HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 03/07/2011
STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave. March 7. 2011 6:30 p.m. 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA .1. Marcellus Turner, Jeffco Public Library presentation £. Staff Reports a. Urban Agriculture Code
Amendments b. Addition of youth appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission c. Crime in Wheat Ridge .1. Report on neighborhood input for dog park 4. Discussion of sales tax and license
code revisions
... ~ 4 ~ -• ~ City of • -rcr Wheat~dge JVc'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Introduction Memorandum The Mayor and City Councf1\~ Patrick Goff, City Manager ~ Ken
Johnstone, Community Development Director Sarah Showalter, Planner II February 25, 20 II (for March 7 Study Session) Urban Agriculture item Q~ . In December 2010, LiveWell Wheat Ridge,
City staff, and members of the Wheat Ridge community made a presentation to City Council about the growth of urban agriculture in cities throughout the U.S. and the ability for urban
agriculture to promote economic and commlmity development. At the December Study Session, Council directed staff to draft changes to the zoning code to support urban agricultural uses
within Wheat Ridge and to start an assessment of City-owned land that could potentially be utilized for a garden use, such as a community garden or community supported agriculture (CSA).
The purpose of this memo is to update Council on the progress that has been made since the Study Session in December. Zoning Code Issues Staff would first like to provide information
to Council on the following items that do not appear to require any changes to the zoning regulations: l. Yard Sharing There is no current language in the zoning code that would prevent
this activity in residential neighborhoods. 2. Selling produce from home The home occupation regulations in Section 26-613 of the zoning code, which allow homebased businesses in residential
zone districts, already expressly permit the sale of produce and plants grown on the premises. While all other types of home occupations are restricted to be conducted indoors only (either
within the home or accessory structure), the regulations allow for the sale of produce outside of the home. 3. Zoning incentives for farmers markets and/or small grocers on 38th Avenue
Staff researched the idea of zoning incentives that could be utilized to promote farmers markets and/or small, local grocers. It was difficult to determine what zoning tools could be
utilized as incentives. Instead, staff believes that financial incentives -such as reduced taxes -would be more likely to draw these types of businesses.
Council Study Session February 25, 2011 (for March 7 Study Session) Page 2 There are several other topics that do require amendments to the zoning code. Staff is working on draft code
amendments based on (1) research of other jurisdictions who have addressed urban agriculture in their zoning codes and (2) a study session with Planning Commission that was held in January.
A summary of the proposed amendments may be found below. I. Urban Gardens Shared garden uses, whether non-profit community gardens or for-profit gardens (often called market gardens),
would fall under this category. The proposal is to allow this use in all zone districts in the City, including residentiaJ zone districts. However, these gardens would not be allowed
on lots zoned residentiaJly where the primary use is a single or twofamily home, since aJlowing gardens on the same lots as existing residences would likely be too intensive and could
conflict with neighborhood character. The basic regulations that staff recommends for urban gardens include: • Applicants who are proposing a garden will provide a submittal to Community
Development that includes a site plan and information about operations and parking. • On-site parking will not be required as long as there is adequate on-street parking nearby. • Signage
will be limited to one sign up to 6 SF in size and 6 feet in height. • Hours of operation in residential zone districts would be restricted from sunrise to sunset. • Accessory structures
such as sheds and greenhouses will be allowed on the garden site but will follow the regulations (size restrictions, setbacks, etc) for accessory structures in the underlying zone district.
2. Farmers Markets Farmers markets would be allowed in all zone districts, including residential zone districts except where the primary use on a property is a single or two-family home.
Similar to garden uses, a submittal to Commlmity Development with information about parking and hours of operation would be required. Farmers markets would have to follow the proposed
regulations below: • There is no specific on-site parking requirement, but parking must be addressed in the submittal to Community Development. • Hours of operation in residential zone
districts would be restricted from sunrise to sunset. • A business License from the City would be required. • O. ne tem. porary banner up to 50 SF in size would be aJlowed only when
the market is In sessIOn. • Farmers markets would be required to sell primarily agriculturaJ products and all products sold would need to be grown or made by the vendor selling that
product. Most farmers markets have their own regulations and bylaws governing products sold to ensure an agricultural focus and to ensure quality. 3. Produce Stands Currently roadside
produce stands are only expressly allowed in agricultural zone districts. Staff proposes allowing produce stands in all zone districts. Those in residential zone 2
Council Study Session February 25, 2011 (for March 7 Study Session) Page 3 districts on a property with a residence would be required to follow the home occupation regulations that are
already in place. The following general regulations would apply to produce stands: • The products(s) being sold must have been primarily made or grown on-site. • A business license from
the City is required • The stand will operate on a seasonal basis (up to 6 months per year). When the stand is not in operation, it must be taken down. • Temporary on-street parking
is only required if there is no on-street parking nearby 4. Temporary Greenhouses/Hoop houses Community gardens and home growers often use temporary greenhouses that are shaped like
a half-circle with plastic or fabric covering (and often referred to as a "hoop house") as an affordable way to extend the growing season, without having to construct a permanent greenhouse
with a foundation. These structures can have difficulty meeting the wind and snow load requirements in the Building Code. Planning staff is working with the Building Division on an amendment
to the Building Code that would allow a slightly reduced standard for wind and snow load requirements for small (likely 400 SF or less), temporary greenhouse structures. Potential Weekend
Farmers Market at City Hall Staff contacted Alan Mazzotti, the Market Manager for the Metro Denver Farmers Market organization, who currently operates the Wheat Ridge Farmers Market
to inquire about the possibility of adding a weekend farmers market at City Hall. Mr. Mazzotti stated that their organization already has a market on Saturday (at Wadsworth and Bowles)
