f the recipient falls to provide timely affirmation of the award by
s ig ning under the Affirmation of Award section and returning all pages of this agreement to the Grants Management Office listed below within 21 days after
receipt, or any ex1ension of time, as may be granted by EPA. This agreement is subject to applicable EPA statutory provisions. The applicable regulatory
provisions are 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B. and all terms and conditions of this agreement and any attachments.
ISSUING OFFICE (GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE) AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE
ORGANIZATION I ADDRESS ORGANIZATION I ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 U.S. EPA, Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Denver, CO 80202-1129 1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dig ital sig nature applied by EPA Awar d O fficial Wayne Anthofer • Director I DATE
09120/2012
AFFIRMATION OF AWARD
B Y AND ON BEHALF O F THE DESIGNATED RECIPI ENT ORGANI Z ATION
SIGNATURE I TYPED NAME AND TITLE I DATE
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
Attachment 2
EPA Funding Information BF-96810801 -0 Page 2
FUNDS FORMER AWARD THIS ACTION AMENDED TOTAL
EPA Amount This Action $ $400,000 $400,000
EPA In-Kind Amount $ $ $ 0
Unexpended Prior Year Balance $ $ $0
Other Federal Funds $ $ $0
Recipient Contribution $ $ $0
State Contribution $ $ $0
Local Contribution $ $ $0
Other Contribution $ $ $0
Allowable Project Cost $0 $400,000 $400,000
Assistance Program (CFDA) Statutory Authority Regulatory Authority
66 .818-Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup CERCLA: Sec. 101 (39) 40 CFR PART 31
-cooperative Agreements -
-
Fiscal
Site Name Aeq No FY Approp. Budget PAC Object Site/Project Cost Obligation I
Code Organization Class Organization Deobligalion
-1208LBF074 12 E4 08LOAG1 301079 4114 G800NYOO 200 ,000
-1208LBF074 12 E4 08LOAG 301D79XBP 4114 G8000ROO 200 ,000
400 ,00(
BF -96810801 -0 Page 3
Budget Summary Page
Table A -Obj ect Class Category Total Approved Allow able
(Non-constructi on) Budget Peri od Cost
1. Personnel $29,600
2 . Fringe Benefits $7,400
3. Travel $8,052
4. Equipment $0
S.Supplles $9,988
6. Contractual $344,960
7 . Construction $0
8 . Other $0
9. Total Direct Charges $400,000
10. Indirect Costs: % Base $0
11 . Total (Share : Reci pi ent 0.00 % Federal 100.00 %.) $400,000
12. Total Approved Assi stance Amount $400,000
13. Program Income $0
14. Total EPA Amount Awarded Th is Action $400,000
15. Total EPA Amount Awarded To Date $400,000
BF -96810801 -0 Page 4
Administrative Conditions
1. The recipient will comply with the following: (1) all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Parts
29 , 31 , 34, and 35 (if applicable), OMS Circulars A-1 02 , A-133 and 2 CFR, Part 225 and (2)
any terms and conditions set forth in this assistance agreement or assistance amendment.
2. The Project Work Plan is the work plan for this award . Performance will be evaluated
consistent with the Policy on Performance Based Assistance dated May 31, 1985.
3 . The recipient agrees to ensure that all requisitions for conference , meeting, convention,
or training space funded in whole or in part with Federal funds comply with the Hotel and Motel
Fire Safety Act of 1990.
4 . FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORTS (FFR)
A) Final Federal Financial Reports
Pursuant to 40 CFR 31.41 (b) and 31.50(b), EPA recipients shall submit a Final Federal
Financial Report-also called the FFR or SF425-to EPA's Las Vegas Finance Center (LVFC),
within ninety (90) days after the expiration of the budget period end date. Please note that
these reports are required by EPA grant regulations (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations
§31.41.(2)). Completed SF425s must be faxed to 702-798-2423 or mailed to the following
address: US EPA , Las Vegas Finance Center, 4220 S. Maryland Pkwy ., Bldg. C, Rm 503, Las
Vegas , NV 89119. The LVFC will make adjustments, as necessary, to obligated funds after
reviewing and accepting a Final Federal Financial Report.
B) Closeout
The Administrative Closeout Phase for this grant will be initiated with the submission of a "Final"
FFR. At that time, the recipient must submit the following forms/reports to the following, if
applicable :
-Federally Owned Property Report
-An Inventory of all Property Acquired with federal funds
-Contractor 's or Grantee 's Invention Disclosure Report (EPA Form 3340-3
-Minority/Women's Business Enterprise Utilization (MBE/WBE) Report (EPA Form
5700-52A)
R8grants@epa.gov or
Grants, Audit and Procurement Program Office (STMS-G)
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
Additionally, the recipient's Final Request for Payment should be submitted to the LVFC.
5. The chief executive officer of this recipient agency shall ensure that no grant funds
awarded under this assistance agreement are used to engage in lobbying of the Federal
Government or in litigation against the United States unless authorized under existing law . The
recipient shall abide by its respective OMS Circular (A-21 , A-87, or A-122), which prohibits the
use of federal grant funds for litigation aga inst the United States or for lobbying or other polit ical
activ ities.
6. In accordance with the polices set forth in EPA Order 1000.25 and Executive Order
13423 , Strengthening Federal Environmental , Energy and Transportation Management
(January 24 , 2007), the recipient agrees to use recycled paper and double sided printing for all
reports which are prepared as a part of this agreement and delivered to EPA. This requ irement
does not apply to reports prepared on forms supplied by EPA , or to Standard Forms , which are
printed on recycled paper and are available through the General Services Adm inistration .
7 Recipient shall fully comply with Subpart C of 2 CFR Part 180 and 2 CFR Part 1532 ,
entitled "Responsib ilities of Part icipants Regarding Transactions (Doing Business with Other
Persons)." Recipient is responsible for ensuring that any lower tier covered transact ion as
described in Subpart B of 2 CFR Part 180 and 2 CFR Part 1532, entitled "Covered
Transactions ," includes a term or condit ion requiring compliance with Subpart C. Recip ient is
responsible for further requiring the inclusion of a similar term or condit ion in any subsequent
lower tier covered transactions. Recipient acknowledges that failing to disclose the information
as required at 2 CFR 180.335 may result in the delay or negation of this assistance agreement ,
or pursuance of legal remedies , including suspension and debarment.
Recipient may access the Excluded Parties List System at www.epls.gov. This term and
condition supersedes EPA Form 5700-49 , "Certification Regard i ng Debarment, Suspension ,
and Other Responsibility Matters ."
8 . National Term and Condition:
Drug-Free Workplace Certification for all EPA recipients
The recipient organization of this EPA assistance agreement must make an ongoing ,
good faith effort to mainta in a drug -free workplace pursuant to the specific requ irements
set forth in Title 2 CFR Part 1536 Subpart B. Additionally , in accordance with these
regulations , the recipient organization must identify all known workp laces under its
federal awards , and keep this information on file during the performance of the award .
Those recipients who are individuals must comply with the drug-free provisions set forth
in Title 2 CFR Part 1536 Subpart C.
The consequences for violating this condition are detailed under T itle 2 CFR Part 1536
Subpart E . Recipients can access the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) T itle 2 Part
1536 at
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid= 701 081165f70316effa8ebf67df7
3deO&rgn=div5&view=text&node=2:1 .2.11.11.2&idno=2.
9 . a. The recip ient agrees to :
(1) Establish all subaward agreements in wr iting ;
(2) Maintain primary responsibility for ensuring successful completion of the
EPA-approved project (this responsibility cannot be delegated or transferred to a
subrecipient);
(3) Ensure that any subawards comply with the standards in Section 21 O(a )-(d) of
OMB Circular A-133 and are not used to acquire commercial goods or services for the
recipient ;
(4) Ensure that any subawards are awarded to eligible subrecipients and that
proposed subaward costs are necessary, reasonable, and allocable;
(5) Ensure that any subawards to 501 (c)(4) organizations do not involve lobbying
activities;
(6) Monitor the performance of their recipients and ensure that they comply with all
applicable regulations, statutes, and terms and conditions which flow down in the
subaward;
(7) Obtain EPA's consent before making a subaward to a foreign or international
organization, or a subaward to be performed in a foreign country; and
(8) Obtain approval from EPA for any new subaward work that is not outlined in the
approved work plan in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 30.25 and 31.30, as applicable.
b. Any questions about subrecipient eligibility or other issues pertaining to subawards should
be addressed to the recipient's EPA Project Officer. Additional information regarding subawards
may be found at http://www.epa.gov/oqd/quide/subaward-policy-part-2.pdf. Guidance for
distinguishing between vendor and subrecipient relationships and ensuring compliance with
Section 21 O(a)-(d) of OMB Circular A-133 can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/oqd/quide/subawards-appendix-b.pdf and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a 133/a 133.html.
The recipient is responsible for selecting its subrecipients and , if applicable , for conducting
subaward competitions.
1 0 . Management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs and approved indirect
rates are not allowable . The term "management fees or similar charges" refers to expenses
added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing business
expenses, unforeseen liabilities, or for other similar costs which are not allowable under this
assistance agreement. Management fees or similar charges may not be used to improve or
expand the project funded under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a direct
cost of carrying out the scope of work.
11 . EPA's financial obligations to the recipient are limited by the amount of federal funding
awarded to date as shown on line 15 in its EPA approved budget. If the recipient incurs costs
in anticipation of receiving additional funds from EPA, it does so at its own risk.
12. In accordance with Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6962) any State agency or agency of a political subdivision of a State which
is using appropriated Federal funds shall comply with the requirements set forth . Regulations
issued under RCRA Section 6002 apply to any acquisition of an item where the purchase price
exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such items acquired in the course of the preceding
fiscal year was $10,000 or more. RCRA Section 6002 requires that preference be given in
procurement programs to the purchase of specific products containing recycled materials
identified in guidelines developed by EPA. These guidelines are listed in 40 CFR 247.
13 . In accordance with OMB Circular A-133, which implements the Single Audit Act, the
recipient hereby agrees to obtain a single audit from an independent auditor, if it expends
$500 ,000 or more in total Federal funds in any fiscal year. Within nine months after the end of
a recipient's fiscal year or 30 days after receiving the report from the auditor, the recipient shall
submit the SF-SAC and a Single Audit Report Package. The recipient MUST submit the
SF-SAC and a Single Audit Report Package, using the Federal Audit Clearinghouse 's Internet
Data Entry System . Complete information on how to accomplish the single audit submissions ,
you will need to visit the Federal Audit Clearinghouse Web site : http://harvester.census.gov/fac/
14. I. Central Contractor Registration/System for Award Management and Universal
Identifier Requirements.
A. Requirement for Central Contractor Registration (CCR)/System for Award
Management (SAM). Unless you are exempted from this requirement under 2 CFR
25.11 0, you as the recipient must maintain the currency of your information in the
SAM until you submit the final financial report required under this award or receive
the final payment, whichever is later. This requires that you review and update the
information at least annually after the initial registration , and more frequently if
required by changes in your information or another award term.
B. Requirement for Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers . If you are
authorized to make subawards under this award , you :
1. Must notify potential subrecipients that no entity (see definition in
paragraph C of this award term) may receive a subaward from you unless the entity
has provided its DUNS number to you.
2. May not make a subaward to an entity unless the entity has provided its
DUNS number to you.
C. Definitions . For purposes of this award term :
1. Central Contractor Registration (CCR)/System for Award Management
(SAM) means the Federal repository into which an entity must provide information
required for the conduct of business as a recipient. Additional information about
registration procedures may be found at the System for Award Management (SAM)
Internet site http://www.sam .gov.
2 . Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number means the nine-digit
number established and assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to uniquely
identify bus iness entities . A DUNS number may be obtained from D&B by telephone
(currently 866-705 -5711) or the Internet (currently at http ://fedgov .dnb .com /web form
) .
3. Entity. as it is used in this award term, means all of the following , as
defined at 2 CFR part 25 , subpart C :
a. A Governmental organization , wh ich is a State , local government , or
Indian tribe ;
b . A foreign public entity ;
c . A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization ;
d. A domestic or foreign for-profit organization ; and
e. A Federal agency , but only as a subrecipient under an award or
subaward to a non -Federal entity .
