HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda 08-05-13STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 W. 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge CO
August 5, 2013
6:30p.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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALOFAGENDA
1.,_ Staff Report(s)
a) East Wheat Ridge Neighborhood Project
b) Nuisance and Code Violations Enforcement Activity
c) Reconsideration of Randall Park acquisition
2. Implementation of Amendment 64
~ Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Signage Program
4. Sales and Use Tax Ballot Initiative Update
5. Elected Official Report(s)
.,. ~ A~
... ~ ~ City of •
.. ~Wheat~dge ~OLJCE DEPARTMENT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Memorandum
Mayor DiTullio and City Council
Patrick Goff, City Manager ro
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police
Wade Hammond , Commander
Patrol Operations Division
July 30, 2013 (for Study Session of August 5)
East Wheat Ridge Neighborhoods Project
The Wheat Ridge Police Department and Wheat Ridge 2020 are engaged in a collaborative
partnership known as the East Wheat Ridge Neighborhoods Project. This community-policing
project includes the neighborhoods and commercial area between Sheridan Boulevard and
Harlan Street , and W . 26th Avenue toW. 44th Avenue and is an effort to reduce crime, improve
the quality oflife and prevent neighborhood decline.
In the spring of 2008 , the Police Department noticed issues of concern involving crime, traffic
and quality oflife in the neighborhoods east of Harlan St. An analysis of these issues determined
that property crime in this area was three times higher than any other residential area of a similar
si z e in the City. Community Service Officers were heavily engaged in this area due to an
extremely high number of nuisance code violations. Graffiti , burglaries , car trespasses , and
stolen vehicles had been a major problem for a number of years. In June 2008 , Community
Service Officers and police officers began directed patrols targeting criminal issues and nuisance
code violations as resources pennitted .
In 2009 , the Police Department broadened the scope and impact of this project. The department
sought out other community partners to work alongside them to achieve several goals , such as
reducing crime, improving the quality of life, revitalizing the neighborhoods and creating a
healthier community. Wheat Ridge 2020 , LiveWell Wheat Ridge , and other City departments
came together to plan and engage the community in this project. The project committee gathered
data, scanning and analyz ing this information to identify the problems leading to issues of crime,
traffic and quality oflife concerns , and surveyed officers and community members.
The program began with nine neighborhood meetings. These meetings were designed to educate
the residents and businesses on code, crime, health and property issues and offer solutions with
an emphasis on forming neighborhood watch programs , forming email groups that communicate
issues with the partnership , obtaining revitalization loans , and improving the health of the
community . At the meetings, residents were provided with infonnation on the program , invited
to participate, and encouraged to voice community concerns, many of which were immediately
addres sed.
East Wheat Ridge Neighborhoods Project
July 30 , 2013
Page2
Community members have responded favorably to this approach and provided valuable
information on community needs related to safety, environment and structural enhancements to
support increased use of sidewalks , parks , trails and community gardens , and offered suggestions
related to neighborhood and property improvement and economic growth .
The second stage involved having officers on grant-funded overtime address issues brought
forward by residents . Officers have worked specific traffic issue areas and patrolled for specific
criminal activity such as burglary. A bicycle patrol was implemented and has been ongoing from
spring through fall. Officers , paired with other bike officers , patrol at random times of the day
and week for about four hours . These officers engage the general public, infonning them about
crime issues and crime prevention tips. In addition these officers report on gra ffiti and code
violations. They patrol parks and generate contacts with the public infonning them of rules and
traffic issues unique to the parks.
The Community Service Officers increased their activities in th e east Wheat Ridge area ,
averaging more than 1 00 calls a month , which address numerous code and animal violations.
The Crime and Traffic team has specifically targeted this area looking for criminal activity and
responding to service requests related to traffic complaints. There have been several specific
propet1ies where special enforcement projects were conducted because of the significant amount
of calls they generated .
Through City funding a cleanup day was conducted on May 11 , 2013, coordinated by Wheat
Ridge 2020. Dumpsters were placed in the neighborhoods for the residents to use when cleaning
their properties . A lot of items that Community Service Officers had asked to be repaired or
removed from specific properties were observed in the dumpsters. Numerous citizens have
expressed their appreciation to staff and Wheat Ridge 2020 members , commenting on how much
this effort improved the look of the area .
Recently two streets have been identified for specific efforts of improvement. These areas were
chosen because it was felt that specific programs would have a significant effect in visibly
improving the look of the neighborhoods . The 2900 to 3100 block of Eaton St. and the 3200 to
3500 block of Chase St. have been identified as test areas . Residents will be contacted and
invited to a meeting where they will be asked for their ideas and input. Programs , such as
neighborhood watch and small interest loans , will be presented as possible tools for the
community. Ideas will be gathered on how to use the funds budgeted for this project to improve
and enhance the neighborhood.
