Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 02-27-12STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO February 27, 2012 Upon Adjournment of City Council Meeting Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge . Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. APPROVALOFAGENDA 1. Elected Official Report(s) 2 . Staff Report(s) a) Smart 911 3. Priority Based Budgeting introduction and review 4. Jeffco Open Space Request for $25 ,000 5 . Martensen School ~ ~ ~ , .. _ r City of • .. ~Wheat~dge ~OLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and C~ f ouncil THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager_L{} Daniel G. Brennan, Chief of Police FROM: Joseph Cassa, Division Commander Support Services Division DATE: January 30,2012 (for the 2/27/2012 Study Session) SUBJECT: Smart911 Smart911 is a software system which is designed to improve the ability of first responders to help community members who need help from the police, fire and emergency services. Smart911 is an addition to the current E9-1-1 system in Jefferson County. This system allows citizens of our community the ability to provide first responders with a household safety profile which is used by emergency first responders to better understand a situation. Citizen participation in this system is voluntary and the system requires the information to be reviewed/updated on a frequent basis. Every six months following the initial entry by a participating citizen, the system sends an e-mail asking them to visit the website and update or confirm that no update is necessary. If the citizen does not comply, they are purged from the system. This software system allows our citizens to enter information which creates their own personalized household safety profile. This information is entered , kept and maintained on a secure website. This information is provided to the police department communications center dispatchers when the citizen calls 9-1-1. This information automatically is displayed at the dispatchers work station and can be provided to the first responders who are responding to the call for service. The household safety profile provides information in the following three general areas: ( 1) personal information, (2) household details, and (3) medical information. Personal information consists of photographs, calling location, name and personal pin, physical description , and age/gender. The personal pin and/or name can be used in the event the person calling is being coerced or threatened. Household details contain information providing a family profile (such as the number of persons living in the house) and photographs of children (which can be used in the event a child goes missing). Information regarding household access such as the location ofthe gas shutoff valve or location of dwelling exits can be securely entered into the system as well. Pet information and emergency contacts are also details which can be entered into the household safety profile. .. .. ' . Smart911 Page 2 of2 The third section of the safety profile is information concerning medical information. Medications, medical conditions, and any psychiatric conditions can be noted in this section. There is no cost associated with this system to the City or our citizens. The Jefferson County E 9-1-1 Authority Board is paying for the first year costs which are approximately $95 ,000 for the ten PSAPs in Jefferson and Broomfield counties. The Advisory Committee to the Authority Board had concerns that once this program was implemented that the Authority Board needed to keep funding it yearly, providing there was adequate citizen participation throughout the county. However, the current Authority Board cannot commit funds for future Boards and therefore could not commit to more than one year (2012). The Board and the member agencies will need to prioritize funding this system along with other projects in upcoming years. The City's IT Department will have a role in the implementation of this project for our citizens. The Authority Board has also hired an IT consultant specifically for this project. This consultant will also be assisting City IT staff in the development and implementation of this program for our citizens. It is the intent of the Authority Board to announce and implement this system with all participating agencies at the same time. This is currently expected to occur in June, 2012. ~~A~ .. _ r City of • .. ~Wheat&_dge ~ADMINIS T RATIVE SERVICES TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Patrick Goff, City Manager J).-6- Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director/PIO Nathan Mosley, Management Analyst February 27, 2012 Feb 27th Study Session -Priority Based Budgeting The purpose of this study session item is to provide City Council with an introduction to the Priority Based Budgeting process as well as present the initial "Result Definitions" phase of the project. Backeround Goal #1 in the City Council Strategic Plan is to create a "Financially Sound City Providing Quality Services." With that goal in mind, City Council identified a service priorities and funding project as a high priority for 2011/12. Central to this City Council strategic priority are the following tasks: • Development of criteria for core services • Identification of core services • Identifying a method of how to prioritize core services • Method to measure the success of core services In 201 I , City staff learned about the Center for Priority Based Budgeting, located in Denver, through an Alliance for Innovation workshop . The Center is made up of Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson, both of whom have worked in municipal finance for a number of years and helped develop the Priority Based Budgeting model while working together for Jefferson County. The Center's mission is to "lead communities to fiscal health and wellness." In order to accomplish this mission Chris and Jon work with communities to align their budgeting process with the overall strategic goals of the organization. Council approved funding in the 2012 budget to engage the Center for Priority Based Budgeting to facilitate the City's transition to a priority-driven budgeting process. The City's current approach to budgeting is the traditional incremental model -each annual budget is created based on the expenditure pattern from the previous year. Priority Based Budgeting will help the City ofWheat Ridge take the budget to the next level by allowing