4. Subaward:
a. This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the
performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which you
received this award and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient.
b. The term does not include your procurement of property and
services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see
Sec. --.210 of the attachment to OMB Circular A-133 , "Audits of States , Local
Governments , and Non-Profit Organizations").
c. A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement,
including an agreement that you consider a contract.
5. Subrecipient means an entity that:
a. Receives a subaward from you under this award; and
b. Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by
the subaward.
15. Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation.
a . Reporting of first-tier subawards.
1. Applicability. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph d. of this
award term , you must report each act ion that obligates $25 ,000 or more in Federal
funds that does not include Recovery funds (as defined in section 1512(a)(2) of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 , Pub. L. 111-5) for a subaward to
an entity (see definitions in paragraph e of this award term).
2 . Where and when to report.
i. You must report each obligating action described in paragraph
a.1. of this award term to www.fsrs.gov .
ii.For subaward information , report no later than the end of the
month following the month in which the obligation was made. (For example , if the
obligation was made on November 7, 2010, the obligation must be reported by no
later than December 31, 2010.)
3. What to report. You must report the information about each
obligating action that the submission instructions posted at www.fsrs .gov specify.
b. Reporting Total Compensation of Recipient Executives.
1. Applicability and what to report. You must report total
compensation for each of your five most highly compensated executives for the
preceding completed fiscal year, if --
i.the total Federal funding authorized to date under this award is
$25 ,000 or more ;
ii. in the preceding fiscal year , you received-
(A) 80 percent or more of your annual gross revenues from
Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance
subject to the Transparency Act , as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
(B) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from
Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance
subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
iii. The public does not have access to information about the
compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S .C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section
6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . {To determine if the public has access
to the compensation information, see the U.S . Security and Exchange Commission
total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)
2. Where and when to report. You must report executive
total compensation described in paragraph b.1. of this award term:
i. As part of your registration Central Contractor
Registration/System for Award Management profile available at www.sam.gov.
ii. By the end of the month following the month in which
this award is made, and annually thereafter.
c . Reporting of Total Compensation of Subrecipient Executives.
1 . Applicability and what to report. Unless you are exempt as
provided in paragraph d . of this award term , for each first-tier subrecipient under this
award , you shall report the names and total compensation of each of the
subrecipient's five most highly compensated executives for the subrecipient's
preceding completed fiscal year , if--
i. in the subrecipient's preceding fiscal year , the subrecipient
received-
(A) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from
Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance
subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
(B) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from
Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance
subject to the Transparency Act (and subawards); and
ii. The public does not have access to information about the
compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section
6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access
to the compensation information , see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission
total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)
2. Where and when to report. You must report subrecip ient
executive total compensation described in paragraph c.1. of this award term :
i. To the recipient.
ii. By the end of the month following the month during
which you make the subaward . For example , if a subaward is obligated on any date
during the month of October of a given year (i.e., between October 1 and 31 ), you
must report any required compensation information of the subrecipient by November
30 of that year .
d . Exemptions
If, in the previous tax year , you had gross income , from all sources ,
under $300 ,000 , you are exempt from the requirements to report :
i. subawards ,
and
ii. the total compensation of the five most highly compensated
executives of any subrecipient.
e.Definitions. For purposes of this award term :
1. Entity means all of the following , as defined in 2 CFR part 25 :
i. A Governmental organization , which is a State , local
government, or Indian tribe ;
ii. A foreign public entity ;
iii. A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization;
iv. A domestic or foreign for-profit organization;
v. A Federal agency , but only as a subrecip ient under an award
or subaward to a non -Federal entity.
2 . Executive means officers , managing partners , or any other
employees in management positions.
3. Subaward :
i. This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the
performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which you
received this award and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient.
ii. The term does not include your procurement of property and
services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation , see
Sec. --.210 of the attachment to OMB Circular A-133 , "Audits of States , Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations ").
iii. A subaward may be prov ided through any legal agreement,
including an agreement that you or a subrecipient considers a contract.
4.Subrecipient means an entity that:
i. Receives a subaward from you (the recipient) under this
award ; and
ii . Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds
provided by the subaward.
5. Total compensation means the cash and noncash dollar value earned
by the executive during the recipient's or subrecipient's preceding fiscal year and
includes the following (for more information see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2)):
i. Salary and bonus .
ii. Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights . Use
the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting
purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with the
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No . 123 (Revised 2004)
(FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments.
iii. Earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans . This does
not include group life , health , hospitalization or medical
reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives ,
and are available generally to all salaried employees.
iv . Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of
defined benefit and actuarial pension plans .
v. Above-market earnings on deferred compensation which is not
tax-qualified.
vi. Other compensation , if the aggregate value of all such other
compensation (e .g. severance , termination payments , value of life
insurance paid on behalf of the employee , perquisites or property) for
the executive exceeds $10,000.
16. Unless the event(s) and all of its components (i.e., receptions , banquets and other
activities that take place after normal business hours) are described in the approved workplan ,
the recipient agrees to obtain prior approval from EPA for the use of grant funds for light
refreshments and/or meals served at meetings , conferences , training workshops, and outreach
activities (events). The recipient must send requests for approval to the EPA Project Officer
and include :
(1) An estimated budget and description for the light refreshments , meals , and /or
beverages to be served at the event(s);
(2) A description of the purpose , agenda , location , length and timing for the event.
(3) An estimated number of participants in the event and a description of their roles.
Recipients may address questions about whether costs for light refreshments , and meals for
events are allowable to the recipient 's EPA Project Officer. However , the Agency Award Official
or Grant Management Officer will make final determinations on allowability . Agency policy
prohibits the use of EPA funds for receptions , banquets and sim ilar activit ies that take place
after normal business hours unless the recipient has provided a justification that has been
expressly approved by EPA's Award Official or Grants Management Officer.
Note : U.S . General Services Administration regulat ions define light refreshments for morning ,
afternoon or evening breaks to include , but not be limited to , coffee , tea , milk , juice , soft dri nks ,
donuts , bagels , fruit , pretzels , cookies , chips , or muffins . {41 CFR 301-74.11}.
2.
GENERAL COMPLIANCE, 40 CFR, Part 33
The recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of EPA's Program for Utilization of
Small , Minority and Women 's Business Enterprises in procurement under assistance
agreements , contained in 40 CFR, Part 33 .
FAIR SHARE OBJECTIVES, 40 CFR, Part 33, Subpart D
A recipient must negotiate with the appropriate EPA award official , or his /her designee ,
fair share objectives for MBE and WBE (MBEIWBE ) participation in procurement under
the financial assistance agreements.
Accepting the Fair Share Objectives/Goals of Another Recipient
The dollar amount of this assistance agreement is $250 ,000 , or more; or the total dollar
amount of all of the recipient's non-TAG assistance agreements from EPA in the current
fiscal year is $250 ,000 , or more . The recipient accepts the applicable MBE/WBE fair
share objectives /goals negotiated with EPA by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment as follows :
MBE : CONSTRUCTION 6 .1 %; SUPPLIES 6.1 %; SERVICES 6.1 %; EQUIPMENT 6 .1%
WBE : CONSTRUCTION 6 .6%; SUPPLIES 6.6% SERVICES 6.6%; EQUIPMENT 6.6%
By signing this financial assistance agreement , the recipient is accepting the fair share
objectives/goals stated above and attests to the fact that it is purchasing the same or
similar construction , supplies , serv ices and equipment, in the same or similar relevant
geographic buying market as Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
Negotiating Fair Share Objectives/Goals, 40 CFR, Section 33.404
The recipient has the option to negotiate its own MBE/WBE fair share objectives/goals.
If the recipient wishes to negotiate its own MBEIWBE fair share objectives/goals , the
recipient agrees to submit proposed MBEIWBE objectives/goals based on an availability
analysis , or disparity study, of qualified MBEs and WBEs in their relevant geographic
buying market for construction , services , supplies and equipment.
The submission of proposed fair share goals with the supporting analysis or disparity
study means that the recipient is not accepting the fair share objectives/goals of another
recipient. The recipient agrees to submit proposed fair share objectives/goals, togethe r
with the supporting availability analysis or disparity study, to the Regional MBE/WBE
Coordinator within 120 days of its acceptance of the financial assistance award. EPA
will respond to the proposed fair share objective/goals within 30 days of rece iving the
submission. If proposed fair share objective/goals are not received within the 120 day
time frame , the recipient may not expend its EPA funds for procurements until the
proposed fair share objective/goals are submitted.
SIX GOOD FAITH EFFORTS, 40 CFR, Part 33, Subpart C
Pursuant to 40 CFR , Section 33 .301 , the recipient agrees to make the following good faith
efforts whenever procuring construction, equipment, services and supplies under an EPA
financial assistance agreement, and to ensure that sub-recipients, loan recipients, and
prime contractors also comply. Records documenting compliance with the six good faith
efforts shall be retained:
(a) Ensure DBEs are made aware of contracting opportunities to the fullest extent
practicable through outreach and recruitment activities. For Indian Tribal , State and
Local and Government recipients , this will include placing DBEs on solicitation lists and
soliciting them whenever they are potential sources.
(b) Make information on forthcoming opportunities available to DBEs and arrange t ime
frames for contracts and establish delivery schedules, where the requ irements permit , in
a way that encourages and facili t ates participation by DBEs in the competitive process .
This includes , whenever possible , posting solicitations for bids or proposals for a
minimum of 30 calendar days before the bid or proposal closing date .
(c) Consider in the contracting process whether firms competing for large contracts
could subcontract with DBEs . For Ind ian Tribal , State and local Government recip ients,
this will include dividing total requirements when economically feas ible into smaller tasks
or quantities to perm it maximum participation by DBEs in the competit ive process.
(d) Encourage contracting with a consortium of DBEs when a contract is too large for
one of these firms to handle individually .
(e) Use the services and assistance of the SBA and the Minority Bus iness Deve lopment
Agency of the Department of Commerce .
(f) If the prime contractor awards subcontracts , require the prime cont ractor to take the
steps in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
MBE/WBE REPORTING, 40 CFR, Part 33, Sections 33.502 and 33.503
The recipient agrees to complete and submit EPA Form 5700-52A , "MBE/WBE
Utilization Under Federal Grants , Cooperative Agreements and Interagency
Agreements" beginning with the Federal fiscal year reporting period the recipient
receives the award , and continuing until the project is completed . Only procurements
with certified MBE/WBEs are counted toward a recipient's MBE/WBE accomplishments.
The report must be submitted annually for the period ending September 30 '":
The annual report is due by October 31'". Reports should be submitted to
R8grants@epa.gov. Final MBEIWBE reports must be submitted within 90 days
after the project period of the grant ends. Your grant cannot be officially closed
without all MBE/WBE reports.
EPA Form 5700-52A may be obtained from the EPA Office of Small Business Program's
Home Page on the Internet at www.epa.gov/osbp .
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS, 40 CFR, Section 33.302
The recipient agrees to comply with the contract administration provisions of 40 CFR ,
Section 33.302.
BIDDERS LIST, 40 CFR, Section 33.501 (b) and (c)
Recipients of a Continuing Environmental Program Grant or other annual reporting
grant , agree to create and maintain a bidders list. Recipients of an EPA financial
assistance agreement to capitalize a revolving loan fund also agree to require entities
receiving identified loans to create and maintain a bidders list if the recipient of the loan
is subject to, or chooses to follow , competitive bidding requirements. Please see 40
CFR, Section 33.501 (b) and (c) for specific requirements and exemptions .
3. Payment to consultants . EPA participation in the salary rate (excluding
overhead) paid to individual consultants retained by recipients or by a recipient's
contractors or subcontractors shall be limited to the maximum daily rate for a Level IV of
the Executive Schedule (formerly GS-18), to be adjusted annually. This limit applies to
consultation services of designated individuals with specialized skills who are paid at a
daily or hourly rate. As of January 1, 2011 , the limit is $596.00 per day and $74.50 per
hour. This rate does not include transportation and subsistence costs for travel
performed (the recipient will pay these in accordance with the ir normal travel
reimbursement practices).
Subagreements with firms for services which are awarded using the procurement requirements
in 40 CFR 30 or 31 , as applicable , are not affected by this limitation unless the terms of the
contract provide the recipient with responsibility for the selection , direction , and control of the
individuals who will be providing services under the contract at an hourly or daily rate of
compensation. See 40 CFR 31.360) or 30.27(b)
Allowable Preaward Cost are approved in the amount of $31,508.