Through the continuing efforts of Wheat Ridge 2020 , the Police Department, Cmmnunity
Service Officers and Public Works , the crime statistic now reflects the same level of activity as
other Wheat Ridge neighborhoods. Although nuisance code enforcement remains a challenge,
the residences and alleys of this area are showing significant improvement and it is hoped that
these improvements will continue through the projects current efforts .
WH
~~A~
~ ~ ~ City of • ~Wheat~ge ~OLICE DEPARTMENT
TO: Patrick Goff, Cit:~.: _&and U m
THROUGH: Daniel G. Brennan, Chief of Police
FROM: Jim Lorentz , Division Chief
Patrol Operations Division
DATE: July 18 , 2013
SUBJECT: Nuisance and Code Violations Code Enforcement Activity 1/1 /08 to 6/30/13
The Wheat Ridge Police Department's Community Services Team consists offive Community
Services Officers (CSO 's) and a supervisor. The Team is responsible for three primary
functions : nuisance code enforcement, animal control and the enforcement of park rules and
ordinances . Three seasonal CSO positions are authorized to assist the team during the summer
months , primarily with nuisance code enforcement activities in the City. The team provides
co verage 7-days a week throughout the year. The times of coverage increase during the spring
and summer due to the increases in nuisance codes , animal control and parks calls for services.
In an effort to handle nuisance code calls for service more efficiently and effectively, the Wheat
Ridge Police Department implemented the Administrative Enforcement Process for Nuisance
and Code Violations in 2008. Now in its sixth year of operation, statistical data collected
indicates that the program has been , and continues to be, very efficient and effective in
addressing code enforcement needs and expectations of the city. As education and awareness of
the program has increased over past few years , indications are that the number of Warnings
Issued tends to be consistent, while the number of Citations and Abatements has decreased. This
would be an indication that as a result of education and awareness , citizens are more likely today
to correct code violations after a Warning Issued , and thus avoid Citations and Abatements. In
terms of the reduction in Administrative Hearings over the years , it is an indication that citizens
are more likely to recognize their responsibility in the violation of nuisance codes and pay their
fines without arguing their case in an Administrative Hearing. The following statistics reflect
nuisance code activity by the Community Services Team from 2008 to the present.
Update-Nuisance and Code Violations Code Enforcement Activity 1/1/08 to 6/30 /13
July 18 ,2013
Page2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* TOTAL
Categories 1/1/13 -
6/30/13
Calls for Service 1,334 1,8 61 2 ,250 2 ,511 3 ,019 1,599 12 ,574
Warnings Iss ued 872 8 12 836 711 849 611 4 ,691
I" Citations/Compliancy 140 1 84 % 137 I 83% 144 I 83 % 123 I 83 % 106 I 8 7% 40 I 94 'Y< 690 1 85 %
2"d Citations/Compliancy 32 1 96% 40 195 % 48 I 94% 54 I 93 % 37 1 96 % II I 98 o/, 222 1 95 %
3"1 C itation s/Com pli ancy 5 1 99 .99% 14 I 15 I 22 I 19 1 98% 5 I .08'Y< 80 1 99 %
99 .9 8% 99.98% 99.97%
Admin Hearin gs 24 1 3% 21 1 2.5% 10 1 1% 7 I 1% 14 1 3% 3 I .04 o/, 79 1.02 %
Abatements 16 1 2% 24 1 3% 21 1 2 .5% 14 /2% 18 /2% 2 /.03o/, 951.02 %
C riminal Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fines Collected $45 ,460 $49 ,706 $53 ,840 $53 ,910 $47 ,120 $8,120 $25 8,156
A batement Fees Coll ected $9,522 $10 ,240 $21 ,067 $9,229 $17,476 $0 $67 ,534
The chart below pro vi des a definition of category titles that assist in explaining each category title .
Categories
Calls for Service
Warnings Issued
Category Explanations
This category indicates the total number of Code Enforcement Calls for Service (CFS)
handled each year by Community Services Officers . This does not reflect the additional
Calls for Service handled by CSOs for Animal Management CFS , Parks Enforcement
CFS , or other CFS .
A CFS indicates an incident requiring a response to an individual or location and a
report is generated in the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) System . A CFS includes :
• Proactive Enforcement -when a CSO observes a violation and generates a CFS
• Service Request -when a CFS is requested through the city Service Request
System or city website
• Citizen Request -when a citizen reports a violation or requests a CAF through the
Communications Center via a telephone call , in writing , or in person
This category indicates the total number of Warnings Issued for Code Enforcement Calls
for Service handled each year by Comm uni ty Services Officers . A Warning is a written
document that describes a specific Code E nforcement violation. Warnings are only
issued on Ca ll s for Service to citizens whe re an actual code violation is identified by a
Community Services Officer. The Warning allows citizens the opportunity to correct the
violation within I 0 days , or the agreed up on period of time , without any fine or penalty.