and on Sunday (in Highlands Ranch) and that he currently does not have enough farmers who would be available to create a second weekend market. Nonetheless, he said that he would let
his board know that there was a definite interest in Wheat Ridge for a weekend market and keep this location in mind if they plan any additional weekend markets in the future. Additional
analysis would be necessary to determine what operational impacts there would be in regard to the municipal use of the property on weekends (most notably the Police Department). Inventory
of City-Owned Land Parks and Recreation staff prepared an inventory of City-owned land that could potentially be used for garden/farming uses. The results of this inventory are attached
under a separate memo from Parks. Attachment I. Memo Re: Potential Garden Areas 3
"~"4 -~ City of ~~WheatB.-L..dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: February 17, 2011 SUBJECT:
Community Garden Areas on City-Owned Lands Attached is a Matrix of potential public gardening sites within Parks and Recreation Department City-owned lands. This matrix also includes
other associated infrastructure that might be needed to consider the location as a feasible site for such activities. The amenities listed for each site include parking and bathroom
facilities, whether there is water available on the site and whether the site is presently fenced. Other items included are the size of the potential gardening areas per site and the
current zoning of these sites. In addition, gardening within the Wheat Ridge Greenbelt would be considered an incompatible use. The Open Space Management Plan adopted in 2002, under
the Vegetation Section states: "Preserve and maintain native plant communities, protect rare species and communities, and restore native vegetation in suitable areas." Conclusions: Most
of the properties covered in this matrix have the potential to support a public gardening use. These lands are not currently being used for parks and recreation purposes. In all cases
there would be capital out lay required to provide water, parking, bathrooms or fencing to the site. None of the sites other than Happiness Gardens, which is already a community garden,
are gardening-ready. Exhibits: A. Matrix of Gardening Sites B. Happiness Garden Expenditures Attachment 1
Potential Urban Garden locations overview within City owned lands Location Discovery ParkiAppleridge Cafe 371h and Moore Prospect Park Baugh 441h and Kendall Haj)piness Gardens A currently
established community garden Lewis Meadows -Address Zoning see specified portion PCD 3701 Johnson 37th and Moore C1 & R1 r11300W. 44thAve. A-1 + 4th and Robb A-1 ~4th and Kendall C-1
, R-2 & R-3 45th and Ammons Residential ~ '34th and Swadley R-1 ISpecify which portion (vacant lot to the east of Appleridge cafe) south off 38th Ave and west of Johnson St. vacant land
north of house addressed as 3680 Moore St. the old Habitat Garden site A substantial walk to site from parking Ipossible the middle north portion of property I and east middle portion
yes-ditch irrigation water delivery could cease August -September need buy in from WR Historical Society Ifuture development as a neighborhood park which could include gardening site
as an amenity otherwise will need to move when park developed in 2013 IEntire site devoted to gardening Eastern most Lewis Meadows . 34th and Swadley to Simms Approximate Iwater size
availability Parking .5 acres no yes -.11 acres no no .1 of an acre ~n street only .5 -1 acres 2.66 acres 2 acres yes yes "n"o "'"" "'''1'''' yes yes back flow preventer and faucet J
yes l yes -Fencing no no no no partial partial -Bathroom facilities • _ yes -eventually by 2011 nearby restaurant £C>rtable potty year round no residential neighborhood yes -no in the
very far future year round portable potty in 2012 no Yes -portable bathrooms provided seasonally 1 acre yes j no . fr_o no Gardening in the Wheat Ridg'e Greenbelt would not be considered
compatible use within our Open Space Lands -current maangement plan. "00 '''.o. """'~"1-0' ~." '00' ')"'"' I II F eet only f flood Plain=_ fa!t1rooms/Portable sanitary facilities cu
rrent charges -a re $150 -175/month' r Exhibit A
HAPPINESS GARDENS COSTS 2010 ACTIVITY Activity Guide Bulletin Board-Compose, print, post and monitor notification Compost-Purchase Compost-Transport and Spread Herbicide Application
Herbicide Purchase Irrigation Startup Irrigation Maintenance Irrigation Blowout Mower upkeep, Miscellaneous tool maintenance, repair and replacement Mowing Mulch Hauling, Stocking and
Spreading Plant Propagation Plot Layout in Spring Port-o-Let Recreation Staff Time-Registration Rolloff (End of year cleanup) Rototill Spring Rototill Fall Supplies (Stakes/twine) Trash
Pickup Utilities (Wheat Ridge Water) Volunteer Time-Registration, questions and answers FREQUENCY 1 Hour 2 Hours 6 Hours 10/Season 2 Hours 5 Hours 2 Hours 25 Times 6 Hours 1 Hour 20
Hours 4.5 Hours 4.5 Hours 26 Times 26 Times 6 Hours HOURLY RATE COST WORK PERFORMED BY $38.59 $38.59 Forestry and Open Space Supervisor $28 $56 Forestry Technician $100 $28 $168 Forestry
Technician $28 $280 Forestry Technician $100 $28 $56 Forestry Technician $28 $140 Forestry Technician Technician $28 $56 Forestry Technician $300 $20 $500 Volunteer $28 $168 Forestry
Technician $240 $20 $480 Volunteers (6 x 4 hours each) $1 ,200 Contractor $10 $400 $250 Contractor $28 $126 Forestry Technician $28 $126 Forestry Technician $110 $22.66 $589.16 Forestry
Assistant $9.42 $244.92 Seasonal $2,500 $20 $120 Volunteer Total $8,348.67 Exhibit B
City of t? Wheat &.-dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council \\~ Patrick Goff, City Manager 1}J Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation
Director February 25, 2011 (For March 7, 2011 Study Session) Parks and Recreation Commission Youth Member The Parks and Recreation Commission is interested in providing an opportunity
for youth participation/service on the Commission. The Commissioners feel that providing an opportunity for youth to serve supports development of future community leaders. ISSUE: The
Commission would like to initiate this position on a trial basis for one year. If the youth position is successful, the position could continue on an informal basis or the Articles in
the Code of Laws could be permanently amended to include a ninth Commissioner as a youth position. BACKGROUND: The City Charter states that City Council shall make all appointments to
Boards and Commissions and set the term of service. Current Code requires Commission members to be at least 18 years of age and registered to vote. It also defines city commissions as
having eight (8) members. Prior to formalizing this position as a City Council appointed Commissioner or requesting that the Code of Laws be changed permanently to reflect the addition
of a youth member, an evaluation of the success of the concept would occur after the end of the trial period. A recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission would then be
made to City Council regarding whether to continue with the youth position. If the recommendation is to continue with the youth position, additional direction and input regarding formalizing
the position and process will be requested from City Council.