City Council and staff to allocate the City's limited resources in a strategic manner to meet the goals and objectives of the community. ( ... ,... Priority Based Budgeting February 27, 2012 Page2 Prior Action The first step in moving to a priority-driven budgeting process was to construct "result definitions." These definitions were crafted using the City Council strategic goals as a starting point and guide. Concepts included in the Action Outline 2011/12 were also used to create the Wheat Ridge result definitions. Additionally, in a process that was facilitated by Chris and Jon, the Executive Management Team as well as Internal Department Teams provided feedback to answer such questions as "what are we in business for" and "what would citizens miss if the City went out ofbusiness" to help further craft the result definitions. These definitions are the foundation of the Priority Based Budgeting model for the City. Using these results definitions will allow the City to evaluate cunent and future programs to ensure that they are helping us achieve our goals as a City. While result definitions were being crafted, City staff began work on the next step of the process, program inventories. Department staff created exhaustive lists of all programs/services provided by the City. This process was designed to gain a better understanding of"what we do" among staff, elected officials and ultimately citizens. Once there is a consensus on the result definitions then a process begins where each department rates their own programs against these results. Once this is done, each program will go through a "peer review" process to provide a level of quality control and ensure that the ratings are valid. Programs that have an essential or critical role in achieving the defined results will naturally rate highly. Those programs that have no clear connection or influence on City goals will be rated low on the scale. Finally Chris and Jon will compile the data and rank City programs into four quartiles . The first quartile will be those programs that are essential to the City achieving its goals and quartile four will be those programs that have minimal or no impact on those goals. The prioritization of programs allows City Council, staff and citizens to look at what the City does through a new lens and discuss funding priorities in an objective manner. As this budget process will be a multi-year project staff plans on engaging the community in a broader priorities discussion in the future. Those discussions will help further refine the City's result definitions and continue to link resource allocation to City goals and objectives. Staff is excited about this project and currently more than 40 individuals throughout the organization have been involved in the result definition exercises as well as the program inventories. Action Requested At this time staff is asking City Council to provide feedback and consensus on the result definitions presented at the study session. Once consensus is reached on the results, staff will move forward with the remaining steps to this project. Staff will provide periodic updates to Council regarding the status of this project. lhrng&nm Attachment COVER STORY by Chris Fabian, Scott Collins, and Jon Johnson Getting Your Priorities Straight IS PERMANENT FISCAL CRISIS OUR TOP CONCERNt All local government managers have seen what sometimes happens. Revenue growth is slowing, expenses are increasing, fund balances are dwindling, and it's perceived that these conditions will persist for the foreseeable future. As David Osbourne and Peter Hutchinson proclaim in their 2004 book, The P1ice of Govern- ment, we are in an "age of permanent fiscal crisis!"1 The National League of Cities identifies "local fiscal conditions" as a top issue,2 while the U.S . Government Ac- countability Office anticipates "persistent fiscal challenges. "3 But why do local government professionals believe that this is the crisis? What assumptions do we hold so firmly and that so calcify our thinking to convince us that changing fiscal conditions represent our crisis? Would higher revenues and lower expenses allow us to operate crisis free? Or does the true crisis exist when, despite our fiscal realities , we don't focus on those priorities and objectives that ensure the success of our communities? THE CRISIS IS NOT FISCAL In Reengin eering the Corporation , Michael Hammer writes that organizations suffer from "inflexibility, unresponsiveness, the absence of customer focus , an obsession with activity rather than result, bureaucratic paralysis , lack of innovation , and high overhead." Why? "If costs were high, they could be passed on to customers. If customers were dis- satisfied , th ey had nowhere els e to turn. "4 Should we in gov ernment only now be concerned with flexibility, responsiveness , customer focus , and results because we can no longer afford not to be? !un.e..200J,__ __ Perhaps the biggest concern we Step I: Getting the Right Results face is not a fiscal crisis. Fiscal trends The figure for step I shows the five results developed by Jefferson County, and conditions are by and large out of Colorado. our control and simply represent a re- ality with which we need to cope. The real crisis on our hands is whether our organizations have the capabili- ties to address current fiscal realities and still meet the objectives of gov- ernment and the expectations of our constituents. When facing declining growth in revenues , government leaders have approached the issue of balancing the budget in similar ways. A recent article describes California's approach to managing its fiscal reality: The spokesman for the Governor said ,' ln our view, an across-the-board approach is designed to protect es- sential services , by spreading those reductions as evenly as possible so no single program gets singled out for se- vere reductions ." In response the state legislative analyst wrote, "the gover- nor's approach would be like a family deciding to cut its monthly mortgage payment, dining-out tab , and et.flix subscription each by lO percent rath- er than eliminating the restaurant and DVD spending in order to keep up the house payments ."' The Price of Govemment describes more thoroughly the "7 Deadly Sins" or the seven most commonly imple- mented strategies that local govern- ments use to manage their fiscal reali ties:6 l. Rob Peter to pay Paul. 2. Use accounting tricks. 3. Borrow. 4. Sell assets. 5. Make something up. 6 . ickel and clime the employees. 