Since 2008, only 37 % of the Ca ll s for Service result in Warnings Issued . (#of Warnings
Issued divided by # of CFS)
Update-Nuisance and Code Violations Code Enforcement Activity 1/1/08 to 6/30/13
July 18,2013
Page 3
151 Citations/Compliancy
2"° Citations/Compliancy
3rd Citations/Compliancy
Admin Bearings
Abatements
This category indicates the total number of 1 •• Citations issued for Code Enforcement
Calls for Service handled each year by Community Services Officers . A 1 •• Citation is a
written document that is issued to a citizen who has previously received a Warning and
has failed to correct the specific Code Enforcement violation within an additional 10
days or agreed upon time period . Since 2008, only 15% of the citizens that receive
Warnings have failed to bring their property into compliance, and were issued a I 51
Citation . The fine for a 151 Citation is $150. (# 151 Citations divided by# Warnings
Issued)
Compliancy indicates the percentage of cases that come into compliance after a Warning
was issued. In this category, 85% of the cases came into compliance.
This category indicates the total number of 2"d Citations issued for Code Enforcement
Calls for Service handled each year by Community Services Officers. A 2"d Citation is a
written document that is issued to a citizen who has previously received a I •• Citation
and has still failed to correct the specific Code Enforcement violation within an
additional I 0 days or agreed upon time period. Since 2008 , only 5% of the citizens that
receive a Warning have failed to bring their property into compliance, and were issued a
2"d Citation. The fine for a 2"d Citation is $250. (# 2"d Citations divided by# Warnings
Issued)
Compliancy indicates the percentage of cases that come into compliance after a 2"d
Citation was issued. In this category, 95% of the cases came into compliance.
This category indicates the total number of 3ra Citations issued for Code Enforcement
Calls for Service handled each year by Community Services Officers. A 3rd Citation is a
written document that is issued to a citizen who has previously received a 2"d Citation
and has failed to correct the specific Code Enforcement violation within the I 0 days or
agreed upon time period. Since 2008 , less than I% of property owners that receive
Warnings have failed to bring their property into compliance, and were issued a 3rd
Citation. The fine for a 3'd Citation is $500. (# 3'd Citations divided by # Warnings
Issued)
Compliancy indicates the percentage of cases that come into compliance after a 3'd
Citation was issued. In this category, more than 99% of the cases came into compliance.
This category indicates the number of Administrative Hearings that were conducted in
each year. Administrative Hearings may be requested by the citizen who has received a
Citation and would like to contest that Citation before an Administrative Hearing
Officer. Since 2008 , more than 99% of the citizens who receive Citations do not request
Administrative Hearings . Only 0.02% of citizens who receive a Citation request an
Administrative Hearing.
This category indicates the number of Abatements that occur each year. Abatement is
an order by a Judge for the city to enter private property and correct code vio lations that
the citizen has not corrected , after Warnings and Citations have been issued , or in cases
involving immediate life , health or safety concerns . The cost of Abatement is charged to
the citizen responsible for the code violation.
This percentage figure indicates that only 0.02% of citizens that had a code violation had
to be abated . 99.98 % of the citizens brought their properties into compliance.
Update-Nuisance and Code Violations Code Enforcement Activity 1/1 /08 to 6/30/13
July 18, 2013
Page4
Criminal Charges Indicates the number of criminal charges that have been filed against a property that has
failed to correct code issues through the Administrative Model Process.
Since 2008 , no code violations have resulted in criminal charges to a citizen.
Fines Collected Indicates the amount of fine collected by the city each year for I 51
, 2"0
, and 3ra Citations.
These fines can be collected through the assessment of property tax lien if citizens fail to
pay.
Abatement Fees Collected Indicates the amount of fees collected by the city to recover the cost of court ordered
Abatements. These fees can be collected through assessment of property taxes if
citizens fail to pay.
The Community Services Team has been a key participant in efforts to address quality oflife
issues throughout the City. Members of this team are engaged with the Community
Development Department, Wheat Ridge 2020, LiveWell Wheat Ridge, the Parks and Recreation
Department, the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife and others in education and
enforcement strategies to make the Wheat Ridge community more attractive and safer.
Please contact Chief Dan Bre1man , Division Chief Jim Lorentz or Community Services Team
Supervisor Mary McKenna with any questions you have regarding nuisance code education and
enforcement.
JLIDB
MuRRAY
DA~L
KUEO~ENMEISTE:R
RENAUD LLP
Anon~E' SAT LA"
TO:
THRU :
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
RE :
MEMORANDUM
City Council rJ
Patrick Goff, City Manager W
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
Christopher Price
Ken Johnstone, Directory of Community Development
Dan Brennan, Chief of Police
July 26, 2013
IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT 64
The citizens of Colorado adopted Amendment 64 during the November 6, 2012 election
legalizing the purchase , retail sale, possession, growing, production, consumption and use of
marijuana , marijuana infused products and paraphernalia for the use of marijuana. Amendment
64 includes certain deadlines for the adoption and implementation of its provisions. One of the
first deadlines included in Amendment 64 required the General Assembly to adopt legislation
implementing certain provisions of the Amendment.