Parks and Recreation Commission Youth Member February 25, 2011 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: With City Council consensus, the Commission would move forward with initiating a youth position
on a trial basis for the school calendar year 2011 -2012 with the following requirements and guidelines for appointment beginning with the September 20 II meeting: I) Youth must be a
high school student and Wheat Ridge resident 2) Serves as an at-large position 3) Term of appointment -School year -9 months 4) Recruit through area schools/service clubs/academic programs
requiring service 5) Establish an application process 6) Appointment by Commissioners JMldr cc: Parks and Recreation Commission
'" .... ~ ~ ~ City of ~rP!: Wheat&"dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ISSUE: Memorandum Mayor and City Council N Patrick Goff, City ManagerW Joyce Manwaring,
Parks and Recreation Director February 25, 2011 (For March 7, 2011 Study Session) Neighborhood Meeting Regarding Off Leash Dog Park The Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation report
was presented at the December 6, 2010, study session. In response to the report, City Council directed staff to proceed with a neighborhood meeting and report back to Council on the
input received in order to obtain final approval prior to proceeding with a park at the proposed locations. Staff was also asked to research lighting options for the parks. Ordinance
changes will be required to accommodate the off leash dog park rules and regulations. These changes will be presented to City Council for approval prior to the opening of either park.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Wheat Ridge Rotary Club has donated $5,000 for construction of the dog parks, and and $20,000 is currently appropriated in Fund 32 of the Open Space budget for
the off leash dog parks. BACKGROUND: A neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, February 2, 2011, to gather input for the two separate proposed locations for an off leash dog park.
The first proposed location is the southeast end of Fruitdale Park at 49th and Miller Street. The second proposed location is the area west of the tennis court at Prospect Park, 44th
and Robb Street. Flyers advertising the meeting were mailed to the residents and property owners in the neighborhoods near the two locations. Flyers were posted in the area apartment
complexes. Attached is a map of the neighborhoods included in the mailing. There were 25 people in attendance. Attendees included 11 general public, five City staff, one elected official
and eight members representing the Dog Park Committee and/or Parks and Recreation Commission. Attached is the original Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation report presented to
City Council at the December 6, 2010, study session and a list of the comments received at the February 2 meeting.
Neighborhood Meeting Regarding Off Leash Dog Park February 25, 2011 Page 2 Summary of Comments Generally, there seems to be support for an offleash park at both locations. There was
concern expressed by the neighbors located on the southwest side of the park that the dog park not be located directly behind their residences. Other concerns included parking, barking
dogs, picking up after the dogs, and proposed locations. There was also support and confirmation regarding the need for an offleash dog park in Wheat Ridge and that a dog park helps
neighbors get to know each other and builds community. RECOMMENDATIONS: I) Fruitdale Park Staff recommends: A. Locating the fenced, off leash dog park further north than the original
proposal (see Exhibit A on Page 9 of the report), inside the existing soft surface trail area. An aerial map of the proposed location is attached. This location will: I) allow residents
to continue to enjoy the walking trails by maintaining a contiguous trail through the park without additional construction costs incurred to relocate the existing trail. 2) locate the
park away from the residences on the west border at the south end of the park. B. The possible addition ofa parking area closer to the east side of the dog park after of evaluation of
usage and a determination as to whether participants are willing to park in the existing lot on the west side of the park. Further design and development of this concept needs to occur
prior to committing to a parking lot in this area of the park. C. Installing solar lighting at this location. D. Giving the Fruitdale Park location first priority for funding. 2) Prospect
Park Staff recommends: A. Constructing a fenced, off leash park directly west of the existing tennis court per page 12 of the Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation report. B.
Utilizing existing parking which has been determined to be available and adequate. C. Installing solar lighting at this location. D. Giving the Prospect Park location second priority
for funding. Due to the Italians of America Car Show scheduled at Fruitdale Park for July, construction would not begin on the Fruitdale dog park until August 1, 2011 , after the conclusion
of the show. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation Report 2) Neighborhood Meeting Comments 3) Fruitdale Park -Revised Location Recommendation Map 2
Wheat Ridge orr Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Organization of Volunteer Dog Park Stewardship Program The committee recognizes that a dog park volunteer program
will be desi rable and encouraged. However, it is too early in the process to make specific recommendations as to the structure and organization of the program. Time Line OrganizE' Oog
Park CommitteE' $el('( t Silt' -R('(omlll endation includpd in thi .. document OevE'lo» RulE's and Regulations · Recommendation included in this document Prese-Iltation to Parks and
Recreation Commission -November 17, 1.010 Wheat Ridge City (ouncil Study S('ssion -December 6 , 2010 ~--------------------~~--------------------~ Neighborhood Input Meeting -January
2011 ~------------------~~------------------~ Presentation to City (ouncil for AplJrOval -February l Oll Ot>sigll and Constru ct Dog Park Organize Volunteer Dog Park Program A change
to the Wheat Ridge city ordinance/municipal code (Chapter 4) will a lso be required before the dog park can be built and maintained. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20tO_v4.doc
8
Costs Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Projected costs are approximately $18,000 as detailed below for a two (2) acre off leash dog park located
within Fruitdale Park. Dog Park Fu(:~ Pricing Based On 2 Auf. Circ:ular Configuration Itemf Specifiution Quantity Cost Per Unit Cost 12' Heavy Wire Maintenance Gate 2 $ 110.90 $ 22 1
80 6' Tubular Steel Pedestrian Access Gate (4-6 depending upon configuration) 6 $90.90 545.40 Posts * 6~ x 8' Round Wooden (2 acre fence plus 20' vestibule) 117 $12.60 1,474.20 Divider
Fence: 33 add itional posts 33 $12.60 415.80 Wire Rolls-60" x 2" x 4" Mesh 12 112 Gauge 100 Foot Rolls 12 $96.90 1, 162.80 Di vider Fence. 3 additional wire rolls 3 $96.90 290.70 Concrete
(1-2 bags per hole) ISOx2 Bags 5 Per Bag 1,500.00 Miscellaneous Fasteners 1,000.00 Signs 1,000.00 Kiosk For BrochureslRules and Regulations 750.00 Bcnches-Repurpose from the Habitat
Garden . Trash Cans, Plastic Bag Dispensers . Subtotal -Materials S 8,360.70 Installation Cost 1,126 Lineal Feetl $8.00 9,008.00 Subtotal -Materials & Labor S 17,368.70 Estimated Cost
Increase for20 ]] -5% I 868.44 IGrand Total S 18,237. 14 Source: Wheat RIdge Parks and RecreatIOn Department It is the expectation of the off-leash dog park committee that the City of
Wheat Ridge will provide basic services to a dog park as is provided for other parks in Wheat Ridge. This includes trash receptacle pick-up, mowing (as needed and directed), fence, gate
and signage repair and maintenance. Replacement of any damaged structures or signs or painting costs are included in additional annual maintenance costs. Ongoing maintenance costs for
the off leash dog park are expected to range from $5,000 to $10,000 per year. Maintenance costs also include the cost for supplying doggie bags and terrain maintenance. WR Dog Park Task
Force Recommendation_November 20 1 0_v4.doc 7
Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Description of Infrastructure for Proposed Dog Park at Fruitdale Park The proposed dog park would be built in the
south end of Fruitdale Park. Fruitdale Park has an established parking lot, restroom and water source available on the north end of the park. There is a water source near the proposed
dog park for maintenance needs as well. Presently, there is no electricity in the area of the proposed dog park. The proposed dog park fencing configuration has not been finalized. If
possible, the fencing would be placed within and roughly follow the outline of the current crusher fine outcr walking path, with the intent to reduce the impact on neighbors and the
existing trail usage. The dog park configuration will be done so as to minimize the impact on pavilion or playground usage. This configuration would also provide shade from the trees
as well as a buffer on the north and west sides of the dog park. Within the dog park, a divided fenced section would be built so that smaller or less-social dogs would have an area in
which they could be off leash. In addition, crusher fines could be used for an interior trail . Fibar, an engineered wood product, is also needed in deteriorated areas as turf doesn't
perform well in these conditions. The preliminary fence design would be a 6" round post and wire mesh type. The posts would be 8' in length with 2' concreted into the ground. The wire
mesh fence would be the same height as the posts (6 ') with small enough wire spacing to keep all dogs of all sizes within the fence boundaries. The height of the fence is consistent
with many other existing dog parks to contain larger dogs. Also included within the design of the fence line is a 12' gate for maintenance activities or emergencies, and two to three
access gates depending on the configuration of the dog park. It is desirable for the dog park to be configured in such a way as to avoid extreme corners. See Exhibit A for the photo
of the proposed location ofthe off leash area within Fruitdale Park See Exhibit B for a photo of the recommended fencing materials. See Exhibit C for a photo of the recommended fencing
and gate materials. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20 I 0_v4.doc 6
Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Rules and Regulations The Task Force has finalized a draft of rules and regulations to put in place for the dog
parks. All dog parks in the area have a set afrules and regulations and there are standards available from various sources. The Task Force has used a combination of these resources to
come up with the Rules and Regulations for the Wheat Ridge dog parks. OFF LEASH DOG PARK ENCLOSURE RULES Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Rules and Regulations are designed to protect
all dogs and people visiting the park. • Off leash dog park will be open for the same hours as Fruitdale Park. • Dogs must be leashed when entering and leaving the enclosure. • Dogs
must have current rabies tag affixed to the collar. All Wheat Ridge residents are required by ordinance to license dog(s) through the Jefferson County Dog License Program. [Reference
Section 4-31 (c) Dog and Cat licenses.] • Dogs must be accompanied by a person 17 years or older. • Dog ownerslhandlers assume full responsibility for their dog(s) and minor children.
• Dog ownerslhandlers must be in the enclosed area within view of their dog(s) at all times. • Dog ownerslhandlers must clean up dog feces and dispose of waste in provided receptacles.
• Dogs are not allowed to harass or chase wildlife. THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE OFF LEASH AREA: • Aggressive dogs will not be permitted • Female dogs in heat • Dogs without
current rabies vaccinations! attached to the collar or a current Jefferson County Dog License. • Dogs too young to vaccinate against rabies. Per the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code Section
4-10, Rabies Control (a) all dogs over the age of four (4) months shall be inoculated by a licensed veterinarian against rabies. • Dogs exhibiting signs of illness or known to be ill
• Dogs not under voice or sight control Failure to abide by park rules may result in a summons to court and loss of privileges. Owners/handlers assume the legal responsibility for damage,
injury or disease to persons, dogs or property caused by hislher dog. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 2010_v4.doc 5
Wheat Ridge orr Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Dog Park Amenities The Task Force has not yet finalized the dog park amenities that are required and necessary.
The following amenities were discussed and are listed in the graphic below in order of necessity. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20 10_v4.doc 4
Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation Novemher 2010 Site Selection Considerations The factors taken into consideration when determining the selection of a site included:
• Current ownership of the site. • Impact IIpon the neighborhood, especially if the land use would be a significant change from the current use • Infrastructure currently in place. •
Federal laws regulating/encing injlood plains. Location Fruitdale Park (south end) CityOwned? Yes Advanta es • Current park site. • Parking, restrooms and access to water available on
site. • Site has varied topography. • Site can be easily and quickly fenced and gated. Disadvanta es • Current walking path may need to be re-routed. • Neighborhood support unknown.
The Task Force acknowledges
that selecting a site already owned by Wheat Ridge and with infrastructure already in place such as parking, restroom facilities and access to water would reduce the timeline to completion,
as well the overall cost of the project. In addition, obtaining the support of the neighborhood in which the dog parks will be opened will also be an important factor before finalizing
any dog park location. The committee recognizes that the public hearing process must be completed before the final approval of any off leash dog park. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November
20 10_ v4.doc 3
Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Site Recommendations The Wheat Ridge Dog Park Task Force recommends that the following site be chosen for the first
oll'leash dog park in Wheat Ridge. Fruitdale Park, 4700 Miller St. The Task Force believes that this site is the best choice because it includes all of the minimum requirements needed
in an off-leash dog park site as illustrated in the graphic below. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 2010_v4.doc 2
Wheat Ridge orr Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation November 2010 Executive Summal'Y The Wheat Ridge Dog Park Task Force recommends that the Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Department
implement a program to include an off-leash dog park within the park system. The Task Force recommends that a series of off-leash dog parks be established within the city so that the
various needs of community dog handlers and their dogs may be met. No single park can be all things to all people. The Task Force has recognized that there may be a need for some special
purpose off-leash dog parks such as for smaller, younger or older dogs, as well as less social dogs; these dog parks could be included within the current Wheat Ridge parks system. The
Task Force has included in this document: the site criteria for the selection afsiles, amenities to be included in the off-leash dog parks, recommendations for rules and regulations,
and comments regarding organization of a volunteer committee of dog owners and interested parties for oversight and monitoring of the dog parks. This document also includes a time line
for the completion of tasks to be completed in order for the first off-leash dog park to open. Background In March of 20 I 0, the Mayor of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Jerry DiTullio, put
together a task force to make recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the operation and possible location of a dog park in the community. The scope of the task
force was to include: I. Developing site criteria for a selection of a site. 2. Evaluating 1-2 existing park locations as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department staff. 3.