Programmatic Conditions
Assessment Terms and Conditions
Please note that these Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) apply to Brownfields Assessment Grants
awarded under CERCLA § 1 04(k).
I. GENERAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: For the purposes of these Terms and Conditions the term "assessmenr includes , eligible
activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation , and Liability Act
(CERCLA) § 1 04(k)(2)(A)(i) such as activities involving the inventory , characterization , assessment,
and planning relating to brownfield sites as described in the EPA approved work plan
A. Federal Policy and Guidance
1. a. Cooperative Agreement Recipients : By awarding this cooperative agreement , EPA has
approved the proposal for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient (CAR) submitted in the Fiscal
Year 2012 competition for Brownfields assessment cooperative agreements . However, the CAR
may not expend {"draw down") funds to carry out this agreement until EPA's award official
approves the final work plan .
b . In implementing this agreement, the CAR shall ensure that work done with cooperative
agreement funds complies with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response ,
Compensation , and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 104{k). The CAR shall also ensure that assessment
activities supported with cooperative agreement funding comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations .
c . The recipient must comply with Federal cross-cutting requirements. These requirements
include but are not limited to , MBEIWBE requirements found at 40 CFR Part 33 ; OSHA Worker
Health & Safety Standard 29 CFR 191 0.120; the Uniform Relocation Act ; National Historic
Preservation Act ; Endangered Species Act ; and Permits required by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act ; Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity , and implementing regulations
at 41 CFR 60-4 ; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act , as amended (40 USC §
327-333) the Anti Kickback Act (40 USC§ 276c) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
as implemented by Executive Orders 11914 and 11250.
d. T he CAR must comply with Davis-Bacon Act preva iling wage requirements and associated
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations for all construction , alteration and repair contracts
and subcontracts awarded with funds provided under this agreement. Activities conducted under
assessment grants generally do not involve construction , alteration and repair within the meaning
of the Davis-Bacon Act. The recipient must contact EPA's Project Officer if there are unique
circumstances (e.g . removal of an underground storage tank or another structure and restoration
of the site) which indicate that the Davis-Bacon Act applies to an activity the CAR intends to carry
out with funds provided under this agreement. The Agency will provide guidance on Davis-Bacon
Act compliance if necessary .
B. Eligible Brownfields Site Determinations
1. a. The CAR must prov ide information to EPA about site-specific work prior to incurring any costs
under this cooperative agreement for sites that have not already been pre-approved in the CAR 's work
plan by the EPA. The information that must be provided includes whether or not the site meets the
definition of a brownfield site as defined in § 101 (39) of CERCLA , the identity of the owner, and the date of
acquisition .
b. If the site is excluded from the general definition of a brownfield , but is eligible for a
property-specific funding determination , then the CAR must provide information
sufficient for EPA to make a property-specific funding determination. The CAR must
provide sufficient information on how financial assistance will protect human health and
the environment , and either promote economic development or enable the creation of ,
preservation of, or addition to parks , greenways , undeveloped property , other
recreational property , or other property used for nonprofit purposes. The CAR must not
incur costs for assessing sites requiring a property -specific funding determination by
EPA until the EPA Project Officer has advised the CAR that the Agency has determined
that the property is eligible .
2 . a . For any petroleum contaminated brownfield site that is not included in the CAR 's EPA
approved work plan, the CAR shall provide sufficient documentation to the EPA prior to incurring
costs under this cooperative agreement which includes (see the latest version of EPA's Proposal
Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment Grants dated September 2011 for discussion of this
element) documenting that:
( 1) a State has determined that the petroleum site is of relatively low risk , as
compared to other petroleum-only sites in the State ,
(2) the State determines there is "no viable responsible party " for the site ;
(3) the State determines that the person assessing or investigating the site is a
person who is not potentially liable for cleaning up the site ; and
(4) the site is not subject to any order issued under section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
This documentation must be prepared by the CAR or the State following contact and discussion
with the appropriate petroleum program official .
b. Documentation must include ( 1) the identity of the State program official
contacted , (2) the State official 's telephone number , (3) the date of the contact ,
and (4) a summary of the discussion relating to the state 's determination that
the site is of relatively low risk , that there is no viable responsible party and that
the person assessing or investigating the site is not potentially liable for
cleaning up the site . Other documentation provided by a State to the recipient
relevant to any of the determinations by the State must also be provided to the
EPA Project Officer.
c. If the State chooses not to make the determinations described in 2.a. above , the
CAR must contact the EPA Project Officer and provide the information
necessary for EPA to make the requisite determinations .
A. Term of the Agreement
II. GENERAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
1. The term of this agreement is three years from the date of award , unless otherwise extended by
EPA at the CAR 's request.
2 . If after 18 months from the date of award , EPA determines that the CAR has not made sufficient
progress in implementing its cooperative agreement , the recipient must implement a corrective
action plan approved by the EPA PO or EPA may terminate this agreement for material
non -compliance with its terms . For purposes of assessment grants , the recipient demonstrates
"sufficient progress " when 35% of funds have been drawn down and obligated to eligible activities ;
for assessment coalition grants "sufficient progress" is demonstrated when a solicitation for
services has been released , sites are prioritized or an inventory has been initiated if necessary ,
community involvement activities have been initiated and a Memorandum of Agreement is in
place .
3. Assessment funding for an eligible brownfield site may not exceed $200 ,000 unless a waiver has
been granted by EPA. Following the granting of a waiver , funding is not to exceed $350,000 at
the site .
B. Substantiallnvolvement
1. The EPA may be substantially involved in overseeing and monitoring this cooperative agreement .
a. Substantial involvement by EPA generally includes administrative activities
such as monitoring , reviewing project phases , and approving substantive terms
included in professional services contracts .
b. Substantial EPA involvement also includes brownfields property -specific
funding determinations described in 1.8 . under Eligible Brownfields Site
Determinations above . If the CAR awards a subgrant for site assessment , the
CAR must obtain technical assistance from EPA on which sites qualify as a
brownfield site and determine whether the statutory prohibition found in section
1 04(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV) of CERCLA applies . This prohibition precludes the
subgrantee from using EPA funds to assess a site for which the subgrantee is
potentially liable under§ 107 of CERCLA. (See Section II.C.3 for more
information on subgrants.)
c. Substantial EPA involvement may include reviewing financial and
environmental status reports ; and monitoring all reporting , record-keeping , and
other program requirements .
d. EPA may wa ive any of the provisions in term and condition 11.8 .1., with the
exception of property-specific funding determinations. EPA will provide waivers
in writ ing .
2. Effect of EPA's substantial involvement includes:
a. EPA's review of any project phase , document, or cost incurred under this
cooperative agreement , will not have any effect upon CERCLA § 128 Eligible
Response Site determ inations or rights , authorities , and actions under CERCLA
or any Federal statute .
b. The CAR remains responsible for ensuring that all assessments are protective
of human health and the environment and comply with all applicable Federal
and State laws .
c. The CAR and its subgrantees remain responsible for incurring costs that are
allowable under the applicable OMB Circulars.
C . Cooperative Agreement Recipient Roles and Responsibilities
1. The CAR must acquire the services of a qualified environmental professional (s) to coordinate ,
direct, and oversee the brownfields assessment activities at a particular site , if they do not have such a
professional on staff.
2. The CAR is responsible for ensuring that contractors and subgrant recipients comply with the
terms of their agreements with the CAR , and that agreements between the CAR and subgrant recipients
and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement .
3. Subgrants are defined at 40 CFR 31.3. The CAR may not subgrant to for-profit organizations .
The CAR must obtain commercial services and products necessary to carry out this agreement under
competitive procurement procedures as described in 40 CFR 31 .36 . In addition , EPA policy encourages
awarding subgrants competitively and the CAR must consider awarding subgrants through competition .
4 . The CAR is responsible for assuring that EPA's Brownfields Assessment Grant funding received
under this grant, or in combination with any other previously awarded Brownfields Assessment grant does
not exceed the $200 ,000 assessment grant funding limitation for an individual brownfield site . Waiver of
this funding limit for a brownfields site must be approved by EPA prior to the expenditure of funding
exceeding $200 ,000 . In no case may EPA funding exceed $350 ,000 on a site receiving a waiver .
5 . CARs expending funding from a community-wide assessment grant on a particular site must
include such funding amount in any total funding expended on the site .
D. Quarterly Progress Reports
1. The CAR must submit progress reports on a quarterly basis to the EPA Project Officer . Quarterly
progress reports must include :
a. Summary of approved activities performed during the reporting quarter , summary of the
performance outputs/outcomes achieved during the reporting quarter , a description of
problems encountered during the reporting quarter that may affect the project schedule
and a discussion of meeting the performance outputs/outcomes .
b . An update on project schedules and milestones .
c. A list of the properties where assessment activities were performed and /or completed
during the reporting quarter.
d. A budget recap summary table with the following information : current approved project
budget ; costs incurred during the reporting quarter ; costs incurred to date (cumulative
expenditures); and total remaining funds .
2. The CAR must maintain records that will enable it to report to EPA on the amount of funds
expended on specific properties under this cooperative agreement .
3. In accordance with 40 CFR 31.40(d), the CAR agrees to inform EPA as soon as problems , delays ,
or adverse conditions become known which will materially impair the ability to meet the
outputs/outcomes specified in the approved work plan .
E. Property Profile Submission
1. The CAR must report on interim progress (i.e., assessment started) and any final
accomplishments (i.e ., assessment completed , cleanup required , contaminants , Institution
Controls , Engineering Controls) by completing and submitting relevant portions of the Property
Profile Form using the Brownfields Program on-line reporting system , known as Assessment ,
Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES). The CAR must enter the data in
ACRES as soon as the interim action or final accomplishment has occurred , or within 30 days
after the end of each reporting quarter. EPA will provide the CAR with training prior to obtaining
access to ACRES . The training is required to obtain access to ACRES . The CAR must utilize
the ACRES system unless approval is obtained from the regional Project Officer to utilize the
Property Profile Form .
F. Final Report
1. The CAR must submit a final report at the end of the period of performance in order to finalize the
closeout of the grant. This final report must capture the site names , what work was done at each
site and how much was spent at each site . It should also provide information that documents the
outreach efforts done by the CAR and other activities that help explain where the funding was
utilized .
Ill. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Eligible Uses of the Funds for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient
1. To the extent allowable under the work plan , cooperative agreement funds may be used for
eligible programmatic expenses to inventory , characterize , assess , and conduct planning and outreach .
Eligible programmatic expenses include activities described in Section IV of these Terms and Conditions .
In add ition , such eligible programmatic expenses may include :
a. Determining whether assessment activities at a particular site are authorized by CERCLA
§ 104(k);
b. Ensuring that an assessment complies with applicable requirements under Federal and
State laws , as required by CERCLA § 104(k);
c. Using a portion of the grant to purchase environmental insurance for the
characterization or assessment of the site . Funds may not be used to purchase
insurance intended to provide coverage for any of the Ineligible Uses under
Section 111.8.
d . Any other eligible programmatic costs including direct costs incurred by the recipient in
reporting to EPA ; procuring and managing contracts ; awarding and managing subgrants
to the extent allowable under Ill. B. 2.; and carrying out community involvement pertaining
to the assessment activities .
B. Ineligible Uses of the Funds for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient
1. Cooperative agreement funds shall not be used by the CAR for any of the following activities :
a . Cleanup activities ;
b . Development activities that are not brownfields assessment activities (e .g ., construction of a
new facility);
c . Job training unrelated to performing a specific assessment at a site covered by the grant ;
d. To pay for a penalty or fine ;
e . To pay a federal cost share requirement (for example , a cost-share required by another Federal
grant) unless there is specific statutory authority ;
f. To pay for a response cost at a brownfields site for which the recipient of the grant or subgrant is
potentially liable under CERCLA § 1 07 ;
g. To pay a cost of compliance with any federal law , excluding the cost of compliance with laws
applicable to the assessment ; and
h. Unallowable costs (e .g ., lobbying and fund raising) under applicable OMB Circulars .