During its recent term, the General Assembly adopted House Bill 13-1317 setting forth
how the state will implement Amendment 64 . Through this bill, the General Assembly
established the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code creating a licensing infrastructure at the state
level for "retail marijuana establishments" to engage in the production, growth and sale of
marijuana and marijuana infused products. The four types of retail marijuana establishments
("RME's") that will be licensed at the state level include:
Retail Marijuana Store: This is a license for a retail marijuana business .
Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility: This is a license for a location in which
the licensee is authorized to grow and cultivate marijuana.
Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturer: This is a license for a business that
manufacturers a product containing or infused with marijuana .
Retail Marijuana Testing Facility: This is a license for a business that will test
the THC levels of products and marijuana sold at retail.
On July 1, 2013, the Department of Revenue, the state licensing authority for RME 's,
adopted emergency rules that provide further detail as to the implementation of Amendment 64
and Retail Marijuana Code. The state will begin accepting applications for RME licenses
starting October 1, 2013 . Other than RME Testing Facilities , only those businesses that hold a
state Medical Marijuana license and/or had submitted an application for such license by
December 10 , 2012 will be permitted to apply for an RME license on that date . If licensed by
the state, RME 's will commence operating on January 1, 2014 . At that time , the state will begin
accepting applications to operate an RME from non-Medical Marijuana license holders .
Following adoption of Amendment 64 , the City adopted a moratorium preventing the
acceptance , consideration and processing of any licenses or other City applications concerning
any business related to retail marijuana and marijuana clubs. The moratorium expires on
November 1, 2013. Because the moratorium is expiring and to prepare for state implementation
of Amendment 64 , Council will need to make certain policy decis ions concerning how to
regulate retail marijuana with in the City . The follow ing issues can be used to help guide those
decisions :
1. Will the City ban all RME's?
The Council can act by ordinance to ban RME 's. To the extent Council wishes to ban all
RME 's , the remaining questions are unnecessary. The Council can also refer a
measure to ban all RME 's to the voters. The earliest a referred measure could be
placed on the ballot is November 2014.
2. Which of the four distinct types of RME's will be allowed to exist?
If Council does not ban all RME 's, then it should determine if it will ban certain types of
RME 's. For example , the Retail Marijuana Code authorizes stand-alone cult ivation
fac ilities. This is different than how businesses operate under the Medical Marijuana
Code which requires a vertically integrated business model , i.e., seed to sale . The
Council could ban stand-alone RME cultivat ion fac ilities from operating within the City .
3. In what zone districts will RME's be permitted to operate?
The next question is where to allow approved uses . As a guide only , the City permits
medical marijuana centers , cultivation operations and infused products operations in C-1
(Commercial) and I (Industrial) zones. The City has four medical marijuana licensees in
operation within the City and a single medica l marijuana licensee that has been
approved at the state and local level but has yet to commence operat ions. The attached
map identifies the location of the existing medical marijuana licensees (in yellow).
The same or similar approach for medical marijuana can be used for RME 's. Staff
recommends that if Council approves RME 's in the City that Council then adopt the
zoning approach currently in place for medical marijuana establishments .
4. Will the City adopt buffer zones for RME's or limit the number permitted
within the City?
The City is permitted to limit the number of RME 's allowed to operate in the City and
may adopt buffer zones or spacing limitations concerning those facilities . Currently, the
City prohibits medical marijuana centers from being located within % of a mile of another
licensed center. In addition , the City and the Medical Marijuana Code prohibit medical
marijuana from being sold within 1000 feet of school. The same or similar approach for
med ical marijuana can be used for RME 's. It is important to note that the Retail
2
Marijuana Code does not address distance limitations between retail marijuana outlets
and schools . Council would have to adopt such a limitation for it to apply within the City .
For an example of how the current buffer zone works please review the attached map .
The circle around each medical marijuana licensee (shown in yellow) shows the % mile
buffer between licensed medical marijuana centers . The City has implemented the %
mile buffer to apply to licensed centers regardless of whether the center is located within
City limits. For example, if a licensed center is located in Edgewater and within % of a
mile of a C-1 zone location, the City would not approve an application for that C-1
location.
5. Will the City allow an RME to collocate with an existing medical marijuana
licensee?
During the initial phase-in period, only a current medical marijuana licensee may be
allowed to convert to an RME or add an RME to their current operations, i.e. to collocate .
Existing licensees may only add an RME to their current operations if allowed by the
City.
6. Will the City adopt specific licensing requirements for RME's?
Council must determine if it wishes to engage in City-level licensing . The state has a
robust licensing process that includes the Retail Marijuana Code and related regulations .
Amendment 64 contemplates a single licens ing entity but authorizes municipalities to
adopt time place and manner restrictions (security, lighting , hours of operation, odor,
etc.). House Bill 13-1317 specifically authorizes municipalities to adopt licensing
provisions that are no less stringent than state law . The City is not required to adopt
specific licensing provisions . Options include :
i. City approval of state license following review of compliance with zoning
and distance limitations, or
ii. Formal licensing to enforce "time , place and manner" restrictions in the
City. The City can also adopt regulations that mirror the state regulations.