Recommending possible new sites to acquire for this purpose 4. Amenities to be included in the park: a. Set minimum amenities needed or required, and b. Prioritize a list of amenities
ranging from the minimum needed to open a facility to those desired, should additional funding become available 5. Recommending Rules and Regulations for the park. 6. Creating a volunteer
committee of dog owners or interested parties for oversight and monitoring of the park. 7. Reviewing park maintenance requirements. 8. Visiting area dog parks. The task force has also
asked to provide a timeline for completion of the above list which includes recommendations. This time line is included in this document. The recommendations of the task force will be
forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Department to compile the capital and operational costs associated with the park for presentation to City Council. WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November
201O_v4.doc Attachment 1
Exhibit A Topographical Image of Fruitdale Park Off Leash Dog Park Location WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20 I 0_ v4 rev030211.doc 9
Exhibit B Example of Round Post Fencing and Wire Mesh WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20 I 0 v4 rev030211 .doc 10
Exhibit C Double-Gate Example WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 201O_v4.doc II
Dog Park Number Two The Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force recognizes that different dogs may need different kinds of dog parks. For example, dogs in training, younger dogs, older
dogs or less social dogs also need a place to run, play and work with their owners free of leashes. Given this perceived need, the Task Force would like to propose that an additional,
smaller off leash dog park be built within Prospect Park. Prospect Park includes a total ofabaut 35 acres and the area circled in red below represents an area in which we believe a small
dog park of about one-half (J/2) acre could be built. The minimum site requirements (city~owned property, access to restrooms, access to water and availability of parking) are already
in place. The city would need to add fencing and gates and signage. The approximate cost of this dog park is estimated to be approximately $9,000. Topographical image of Prospect Park
location WR Dog Park Task Force Recommendation_November 20JO_v4.doc 12
· . , .' _ r City o f • '~WheatBLdge ~ARKS AND RECREATION City of Wheat Ridge Parks & Recreation Administration 4005 Kipling SI. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-4125 P: 303.231 .1300 F: 303.420.03
16 MEETING NOTES Off Leash Dog Park Neighborhood Public Meeting February 2, 2011 The public was invited to attend a meeting for information on a proposed Off Leash Dog Park project at
Fruitdale and Prospect Parks. Total attendance at the meeting was 25 including 11 general public, five City staff, one elected official and eight members representing the Dog Park Committee
and/or Parks and Recreation Commission. All attendees received a copy of the Wheat Ridge Off Leash Dog Park Task Force Recommendation report. Joyce Manwaring presented a PowerPoint presentation
which included introductions, an explanation of the process for the meeting, background on the project and a summary of the Off Leash Dog Park Committee recommendations. There was a
question and answer period. Following a question and answer session, Manwaring summarized recommendations and considerations for revisions to the proposal and the process for moving
forward. Questions and Concerns Who will oversee the dog park and enforce the rules? I live next to the park and people let their dogs off leash and nobody cleans up after them. Reporting
these people to the City doesn't do any good. They are gone by the time anyone comes. Officer McKenna commented on the response time and noted that they will address the issue. People
walk their dogs to the park and it causes the dogs in the neighborhood to raise Cain. With a dog park, there will be even more of a problem. One concern is that people will just turn
their dogs loose, especially the motel people. There needs to be signage at the motel; we've asked for it but there has been no response from the City. There was a comment from a public
attendee that most of the dogs are not out of the motel. Officer McKenna will coordinate concerns with the officer who deals with motel issues. She noted that they are looking into signage.
Officer McKenna encouraged people to call with concerns while the offenders are at the park; she distributed business cards with contact information. Dog park users tend to police other
users; more responsible dog owners help police less responsible users. Do owners put their dogs in the enclosed area or do they stay in the enclosure with them? It was noted that rules
will be established and posted. There was discussion regarding that dog owners who take the effort to bring their dogs to dog parks tend to be very involved and responsible. Many responses
-dog owners who are motivated to drive their dogs to dog parks are generally very involved and highly responsible. Who cleans up after the dogs? It was noted that cleaning up after one's
dog will be one of the rules and that violators of the established rules and regulations can be reported and ticketed because the rules will be part of City Code. There was discussion
regarding research and observance at other area dog parks showing that more responsible responsible owners help enforce rules by confronting rule abusers and that dog parks are better
policed than regular parks. Attachment 2 www.ci.whcatridge.co.us
MEETING NOTES Off Leash Dog Park Neighborhood Public Meeting February 2, 2011 Page 2 A dog park user commented that having a dog park in Wheat Ridge is a huge amenity. Currently, she
drives to Berkeley Park. It provides an opportunity to meet other people. Having a dog park in your own community helps people meet each other and develops a sense of community. She
considers a dog park a huge benefit and very attractive feature in the City. Another area dog park user confirmed that they liked the comment about the sense of community at a dog park.
A meeting attendee, who is not a dog owner but a realtor, noted that his clients look for dog parks. A resident who borders Fruitdale park, noted that when they purchased their home,
they were promised that the property would stay Open Space forever and never be developed and to strictly remain open space; and that the City did it anyway and developed a park. Manwaring
noted that she is sympathetic to the concern but that she could not speak to the history of that promise. She added that issues and recommendations in the current Master Plan show that
parks with fewer amenities often result in inappropriate use and that adding amenities can increase participation and therefore decrease inappropriate activity. A neighbor near Fruitdale
Park is concerned the dog park will be noisy. Manwaring commented that based on research, it is not a documented fact that dog parks are known for being noisy. A regular dog park user
added that in her experience dogs aren't barking at the dog parks because they are having too much fun. A comment was made regarding earlier discussion about barking dogs near parks.
If dogs are barking, it is a homeowner problem; I feel sorry for the dogs because they probably don't get very much attention. Will there be a curfew? Committee members noted that their
intent as part of establishing the rules will be to set the dog park curfews the same as the parks at 10:00 p.m. There was discussion regarding situations that were considered such as
individuals with odd working hours who may need to exercise their dogs after hours, but the decision was made to simplify and keep the hours the same as current park curfews. There was
discussion regarding future consideration for lighting the parks after dark but it may not be possible to address immediately. It was noted that parking at Fruitdale Park is already
inadequate and that if a dog park was added, expanded parking would be required. Manwaring advised that the need for additional parking will be addressed, possibly a gravel lot off the
frontage road, and that shelter use will be evaluated. A neighboring property owner by Fruitdale Park noted that not renting the shelter will not stop people from using it because people
use the shelter without renting it anyway. Manwaring commented on usage trends and noted that research shows that generally there is initial heavy use when a dog park first opens and
then usage settles out. There was further comment about difficult access during high activity, such as the car show, that interferes with driveway access and general parking practices
by users due to the lack of curb and gutter along the park. Questions were raised regarding the proposed dog park at Prospect Park including: Is that area really owned by Best Friends?