7 . Delay asset maintenance or replacement. Although these strategies lead to balanced budgets, do they really assist us in reaching our greater objective- that of achieving results and meet- ing citizens' demands? Don 't they ultimately lead to cost cutting that ICMA.org/pm ... 'ofj ..;..:...i... . -=:·"'-~ ..... ~, . ~. ::-.'.. ·---~ J .,.. ·. ~: ·.· -., ' L~. !lot; ·~ . .., C"~i. Qlf WIIIIKh 10 WI! ute INnliiQ Mel~ piOdces AdtiHI ,., .. .......... Iliad Cit"' ........ '1111111 .. lhl aai'J . o. .......,~red 11lillllllmll~ lhlll'crllson •aat;:waaiil IIIIIW'tJI*UIIIm.--fiOI*IspKa ........ .........,Its IIIII CGIIIIUIIIft ~, _,.,. of ~--:.:' -----__,_ !'!" ~ ., _··:~ :: I' '•, 7".· c".'! ~ 0. ~-~Ill lll!lllli!d!l tiiU Cl.llblllln. ~t:'USDIW~ ~n 1111' lliSII:lnW1. 111M' bltiMlr..S~ 8hcNIJ Mtt ""' ~ .. .:. ... ......... -·-·...; .~· ... .:;:- '· .. Objectives: • Results are clear, u nderstandable , and measurable. • Results are the objectives and priorities of the board or council and the citizens. • Results accommodate potentially diverse board or council views . • Results incorporate majority as well as minority opinions . • Results are definable Keys to Success: • Strive to establish between five and I 0 results. These should be the ma in priorities of the gove r nment. Not everyth ing can be a priority. • Be broad but precise . "Safe community" as a result is broad, but it is also distinct. You can talk about what it is and what it isn 't . "Quality of life" as a result is broad , and it is also too ambiguous and subjective. • Results are t he objectives and priorities of your council or board and the citizens. These are the primary stakeholders who must be d irectly engaged in influencing the results-development process. Revise results periodically, especially when these stakeholders change . • Recognize there are internal as well as external stakeholders . Draw a d istinction between results of public programs and internal operating programs. The differing results will lead to differ ing evaluation and measurement. • Each member of t he board or council does not need to agree on the val- ue of each result if the opportunity exists for each to express individual be li efs about wh ich results should be of higher value. Figure I. County-wide Program Prioritization Note that the top-ranking program in this county-wide program prioritiza t ion was snow re moval , while the bottom-ranking program was natural resources and hor- ticulture . Snow r emoval scored highest because the program was proven t o have a significant influence on all of the county's results. The horticulture program had the least amount of influence of the results. This is the very defi nit ion of "Bang for the Buck" as , for every dollar spent on snow removal , jefferson County ach ieves more of the results. r .. ' I" t::. I . .. f ... f impacts highly desired services at the same level as services that are rela- tively unimportant to citizens? Don 't they endanger government's ability to provide statutorily man - dated services while preserving those services that are simply nice to have? And furthermore, what does this say about the strategies that governments would use to allocate resources when more revenue was available? The true crisis governments face is hardly fiscal; it's a crisis of pri- orities. How strategic are we, as lo- cal government professionals, about understanding what we do, why we do it , and (in times of scarcity as well as abundance) how we should invest our resources to achieve the results our communities need? While focus- ing on priorities sometimes takes a back seat to other issues during times of fiscal stress, its actually even more critical to make prioritization a top priority. PRIORITIZATION, A BETTER WAY TO DEAL WITH THE CRISIS Prioritization is a way to provide clar- ity about how a government should invest resources in order to meet its stated objectives (and about what services cou ld be funded at a reduced level without impacting those objec- tives). Pri ori tization as a process helps us beller articulate why the programs we offer exist, what value they offer to ci ti zens, how they benefit the commu- nity, what price we pay for them , and what objectives and citizen demands are they achieving. The objectives of implementing a successful priorit.izatjon initiative al- low us to: • Evaluate the services we provide, one versus another. • Better understand our services in the context of the cause-and-effect relationship they have on the orga- ni za tion's priorities. • Provide a higher degree of under- standing among decisionmakers • Articulate to people in th e organiza- --------~-----------------------------L-- as they engage in a process to rank L services based on priorities. tion and to the public how we va lue our services, how we invest in our priorities, and how we divest our- se lves of lower-priority services. While we are not advocating that public sector organizations mimic our colleagues in the private sector, we find context in an unusual and unique private sector perspective from jack Welc h , famed chief executive officer ofGE: Every company has strong business or product lines and weak ones and some in between . Differentiation re- quires managers to know which is which and invest accordingly ... ITio do that you have to have a clear-cut definition of "strong." At GE, "strong" meant a business was o. l or o. 2 in its market. If it wasn 't, the managers had to fix it , sell it, or close it ... differentiation among your businesses requires a transparent framework that everyone in the com- pany understands J To meet our real cns1s , a compa- rable approach should be applied by government leaders whereby our p ro- grams are prioritized , which in turn encourages decisionmakers to recog- nize high-priority resource allocations and differentiate them from those of low priority. THE PROCESS OF PRIORITIZATION The logic behind prioritization is that effective resource allocation decis ions are transparent when the results of an organization can be identified and defmed , when pro- grams and services can be distinctly (and quantitatively) evaluated as to their influence on any of the results , and when programs can be valued relative to one another and ultimate- ly prioritized on the basis of their impact on results . Successfu l execution of prioritiza- tion depends on three factors: The right results. Accurate pri - o riti zati o n o f p ro grams d e pends o n th e comprehensi ve id e ntificati o n ICMA.orglpm Step 2: Getting the Right Definitions The figure in this step is from Fort Collins. Colorado's initiative to define the re- sult of "improved transportation ." Fort Collins used the Kaplan-Norton strategy mapping technique.