2. Under CERCLA § 104(k)(4)(B), administrative costs are prohibited costs under this agreement.
Prohibited administrative costs include all indirect costs under applicable OMS Circulars .
a. Ineligible administrative costs include costs incurred in the form of salaries ,
benefits , contractual costs , supplies , and data processing charges , incurred to
comply with most provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants contained in 40 CFR Part 31 . Direct costs for grant administration , with
the exception of costs specifically identified as eligible programmatic costs , are
ineligible even if the grant recipient is required to carry out the activity under the
grant agreement.
b. Ineligible grant administration costs include direct costs for :
(1) Preparation of applications for brownfields grants;
(2) Record retention required under 40 CFR 31 .42 ;
(3) Record-keeping associated with supplies and equipment purchases required under
40 CFR 31 .32 and 31 .33 ;
(4) Preparing revisions and changes in the budgets, scopes of work, program plans and
other activities required under 40 CFR 31 .30;
(5) Maintaining and operating financial management systems required under 40 CFR 31 ;
(6) Preparing payment requests and handling payments under 40 CFR 31 .21 ;
(7) Non-federal audits required under 40 CFR 31 .26 and OMB Circular A-133 ; and
(8) Close out under 40 CFR 31 .50 .
3 . Cooperative agreement funds may not be used for any of the following properties :
a. Facilities listed , or proposed for listing , on the National Priorities List (NPL);
b. Facilities subject to unilateral administrative orders , court orders , administrative
orders on consent or judicial consent decree issued to or entered by parties
under CERCLA ;
c . Facilities that are subject to the jurisdiction , custody or control of the United
States government except for land held in trust by the United States government
for an Indian tribe ; or
d . A site excluded from the definition of a brownfields site for which EPA has not
made a property-specific funding determination .
4 . The CAR must not include management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs or at
the rate provided for by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA . The term "management
fees or similar charges" refers to expenses added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and
reserve funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities , or for other similar costs that
are not allowable under EPA assistance agreements . Management fees or similar charges may
not be used to improve or expand the project funded under this agreement , except to the extent
authorized as a direct cost of carrying out the scope of work .
C. Interest -Bearing Accounts and Program Income
1. In accordance with 40 CFR 31 .25(g)(2), the CAR is authorized to add program income to the
funds awarded by the EPA and use the program income under the same terms and conditions of this
agreement. Program income for the assessment CAR shall be defined as the gross income received by
the recipient , directly generated by the cooperative agreement award or earned during the period of the
award . Program income includes, but is not limited to , fees charged for conducting assessment , site
characterizations , clean up planning or other activities when the costs for the activity is charged to this
agreement.
2 . The CAR must deposit advances of grant funds and program income (i.e. fees) in an interest
bearing account.
a. For interest earned on advances , CARs are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
§31 .21 (i) to remitting interest on advances to EPA on a quarterly basis .
b. Interest earned on program income is considered additional program income .
c . The CAR must disburse program income (including interest earned on program
income) before requesting additional payments from EPA as required by 40 CFR
31 .21 (f).
IV. ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Authorized Assessment Activities
1. Prior to conducting or engaging in any on-site activity with the potential to impact historic
properties (such as invasive sampling), the CAR shall consult with EPA regarding potential applicability of
the National Historic Preservation Act and, if applicable , shall assist EPA in complying with any
requirements of the Act and implementing regulations.
B. Quality Assurance (QA) Requirements
1. When environmental samples are collected as part of the brownfields assessment , the CAR shall
comply with 40 CFR Part 31.45 requirements to develop and implement quality assurance practices
sufficient to produce data adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize data loss . State law may
impose additional QA requirements .
C. Completion of Assessment Activities
1. The CAR shall properly document the completion of all activities described in the EPA approved
work plan. This must be done through a final report or letter from a qualified environmental professional ,
or other documentation provided by a State or Tribe that shows assessments are complete .
D. All Appropriate Inquiry
1. As required by CERCLA § 1 04(k)(2)(B)(ii) and CERCLA § 101 (35)(8), the CAR shall ensure that a
Phase I site characterization and assessment carried out under this agreement will be performed
in accordance with EPA 's standard for all appropriate inquiries . The CAR shall utilize the
practices in ASTM standard E1527-05 "Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessment :
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," or EPA's All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule
"All Appropriate Inquiries Rule : Reporting Requirements and Suggestions on Report Content",
(Publication Number: EPA 560-F-06-244). This does not preclude the use of grant funds for
additional site characterization and assessment activities that may be necessary to characterize
the environmental impacts at the site or to comply with applicable State standards .
2. All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) final reports produced with funding from this agreement must
comply with 40 C .F.R. Part 312 and must, at a minimum , include the information below. All AAI
reports submitted to EPA Project Officers as deliverables under this agreement must be
accompanied by a completed "Reporting Requirements Checklist" that EPA's Project Officer will
provide to the recipient. The checklist also is available to grantees on the EPA website at
www .epa .gov/brownfields .
a. An opinion as to whether the inquiry has identified conditions indicative of releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and as applicable , pollutants and
contaminants , petroleum or petroleum products , or controlled substances , on , at , in , or to the
subject property .
b. An identification of ·significant" data gaps (as defined in 40 C.F .R. 312.1 0), if any , in the
information collected for the inquiry . Significant data gaps include missing or unattainable
information that affects the ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions
indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and as applicable ,
pollutants and contaminants, petroleum or petroleum products , or controlled substances , on ,
at, in, or to the subject property . The documentation of significant data gaps must include
information regarding the significance of these data gaps .
c. Qualifications and signature of the environmental professional(s). The environmental
professional must place the following statements in the document and sign the document :
"[/, We} declare that, to the best of [my, our} professional knowledge and belief, [/, we}
meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of this part."
"[1, We} have the specific qualifications based on education , training, and experience to
assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. [1, We} have
developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance wHh the standards and
practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312."
Note: Please use either "I" or "We ."
d . In compliance with §312 .31(b), the environmental professional must include in the final report
an opinion regarding additional appropriate investigation , if the environmental professional
has such an opinion.
3. EPA may review checklists and AAI final reports for compliance with the AAI regulation
documentation requirements at 40 CFR part 312 (or comparable requirements for those using
ASTM Standard 1527-05). Any deficiencies identified during an EPA review of these documents
must be corrected by the recipient within 30 days of notification. Failure to correct any identified
deficiencies may result in EPA disallowing the costs for the entire AAI report as authorized by 40
CFR 31.43(a)(2). If a recipient willfully fails to correct the deficiencies the Agency may consider
other available remedies under 40 CFR 31.43 and 2 CFR Part 180.
V. Conflict of interest : Appearance of lack of Impartiality
A. Conflict of Interest
1. The CAR shall establish and enforce conflict of interest provisions that prevent the award of
subgrants that create real or apparent personal conflicts of interest , or the CAR 's appearance of lack of
impartiality . Such situations include , but are not limited to , situations in which an employee , official ,
consultant , contractor, or other individual associated with the CAR (affected party) approves or
administers a grant or subgrant to a subgrant recipient in which the affected party has a financial or other
interest. Such a conflict of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality may arise when :
(i) The affected party ,
(ii) Any member of his immediate family ,
(iii) His or her partner, or
(iv) An organization which employs , or is about to employ, any of the above , has a financial or
other interest in the subgrant recipient.
Affected employees will neither solicit nor accept gratuities , favors , or anything of monetary value
from subgrant recipients . Recipients may set minimum rules where th e financial interest is not
substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value . To the extent permitted by
State or local law or regulations , such standards of conduct will provide for penalties , sanctions,
or other disciplinary actions for violations of such standards by affected parties .
VI. PAYMENT AND CLOSEOUT
A. Payment Schedule
DRAFT Assessment T &C 5/20/05
1. The CAR may request payment from EPA pursuant to 40 CFR §31 .21 (c).
B. Schedule for Closeout
1. Closeout will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 31 .50 . EPA will close out the award when
it determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work of the grant have been
completed.
2 . The CAR, within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant , must submit all financial ,
performance, and other reports required as a condition of the grant.
a . The CAR must submit the following documentation :
i. The Final Report as described in II .F.
ii. A Final Federal Financial Report (FFR -SF425). Submitted to:
US EPA, Las Vegas Finance Center
4220 S. Maryland Pkwy , Bid C , Rm 503
Las Vegas , NV 89119
Fax: (702) 798-2423
http ://www.epa.gov/ocfolfinservices/payinfo.html
111. A Final MBE/WBE Report (EPA Form 5700-52A) submitted to the regional
office.
b. The CAR must ensure that all appropriate data has been entered into ACRES or all Property
Profile Forms are submitted to the Region.
The grantee must immediately refund to the Federal agency any balance of unobligated (unencumbered)
cash advanced that is not authorized to be retained for use on other grants .
Assessment Terms and Conditions
Plea e note that the e Terms and Conditions (T &Cs) apply to Brown fields Assessment Grant awarded under
CERCLA § I 04(k).
I. GENERAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: For the purposes of these Terms and Conditions the term "assessment" includes, eligible activities
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §
104(k)(2)(A)(i) such as activities involving the inventory, characterization, assessment, and planning relating
to brownfield sites as described in the EPA approved work plan.
A. Feder.ll Policy and Guidance
1. a. Cooperative Agreement Recipient : By awarding this cooperative agreement. EPA has approved the
proposa l for the Cooperative Agreement Recipie nt (CAR) s ubmitted in the Fiscal Year 20 12 competition
for Brownfields assessment cooperative agreements. However, the CAR may not expend ("draw down")
funds to carry out thi s agreement until EPA 's award official approves the final work plan.
b . In implementin g this agreement. the CAR hall ensure th at work done with cooperative agreement fund
complies with the requirements of th e Comprehensive E nviro nm e nta l Res po nse, Campen arion. and
Liability Act (CERCLA) § 104(1<). The CAR shall a lso en ure that assessment activities su pported with
cooperative agreement funding compl y with all a ppli cable Federal a nd State law and regulations.
c. The recipient must compl y with Federal cro s-c utting requirements. These requirements include but are
not limited to, MBE/WBE requirements found a t 40 CFR Part 33; OSHA Worker Health & Safety Standard
29 CFR 191 0 .120; the Uniform Relocation Act; National Hi storic Preser va ti o n Act: Endangered Species
Act; and Permits required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 60-4; Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, as amended (40 USC§ 327-333) the Anti Kickback Act (40 USC§ 276c) and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as implemented by Executive Orders 1191 4 and 11250.
d . The CAR must comply with Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements and associated U.S .
Department of Labor (D OL) regulations for all construction , alteration and repair contracts and
subcontracts awarded with funds provided under this agreement. Activities conducted under assessment
grants generally do not involve construction, alteration and repair within the meaning of the Davis-Bacon
Act. The recipient must contact EPA's Project Officer if there are unique circumstances (e.g. removal of an
underground storage tank or another structure and restoration of the site) which indicate that the
Davis-Bacon Act applies to an activity the CAR intend to carry out with funds provided under this
agreement. The Agency will provide guidance on Davis-Bacon Act compliance if necessary.
B. Eligible Brownfields Site Determinations
I . a . The CAR must provide information to EPA about site-specific work prior to incurring any costs under
this cooperative agreement for sites that have not already been pre-approved in the CAR's work plan by the EPA.
The information that must be provided includes whether or not the site meets the definition of a brownfield site as
defined in§ 101(39) of CERCLA, the identity of the owner, and the date of acquisition .
b . If the site is excluded from the general definition of a brownfield, but is eligible for a
property-specific funding determination , then the CAR must provide information sufficient for
EPA to make a property-specific funding determination . The CAR must provide sufficient
information on how financial assistance will protect human health and the environment, and
either promote economic development or enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to
parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational property, or other property used for
nonprofit purposes . The CAR must not incur costs for assessing sites requiring a
propetty-s pecific funding determination by EPA until the EPA Project Officer has advised the
CAR that the Agency ha s determined that the property is eligible.
2. a. For any petroleum contaminated brownfield si te that is not included in the CAR 's EPA
approved work plan, the CAR shall provide sufficient documentation to the EPA prior to incurring cost
under thi cooperative agreement which includes (see the latest version of EPA's Proposal Guidelines for
Brownfields Assessment Grants dated September 2011 for discussion of this element) documenting that:
(1) a State has determined that the petroleum site is of relatively low risk, as compared
to other petroleum-only sites in the State,
(2) the State determines there is "no viable responsible party" for the site;
(3) the State determines that the person as essing or inve ligating the si te is a person
who is not potentialJy liable for cleaning up the site; and
(4) the site is not su bject to any order issued under section 9003(h) of the SoLid Waste Disposal
Act.