Manwaring clarified that it was not. Will it be for small dogs only? Committee members commented that they were considering limiting access to smaller dogs as well as less mobile dogs.
Noticed that Fruitdale is being considered for the larger dog park, but because Prospect doesn't have as much residential surrounding the park, wouldn't it be better for the larger dog
park? Is there a budget for waste receptacles? There needs to be several or people won't use Ihem.
MEETING NOTES Off Leash Dog Park Neighborhood Public Meeting February 2, 2011 Page 3 How tall is the fence? The committee noted that it is recommended at 6 ft. There was a comment that
some dogs may be able to jump the fence. A neighboring property owner at Fruitdale noted that the proposed area at Fruitdale is too close to the houses. There was discussion clarifying
that the outlined area in the report was just an indication of how large the area was and that actual boundaries are flexible. After discussion regarding proximity to the neighbors and
park amenities, size, shade and access, there was a recommendation to move the dog park east and north. There was a suggestion to consider using a different type of fencing other than
mesh that would help obscure the dog park. Access was discussed. It was suggested that gate locations be placed where they would have the least impact to residents or be next to houses.
It was suggested that the west side entrance to the dog park be removed and that entrances standout as obvious to make it less appealing to park or access from west. Manwaring suggested
that the entrance be obvious to users who access the dog park from the motel areas. A dog park user commented that it is fun and proactive for dog park users to be part of some of the
planning process thus encourages the City to invite dog park users to take an active role and actually help build the dog park to help establish ownership. Manwaring commented that the
City's goal is to establish an on-going volunteer committee to oversee and monitor the dog park. Manwaring commented that some dog parks have put up a temporary fence to help people
to understand and test the shape before it is built as permanent so that modifications can be made. There was further clarification as to what the committee considers a small dog. The
committee clarified that the rules for use have yet to be defined, but that the intent was a totally separate area for small dogs and that there had been discussion about including access
for less social dogs, dogs that need a smaller area because they don't come back, special needs dogs, or possibly to allow access for people who are less mobile that need a place to
take dogs that isn't too big. Nahmiach from the Dog Park Committee commented that one goal of the committee is to have more dog parks in Wheat Ridge but that they had to start with an
initial recommendation. Manwaring discussed background on dog parks and noted that when the concept of a dog park first started, they were developed as large destination parks, but that
the trend now is for smaller dog parks in neighborhood parks. A resident thanked the City for considering a dog park in Wheat Ridge. Summary of Recommendations /Issues Based on Public
Input Manwaring summarized suggested changes to the recommendation for the Fruitdale dog park including: move the dog park to the north and east; establish access from the frontage road;
eliminate west side access; make access points obvious; locate away from houses and nearer the shelter/playground; and address expanded parking needs Manwaring noted that the revised
recommendations for the proposed dog parks will be presented to City Council. There was discussion regarding attendance at the City Council meeting. Manwaring noted that the presentation
will be made during a Study Session so she encouraged the public to contact their City Council person with any comments prior to the meeting.
MEETING NOTES Off Leash Dog Park Neighborhood Public Meeting February 2, 2011 Page 4 Comment Forms Received at Meeting Full written comments I am very much in favor of a Wheat Ridge
dog park. I currently travel to other cities to bring my dogs to off leash parks. I would welcome the sense of community that a neighborhood dog park would foster. Address creating extra
parking at Fruitdale. Move Fruitdale Park away from house more -either north or east. Shade can be provided by sheltered areas and tree planting. Future park recommendation: Apel Bacher
Park at 44th and Vance. Thank you for all the thoughtful work to make a dog park a reality for Wheat Ridge. As new homeowners in Wheat Ridge, this adds a great amenity to us. We will
look forward to growing our connection to our fellow neighbors and spark enhanced community spirit among both dogs and humans! Excited about the direction Wheat Ridge is taking to acknowledge
the various dog owners in the community. We currently live by Prospect Park and would love to see any area developed. Comments Received by Phone or Voice Mail The property owner for
4664 Routt Street, who lives at 20 S. Garrison called on 2/10/11 from to say she is against a dog part at Fruitdale and unable to attend the public meeting. Her comments were that she
doesn't want a dog park because people are already letting dogs run loose and she doesn't want to pay more property taxes. She doesn't think the City should push a dog park on people.
She is not for dogs and thinks people should only have dogs if they have a yard. No dog park. The property owner/resident at 10630 W. 46'h, left a phone message on 2/2/11 to say that
as a long time resident in District 4 she was responding to a flyer regarding a public meeting that she is unable to attend. She commented that if people don't have a yard, and don't
have a place for their dogs, then they shouldn't have them. It is unfair to dogs if you live in an apartment. Not anti-dog but strongly objects to a dog park at Prospect. Her concern
is that every bit of the park is utilized and she doesn't want to give up ball fields and stuff as they are certainly being used by the youth in Wheat Ridge. She noted that the park
already has an excessive geese problem there. She doesn't have problem with a dog park at Fruitdale as there seems to be more room and open space there. She could support, if necessary
if it comes to vote, for Fruitdale but not Prospect. A resident and property owner who borders Fruitdale Park requested that the City not add any lighting to the dog park at Fruitdale
now or in the future. A property owner near Fruitdale Park, called on 2/10/11 for information about the meeting because he was unable to attend. He had concerns regarding rules and enforcement,
traffic, and location of the dog park. Staff clarified that many of his concerns were addressed at the public meeting. He was provided with a copy of the handout from the meeting as
well as a summary of discussion and next steps based on recommendation revisions. In addition, he was invited to to submit any comments that he would like documented or to contact his
City Council person with concerns.
Fruitdale Park -Revised Location Recommendation The intent is to build a dog park approximately 2 acres in size toward the north area of Fruitdale park and within the current walking
trail. The red outline represents an area approximately 2 acres in size for size representation only; it is not an indication of the specific fence location or dog park configuration.