* Note that the five categories in the oval closest to the result statement (traffic flow, quality travel surfaces. and so forth) are what the city believes are the pri- mary factors or indicators demonstrating the achievement of the result. Objectives: • Definitions should encompass all conceivable influences, causes, factors, and indicators that spell out the meaning of the result. These factors could be ex- ternal to your organization . • Definitions should be clear, comprehensive , logical, and measurable. They should depict the cause-and-effect relationship between the result and all identified influences on the result. Keys to Success: • Focus on identifying all possible , logical influences and causes for each result. Complete definitions are the key to linking programs and services to the re- sults they influence . Clear definitions for each result make it easier to deter- m i ne a program 's value . • Use teams to develop the definitions for results to ensure organizational buy-in. Even if the board or council does not agree with all the identified in- fluences and factors for a particular result, members can i dentify which influ- ences and factors they believe are most critical to the achievement of a result in the scori ng process . • Be conc i se i n writ i ng result defin i tions . Avo id eloquent, overly articulate , and lengthy paragraphs . The purpose of result definiti ons is to guide and facilitate program scoring based on that program 's i nfluence on results. • Solicit the advice of subject-matter experts w i th i n your organization when develop i ng results definiti ons ; this adds value to the final product. *Ro bert S. Ka pl an and Davi d P. Norton . Strategy Map s: Con vertin g Intang ibl e As seiS in to Tan gi ble Outcom es (Bo ston : Harvard Bus in e ss School Press, 2004). Step 3: Getting the Right Valuations The figure in this step is from Jefferson County, Colorado, and it shows the scoring process used for several programs offered by the sheriff's office. Note that the programs are scored on the basis of their relationship to each re- sult (see BCC/Public Results) as well as the basic program attributes. The county recognized that a program's influence on the stated results alone was not ad- equate to understanding the program's overall priority. Objectives: • Each program, service, and project needing to be funded should be identified by name, by cost, and then rated as to its believed influence on results. • Scoring criteria should be established to allow programs to be compared, one with another, based on overall value to the citizens . • Scores should be reasonably assigned to programs on the basis of measurable evidence, not opinion . Keys to Success: • When defining programs, make sure they are neither too big (the sheriff's of- fice is not a program) nor too small (answering e-mails is not a program). • Link programs, services. and projects with a result by assigning scores based on their influence on that result. • Evaluate every identified program . • Expand the grading criteria beyond results to include other factors that give programs a higher priority. (Jefferson County believed the more a program could pay for itself-in other words, be sustained by user fees-the lower would be the investment of county taxes in funding the program and, there- fore , the higher the priority of the program was to the county.) • Program scoring is inherently subjective. Minimize subjectivity by requiring performance metrics and other measurements to demonstrate how the pro- gram influences the result. Where measurements don't already exist, require program managers to develop theories about the cause-and-effect relation- ship a program has on a result, and test the theory. • Require justification for all scores given . Tie performance evaluations to the scores. of the resu lt s we are in business to achieve. • The right definitions. Precision in prioritization results from the articu- lation of t he cause-and-effect rela - tionship between a program and a result . With clearly defined causality and an understanding of the influ- ences on results , we can minimize subjectivi ty in linking programs with results. • The right valuation. With the right results and with clear definitions we can accurately value our programs relative to their influence on achiev- ing results . Steps 1 , 2, and 3 show how two jurisdictions addressed this issue . SUMMARIZING PRIORITIZATION: PUTTING IT AU TOGETHER The final steps in the prioritizati on process involve weighting the results, calculating program scores , and d e- veloping a top-to-bottom summary of all programs, in approximate order of priority. lt is critical that this process be comple ted before making any bud- get decisions. This is a significan t deviation from the budgeting-for-outcomes process because with the premise outlined in this article, prioritiza t ion is the beginning of any resource allocation discussion . As in GE's differentia- t ion process, using prioritization as- sumes that regardless of the amount of revenue a n organizati on generates, regardless of a reasonably ca lcu lated price of government, and regard l ess of what amount of funding a board , council , or citizenry feels a particu lar result should receive, it is only when confronted with th e end product of prioritization that resource alloca ti on discussions can begin . CASE STUDY: JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Figure 1 shows the result of the Jef- ferson County's prioritization process, with a top-to-bottom profile of every program offered to the public. The bar measurements indicate the prior- ------,-----~----~~~------------L-- ity score (the scale is 0 to 100, and higher scores indicate a high-priority program). Figure 2 profiles th e dollar amounts spent by Jefferson County on pro- grams offered to the public, in order of priority (where the top 25 percent of programs are Priority 1, the second 25 percent are Priority 2, and so on). Without addressing the fiscal real- ity facing Jefferson County, we can see that these extremely telling figures make statements about the appro- priateness of this county's resource allocation. Is the level of spending for Priority 3 or Priority 4 