This documentation must be prepared by the CAR or the State following contact and discussion with the
appropriate petroleum program official.
b. Documentation must include (I) the identity of the State program official contacted, (2)
the State official's telephone number, (3) the date of the contact, and (4) a summary of
the discussion relating to the state' determination that the site is of relatively low risk ,
that there is no viable responsible party and that the person as essing or investigating
the site is not potentially liable for cleaning up the site. Other documentation provided
by a State to the recipient relevant to any of the determinations by the State must also be
provided to the EPA Project Officer.
c. If the State choo es not to make the determinations de cribed in 2.a. above, the CAR
must contact the EPA Project Officer and provide the information necessary for EPA to
make the requisite determinations.
A. Term of the Agreement
II. GENERAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
I . The term of this agreement is three year from the date of award. unles otherwise extended by EPA at the
CAR' request .
2. Tf after 18 months from the date of award, EPA determines that the CAR has not made sufficient progress in
implementing its cooperative agreement, the recipient must implement a corrective action plan approved by
the EPA PO or EPA may terminate this agreement for material non-compliance with its term . For
purposes of assessment grants, the recipient demonstrates "s ufficient progre s" when 35% of funds have
been drawn down and obligated to eligible activities; for assessment coalition grants "sufficient progress " i
demonstrated when a solicitation for services ha been relea ed. sites are prioritized or an inventory has
been initiated if necessary, community involvement activities have been initiated and a Memorandum of
Agreement i in place.
3. Asse ment funding for an eligible brownfield site may not exceed $200,000 unless a waiver has been
granted by EPA. Following the granting of a waiver, funding is not to exceed $350,000 at the site.
B. Substantial Involvement
I . The EPA may be ubstantially involved in over eeing and monitoring this cooperative agreement.
a. Substantial involvement by EPA generally include adrnini trative activities such a
monitoring , reviewing project phases , and approving substantive terms included in
professional services contracts.
b. Substantial EPA involvement also includes brownfields property-specific funding
determinations described in I.B. under Eligible Brownfie/ds Site Determinations above.
If the CAR awards a subgrant for site assessment. the CAR mu t obtain technical
assistance from EPA on which ites qualify as a brownfield site and determine whether
the statutory prohibition found in section I 04(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV) of CERCLA applies. This
prohibition precludes the subgrantee from using EPA funds to a sess a site for which the
sub grantee is potentially liable under§ I 07 of CERCLA. (See Section IT .C.3 for more
information on ubgrants .)
c. Substantial EPA involvement may include reviewing financial and environmental tatus
reports; and monitoring all reporting, record-keeping, and other program requirements .
d. EPA may waive any of the provision in tem1 and condition Il.B.I .. with the exception
of properry-specific funding determinations. EPA will provide waivers in writing.
2. Effect of EPA 's ubstantial involvement includes:
a. EPA 's review of any project phase , document. or cost incurred under this cooperative
agreement, will not have any effect upon CERCLA § 128 Eligible Response Site
determinations or rights , authoritie . and actions under CERCLA or any Federal statute.
b. The CAR remains re ponsible for ensuring that all assessments are protective of human
health and the environment and comply with all applicable Federal and State laws .
c. The CAR and it subgrantees remain responsible for incurring costs that are allowable
under the applicable OMB Circulars.
C. Cooperative Agreement Recipient Roles and Responsibilities
I. The CAR must acquire the services of a qualified environmental professional(s) to coordinate, direct, and
oversee the brownfield assessment activities at a particular site, if they do not have such a professional on staff.
2. The CAR is responsible for ensuring that contractors and sub grant recipients comply with the terms of their
agreements with the CAR, and that agreements between the CAR and subgrant recipients and contractors comply
with the terms and conditions of this agreement.
3 . Subgrants are defined at40 CFR 31.3. The CAR may not subgrant to for-profit organizations. The CAR
must obtain commercial services and products neces ary to carry out this agreement under competitive procurement
procedure as described in 40 CFR 31.36. In addition, EPA policy encourages awarding subgrants competitively
and the CAR must consider awarding subgrants through competition.
4. The CAR is responsible for assuring that EPA's Brownfields Assessment Grant funding received under this
grant, or in combination with any other previously awarded Brownfields Assessment grant does not exceed the
$200,000 assessment grant funding limitation for an individual brownfield site. Waiver of this funding limit for a
brownfields site must be approved by EPA prior to the expenditure of funding exceeding $200,000. In no case may
EPA funding exceed $350,000 on a site receiving a waiver.
5. CARs expending funding from a community-wide assessment grant on a particular site must include such
funding amount in any total funding expended on the site.
D. Quarterly Progress Reports
l. The CAR mu st submit progress reports on a quarterly basis to the EPA Project Officer. Quarterly progress
reports mu st include:
a. Summary of approved activities performed during the reporting quarter, summary of the
performance outputs/outcomes achieved during the reporting quarter. a description of problems
encountered during the reporting quarter that may affect the project schedule and a discussion of
meeting the performance outputs/outcomes.
b. An update on project schedules and milestones.
c. A list of the properties where asses ment activities were performed and/or completed during the
reporting quarter.
d . A budget recap summary table with the following information: current approved project budget;
costs incurred during the reporting quarter ; costs incurred to date (cumulative expenditures); and
total remaining funds.
2. The CAR must maintain records that will enable it to report to EPA on the amount of funds expended on
specific properties under this cooperative agreement.
3. ln accordance with 40 CFR 31.40(d), the CAR agrees to inform EPA as soon as problems , delays , or
adverse conditions become known which will materially impair the ability to meet the outputs/outcomes
specified in the approved work plan .
E. Property Profile Submission
l. The CAR must report on interim progress (i.e., assessment started) and any fmal accomplishments (i .e.,
assessment completed, cleanup required , contaminants, Institution Controls, Engineering Controls) by
completing and submitting relevant portions of the Property Profile Form using the Brownfields Program
on-line reporting system, known as Assessment. Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES).
The CAR must enter the data in ACRES as soon as the interim action or final accomplishment has occurred,
or within 30 days after the end of each reporting quarter . EPA will provide the CAR with training prior to
obtaining access to ACRES. The training is required to obtain acces to ACRES. The CAR must utilize
the ACRES system unless approval is obtained from the regional Project Officer to utilize the Property
Profile Form.
F. Final Report
I. The CAR must submit a final report at the end of the period of performance in order to finalize the closeout
of the grant. This final report must capture the site name , what work was done at each site and how much
was spe nt at each site. It should also pro vide information that documents the o utreach efforts done by the
CAR and other activities that help explain where the funding was utilized.
III. FINANCIAL ADMlNISTRA TION REQUIREMENTS
A. Eligible Uses of the Funds for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient
I. To the extent allowab le under the work plan , cooperative agreement funds may be used for eligib le
programmatic expenses to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and outreach. Eligible
programmatic expense include activities de cribed in Section IV of these Terms and Conditions. In addition. uch
eligible programmatic expenses may include:
a. Determining whether as essment activities at a particular site are authorized by CERCLA § I 04(k);
b . Ensuring that an asse sment complie with app li cable requirements under Federal and State laws ,
as required by CERCLA § I 04(k);
c. Usi ng a portion of the grant to purchase environmental insurance for the
characterization or asses ment of the site. Funds may not be used to purchase
insurance intended to provide coverage for any of the Ineligible Uses under
Section IIT .B .
d. Any other eligible programmatic cost including direct co ts incurred by the recipient in reponing
to E PA ; procuring and managing contra cts; awarding and managing subgrants to the extent
allowable under lB. B. 2.; and carrying out community involvement pertaining to the assessment
activitie .
B. Ineligible Uses of the Funds for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient
I . Cooperative agreement funds hall not be used by the CAR for any of the following activitie :
a. Clean up activities:
b . Development activities that are not brown fields as essment activities (e.g., construction of a new facility);
c. Job training unrelated to performing a specific assessment at a site covered by the grant;
d . To pay for a penalty or fine;
e. To pay a federal cost share requirement (for example. a cost-share required by another Federal grant)
unless there is specific statutory authority;
f. To pay for a response co t at a brownfields site for whic h the recipient of the grant or ubgrant i
potentially liable under CERCLA § 107;
g. To pay a cost of compliance with any federal law, excludi ng the cost of compliance with law applicable
to the assessment; and
h . Unallowable costs (e .g ., lobbying and fund raising) und er a ppli cab le OMB Circulars.
2. Under CERCLA § I 04(k)( 4)(B), administrative costs are prohibited costs under this agreement. Prohibited
administrative costs include all indirect costs under applicable OMB Circulars.
a. Ineligible administrative costs include costs incurred in the form of salaries, benefits,
contractual costs, supplies, and data processing charges, incurred to comply with most
provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirememsfor Grams contained in 40 CFR
Part 3 L. Direct costs for grant ad mini tration, with the exception of costs specifically
identified as eligible programmatic costs, are ineligible even if the grant recipient i
required to carry out the activity under the grant agreement.
b. Ineligible grant administration costs include direct costs for:
(I) Preparation of applications for brownfields grants;
(2) Record retention required under 40 CFR 31.42;
(3) Record-keeping associated with suppLie and equipment purchases required under 40 CFR
31.32 and 31.33;
( 4) Preparing revisions and changes in the budgets. scopes of work , program plans and other
activities required under 40 CFR 31.30;
(5) Maintaining and operating financial management ystems required under 40 CFR 31;
(6) Preparing payment requests and handling payments under 40 CFR 31.21 ;
(7) Non-federal audits required under 40 CFR 31.26 and OMB Circular A-133; and
(8) Close out under 40 CFR 31.50.
3. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used for any of the following properties:
a. Facilities Listed, or proposed for listing, on the National Priorities List (NPL);
b. Facilities ubject to unilateral administrative orders , court orders, administrative orders
on consent or judicial consent decree issued to or entered by parties under CERCLA ;
c. Facilities that are subject to the jurisdiction, custody or control of the United States
government except for land held in trust by the United States government for an Indian
tribe; or
d . A site excluded from the definition of a brownfields site for which EPA has not made a
property-specific funding determination .
4. The CAR must not include management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs or at the rate
provided for by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term "management fees or similar
charges" refers to expenses added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing
business expenses , unforeseen Liabilities, or for other similar costs that are not allowable under EPA
assistance agreements . Management fees or similar charges may not be used to improve or expand the
project funded under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a direct cost of carrying out the
scope of work.
C. Interest -Bearing Accounts and Program Income
I. In accordance with 40 CFR 31 .25(g)(2), the CA R i authorized to add program income to the funds
awarded by the EPA and u e the program income under the same terms and condition of this agreement. Program
income for the assessment CAR shall be defined as the gross income received by the recipient, directly generated by
the cooperative agreement award or earned during the period of the award. Program income includes, but is not
limited to. fees charged for conductin g assessment, site characterizations, c lean up planning or other activities when
the costs for the activity i charged to this agreement.
2. The CAR mu t deposit advances of grant funds and program income (i.e. fees) in an interest bearing
account.
a. For interest earned on advance , CARs are subject to the provi ions of 40 CFR §31.2l(i) to
remitting interest on advances to E PA on a quarterly basis.
b . Intere t earned on program income is considered additional program income.
c. The CAR mu t disburse program income (including intere t earned on program income)
before requesting additional payments from EPA as required by 40 CFR 31.21 (f).
IV. ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Authorized Assessment Activities
1 . Prior to conducting or engaging in any on-site activity with the potential to impact historic properties (s uch
as invasive sampling), the CAR hall consult with EPA regarding potential applicability of the National Historic
Preservation Act and, if applicable. shall assist EPA in complying with any requirements of the Act and
implementing regulation .
B. Quality Assurance (QA ) Requirements
I . When environmental samp les are coll ected as part of the brown fields assessment, the CAR shall comply
with 40 CFR Part 31.45 requirements to develop and implement quality assurance practices sufficient to produce
data adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize data lo ss. State law may impose additional QA
requirements.
C. Completion of Assessment Activities
I . The CAR shall properly document the completion of all activities described in the EPA approved work
plan. This must be done through a final report or letter from a qualified environmental professional, or other
doc umentation provided by a State or Tribe that shows a sessments are complete.