The final boundary and location of the dog park is subject to change and may require relocation of existing walking trail. C.."I c Q) E J: U ..c..a CC
.. ~ ~' _ ~ City of. ~~Wheat&9ge ~DMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor DiTullio and Member~ity Council Patrick Goff, City Manager-W Heather Geyer,
Administrati ve Services Director/PIO Kathy Franklin, Tax Supervisor March 1,2011 (For March 7'h Study Session) Licensing Fees and Taxpayer Remedies The purpose of this memorandum is
in follow up to the February 14,2011 City Council meeting. Staff requested that the discussion of business licensing fees be brought back to the March 7'h Study Session for discussion
by Council. The second reading/public hearing is scheduled for March 14, 2011. Attachment A includes a breakdown of the proposed changes. • Section I pertains to licenses • Section 2
pertains to fee changes • Section 3 pertains to non-resident vendors • Section 4 pertains to taxpayer remedies It is important to note that the proposed changes to Section 4 are mandated
by the State following the enactment of SB 1 0-142 in reference to c.R.S. 29-2-106 regarding local taxation and necessitate an amendment to Chapter 22 of the Code in order to maintain
conformity with the taxpayer remedies. BACKGROUND The following changes are also outlined in Attachment A. Proposed Code changes in Section 1: • Code Section 11-29(b). Includes language
that specifies business mergers that result in a change to the Federal Employer Identification Number require the business owner to apply for a new business/tax application license.
This simplifies the process for businesses. Proposed Code changes in Sections 2: • Code Section 11-29(g). A $5 increase to the one-time, non-refundable business/tax license application
fee. An increase in the application fee of $5 will help offset the costs in performing the approval and set up process which includes services such as a complimentary
Licensing and Taxpayer Remedies March 1, 2011 Page 2 business inspection and planning review as well as multiple contacts and educational efforts. The current $5 fee has been in place
since 1991. • A tiered business/tax license late renewal or application fee. A tiered late renewal penalty structure is intended to be more forgiving of renewal after the 30-day grace
period allowed by the Code. It is helpful toward those who renew late but are within 60 days of year-end by reducing the penalty by 80% to $10. Renewals past 60 days and 90 days have
a $50 or $100 penalty, respectively, because gaining compliance removes greater resources from timely educational and service availability to compliant businesses. • A $5 minimum fine
per day of operation without a valid business license (one or two businesses per year, historically) • Clarification of exceptions under the business/tax license late fee • Elimination
of $5 fee for reissuing a copy of a business/tax license • Addition of language allowing for occasional review of business/tax licensing fees by staff The City's review of licensing
fees has not occurred routinely over the City's history. Therefore, staff has compiled several exhibits to provide Council with relevant revenue information regarding our business/tax
licensing program. In 2011 the budget includes $73,000 of estimated business/tax license revenues. Additionally, staff has included Attachment B which provides a comparison chart of
Wheat Ridge fees to other cities in Colorado. Businessffax Licensing Revenue Analysis Exhibit A Overview of Business/License Renewal Revenues 2010-2011 Description 2011 2010 Total Licenses
3,219 3,194 Renewed on Time 2,950 1,929 License fees on time $59,000 $38,580 Unrenewed as of February 8 269 1,265 License fees late $ 5,380 $25,300 Potential late fees* $13,450 $63,250
*Not all non-timely renewals actually renew. Some accounts are canceled because they ' re no longer doing business in Wheat Ridge. There are also always a few late fee waivers based
on extenuating circumstances. Historical notes: The license fee was originally $10 beginning in 1988 then was increased to $20 in 2003. The late fee has been $50 since 1988.
Licensing and Taxpayer Remedies March 1,2011 Page 3 Exhibit B Revenues and Costs Current Practices Option License fee new and renewals, annually Late fees annually, current $50 flat
late fee at current delinquency rate Revenues from new licenses and license renewals New license and renewal program costs New license and renewal program net revenue Exhibit C Revenues
and Costs $ $ $ $ $ Proposed One-Time Licensing Fee, No Renewals Option (New businesses only) New license applications average/year based on 2009, 2010, Jan. 2011 One-time license fee
discussed at Feb. 4th pre-meeting Projected revenue from licensing Net estimated annual average costs of new licensing Net estimated licensing revenue Exhibit D Revenues and Costs Tiered
Licensing Fees Option License fee renewals within 30 days grace period at $20 and new licenses License fee renewals within 3\-60 days at $30 License fee renewals 61-90 days at $50 License
fee renewals 91 or more days at $ 100 Revenues from new licenses and license renewal Licenses expire on December 3\ each year, with a 30-day grace period. Proposed Code changes in Section
3: 70,680.00 13,000.00 83,680.00 10,024.05 73,655.95 $ $ $ $ 252 50.00 12,600.00 8,514.00 4,086.00 $ 65,300.00 $ 6,\50.00 $ 2,500.00 $ \,900.00 $ 75,850.00 • Requires that non-resident
(temporary or special event) vendor tax remittance to occur 20 days after sales.
Licensing and Taxpayer Remedies March 1,2011 Page 4 Proposed Code changes in Section 4: • Historically, 20 days was mandated by the State as the time period in which a taxpayer could
payor protest a notice or assessment of additional tax. As times have become more complex, this often presented a hardship to businesses, so the State enacted an amendment (S8 I 0-142
in reference to C.R.S. 29-2-106 regarding local taxation) to mandate a 30-day turnaround. All horne rule cities are required to comply. • Mailing of notices and assessments of additional
tax via first class mail was the previous requirement. Many jurisdictions, Wheat Ridge included, determined that left far too much to assumption and took up the practice of using trackable
delivery to document timely delivery of substantial notices and assessments. It's now a mandate (S81O-142 in reference to C.R.S. 29-2-106 regarding local taxation) for the protection
of taxpayers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting Section I regarding clarifying when a merger results in a requirement for a new City tax/business license because it will remedy
a point of confusion in the Code. Alternatively, the Code could remain unchanged in this respect. Staff recommends adopting the proposed changes to Chapter II set forth in Sections 2
and 3 regarding licensing, especially Section 2 (l1-29h) which eliminates an unreasonable charge for a replacement copy of a business/tax license. Section 2 (l1-29b) increasing application
fees is recommended to help offset the costs of attaining compliance with City law. The national trend is toward payment for services received in both business and government. The alternatives
examined include no code change or removal of the application fee. Section 2 (\ 1-29g) regarding tiered late renewal penalties, was intended to encourage timely license renewal, which
generates revenue, while reducing early penalties and increasing late ones to offset costs in proportion to their occurrence. The alternatives examined are listed without recommendation
below. • The first of three alternatives examined was no code change, with the late penalty remaining at a flat $50 after 30 days. • The second was to remove the late renewal penalty
altogether, which does not support the renewal process which generates $65,000 in licensing fee revenue each year and provides a point at which licensees are cued to notify the City
of any changes that would assist with the enforcement of the tax laws. • A third alternative is to increase the licensing fee to $100 and install a tiered discount program for renewals.