programs acceptable? Should the county con- sider shifting more dollars Priority 1 programs? If a significan t revenue downturn suddenly occurred, should the county implement across-the-board budget cuts, or might the county use the prior- itization information to consider other alternatives about where to look first for potential spending cutbacks? Con- versely, if revenues were unexpectedly higher, would the county implement across-the-board spending increases, or should the additional invesunent be made in top priorities first? Jefferso n County, at the end of 2006 , projected a $12 million budget shortfall in the general fund alone. With the adoption of the 2008 bud- get, 37 full-time positions were elimi- nated or not funded , and the budget in total was reduced by $13 .7 million . . . without a single layoff. County Administrator Jim Moore observed: "This is the first year that a county budget has been less than the previ- ous year. This is especially remarkable given the rising costs that we must pay for fuel and other supplies and expenses." Of more significance, however, according to Todd Leopold , admin- istrative services director, was "that the discussions with the board and the departme nts shifted from fund- in g levels for programs to how those programs contributed to th e county's ove rall mission and goals. At the e nd of the process, there was a much bet- ter understanding of what we do and why we do it." ICMA.orglpm CRISIS AVERTED The biggest challenge we face in gov- ernment is not the ever-changing fis- cal conditions. Instead, the issue most often is a crisis of strategy. Recogniz- ing this, we believe that implementing prioritization is an effective way to combat crises. All organizations, espe- cially those that are stewards of public resources , establish values and objec- tives to meet the expectations of those for whom they exist to serve. Resources contributed by the com- munity or other constituencies are dedicated to achieve those established objectives, regardless of the cur- ICMA Center for Performance Measurement helps local govern- ments deliver results that matter in challenging times. ICMA staff members work with communities to collect, clean, and report data in I 5 service areas and help to con- duct rigorous citizen surveys. Bud- get and policy decisions are results based, and local governments have implementation tools. For more information, visit www.icma.org/ performance. ----aq.llai.IIOO .1~ --OiuaQ.- rent fiscal condition. As we evaluate the inventories of all programs and services offered, we would find it im - plausible to believe that each achieves those objectives to an equal extent. Prioritization offers an objective process that allows those respo nsible for resource allocation decisions to ensure that those programs of higher value to citizens, those programs that achieve the organization's objectives most visibly and effectively, can be sustained through adequate funding levels regardless of the fiscal crisis du jour . Whether there are more resources to distribute or fewer to allocate, prioritization guides that allocation toward those programs most highly valued by the organization and , most important, by the citizens who depend on those programs for the ir we ll -being, their comfort, and their expected quality of life. PM 'Da vid Osborne and Peter Hutchinson , Tlt e Pr-i ce of Govenune n t: Gett.ing Lite Re- sults We ced in an Age of Permane nt Fisca l C r·isis ( ew York: Ba ic Books, 2004). 2Chris tine Becker, "Lo cal Fisca l Con- dition , Public Infrastructure Important I ues to LC Me mbers," alions Citi es Weellly, Dece mbe r 3 , 2007. 3 " tate a nd Lo ca l Governments: Persis - tent Fiscal Challenges Wi ll Likely Emerge within t he Next Decade ," Report no . GA0-07-l080SP (Washington , D.C.: U.S . Government Accoun tability Office , Jul y 18 , 2007). .. Michael Ham me r and James Champy, Reengin ec ring th e Corporation : A Manifesto for Business Revo lution (New Yo rk : Harper- Business, 1993). 5 Mikc Zap ler, "Governor's Depiction of Finances Accurate, Solution Fa ll s Shon," Mercury News, Sacramen to Bu reau , Janu- ary 15 , 2008. "Osborne and Hutchinson , The Price of Govemment. 7Jack Welch , Winning, with Suzy Welch (New York : Harper Bu ines Publishe rs , 2005). Chris Fab ian is business process analyst, Jeffe r son County, Color ado ( cfab i an @ jeffco.us); Scott Coll ins is senior budget ana lyst, city and county of Denver, Colorado (Scott.Collins@ denvergov.o rg) and a form er budget analyst, Jeffe r son County; and Jon Johnson is budget director,Jefferson County Oxj ohn so@jeffco.us ). Look to ICMA Relationship Skills and Approaches That Effective Managers Use • Take a personal interest in others . • Offer help during a crisis . • Honor the ego needs of others. • Find a shared interest with colleagues. • Clarify expectations. • Listen carefully to learn the needs and agendas of others. • Eat together. • Earn trust by sharing credit, keeping confidences, and being trustworthy. • Take the first step. • Engage in joint training. • Use humor. • Make interactions authentic. Source : /Q Report . 2007. "The Fine Art of Managing Relationships," published by lCMA, Washington , D.C . (For information , visit bookstore.icma .org.) -. J . -' .... . . . ' ~ . ~ ... ~ _ .,. . City of • --~Wheat&_dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Patrick Goff, City Manager.ru THROUGH: FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: February 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Jefferson County Open Space Request for Funds ISSUE: Jefferson County Open Space is applying for a Great Outdoors Colorado River Corridors Initiative Grant. The purpose of the initiative and subsequent grant funding is to provide improved access to river-based open space corridors and outdoor recreation areas for urban populations throughout the state. The Jefferson County grant application is a capital construction project for a trail segment adjacent to Clear Creek in the Clear Creek Canyon (Highway 6). Jefferson County is requesting that the cities and districts adjacent to Clear Creek and the canyon show support for the project by partnering monetarily with the county on the grant. Jefferson County is requesting that the City of Wheat Ridge contribute $25,000 of matching funds for the grant application. PRIOR ACTION: No prior action has been taken on this item and there is not a similar example where the City has been asked to provide a funding match