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
"'