If the City adopts formal licensing provisions it will likely have to adopt
notice and hearing provisions that mirror the State Administrative
Procedures Act as required by Amendment 64.
7. Time, Place, & Manner Regulations for RME's:
If the Council decides to provide for local licensing , it will be necessary to adopt local
regulations on time , place and manner, as referenced above .
8. Who will be named as the "local licensing authority?"
If RME 's are not banned , the Council would have to name a local licensing authority.
Under House Bill 13-1317, the Council acts as the default local licensing authority. The
local licensing authority for medical marijuana is the City's Tax and Licensing Division.
Staff would recommend that the same Division be named as the City 's local licensing
authority for RME 's .
3
9. What are the appropriate amount of operating fees the City may charge and
collect?
Amendment 64 provides the C ity with a right to charge and collect operating fees. An
operating fee is a fee based on costs incurred by the City for inspection , administration ,
and enforcement of RME 's . If the City adopts licensing requirements , the licensing fee
will be set and collected by the state with a portion thereof remitted to the City.
10. Whether to allow retail marijuana businesses to exist if the state defaults
on its responsibilities under Amendment 64:
Amendment 64 sets up a default s ituation in which the local entity becomes the primary
licensing entity if the state fails to satisfy its licensing requirements in Amendment 64 .
The City may want to adopt a provision that bann ing operations within the City if the
state fails to act as required .
11. Other Issues:
How to define open and publ ic use?
Amendment 64 does not legalize the open and public use of marijuana. The General
Assembly failed to adopt provisions that would address this issue . Because recreational
marijuana is permitted for adults , the Council will need to decide if th is activity should be
prohib ited in various public places . The follow ing definitions should be considered by
Council :
"Open and public" means a place open to the general public , which includes a place to
which the public or a substantial number of the public has access without restriction
including but not limited to highways , transportation facilities , places of amusement,
parks , playgrounds , and the common areas of public buildings and facilities that are
generally open o r accessible to members of the publ ic without restriction .
"Openly" means not protected from unaided observation lawfully made from outside its
perimeter not involving physical intrusion .
"Publicly" means an area that is open to general access without restrict ion .
Whether to limit personal growing within a residence :
The Police Department and other City departments have had to investigate the use of
property for the growing/cultivation of marijuana . Many of the locations are residences .
In some instances, no one lives in the residence and it is used solely as a cultivation
site . Council should consider whether to adopt provisions that address the following
issues :
i. Whether to limit the number of plants per square foot of living structure :
4
ii. Requirements that cultivators live on the premises where marijuana is
being cultivated:
iii. Persons be prohibited from growing on-site unless the persons are
primary care -givers:
iv . That cultivation be prohib ited except within a residence or in a structure
on property that is the primary residence of the cultivator. This
requirement would not apply to licensed RME 's and licensed medical
marijuana cultivat ion facilities :
Whether to ban other business models not contemplated by Amendment 64?
Council should consider whether to ban marijuana business models that were not overtly
authorized by Amendment 64, e.g ., mobile delivery trucks , cooperative growing clubs ,
smoke clubs, etc. Some of these models have been addressed in the state regulations .
However, Council may want to consider adopting a provision that prohibits all marijuana
businesses not specifically permitted in the City.
5
.# Wheat~ge
City of Wheat Ridge , Colorado
7500 \Nest 29th Avenue
Wleat Ridge, CO 80033-8001
303 .234.5900
Data Sources : City of Wheat Rklge , Jel'fco Pubic Schools
38TH AVE
1-I 1-
(/) (/)
w ; u a:: w a:
32NDAVE
EDGEWATER
Medical Marijuana Establishments
This map shows the five (5) locations of
Medical Marijuana Retail Centers with active
or pending business licenses as of July 23,
2013. Section 11-305 of the Municipal Code
requires a 3/4-mile separation between
retail centers; these are indicated by the
gray circles .
Section 11-305 of the code also requires a
1 000-foot separation from schools,
daycares, and drug treatment centers.
School locations are shown on this map in
orange. Although there is currently no
separation requirement from public parks,
these locations are shown in green for
reference .
Medical Marijuana Infused Product
Manufacturers (MMIP) are a distinct
category of marijuana establishments that
are permitted with no separation
requirements . Currently, there are three (3)
licensed MMIP locations all of which are
collocated with existing retail centers .
Only two zone districts are shown on this
map. These include the Commercial-One
(C-1) and Industrial-Employment (I-E) zone
districts in which medical marijuana
establishments are permitted uses.
D MMJ retail centers ~ Retail center
with MMIP
• 314-mile buffer Schools • C-1 zone district • Parks • -··-~ 1-E zone district L ! City limits .. _
1,320 2,140 3,910 5.210
1!!!!!!5iiiiiil!!!!!!!!5iiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Feel
N State Plane Coordinate Projection A Colorado C811ral Zone
Datum : NA083
Q!SCLAIMER NOTICE:
This is e pictorial representation of geographic and demographic
infonnation. Re~ance upon the accuracy, re~ab~ity and authority of this
infonnation is solely requestors resPOOsibUy. The City of Wheat Ridge,
in Jefferson County, Colorado -a pol~ical subdivision of the State of
Colorado, has compiled for b use certain computerized infonnation.