Licensing and Taxpayer Remedies March 1,2011 Page 5 Staff recommends adopting the proposed changes (Section 4) to Chapter 22 as written as they are responsive to new State mandates with
which the City must comply. Ikf Attachments: A. Proposed Tax and Licensing Code Changes B. Comparison of Wheat Ridge BusinesslTax Licensing Fees to Other Cities
.. -'" ~ ~ City of ~rP!:Wheat&'-dge ~AoMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Attachment A Tax and Licensing Code Change Proposals 2011 Item Existing Practice Proposed Chan~e J ostification Section 1
-Licenses Handling of mergers in Not addressed Specify that a merger resulting in a change to Even small businesses engage in mergers now. The criteria for relicensing needs to be clarified
so that a business/tax licensing the Federal Employer Identification Number merger that doesn't result in any change to financial responsibility really only prompts notifying the City
requires applying for a new license of any name or address changes. Section 2 -Fees Business/tax license $5 one time non-refundable $10 one time non-refundable fee A local application
requires a building and zoning review under the City's strategic goals of safety and application fee fee. Established by ordinance quality of place. Non-local applicants often require
extensive research and/or contact to ensure correct 1988-781 information is on file. Annual business/tax license $20 Increased from $10 by No change The fee adequately offsets the costs
of collecting on and enforcing the City's tax and licensing laws. fee ordinance 1310 in 2003 Business/tax license late $50 flat fee commencing after $10 at 31-60 days late/after business
start Licensees indicate that a $50 late fee immediately upon expiration of the grace period is excessive and renewal or application fee 30 days grace Established by $50 at 61-90 days
burdensome. At the same time, it's beneficial to address the problem of offsetting the costs incurred to ordinance 1988-781 $100 after 90 days obtain compliance from the worst laggards.
Fine for willfully operating an At judicial discretion under $5 minimum fine per day of operation without a To date the court-imposed penalty for not licensing or renewing has been nominal
and not sufficiently unlicensed business as Chapter 1 of the Code up to valid business license under authority of Code supportive of the licensing code. evidenced by requiring a $1 ,000
per day section 1-5 summons to municipal court to gain compliance Business/tax license late fee Not specifically allowed but Specific statement of waiver allowable in case This would
clarify that late-fee lenience is available in unavoidable circumstances. waivers allowed for death, catastrophic of circumstances such as death, catastrophic illness, proof of timely
mailing illness, disaster, proof of timely mailing Fee for reissuing a $5 for replacement of a lost or Free Obtaining a copy of a license is only a matter of a few keystrokes and either
e-mailing, faxing or mailing business/tax license copy damaged license it to the taxpayer as a courtesy. Review of business/tax license None specified Occasional review to determine
if fees Offsets via fees need to consistently reflect added or decreased associated costs. The trend nationwide is related fees adequately offset some of the costs of services fees for
services in order to preserve funds for more generally beneficial uses. provided Section 3 -Non-resident vendor Non-resident (temporary or 10 days after sales occur 20 days after sales
occur This is consistent with remittance requirements for regularly licensed businesses. special event) vendor tax remittance time frame requirement Section 4 -Taxpayer remedies Method
of mailing notices of First class mail Receipted mail Mandated by state law under SB10-142 in reference to C.R.S. 29-2-106 regarding local taxation. additional tax due over $500 Time
to payor protest an 20 days in code, 30 days in 30 days Mandated by state law under SB10-142 in reference to c.R.S. 29-2-106 regarding local taxation. additional liability practice to
conform with state law 02.25.2011
.. ~j~ _ ~ City of ~~WheatJ3L..dge ~AoMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Attachment B Comparison of Wheat Ridge BusinessITax Licensing Fees to Other Cities City Tax License Business License Combined
Additional fees? Comment Arvada Free None Yes Certificate of occupancy required for all uses. Various inspections, permits, fees and escrows. Canon City $20 yearly Special type business
Yes $25 late fee after Jan. 31; $100 additional penalty after March 1. Additional business license fees apply to certain licenses (alarm business types. companies, trash hauling, pawn,
adult), at varying fees. Centennial $25 every two No No inspection or zoning /conformity checks are in place although there is a disclaimer on the application. years Edgewater $15 for
outside $150 to apply /$50 No Heavy documentation is required to apply for the business license. No inspection required of new applicant vendors only; free licensing fee yearly premIses.
to licensed businesses Englewood $25 one time Yes Certificate of occupancy may be required based on review of application. Golden $20 every two None Businesses are only inspected pursuant
to special licenses (adult, pawn, etc.) and when permits are drawn. Fire years inspections are done annually by the local fire department and bear a fee. Greenwood Village $10 one time
Special business type Yes Occupational privilege tax license (head tax license) $10 one time. Inspections for construction /remodels only. licenses (adult, security guard, body art)
at various fees. Lakewood $15 one time Special type licenses Businesses are only inspected pursuant to special licenses (adult, pawn, etc.) and when permits are drawn. Fire (pawn, adult,
arcade, inspections are done annually by the local fire department and bear a fee. etc.) with fees varying from backgrounding only to substantial annual fees. Littleton Free No No additional
requirements indicated for existing property. Lone Tree $10 yearly Inspections required for construction /remodel only. Louisville $25 yearly $25 yearly Local businesses are subject
to to building, planning and zoning inspections, including fire, prior to approval. Inspections may be done at the request of staff or in response to a complaint. Montrose $35 initially;
$15 Special business types No No inspection required of new applicant premises. annual renewal only. Varying fees. Thornton Free Free Yes Certificate of occupancy required for all businesses
at a one time $25 fee. Special types of business require added forms and fees. Westminster Free Special type licenses Businesses are only inspected pursuant to special licenses (adult,
pawn, etc.) and when permits are drawn. Fire (pet shops, pawn, inspections are done annually by the local fire department and bear a fee. trash, etc.) at substantial fees which vary
from one-time to annual. WHEAT RIDGE $5 one-time Local businesses are subject to building, planning and zoning inspections, including fire, prior to approval. application (new Inspections
may be done at the request of staff or in response to a complaint. On average, Wheat Ridge license) receives five business-peer complaints initiating inspections and licensing adjustment.
Revocation for $20 yearly nonconformity to use and zoning or to safety requirements is a less than once-yearly occurrence. 03.01.2011