D. All Appropriate Inquiry
I. As required by CERCLA § I 04(k)(2)(B)(ii) and CERCLA § I 0 I (35)(8 ). the CAR shall ensure that a Phase
I site c haracteri zation and as e ment carried out under this agreement will be performed in accordance
wi th EPA's standard for all appropriate inquirie . The CAR shall utilize the practices in ASTM standard
El 527-05 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site A se sment : Pha e I Environmental Site As essment
Proce s," or EPA's All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule "All Appropriate lnqui rie Rule: Reporting
Requirements and Sugge tion s on Report Content", (Publication Number: EPA 560-F-06-244). This does
not preclude the use of grant funds for additional site characterization and assessment activitie that may be
necessary to characterize the environmental impacts at the site or to comply with applicab le State tandards.
2. All Appropriate Inquiries (AAJ) final reports produced with funding from thi s ag reement must comp ly with
40 C.F.R. Part 3 12 and must. at a minimum. include the information be low. A ll AAI reports submitted to
EPA Project Officers a deliverables under this agreement must be accompanied by a completed "Reporting
Requirements Checklist" that EPA's Project Officer will provide to the recipient. The checklist also is
available to grantees on the EPA website at www.epa.gov/brownfields .
a. An opinion as to whether the inquiry has identified conditions indicative of releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, and as applicable, pollutants and contaminants , petroleum or
petroleum products, or controlled substances, on, at, in, or to the subject property.
b. An identification of "significant" data gaps (as defined in 40 C.F.R. 312.1 0), if any, in the information
collected for the inquiry. Significant data gaps include missing or unattainable information that affects
the ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened
releases of hazardous sub stances , and as applicable, pollutants and contaminants, petroleum or
petroleum products. or controlled substances, on, at, in , or to the subject property. The documentation
of significant data gaps must include information regarding the significance of these data gaps.
c . Qualifications and sigllOture of the environmental professional(s). The environmental professional
must place the following statements in the document and sign the document:
• "{!, We] declare that, to the best of [my, our] professional knowledge and belief,[/, we} meet
the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §3/2. 10 of this part.''
• "[1, We] have the specific qualifications based on education. training , and experience to assess a
property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. [I, We] have developed and performed
the all appropriate inquiries in confomwnce with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part
312 ."
Note: Please use either "I" or "We."
d. In compliance with §312 .31 (b), the environmental professional must include in the final report an
opinion regarding additional appropriate investigation , if the environmental professional has such an
opinion.
3. EPA may review checklists and AAI final reports for compliance with the AAI regulation documentation
requirements at 40 CFR part 312 (or comparable requirements for those using ASTM Standard 1527-05).
Any deficiencies identified during an EPA review of these documents must be corrected by the recipient
within 30 days of notification. Failure to correct any identified deficiencies may result in EPA disallowing
the costs for the entire AAI report as authorized by 40 CFR 31.43(a)(2). If a recipient willfully fails to
correct the deficiencies the Agency may consider other available remedies under 40 CFR 31.43 and 2 CFR
Part 180.
V. Conflict of interest: Appearance of lack of Impartiality
A. Conflict of Interest
l . The CAR shall establish and enforce conflict of interest provisions that prevent the award of subgrants that
create real or apparent personal conflicts of interest, or the CAR's appearance of lack of impartiality. Such situations
include, but are not limited to, situations in which an employee, official, consultant, contractor, or other individual
as ociated with the CAR (affected party) approves or administers a grant or subgrant to a subgrant recipient in which
the affected party has a financial or other interest. Such a conflict of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality
may arise when:
(i) The affected party ,
(ii) Any member of his immediate family ,
(iii) Hi or her partner, or
(iv) An organization which employs. or is about to employ. any of the above. has a financial or other
interest in the ubgrant recipient.
Affected employees will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from
subgrant recipients. Recipients may set minimum rules where the financial interest is not substantial or the
gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrin ic value. To the extent permitted by State or local law or
regulation , such standards of cond uct will provide for penalties, sanctions. or other di ciplinary actions for
violations of uch standards by affected parties .
VI. PAYMENT AND CLOSEOUT
A. Payment Schedule
DRAFT Assessment T&C 5/20/05
I. The CAR may request payment from EPA pursuant to 40 CFR §31.2l(c).
B. Schedule for Closeout
I. Closeout will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 31.50. EPA will close out the award when it
determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work of the grant have been completed.
2. The CAR, within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant, must s ubmit all financial,
performance, and other reports required as a condition of the grant.
a. The CAR mu st submit the following documentation:
i. The Final Report as described in U.F.
ii. A Final Federal Financial Report (FFR-SF425 ). Submitted to:
US EPA, Las Vegas Finance Center
4220 S . Maryland Pkwy , Bid C, Rm 503
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Fax: (702) 798-2423
http://www .e pa.gov/ocfo/finservices/payinfo.html
111. A Final MBEIWBE Report (EPA Form 5700-52A) s ubmitted to the regional
office.
b. The CAR must ensure that all appropriate data has been entered into ACRES or all Property Profile
Forms are s ubmitted to the Region.
The grantee must immediately refund to the Federal agency any balance of unobligated (unencumbered) ca h
advanced that is not authorized to be retained for use on other grants.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
Brownfields Assessment Grant Workplan
The work described in your workplan should be based on your proposal
1. Project Overview:
The City of Wheat Ridge is an inner ring suburb developed primarily in the 1940s to
1960s prior to many of the current environmental regulations. The City has a history of
agricultural , automotive and industrial uses that have most likely left some extent of
environmental contamination. Since the City is landlocked, it is focused on
redevelopment of existing commercial corridors and industrial lands.
The primary focus of the community-wide assessment will be the Wadsworth Blvd.
urban renewal area. There are 75 properties in the Wadsworth Blvd. urban renewal area.
A preliminary records search indicate more than half of these properties are current
chemical or release sites or have a history of uses with the potential for environmental
contamination.
In addition, the City would like to use funds at other key redevelopment sites in the City.
This could include the site of a proposed rail station as part ofRTD's FasTracks Gold
Line project which the City would like to target for transit oriented development. These
lands are currently zoned industrial and have a history of industrial uses including auto
repair shops and steel manufacturing,
2. Management and Coordination:
The primary project contact from the City will be Sally Payne, Senior Planner with the
City's Community Development Department. In addition, Kathy Field, Administrative
Assistance and Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director, will also devote
time to the brownfields project. Ms. Payne would be the primary City staff member
billing against the grant for direct time spent on preparing deliverables such as quarterly
reports and financial status reports. We anticipate forming a staff team or work group of
City staff and other stakeholders to assist with the project's activities as well.
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020), a non-profit community and economic development
organization created and funded by the City in 2006, will assist the City with project
management and oversight. WR2020 has experience with brownfields assessment work
and was responsible for developing the inventory of properties in the target area of
Wadsworth Blvd. with preliminary Phase I Assessment data. They would assist with site
selection and prioritization, coordination of work ofthe environmental consultant
undertaking the Phase I and II assessments, and some aspects of community and property
owner outreach.
The City will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire an environmental consulting
firm to perform the Phase I and II assessments and cleanup planning activities.
Attachment 3
3. Description of Activities:
3.1 Site Identification/Selection:
The primary focus of the grant funds will be on the Wadsworth Blvd corridor.
Wadsworth Blvd. is the primary commercial corridor through the City and site of
a new Town Center development that is currently under construction. Since the
majority of the properties along the corridor were developed in the 1960s and
1970s and are showing signs of disinvestment, the focus is on redevelopment of
the corridor. The City designated it as an urban renewal area in 2002. Wheat
Ridge 2020, a non-profit economic and community development organization ,
has created an inventory of properties along Wadsworth Blvd. with information
from regulatory and public agency records on historical uses of the properties .
This inventory will be used to identify and prioritize properties with the highest
likelihood of contamination to undertake the environmental assessments and clean
up planning on Wadsworth Blvd .
In addition , Wheat Ridge is the site of the end of the line station for RTD 's
FasTracks Gold Line. The station will be located in an area with a history of
industrial land uses . The City is actively facilitating redevelopment at the site to
support transit oriented development (TOD) principles. As efforts proceed on the
redevelopment of the area the City would like to utilize the brownfields grant
funds to undertake environmental assessments and clean up planning.
There are other key sites in the City currently being looked at for redevelopment.
As work moves forward at these sites the City would like to use the brownfields
grant funds as opportunities arise in working with property owners and potential
developers.
3.2 EPA Site Approval:
No site-specific work will be conducted on sites prior to receiving approval from
the EPA Project Officer.
3.3 Site Assessments:
There are 75 properties that have been inventoried within the Wadsworth Blvd.
urban renewal area. The inventory contains information on these properties
related to regulatory and public agency information, records of chemical use and
releases obtained from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment and Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety and available
historical land use information . The inventory work revealed the following
preliminary environmental information for the properties:
• 25 of the 75 properties are reported chemical use or release sites , or have
had past land uses where chemicals were used or stored ;
• 5 properties are reported leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites ;
2
• 13 properties were former gas stations, auto repair shops or dry cleaners;
• 3 properties are reported former nursery or greenhouse operation, with the
potential for pesticide contamination.
The sites identified above will be given priority for assessment work along
Wadsworth Blvd.
Another priority location for assessment work will be property located around the
proposed Gold Line commuter rail station located off of Ward Rd. and 50th Pl.
Properties at this site have not been inventoried. Given a history of industrial uses
at this area, the City would like to utilize grant funds to undertake Phase I and if
needed Phase II Assessments and Cleanup Plans at this site.
Based on the above, preliminarily the City is proposing to do the following Phase
I, Phase II Assessments and Cleanup Plans:
Hazardous Substances:
19 -Phase I Assessments
4 -Phase II Assessments
2 -Cleanup Plans
Petroleum:
11-Phase I Assessments
5 -Phase II Assessments
2-Cleanup Plans
3.4 Community Involvement:
The City of Wheat Ridge would put forward an extensive public outreach
program to engage the community in the Brownfields Assessment Project.
Residents, property and business owners as well as the partner community-based
organizations will be infonned prior to and during the assessment project's
progress. This task will provide two-way communications by relaying the
concerns of the affected community to the City and its partners, and by
communicating the benefits of identifying and revitalizing brownfields to the
community.
Residents, property and business owners and the participating community-based
organizations will be provided the opportunity to be involved through the
following actions:
Written materials and the Internet: The City will prepare written materials and
disseminate written information including brochures and press releases. Articles
will appear regularly in the City's newsletter Connections, which is delivered to
all Wheat Ridge households, and information will be provided to local
newspapers and media. The City's website will be utilized and e-newsletters
created. Posters or flyers will be posted in public buildings including recreation
3
centers, city hall and public libraries. Letters will be sent to property owners in
the target areas notifying them of the City's Brownfields Assessment Project.
Public workshops: The purpose of the workshops will be to educate, infonn and
provide feedback on the City 's Brownfields Assessment Project. These events
will relay concerns about the targeted properties and their re-use from the affected
community and communicate the city 's redevelopment plans and revitalization
activities on the brownfield properties to the affected community. Information
about public workshops will be included in the City 's newsletter the Conn ections ,
posted on the City's website and televised on the local government television
channel. City staff, staff from the Jefferson County Department of Public Health
as well as staff from Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
will be invited to attend these meetings .
Meetings and presentations: Before and during the site assessment work , the City
will arrange meetings and offer to make presentations to residents , property and
business owners and community groups in the affected target areas. The purpose
of the meetings will be to provide information about the City's Brownfields
Assessment Project and to obtain feedback from the groups about the Project.
The City will also contact individual property owners in the target area and
arrange site visits to their properties to fully explain the Brownfield 's Assessment
Project to them and attempt to address concerns they may have about brownfield
assessments being undertaken on their properties. The City will invite staff from
the Jefferson County Department of Public Health as well as the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment as needed to attend these
meetings.
The City anticipates forming a project team or work group that will assist with
community involvement as well as other aspects of the project. This team would
be made up of City staff to include Community Development, Urban Renewal as
well as Wheat Ridge 2020 and other engaged community stakeholders.
3.5 Compliance with Other Federal Requirements
The City and its environmental consultants will comply with other requirements
including but limited to the following: Disadvantaged Bus iness Enterprise (DBE)
requirements found at 40 CFR Part 33 ; OSHA Worker Health & Safety Standard
29 CFR 191 0.120 ; the Uniform Relocation Act; Historic Preservation Act ;
Endangered Species Act; and Permits required by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act; Executive Order 11246 , Equal Employment Opportunity, and implementing
regulations at 41 CFR 60-4 ; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as
amended (40 USC 327-333) the Anti Kickback Act (40 USC 276c) and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as implemented by Executive Orders 1 1914
and 11250.