for a Jefferson County Open Space project. BACKGROUND: The long tenn goal is to complete a trail entitled Plains to Peaks, which will ultimately connect from Denver International Airport to Glenwood Springs. This trail segment, if completed, will eventually connect to the regional Clear Creek trail. Jefferson County is partnering with Clear Creek County to submit a grant application for tllis canyon portion of the project. The total project cost for the Clear Creek Canyon segment is estimated at $13,000,000. The Cities of Lakewood, Arvada, Golden and Wheat Ridge have been asked to contribute $25 ,000 each to show support for the project as well as to facilitate the success of the grant application. Recreation and Park Districts have been asked to contribute $10,000 in matching funds. This amount is less than the amount requested from cities as districts do not receive attributable share funding of the open space sales tax. .. ~-., .... Mayor and City Council February 27 , 2012 Page2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds are available to support this request. In the 2013 budget, $25 ,000 will be appropriated from the fund balance to accommodate this request. The amount of funds , although not insignificant, does not impact the Parks and Recreation Department to the degree that funding for any City projects will be compromised. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION: Staff requests consensus on either approving or denying the request to provide matching funds for the grant. A commitment letter is required by March 1, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the matching fund request and appropriating the $25 ,000 in the 2013 budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Tom Hoby, Jefferson County Open Space Director 2 . Project Site Maps JM /dr 2 Board of CC?un ty _Commi SS IOner s Faye Griffi n Dis tric t No . 1 joh n Odom District No. 2 Donal d Ros ier Di s trict No. 3 February 8, 2012 Ms . Joyce Manwaring Director of Parks & Recreation City of Wheat Ridge 4005 Kipling Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 RE : Plains to Peaks Trail-Clear Creek Canyon Segment Dear Joyce, Thank you for visiting with us earlier this week to discuss the Plains to Peaks Trail that will ultimately connect Denver International Airport to Glenwood Springs and provide many unique outdoor opportunities along the way . The Great Outdoors (GOCO) River Corridors Initiative has created an exciting opportunity to get started on the Clear Creek Canyon segment of this vision. This segment is within 20 minutes of several hundred thousand people that live on the plains in central Jefferson County communities like yours . The project we envision will provide citizens and visitors with new and expanded opportunities to experience the canyon and creek with about five miles of new trails . These experiences will include hiking, riding and running on the trail, fishing , gold panning, kayaking , rafting and floating on the creek , climbing , birding and admiring the spectacular canyon walls . Without the GOCO River Corridors Initiative. this project might not have occurred for another 10 years or more . So you can see why we want to make the most of this opportunity for Jefferson County cit izens and visitors . In order to do so we are . asking that the City of Wheat Ridge , along with five other local governments in the area . to join us as funding partners. Specifically, we are requesting that the City contribute $25 ,000 toward this $13 ,000,000 project. The Clear Creek Canyon Trail project , has already met an important milestone in a very competitive, statewide process. Of the 63 River Corridors Initiative concept papers received by GOCO, our project was selected as one of 17 invited to submit a full applicat ion. GOCO is looking for projects that either provide direct access to river-based open space and recreational opportunities-includ ing tra i ls in appropriate locations-or those that provide buffers to river-based open space and/or recreational facilities . Our project has all of these qual ities and is closest to the largest population center in the state . Jefferson County will join Clear Creek County in a joint application to fund construction of about five miles of trail and river access from one mile east of our Mayhem Gulch Trailhead, or mile marker 263 .0, to the east entrance of Tunnel6 i n Clear Creek County. The attached maps show the proximity of this project to the communities in central Jefferson County and a close up view of the tra il. Since Clear Creek Canyon is narrow and rugged, the construction costs for this project tota l over $13,000 ,000 . Li sted be low are some noteworthy po ints and benefits associated with this project. Attachment 1 JEFFERS ON COUNTY OPEN SPACE 700 jefferson County Pa rkway, Suite 100 ·Golden, Colorado 80401-6018 303 271-5925 • FAX 303 271 -5955 Partnerships abound-This project will include multiple governmental , non-profit and business organizations coming together to get this big vision underway. These organizations include Jefferson and Clear Creek Counties. multiple Cities and Park and Recreation Districts , the Colorado Department of Transportation, Trout Unlimited, the Access Fund, and more .... Trail connections galore-This trail segment currently connects to Clear Creek Canyon, and when completed, will make the larger connection east to Denver and west to Clear Creek, Summit, Eagle and Garfield Counties . The attached map shows how many existing and planned trails that will be connected as part of this endeavor. The connection through Clear Creek Canyon is the key missing link. Access to the creek for water based fun-Construction of this trail segment will provide five miles of safe access to the creek for educational opportunities as well as fishing, wading, gold panning , rafting, kayaking and floating. Historic Preservation -In many places. the trail will follow the historic railroad grade. Where poss ible, the remnants of historic stone walls constructed as part of building the railroad will be preserved . Opportunities for historical interpretation are abundant and could be explored in future phases of the corridor's development. Environmental Education -Improved access to Clear Creek will enable school and other youth groups to learn about and monitor the Creek ecosystem . They will also have the opportunity to learn about the impacts of historic mining on the area . Youth Engagement -Improved access to