This infonnation is avaiable to assist in identifying general areas of
concem only. The computerized irtonnation provided should only be
relied upon with corrolloration d the methods, assumptions, and results
by a quallied independent SOU"ce. The user of this infonnation shan
indemnify and hold free the C~y of Wheat Ridge from My and all
Wabilities , damages, lawsub, and causes of action that result as a
consequence of his relia'lCe on infonnation provided herein.
~ .. "~ ... .,. City of .. (P("WheatRi_dge ~PUBLIC WORKS
TO:
FROM: Steve Nguyen, Engineering Manager
DATE: July 31 , 2013 (for Study Session of August 5, 2013)
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Signage Program
Introduction
On May 20 , 2013 , the City 's former Public Works Director, Tim Paranto , presented to City
Council options for a Traffic Calming/Monument Signage Program. Consensus from City
Council was reached to have staff develop a program for a limited number of neighborhood
identification signs and a separate program for temporary traffic calming devices.
Mr. Paranto summarized Council's direction as follows:
1. Identify specific locations for neighborhood monument signage using this year's budget
of$1 00 ,000
2. Investigate the cost of temporary speed bumps , and if not too expensive have Mr. Goff
approve purchase
3. Work on a neighborhood traffic control program as an option for next year 's budget
Neighborhood Monument Signage
Neighborhood monument signs can serve two purposes -traffic calming and City/neighborhood
identification. Staff has identified 30 specific locations throughout the City to serve both
purposes: 22 traffic islands with monument signs
(Attachment 1) and eight sites for just monument signs
(Attachment 2).
The picture to the right is an example of a neighborhood
monument sign on a traffic island. Staffhas provided two
possible options for neighborhood monument signs and
traffic calming islands as shown on Attachments 3 and 4 .
The proposed options include either brick columns or
monument bases with colored , patterned concrete or cobble
for the surface treatment or cover of the island. The color of
the brick, sign background , patterned concrete, and cobble
can all be selected from a number of available options. Including landscaping would increase the
initial and long-term maintenance costs of these islands but could be an option if Council wishes.
Attachment 5 is a map of the City highl ighting those streets where cut-through traffic problems
have been identified and reported by either citizens or staff. Several of the streets shown on the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Signage Program
July 31 , 2013
Page 2
map have reported traffic issues , but are not recommended for traffic islands because they are
constrained by either a narrow street width or limited right-of-way that would not allow the
installation of an island. Additional traffic control options can be considered for these areas of
the City during the development of a comprehensive neighborhood traffic control program.
The proposed traffic islands would measure 8 feet wide by 11 feet long and the monument sign
would measure 5 feet wide by 3.5 feet high. An engineering evaluation would be applied to any
potential installation site to consider issues such as: accommodating oversized emergency or
service vehicles , driveway location , turn lanes , existing utilities and on-street parking.
Each sign could include either a subdivision name or street name with the City's name and
marketing logo. However, due to the significant number of subdivisions throughout the City
(Attaclunent 6) it would be difficult to differentiate between multiple subdivisions adjacent to a
single street. Staff recommends the street name with the City 's name and marketing logo be
displayed on the monument signs.
Cost estimates range from $11 ,500 to $15 ,000 (Attachment 7) for each traffic island and
monument sign or $253 ,000 to $330 ,000 for all 22 locations. However, final pricing could be
reduced through economies of scale if multiple sites are constructed at the same time. Staff
anticipates that the large number of locations would take multiple years to complete and
therefore a prioritization process is needed. Staff recommends using the traffic volume of the
adjacent major street to determine which location will be built first. Depending on the available
budget , a number of locations can be built each year until all locations receive a traffic island
with a monument sign.
Eight additional locations have been identified
throughout the City for the installation of minor City
entryway signs (Attachment 2).
For the minor entryway signs , staff is exploring a
pillar monument sign as the most feasible option as
shown in the picture to the left or the example in
Attachment 8. Pillar monument signs could be
installed on either one or both sides of the street at the
proposed sites , subject to available right-of-way and
utility conflicts. The pillar would measure 2 feet by 3
feet and would need to be limited to 3 feet in height at unsignalized intersections to confonn to
sight triangle regulations.
Each sign could include the City's name and marketing logo. Cost estimates range from $3 ,800
to $5 ,000 for one pillar monument at each designated site or $7 ,600 to $10 ,000 for two pillar
monuments at each site (Attachment 9).
Attachment 2 also includes those locations throughout the City where monument signage exists
today and proposed sites for future gateway signage such as the one at Kipling Blvd. and l-70.
Staff understands that at this time, those locations are not under consideration.
Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Signage Program
July 31 ,2013
Page 3
Temporary Speed Bumps
Two temporary speed bumps
were ordered on July 3rd for a
total cost of $5 ,536. Once the
speed bumps arrive they will
be available for temporary
traffic calming in problem
traffic areas of the City. They
will be deployed similarly to
the speed trailers that the City
currently uses for temporary
traffic calming. The temporary
speed bwnps can also be used
to test this specific type of
calming device in specific areas of the City to detennine if it is the best method for calming traffic.
Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
As you know , the City's current neighborhood traffic control program has been unfunded for
several years. In addition , the current permitting and neighborhood outreach process has been
determined by some to be too long and arduous . Once the new Public Works Director is onboard ,
August 12th, he will be instructed to draft and propose a new neighborhood traffic control
program to present to City Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Neighborhood Monument Sign , Traffic Calming Island Map
2. Existing, Future Gateway and Proposed Minor Entryway Monument Map
3. Neighborhood Monument Sign , Traffic Calming Island Example #1
4. Neighborhood Monument Sign , Traffic Calming Island Example #2
5. Reported Cut-Through Traffic Problem Map
6. Subdivision Map
7. Cost Estimate for Neighborhood Monwnent Sign, Traffic Calming Island
8. Minor Entryway Pillar Monument Example
9. Cost Estimate for Minor Entryway Pillar Monument
II~= I;='
1-
(f)
(.9 z
== Q..~.....J 1 11:::==~~1
~
38T H ~VE
0
J IL
Attachment 1
• Neighborhood Entry
Monuments-22
26TH AVE
I •
58TH AVE
Gateway & Entry Signs
F-01-13
48TH AVE
w
(!)
0
0::
0
...J w
................ -··--~. ..• ........
BERRYRD
.. ,
26TH AVE
t;
w
(!)
0
0::
0
...J w
w
0::
~
...J
<t
U::·
(!)
z
;:)
0 _>-
0
0:::
0
0:::
~
52ND
32NDAVE
I 58THAV
..............
• I I • ! i
i
44TH AVE
~At Simms Streets
51ST PL
I
58TH AVE
t;
57TH AVE ~L---_/------~~~-----------------
z
w GRANDVIEW AVE ~~----~~-------------.---.-------/ w
0.. w
0
~
RIDGE RD
20TH AVE
t;
0:::
0::
<t
(.)
1-
(/)
::2:
<t
(/)
...J
<t co
At Johnson Park
38TH AVE
t;
0::
0::
<t
(.)
0
~ co
I
1-
0::
~
(/)
0
~
1-
(/)
56TH AVE
.v
At 29th Avenue
Attachment 2
20TH AVE 20TH AVE
z
<t
0
0:: w
I
(/)
~ ..
Dt n :r
3
CD ::a ..
w
LMtWOCO
~ i
' '-,
~1.:/Jio
'--------,
I I
' ' '
Attachment 5
Subdivisions of Wheat Ridge Attachment 6
The different colors on this map represent the different subdivision in which Wheat Ridge
parcels are located . Adjacent parcels of the same color are part of the same subdivision . The
subdivision classification is based on parcel records from the Jefferson County Assessor which
are updated on a quarterly basis as new plat documents are recorded with the County. Parcels
that have never been platted are shaded in white .
N
A
NTS
DISCLAIMER NOTICE:
This is a pictorial represenlation a geographic and demcqaphic information. Reliance upon the accuracy, reliability and authority of
!his information is solely requestor's responsibility. The City a 'M"leat Ridge, in Jefferson COLnty, Colorado -a political stbdivision of
!he State of Colorado, has compiled for its use certain computerized information. This information is ava~able to assist in identifying
z
0
8
~ fb 43R D
0
z
~ w
"'
(/)
w
~
Subdivision Entry Signs CIP # F-01-13
Item# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
Construction
202 Removal of Structures & Obstructions $ 489.00
Removal of Asphalt Mat (Full Depth) 20 SY $15 .00 $ 300 .00
Removal of Pavement Mark ing 63 SF $3.00 $ 189 .00
208 Erosion Control $ 900 .00
Sweeping 2 HR $100 .00 $ 200 .00
Storm Drain Inlet Protection 2 Each $200 .00 $ 400 .00
Concrete Washout Structure 1 Each $300 .00 $ 300 .00
304 Aggregate Base Course $ 75.00
Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) 1.5 Ton $50 .00 $ 75 .00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt $ 600.00
Hot Mix Asphalt (Patching -6") 8 SY $75 .00 $ 600 .00
609 Curb & Gutter $ 775.00
Vertical Curb & Gutter 31 LF $25 .00 l $ 775 .00
610 Median Cover Material $ 675.00
Median Cover Material (Pattern Concrete) 5 SY $135.00 $ 675 .00
612 Delineators & Reflectors $ 120.00
Delineators (Type I) 4 Each $30 .00 $ 120 .00
620 Field Facilities $ 425.00
Sanitary Facility 1 Each $425 .00 $ 425 .00
625 Construction Surveying $ 200.00
Construction Surveying 1 LS $200 .00 $ 200.00
626 Mobilization $ 400.00
Mobilization 1 LS $400 .00 $ 400 .00
627 Pavement Marki ng $ 1,220.00
Pavement Marking Tape (8 ") 122 LF $10 .00 I $ 1,220 .00
630 Construction Zone Traffic Control $ 500.00
Traffic Control Management 1 LS $500 .00 $ 500 .00