4. EPA Reporting Requirements/Deliverable:
4
4.1 Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs):
The City and its environmental consultants agree to establish these plans in
accordance with EPA rules and procedures upon formalization of the contract for
consulting services. The City will note the need for the requirement in the
Request for Proposals.
4.2 Health and Safety Plans:
The City and its environmental consultants will prepare a Health and Safety Plan
complying with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 entitled "Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response." This plan will be in place prior to beginning
fieldwork at each site.
4.3 Quarterly Reports:
The City agrees to provide quarterly progress reports utilizing the Quarterly
Report Templates as provided by EPA.
4.3 Property Profile Forms:
The City and/or its environmental consultant agree to provide Property Profile
forms for each property where environmental assessments are performed and to
keep these updated as appropriate. An electronic form in the ACRES database
will be completed for each property where an environmental assessment is
performed using grant funds.
4.5 Financial Status Reports:
The City will submit to the EPA annual Financial Status Reports in accordance
with the Cooperative Agreement.
4.6 Final Report:
At the expiration or termination of the Cooperative Agreement, the City will
submit to the EPA a final performance or progress report of all work conducted
under the brownfields assessment grant.
5. Milestone Chart:
The project schedule will need to be finalized in conjunction with the
environmental consultant who will be hired to perform the environmental
assessments.
July/August 2012: Finalize Work Plan, Project Budget and other paperwork
pertinent for application for Cooperative Agreement.
August/September 2012: Finalize Cooperative Agreement with EPA.
October 2012: Submit RFP and budget appropriation to City Council for
Environmental Assessment work authoriz ation.
5
October 2012: Post notice ofRFP for Environmental Assessment proposals and
mail to selected consultants who have requested such from the City.
October 2012: Submit Quarterly Report and Financial Status Report.
November 2012: Begin notifying property owners in targeted sites that the RFP
is being prepared and solicit a response as to their level of interest in participating.
November 2012: Begin to obtain property owner access agreements for
Environmental Assessments.
November 2012: Deadline for the City's receipt of proposals for Environmental
Assessments per the RFP.
November 2012: City selects short list of consultants to be interviewed from the
RFP.
December 2012: The staff project team interviews consultants for the
Environmental Assessments and makes final selection.
December 2012: City Council authorizes contract for consulting services with
chosen environmental consultant.
January 2013: Project kick off meeting with staff team and environmental
consultant.
January 2013: Submit Quarterly Report and Financial Status Report.
2013: Further notification to property owners in target areas of the brownfields
funding and their interest in participating.
February 2013: Public workshop introducing the environmental consulting team
and describing for residents and property owners what the environmental
assessment process will entail.
March -July 2013: Conduct initial Environmental Assessments.
March-July 2013: Submit Property Profile Reports and Assessments reports
as needed.
April2013: Submit Quarterly Report and Financial Status Report.
July 2013: Final notification to property owners in target areas as to brownfields
funding availability.
6
July/August 2013: Public workshop updating the public on the results of the
Environmental Assessments.
July 2013: Submit Quarterly Report and Financial Status Report.
August -September 2013: Conduct additional Environmental Assessments if
needed.
October 2013: Final public workshop updating the public on results of the
Environmental Assessments and potential remediation plans.
November 2013: Develop Phase III Environmental Assessment Cleanup Plans as
needed.
January 2014: Submit Final Report on Environmental Assessment work.
January 2014: Submit Quarterly Report and Financial Status Report.
6. Environmental Results
With the known history of uses in the brownfield target areas , there is the real potential
for hazardous substances to be present in soil and groundwater. Protecting public health
from potential contaminants is a primary goal of this brownfields assessment project.
The characterization and remediation of any contaminated sites is critical for health of
current and future residents at the redeveloped sites.
A senior housing complex and elementary school are in close proximity to the
Wadsworth Blvd. target area. The elderly and students frequently use the services in the
area. Public health benefits to these groups include the elimination of vacant parcels
which can be the source of fugitive dust and can adversely impact asthma suffers or pose
other serious health risks particularly to the elderly population. Also the elimination of
abandoned buildings will address the public health and safety dangers associated with
deteriorated and unmaintained properties. Social benefits anticipated from the
redevelopment of the sites include the reduction of blight and the increase in City
revenues from new services on the redeveloped properties.
In general , the remediation of environmental contaminants and redevelopment of the
targeted sites will create a healthier and safer environment for City residents. The
redeveloped vacant sites will include oversized sidewalks to create a safer pedestrian
environment than currently exists where there are no sidewalks and uneven pavement and
curb cuts. With the mixed use, higher density nature of the future development, patrons
to the area will be encouraged to walk between various services and retail establishments
rather than drive.
7
The proposed Brownfields Assessment Project is targeting infill redevelopment
opportunities . As stated , these sites are either currently underutilized or vacant. The
benefits anticipated from the redevelopment include enhancing the community through
the principles of Smart Growth and sustainable solutions through a mix of uses with
pedestrian-friendly development patterns that bring a range of housing choices and
neighborhood serving retail uses in close proximity. These principles include increased
densities in the targeted areas to create compact developments that are walkable with a
strong sense of place such as at the City 's Town Center development on Wadsworth
Blvd. Green spaces will be created throughout the redevelopment projects with
landscaping to enhance the pedestrian experience.
Work Plan Performance Measures Target, if applicable
Activities
Community Completion of Community Updated Community Outreach
Outreach and Outreach and Education Plan. and Education Plan.
Education
Number of property owner, Three public meetings. 20
business owner, and public meetings with
meetings held . property/business owners .
Number of written materials
produced and dishibuted
including letters to property 225 letters to property owners.
owners, news releases and e-18 news releases in City
newsletters . newspaper and weekly local
paper.
Number of people attending
public meetings.
Use of City website to On-going.
maintain and update
information on brownfields
project.
Site Identification Number of sites identified in On-going.
and Selection brownfields inventory.
Number of eligible sites Variable. No target.
identified.
Site Assessment Number of Phase I and Phase 30 Phase I Assessments and 9
and Cleanup II Assessments. Phase II Assessments.
8
Planning
Number of people benefiting Variable . No target.
from assessment activity.
Number of QAPPs, Health 9 Health and Safety Plans and
and Safety Plans and sampling 9 Sampling and Analysis
and analysis plans developed. Plans .
Number of sites with approved Approximately 4 Cleanup
cleanup plans. Plans and/or Cleanup options
with cost estimates.
Number of sites determined to Variable. No target.
not need cleanup.
Number of sites to receive a Variable . No target.
''No Further Action" letter
Number of sites with the Variable. No target.
potential for redevelopment.
Number of acres assessed. Variable. No target.
9
~.I~
... ~ " City of
:P'WheatRi_dge
ITEM NO:_]_
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 52-2012-A RESOLUTION APPROVING
SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A 2013 LOCAL
GOVERNMENT GRANT TO JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN
SPACE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT II
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
0PUBLIC HEARING
0BIDS/MOTIONS
~RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
OORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
00RDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
DYES ~NO Q~
The Jefferson County Open Space Department has a Local Government Grant Program that
allows cities to apply for matching funds for acquisition, new construction , or maintenance
projects. As part of the requirements for the submittal of the grant application, an approved
resolution is required by the Jefferson County Open Space Department showing City Council
support for the requested project.
Funds from the Local Government Grant Program are awarded annually by the Open Space
Department to cities and districts in Jefferson County. A percentage of matching funds is
required from the City's attributable share of open space funds to match the grant request.
The 2013 recommended local grant application is for the development of a District II
neighborhood park on previously acquired property located at 44th and Kendall Street.
PRIOR ACTION:
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted in 2006, identified this area of the City as being
in need of a neighborhood park. Two parcels of land were acquired with open space funds in
1998 and 2001 respectively to meet this need.
Council Action Form
October 22 , 2012
Page2
City Council direction was received at the September 10 Study Session to move forward with
this project and complete the park development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Matching funds for the grant application have been appropriated in the Open Space Fund and the
Conservation Trust Fund for this project in the years 2012 and 2013.
BACKGROUND:
Local Government Grants were formerly referred to as Joint Venture Grants. Jefferson County
Open Space Local Government Grant applications are due November 2, 2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the application for a Local Government Grant for the
development of a District II neighborhood park.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 52-2012 , a resolution approving submittal of the application
for a 2013 Local Government Grant to Jefferson County Open Space for development of a
District II neighborhood park."
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely the approval of Resolution No. 52-2012 , a resolution approving
submittal of the application for a 2013 Local Government Grant to Jefferson County Open Space
for development of a District II neighborhood park, for the following reason(s) _____ _
"
REPORT PREPARED BY:
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Resolution No. 52-2012
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 52
Series of 2012
TITLE: A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE
APPLICATION FOR A 2013 LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT
TO JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN SPACE FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT II NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
WHEREAS, the voters of Jefferson County voted in 1972 to fund the planning,
acquiring, maintaining and preserving of open space properties and in 1980, to allow for
maintenance and development of open space lands and property within Jefferson
County, and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County Open Space has instituted a Local Government
Grant program, and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge would like to apply for a Local Government
Grant with Jefferson County Open Space,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat
Ridge, Colorado, as follows:
The City of Wheat Ridge requests funding from Jefferson County Open Space
Local Government Grant Program for the development of a District II
neighborhood park.
DONE AND RESOLVED this 22th day of October, 2012.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Attachment 1
"'~ . ,
.. _ "' City of •
:rwheatRi_dge
ITEMNO: <g _
DATE: October 22 ,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: MOTION TO AWARD RFQ-12-19 YOUNGFIELD
RESTROOM RENOVATION DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACT
TO WIDTE CONSTRUCTION GROUP IN THE AMOUNT
OF $134,449 AND APPROVE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT
OF $13,445
D PUBLIC HEARING
r;8J BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
ISSUE:
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
D YES
The existing restroom located at the Youngfield Trailhead , 4150 Youngfield St., functions as a
self-composting system. This project would serve to convert this existing system to a sanitary
sewer/conventional flush type toilet system. The project would provide a turnkey renovated
building which would meet all Title II ADA 2010 standards for state and local government
facilities.
The renovation will include demolition and removal of the existing plumbing, and sewer
composting system , and the installation of a new plumbing and flush toilet system , sanitary
sewer and sewer pump system , electrical and heating system and upgrades , a concrete
foundation , and renovation of existing concrete flatwork.
PRIOR ACTION:
This project was approved in the adoption of the 2012 budget. This item was removed from the
October 8 , 2012 agenda by a motion from Davis Reinhart, with direction to be scheduled for
discussion at a future study session. At the October 15th study session consensus was reached to
move the item forward for approval to the October 22"d meeting.
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
A Request for Qualifications was solicited from professional design/build firms for renovation
design and construction of the existing restroom located at the Youngfield Trailhead. On June
12, 2012, two responsive submittals were received. The selection committee evaluated and
ranked the qualifications. Based on project team experience, firm capabilities, past experience,
approach and pricing, White Construction Group of Castle Rock, CO was the number one ranked
firm. Pricing was negotiated.
The cost of the Youngfield restroom renovation project is $134,449 to be charged to the
Conservation Trust Fund account 54-601-800-877. The cost is inclusive of all labor, materials,
and equipment needed for design, surveying, tie-ins, storm water compliance, and construction.
BACKGROUND:
The existing restroom was built in spring of 1994 and contained a self-composting facility made
by Clivus Multrum, Inc. Included in the construction were a men's and women's restroom and a
drinking fountain.
The Youngfield restroom consists of masonry construction and a laminated wood deck roof
construction. A metal roof system was added due to damage from the July 2009 storm. The
Clivus Multrum com poster was installed in the basement and consists of the large tank with
bulking agent, two liquid storage tanks, a liquid pump system, graywater system, ventilation
system, and fire suppression system. The restroom is open and operates on a year-round basis
due to its location adjacent to the Clear Creek Trail.
The system has a maintenance schedule based on usage, and , under normal operating procedures,
needs to be followed closely for successful operation of the composter. The system has been
well-maintained since it was constructed; however, usage has increased and the system now
requires daily maintenance.