Clear Creek will enable school and other youth groups to more easily explore this natural area, participate in recreational opportunities, and learn how it impacts their lives. Portions of the trail construction will be accomplished through the high-school aged Jefferson County Youth Work Program laborers . For over 20 years Jefferson County Open Space has supported local park and recreation agencies and projects by purchasing land and providing grants for improvement projects. Now we ask that we come together in a different way . We ask for you to join us as a partner to achieve this big vision . Since we will have three years to complete this project will your contribution can be made anytime along the way allowing time to budget for this expense . Our GOGO application is due on March 16, 2012 . We request a letter of commitment by March 1, 2012 so we can be sure to name the City as one of our partners. If we can provide any additional information. answer any questions, or if you would like us to come to your Council/Board meeting to present the Clear Creek Canyon Trail project please contact me at 303-271-5930 or thoby@jeffco .us . Thank for your consideration . Sincerely, r~ Tom Hoby, CPRP Director of Parks & Open Space Attachments: Clear Creek Canyon Trail maps PEAKS TO PLAINS TRAIL: CLEAR CREEK CANYON SEGMENT 0 0.5 2 N N .. Moles + c 1:50,000 0 3,500 7,000 G» I I I E FHt .... ~ ~ ~ ~ City of 41~W heat&_,dge ~ARK5 AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THRO UGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager~ FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: February 27 , 2012 SUBJECT: Concept Plan for Martensen Elementary School Site ISSUE: At the January 9, 2012 City Council study session, staff received direction from Council to develop a concept plan for how both the site and building would be used at the Martensen School site. Attached is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that will be discussed at the study session on February 27 , 2012. It includes the following information: 1) Conceptual site plan with A. park amenities and locations B. suggested building footprint C. areas of the building identified for demolition. 2) Building footprint with room locations 3) Programs A. Current -relocated from the Anderson Building, Active Adult Center and Recreation Center B. New -Potential new programs that could be offered 4) Budget A. Acquisition B. Building, Park and Site Improvements C. Annual Operating COUNCIL DIRECTION: Staff requests direction on whether to move forward with the acquisition and , therefore: 1. Prepare and submit a proposal for acquisition of the Martensen site to the Jeffco R-1 School District 2 . Acquire approval from Jefferson County Open Space to move forward with the sale of the 44th and Kendall Site and transfer the funds from the sale to the acquisition of Martensen. 3. Proceed with design development for the site only or the building and the site .~"l 1 .... \ ·~ Mayor and City Council February 27 , 2012 Page2 ATTACHMENTS : 1. City Council Memorandum Martensen School Site -January 9 , 2012 2. Martensen Elementary School Site Concept Plan -PowerPoint Presentation -February 27 ,2012 JM/dr "~ A~ ... ~ "' City of • --rvwheat&_dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: January 9, 2012 SUBJECT: Acquisition of Martensen Elementary School site ISSUE: Jeffco School District closed Martensen Elementary School at the end ofthe 2010-2011 school year. This school closure has presented an opportunity for the City to explore acquiring the site for use as a neighborhood park. If acquired , the intention would be to substitute the Martensen site for the 441h and Kendall site which is owned by the City and designated for future development as a neighborhood park. Items for consideration in deciding to acquire the site include: ):> Future use of the school building Community Usage and Recreation programming ):> Partial demolition of building based on building usage needs and optimal park acreage needed for development ; ):> Long term costs associated with the maintenance and operation of the building; ):> Disposal of current park property at 44111 and Kendall; ):> Financial impact to Open Space Fund; ):> Financial impact to General Fund; ):> Martensen site is ideally located for a neighborhood park; ):> Site may be used as a park immediately upon acquisition; and ):> Site improvements will need to be completed in phases over a period of years as funding becomes available. PRIOR ACTION: This strategic action item was identified as a high priority at the City Council strategic planning session held on Saturday, May 21 , 2011. Strategic Plan 2011 /2 012 Action Agenda High Priority 7. Redevelopment of Martensen Elementary to Neighborhood Park Attachment 1 Mayor and City Council January 9, 2012 Page2 Meetings with the School District were held on two separate occasions to discuss this action item. The School District expressed interest in moving forward and an appraisal on the property has been completed. A negotiated price between the City and the School District for the acquisition has not yet been reached. A neighborhood input meeting was held on Wednesday, November 30, 2011. There were between 40 and 45 residents in attendance. The general feedback was positive for the acquisition of the site. Detailed meeting comments are attached. A Jefferson County Open Space Local Government grant application was submitted for partial funding for the acquisition in the amount of $255 ,720. The award status of this grant will be available Friday, January 6, 2012 , and the information will be provided at the January 9, 2012 study session. A Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application was submitted in the amount of $400,000 for this project but was not recommended for funding by the Community Development Advisory Board. Staff is pursuing further discussions with the County to detetmine if additional CDBG funding is available for this project. Staff may have more information to report to City Council at the January 9 Study Session. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Open Space Fund could accommodate the acquisition of this property o ver a five to seven- year period without any grant funding. Any grant funding would lessen the term of the required to complete the payments. The use of Open Space funds for acquisition would impact the available funding for moving forward with redevelopment of the site and the building during this time as well as impact funding available for new projects or those projects currently listed in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. An example of Master Plan projects includes updating and redevelopment of both Prospect and Anderson Parks. Substitution of this site as a neighborhood park would allow the City to sell the site at 44th and Kendall. If the 44th and Kendall site is sold, the City will request permission from the county to transfer the sale proceeds to the acquisition ofthe Martensen site. If this is not allowed, the sale proceeds would be required to be returned to the County Open Space fund which was the source of funding for the original purchase. The combined original purchase price of the 44th and Kendall site in 1999 and 2003 totaled $402,000. Annual School District operating costs for the building as it stands today are $124,4 72 , and the park maintenance costs are estimated at $35,000 annually. These costs would be reevaluated as final programming of the park and building are determined. One-time costs include full or partial demolition of the building, which are estimated not to exceed $83,000. Mayor and City Council January 9, 2012 Page2 BACKGROUND: Both the 1992 and the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified this geographic area of the City as in need of a neighborhood park. Approximately two acres of land were acquired in 1998 at the location of 44th and Kendall to address this need. A contiguous .5 acre parcel located to the west was acquired in 2003 to enhance access to the site from the neighborhood from a street other than 44th A venue. The school district is interested in working with the City to reach a mutually beneficial decision for the community regarding this site. They have indicated that the purchase may occur over an extended period of years. COUNCIL DIRECTION: Staff requests direction on whether to move forward with the acquisition and , therefore: I. Prepare and submit a proposal for acquisition of the Martensen site to the Jeffco R-1 School District 2 . Acquire approval from Jefferson County Open Space to move forward with the sale of the 44th and Kendall Site and transfer the dollars to the acquisition of Martensen. ATTACHMENTS: 1. District 2 Neighborhood Park -Area Map 2 . Martensen School Site 3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 4. Annual Operating Cost Detail JM!dr "' n :r 0 0 -m -"'tD -· r+ tD 3 tD :::J r+ D.J -. < ----~~~-~Attachment 2 125' 225' Martensen School Site DEMO (5, 175 sq. ft.) BUILDING FOOTPRINT (23,287 sq. ft.) Entire Building 33,002 sq. ft. Building Use Concept Plan by Program Area Fitness Dance Licensed Preschool Gymnasium HVAC 26 ,186 5Q It 1954 Original Const•uctoon • Current Programs -Rentals -Kettlebell -Active Youth Classes -Martial Arts • New Programs -Kids Fitness Classes -ParenUChild Programs Fitness Dance General Programs HVAC • Current Programs -Yoga -Ballet • New Programs -Additional Dance Classes • All Ages Fitness Dance General HVAC Babysitting e Licensed Preschool • Current Programs -Summer General Programs • Youth • Adult • New Programs -Additional General Programs Fitness I l T Dance Q J_ !!!!!!!!!!!! ---H If ,. K General rr ,...... ~~gra ~ II 1-li Gymnasium Jd I I HVAC ) Babyslttin~ n ~e Multi-P If I r l Licensed t_f r Preschool '\ 26,186 sq rt 1954 Oriq ino1 Construction r I t M1 lti-P ~rpose Office r-- • Providing a separate area for babysitting supports class registration and participation. • Staffing will be based on program schedule. Fitness Dance General Licensed Preschool HVAC e • Current Programs -Licensed Preschool held at Wheat Ridge Recreation Center • New Programs -Potential to expand the number of sessions and students • Documented need Fitness I l r~ Dance ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ b. +t- General [hrograms - f--Gymnasium fJ I 1 HVAC .) Babysittin~ n ~~~e Multi-F 1r J II I Licensed D lJ I Preschool ~ 26 .186 sq It 1954 Orig inal Consl ru ct •on I I t-I ti-P r I Office ..! Mt ~rpose I ~ L I I • Current Programs -Rentals -Jazzercise -Adult Sports • Volleyball • Basketball -Youth Basketball -Youth Sports Classes • New Programs -Rentals -Senior Indoor Sports Fitness Dance General - Gymnasium HVAC Licensed Preschool Fitness • Current Programs oance -Youth Classes -CPR/First Aid -Community Meetings • New Programs -Additional Rentals -Additional Classes General Programs Licensed Preschool HVAC • • • • :;u )> OJ )> CD ::::J c ('") < ::::J -· ..c -CD c c.. c ::::J Q) -· ::::J (J) c co ,..-+ CD 0 0 -u -c -u ::::J ..., CD Q) .o. ..., ..., Q) " CD ,..-+ ('") ::::J Q) ,..-+ co ::::J -· 0 c.. ::::J () (/) (J) 0 (J) ,..-+ ,..-+ CD (J) -3 -c ..., 0 < CD 3 CD ::::J ,..-+ (J) • Acquisition -$1,022,880 • Funding available through Grants and Open Space Fund 2011-2015 • Building, Park and Site Improvements -$2,123,000 (estimated) • $1,450,000 available through Grants, Open Space Fund, and Conservation Trust Fund 2011-2015 • $673,000 difference between available funding and estimated improvement costs • Building, Park and Site Improvements -Recommendation for funding difference of $673,000 -Steps • Develop a Master Plan for site ~ Would include design improvements for both a park and the building • Actual construction budget may be less upon completion of final design • Site improvements and design decisions will be based on available funding • Building, Park and Site Improvements -Steps (continued) • Construction would be completed through a four-year phasing plan as funds are available annually through 2015 ~ Phasing plans include criteria such as budget, site analysis and access, order of construction , cost efficiencies • Any additional improvements that are not completed as outlined in the Master Plan can begin in 2016 based on funding from Grants, Open Space and Conservation Trust Funds • Annual Operating Costs -$303,233 (building, programs and park) • Funding source General Fund • $96,796 annual impact to General Fund after Revenue offset -$206,437 Revenue Projections • Acquisition -$1,022,880 • Funding available through Grants and Open Space Fund 2011-2015 • Building, Park and Site Improvements -$2,123,000 (estimated) • $1,450,000 available through Grants , Open Space Fund, and Conservation Trust Fund 2011-2015 • $673,000 difference • Annual Operating Costs -$303,233 (building, programs and park) • Funding source General Fund • $96,796 annual impact to General Fund after Revenue offset -$206,437 Revenue Projections t:J c tD "' r+ -· 0 :l "'