632 Masonry Block Cavity Walls $ 5,000.00
Gateway Entry Monuments 1 Each $5 ,000 .00 $ 5,000 .00
720 Materials Sampling & Testing $ 200.00
Materials Samp ling & Testing 1 LS $200 .00 $ 200 .00
Construction Sub-total $ 11,579.00
Contingencies 30% $ 3,473.70
Construction Total $ 15,052.70
Sign $ 5 ,000 .00
Is land $ 3 ,465 .00
Demo & erosion control $ 1,389 .00
Mise $ 1,725 .00
Attachment 7
Page 1 of 1
Entry Signs CIP # F-01-13
Item# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
Construction
202 Removal of Structures & Obstructions $ 26.00
Removal of Landscape Areas 2 SY $13 .00 $ 26 .00
208 Erosion Control $ 300.00
Concrete Washout Structure 1 Each $300 .00 $ 300.00
625 Construction Surveying $ 200.00
Construction Surveying 1 LS $200 .00 $ 200 .00
626 Mobilization $ 400.00
Mobilization 1 LS $400 .00 $ 400 .00
630 Construction Zone Traffic Control $ 500.00
Traffic Control Management 1 LS $500 .00 $ 500 .00
632 Masonry Block Cavity Walls $ 6,000.00
Masonry Block Cavity Monuments (2 'x3'x3') 2 Each $3 ,000 .00 1 $ 6 ,000.00
720 Materials Sampling & Testing $ 200.00
Materials Sampling & Testing 1 LS $200 .00 $ 200 .00
Construction Sub-total $ 7,626.00
Contingencies 30% $ 2,287.80
Construction Total $ 9,913.80
Sign $ 6,000 .00
Demo & erosion control $ 326 .00
Mise $ 1,300 .00
Attachment 9
Page 1 of 1
~ .. ~ ~
... _ r-City of • --~Wheat&..__dge ~OFFICE OF THE 01Y MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council r'\ _1
Patrick Goff, City Manager W
July 31 ,2013
Sales and Use Tax Ballot Initiative Update
City Council directed staff to move fmward with a ballot initiative requesting a 1% increase to
the City sales and use tax rate. This increase would generate approximately $6 million dollars in
additional revenue annually to fund general operating expenses and capital improvement
projects. In June, I provided Council with a timeline for approval of ballot language and had
preliminary discussions regarding the messaging strategy for presenting the ballot question to
residents. The following is the timeline for approving ballot language based on the Jefferson
County election calendar:
August Ith -Ordinance on lst Reading
August 26th -Ordinance on 2nd Reading
September 6th -Ballot language due to County Clerk
The City Attorney has determined that while setting the ballot language is often done by
ordinance, there is no requirement to do so and a resolution would suffice. Therefore, if you
would like more time to set the final ballot language you may bypass the ordinance process and
adopt a resolution on August 26th.
Attached for your review is a draft ofthe ballot language for the proposed sales tax increase
which includes recommended changes from City Council which were discussed at the July 15th
study session . Because this ballot question is subject to TABOR requirements , most of the
language in the draft is non-negotiable, but the bulleted points can be changed or deleted . Staff
would like feedback on the draft language to ensure it reflects Council 's intent for the use of
increased revenues. The current language has been reviewed and approved by the City attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2013 Sales and Use Tax Increase Ballot Question DRAFT
DRAFT BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR SALES AND USE TAX INCREASE
SHALL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE TAXES BE INCREASED $6.3 MILLION IN
CALENDAR YEAR 2014 THROUGH AN INCREASE IN THE CITY 'S SALES AND
USE TAX RATE OF ONE CENT (1 %) ON EACH ONE DOLLAR PURCHASE, AND
BY WHATEVER ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY IN EACH
SUBSEQUENT YEAR ,
WHICH REVENUES SHALL BE INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY TO IMPROVE
AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF WHEAT RIDGE RESIDENTS AND
SECURE THE CITY 'S FINANCIAL FUTURE THROUGH , BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE FOLLOWING:
• ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION ; STORMWATER DRAINAGE
MAINTENANCE ; AND CAPITAL MAINTENANCE TO PROVIDE A SAFE
AND EFFECTIVE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM
• INVESTING IN CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT THE BUSINESS
GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY
• RESOURCE IMPROVEMENTS FOR MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SHALL THE CITY BE PERMITTED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND
THE REVENUES FROM SUCH INCREASE , INCLUDING ALL INTEREST
DERIVED THEREFROM , WITHOUT REGARD TO THE REVENUE RAISING ,
DEBT LIMITATION OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF ARTICLE X , SECTION 20 OF
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
Attachment 1