During initial construction, a wood-framed wall was constructed as part of the basement wall for
removal of the existing composter if needed. This wall is in need of repair and will be
reconstructed as part of the renovation project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the renovation of the Youngfield restroom and conversion of the existing self-
com posting system to a sanitary sewer/conventional flush type toilet system.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to award RFQ-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation Design/Build Contract to White
Construction Group in the amount of$134,449 and approve a contingency amount of$13,445."
Or,
Council Action Form
October 22, 2012
Page3
"I move to deny award of RFQ-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation Design/Build Contract
to White Construction Group in the amount of $134,449 and the approval of a contingency
amount of$13,445 for the following reason(s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Rick Murray, Parks, Forestry and Open Space Manager
Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
Jennifer Nellis, Purchasing Agent
ATTACHMENTS:
1. White Construction Group Proposal
Cost Estimate-RFQ-JN-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation
Detail-With Taxes and Insurance ,Indirect Costs are Spread Group 1 : Alternates
G roup 2 : Divisions
Estimator : White Construction Group
Project Size : 520 SF
ltemCode Description Quantity UM Lab. Total Mat. Total Egp.Total Sub. Total TotaiCost
Base bid
General requirements
01300 .201 State Construction Storm permit 1.00 Each 278 .33 278
01310 .110 Superintendent (1/2 Time) 4 .00 WEEK 9,554 .11 9 ,554
01310 .150 Move in & out 1.00 LS 247.09 170.41 4 17
01310 .151 Architectural Services 1.00 LS 5,612 .05 5 ,6 12
01310 .152 Civil Engineering Services 1.00 LS 5,748 .37 5 ,748
01310 .153 Structural Engineering Services 1.00 LS 2 ,624 .26 2 ,624
01510 .100 Temporary wiring 2 .00 MO 586 .20 586
01510 .110 Job telephone (1/2 Time) 1.00 MO 305 .60 306
01520 .120 Portable chemical toilet 2 .00 MO 305 .60 306
01520 .130 Water, ice and cups 2 .00 MO 122.24 122 ,.
01520 .140 First aid supplies 2.00 MO 113.60 114 .. .. 01520 .150 Safety supplies 2.00 MO 340 .81 341 • 01520 .160 Office supplies 2 .00 MO 170.41 170 n
01530 .011 Closeout Documents 1.00 LS 170.41 170 ::r
01540 .180 Small tools 2 .00 MO 403 .39 403 3
CD 01540 .220 Gas, Oil & Repairs (1/2 Time) 4 .00 WEEK 855 .67 856 ~
01540 .240 Pickup truck (1/2 Time) 1.00 MO 488 .95 489 ..
01540 .320 Jobsite Computer (1/2 Time) 1.00 MO 106.35 106 ..a.
01560 .120 Temporary job fence 220.00 LNFT 941.23 941
01580.100 Job sign 1.00 EACH 794 .55 795
01650 .100 Weekly Cleanup 8 .00 WEEK 329.45 136.33 466
01740 .100 Job clean up 520 .00 SQFT 85.66 11 .81 206 .76 304
01740 .130 Dumpster 2 .00 EACH 611 .19 611
**Total General requirements 10,216.31 1,392.11 4,934.75 14,777.63 31 ,321
Sitework
02200 .000 Silt Fence 490 .00 LNFT 1,252.49 1,252
02221 .105 Remove sidewalk 92 .00 SQFT 378 .87 112.46 491
02221 .210 Remove wood partition 64 .00 SQFT 105.42 105
02221.625 Remove toilet partition 2 .00 EACH 115.31 115
02221 .800 Cut-out composting Unit 50 .00 SQFT 382 .99 383
02221.825 Core drilling 4" (6" Deep) 4 .00 EACH 105.42 244.48 350
02224 .521 Remove curb and gutter pan 23 .00 LNFT 261 .29 261
02316.402 Machine excavate pit I trench 2 .61 CUYD 35 .65 3.03 39
02316.403 Machine backfill pit I trench 1.34 CUYD 18.29 0 .82 19
02500 .000 New Sewer Service w/ Ejector/Grinder 1.00 LS 28,887.28 28 ,887
Pump & Exc./Backfill of the foundation
opening
c :\Program Files\MC2 Software\OLD LAPTOP\estfiles\Youngfield Restroom 8.6 .12.e Page 1 8/6/2012 03 :56 PM
Cost Estimate-RFO-JN-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation
Detail-With Taxes and Insurance ,Indirect Costs are Spread Group 1: Alternates
Group 2: Divisions
Estimator : White Construction Group
Project Size : 520 SF
Item Code Description Quantity UM Lab. Total Mat. Total Egp.Total Sub. Total TotaiCost
02775 .010 **Concrete in sidewalks** ****
02775 .015 4000 psi direct 1.19 CUYD 19 .07 155 .81 175
02775 .150 Sidewalk edge forms 38 .00 LNFT 85 .14 40.43 126
02775 .230 Fine grade for sidewalk 92 .00 SOFT 57 .21 57
02775 .330 Trowel and broom sidewalk 92 .00 SOFT 65 .68 66
02775.380 Protect and cure sidewalk horizontal 92 .00 SOFT 16 .00 16
surfaces
02775 .382 Protect and cure vertical sidewalk surfaces 12 .67 SOFT 2 .39 2
02775 .450 6x6-2 .1/2 .1 mesh 1.11 SOS 26 .48 55 .64 82
02779 .891 * Sidewalk area * 92 .00 Sqft
** Total Sitework 1,413.93 251.88 360.78 30,401.05 32,428
Concrete
03111 .025 Forms @ trench 54 .25 SOFT 187 .30 106 .74 294
03111 .104 Wall form 4 ' to 8' high 128 .00 SOFT 695.40 260 .96 956
03111.189 Wall form hardware (includes wall ties) 64 .00 SOFT 7.45 7
03150 .900 Form releasing agent 128.00 SOFT 41 .79 3.34 45
03150 .900 Form releasing agent 54 .25 SOFT 17 .71 1.42 19
03210 .160 Wall rebar 0 .05 TONS 51 .32 61 .04 112
03210 .525 Trench rebar 0 .06 TONS 57 .53 69 .70 127
03219 .795 Rebar dowels 0 .01 TONS 60.96 11 .36 72
03310 .500 **Concrete in trenches ** ••••
03310 .537 Mix A direct 0 .62 CUYD 19.02 102 .50 122
03310 .550 **Concrete in walls ** ••••
03310 .551 3000 psi direct 1.67 CUYD 73 .82 198 .91 273
03315 .982 * Concrete wall area * 64 .00 SOFT
03316 .012 *Trench length * 23 .00 Lnft
03350 .131 Point and patch 128 .00 SOFT 23 .15 1.86 25
03350 .131 Point and patch 54 .25 SOFT 9.81 0 .79 11
03390 .011 Protect and cure vertical surfaces 128 .00 SOFT 24 .29 3.49 28
03390 .011 Protect and cure vertical surfaces 54 .25 SOFT 10 .29 1.48 12
03390 .012 Protect and cure horizontal surfaces 5 .36 SOFT 0.97 0 .11 1
03390 .012 Protect and cure horizontal surfaces 72 .00 SOFT 13 .02 1.47 14
**Total Concrete 2.29 CUYD 1,286.39 832.62 2,119
Thermal and moisture protection
07109 .911 * Vert ical basement wall waterproofing * 104 .00 Sqft
07140 .030 Liquid elastomeric waterproofing 104 .00 SOFT 203 .78 112 .30 316
**Total Thermal and moisture protection 203.78 112.30 316
Finishes
c :\Program Files\MC 2 Software \OLD LAPTOP\estfiles\Youngfield Restroom 8.6 .12 .e Page 2 8/6/2012 03 :56 PM
Cost Estimate-RFQ-JN-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovation
Detail-With Taxes and Insurance ,Ind irect Costs are Spread Group 1: Alternates
Group 2 : Divisions
Estimator : White Construction Group
Project Size : 520 SF
Item Code Description Quantity UM Lab. Total Mat. Total Egp.Total Sub. Total TotaiCost
09910 .033 Paint door 4 .00 SIDE 140 .91 17.45 158
09910 .213 Re-paint Painted CMU (epoxy) 1,048 .00 SOFT 1,420.25 178 .59 1,599
**Total Finishes 1,561.16 196.04 1,757
Specialties
10160 .020 Solid Plastic Floor mounted toilet 2 .00 EACH 337 .61 2 ,726 .50 3 ,064
compartment
10430.035 Remove/Replace Existing Exterior signage 2 .00 EACH 280 .03 34 .08 314
10810 .100 Remove & Reinstall exist ing grab bars and 6 .00 EACH 102.42 34 .08 137
TP dispensers
**Total Specialties 720.06 2,794.66 3,515
Mechanical
15400 .000 Deduct Mechanical Permit 1.00 LS -823 .63 -824
15400 .000 Deduct Mechanical Taxes 1.00 LS -1,363 .25 -1 ,363
15400 .000 Design/Build Mechanical 1.00 LS 52 ,598 .75 52 ,599
**Total Mechanical 50,411.87 50,412
Electrical
16000 .000 Design/Build Electrical -See attached 1.00 LS 16 ,188 .60 16 ,189
scope
**Total Electrical 16,188.60 16,189
*Total Base bid 15,401.63 5,579.61 5,295.53 111,779.15 138,056
Alt. 2 -Deduct if Booster Pump not Required
Mechanical
15400 .000 Deduct booster pump for domestic water 1.00 LS -3 ,038 .91 -3,039
** Total Mechanical -3,038.91 -3,039
Electrical
16000 .000 Deduct Booster Pump Circuit 1.00 LS -568 .02 -568
**Total Electrical -568.02 -568
• Total Alt. 2 -Deduct if Booster Pump not R -3,606.93 -3,607
Total Estimate 15,401.63 5,579.61 5,295.53 108,172.22 134,449
c :\Program Files\MC 2 Software\OLD LAPTOP\estfiles\Youngfield Restroom 8 .6 .12 .e Page 3 8/6/2012 03 :56PM
Estimate Summary Summary Date 8/6/2012 I
~--·---
RFQ-JN-12-19 Youngfield Restroom Renovati on
White Construction Group
18 South Wilcox St. 520 SF
Castle Rock
co ------- -
Labor Material Eaulpment Subcontract Temp Matl EauiD Rental Other Totals
Direct costs %
Base labor $9,350 $4,911 $4 ,332 $95,219 $0 $0 $o I $1 13,81 2 ---
Labor burden 4 5.00% $4 ,207 $4,207
Labor fringes r ~ $0
Labor manhours 94
Material sales tax -0 .00% $0 $0
Equipment Surcharge 7.60% $329 $329 -~----
Subcontract Insurance Factor 0 .00% $0 $0
Temporary material markup 7.60 % $OJ. $0
'-Equipment rental markup 7.60% $0 $0
Other markup 7 .60% $0 $0 -----~-~
Gross cost $13 557 $4 911 ~661 $95 219 $0 $0 $0 $118 349
Gross receipts tax 0 .00% $0
Bu ilder's risk insurance 0 .30% $403
Overall
Overhead 6 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00%
$7 ,101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 ,101
Profit 6 .00% 0 .00% 0.00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0.00% 0 .00% ------
$7 ,101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7 ,101
Subcontract bond 0 .00% $0
Performance bond $1,495 I
$1,495 -
Miscellaneous 1 0 .00% I $0
Miscell aneous 2 0.00% $0 -----
I
Total $134,449
Cut/Add _!Q_
Project total $134,449
-----1---f---• -
---
1---
----------------1-~-1------1--
---
-----~ ---------I--· --1-
---------------r--
-
------------ -
,.~ .. ,
.... r-City of ~Wheat:Ri_dge
ITEM NO:~
DATE: October 22,2012
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: MOTION TO CANCEL THE STUDY SESSION OF
NOVEMBER 5, 2012 DUE TO THE GENERAL ELECTION
DATE OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012
D PUBLIC HEARING
[g] BIDS/MOTIONS
D RESOLUTIONS
D ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING
0 ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
D YES [g] NO
ISSUE:
There are no items listed for the November 5, 2012 Study Session. The City is an official polling
location and the Council Chambers must be set up on the evening ofNovember 5th for the general
election on November 6th.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the cancellation of the November 5, 2012 Study Session.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to cancel the City Council Study Session scheduled for November 5, 2012 due to the
General Election date ofNovember 6 , 2012 ."
Or,
"I move to maintain the regularly scheduled Study Session of November 5, 2012, for the following
r eason( s) "
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Patrick Goff, City Manager