Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 06/07/2010 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave. June 7. 2010 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. Staff/Council Report(s) a) Wheat Ridge Baseball b) Bike and Pedestrian Study Update c) Early Warning System Update £ Proposition 101, Amendments 60 & 61 -Dee Wisor, Sherman & Howard ;L Medical Marijuana Ordinance 4. Wadsworth EA Matching Funds !i. Evaluation of Park & Recreation Fees and Charges 6. Carnation Festival Cost Analysis City of ~Wheat&'-dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: May 27,2010 (for the June 7 Study Session) SUBJECT: Wheat Ridge Youth Sports Leagues Office /Practice Facility In 2009, two of the officers of the Wheat Ridge Boys Baseball Board of Directors approached the City to explore the possibility of constructing a building on the park parcel west of the tennis courts at Prospect Park, 11300 West 44th Avenue. The proposed building would serve as an office for all Wheat Ridge youth sports leagues and as a practice facility for baseball, with batting cages that could be rented by the hour. The building would also provide a meeting room for youth leagues as well as serve as storage for Wheat Ridge Midget Football and Wheat Ridge Baseball. The youth leagues would operate and maintain the building. Currently, the Berbert House, located on the east side of the drive into the park, serves as a meeting room and storage located in the basement for these groups. A zoning analysis was completed by the Community Development staff and provided to the youth league contacts. The analysis did not rule out the possibility of this type of building on park property. Results from an initial consultation with the City Attorney indicated that a long term agreement that addressed all the pertinent issues could legally be entered into with City Council approval. Several items and possible issues were discussed at the meeting, including the leagues ability to sustain the building, required standards of maintenance, land lease arrangements, insurance etc. I was recently contacted by an architect that is working with the youth leagues. The architect has been requested to create a rendering representing the building. During the discussion held in 2009 I communicated to the leagues that the Parks and Recreation Department is interested in working with and supporting youth organizations, and would be willing to continue the discussion as due diligence is completed by both the City and Wheat Ridge Baseball. Please don' t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, comment or concerns. • ~ _ City of. A~Wheat~dge ~PUBLIC WORKS Memorandum TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works DATE: May 24, 2010 (for the June 7, 2010 Study Session) SUBJECT: Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 Update On March 29, 20 I 0 the City Council reviewed the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 draft evaluation criteria and proposed route pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Staff presented the material at four recently conducted neighborhood meetings and solicited citizen input on the proposed route facilities and route priorities. The working group of staff from the Public Works, Community Development, Parks and Recreation and Police Departments, Livewell Wheat Ridge and Fe\sburg Holt & Ullevig has now assigned numeric values to each of the evaluation criteria. The criterion specifically includes the public preferences offered during and following the neighborhood meetings. The recommended Evaluation Criteria is attached, along with a spreadsheet which shows the scores for each proposed route in the Plan. In Phase 3 of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, each route will be studied to determine how the proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities can be incorporated in the existing street rights-of-way and preliminary plans will be prepared. A City map showing the top eleven route priorities is enclosed. These routes would be prioritized in Phase 3 of the Plan development as additional funding or Staff resources become available. These priorities could also be used in selecting routes for construction or improvement, as funds are available. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 project will be finalized in the next month and brought to the Ci ty Co unci I for acceptance. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. Evaluation Criteria 2. Evaluation and Prioritization of Proposed Routes 3. Map of Priority Routes 4. Preliminary Prioritization Results 5. Map of Proposed Facilities lll ~ ul .7 W heat l~gL' Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I I I Evaluation Criteria The following criteria have been used to prioritize the proposed bic ycle and ped estrian facilities in Wheat Ridge: Does the facility serve local or regional destinations? Is it a regional or local facility? o Regional route and/or regional destinafions -4 points • Routes/Tralls that extend beyond Wheat Ridge • Lutheran Medical Center • Wheat Ridge Recreation Center • Wheat Ridge City Hall • Greenbelt o Local route and local destinations -2 points Does the facility provide access to a school? o Direct access to a school -4 points o Indirect access (within '14 mile) to a sc hool -2 points What Is the estimated population adjacent to the facility? o Population w~hin '/4 mile buffer on both sides of the facility (source: 2000 Census data). For each proposed route, the percentile population relative to the maximum population w~hin any corridor was calculated. • 75'" -100'" percentile -4 points • 50'" -75'" percentile -3 points • 25'" -50'h percentile -2 points • 0 -25'h percentile -1 point Is the facility located within or adjacent to one of the geographic priority areas as established In Envision Wheat Ridge? o Within one of the geographic priority areas -4 • Wadsworth Boulevard from 35'" Avenue to 44'" Avenue • 38'" Avenue from Wadsworth to Shendan • Kipling Street through entire City • 50'" Avenue/Ward Road (Future Light Rail Station) Area • Cabela's (Crossing at Clear Creek) Area o Within '/4 mile of the geographic priority areas -2 Would the facility serve multiple user types? o Facility would serve Type A, B, and C Bicyclists, and Pedestrians -4 points o Facility would serve three of the four user types -3 points o Facility would serve two of the four user types -2 points o Facility would serve one of the four user types -1 point o Bike/shared lanes on arterial -A and B o Bike/shared lanes on local or collector -A, B, and C o Sidewalk on artenal -Pedestrians o Sidewalk on local or collector -C and Pedestrians o Multi-Use Trails -B, C, and Pedestrians r£I SOlJRG ItOLl 6 UlL[VlG --ATTACHMENT 1 l .1 ) ~.f ..? w hca1.l~gc Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I I I ----'---' Would the facility provide connectivity to other modes of travel? o Provides direct access to future light roll stafton, park-n-Rlde, or transfer stafton -4 points o Provides indirect access to future light rail stafton (w~hln '/2 mile), pork-n-Ride facilily or transfer station (within '14 mile) or has 250 or more RTD buses per day along and crossing the facilily -3 points o 1 00 -250 RTD buses per day along and crossing the facilily -2 points o Up to 1 00 RTD buses per day along and crossing the foci lily -1 point o No buses along or crossing the facilily -0 points Will the facility be a part of an existing route or trail? o Completes a gap In an exisftng route/trail -4 points o Extends an exlsftng route/trail -2 points Is there a public desire for the facility? o Based on the number of people who "voted" for each facilily • 7 or more "votes" -4 points • 5 or 6 "votes" -3 points • 3 or 4 "votes" -2 points • 1 or 2 "votes" -1 point fHSRURG Itotl.{ lJtlEVIG Evaluation and Prioritization of Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2 I Kipling Street 3 IWadsworth Boulevard Lily ,",I 7 Wl-icatl~gc C"'l , "~,-1,-_,-1._-1----1 • 1 • 1 • 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 0 1 , 1 " 1 • 1 i u ~ t-< <t: Evaluation and Prioritization of Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan utyor ?Whcat~gc """'" ~~ ~ 5 ""~ en J -' ... -' en UJ UJ H~ i~ g ~ UJ : GREENBELT p~ i ~~~ "..., 31\DOOQ 311~ """" ti; 111111 11 ~ " I 16THAvE """" ~ ~ ~ City of Wheat Ridge Bike and Pedestrian Priority Routes legend _ Bike.~PIMI C:l Ciryof ......... RidDe BoundMy --R_ N ! ::: 1 ' ,900 0 1,900 3,600 St..PIano~~ ~~ .... OoUOl:NAOa -_.. --_-". .. _-----01 __ .. .....,_\_,'Il10.,.._ Fee' -"""" ... -~,-.. --~ I ""'s_"~ --_.___ ,,. ,. ._ __ .. ____ ...,.TIIo_ .. __ .... _..., .. ____ 01 ... _ .. _ .... -... .---0__0_11 .-. ___"-_'____ .. ... __-..."_ .... _.". -.-. ... C,O, ---Ciry fII 'MInt FtidgII. ~ 7500 w..t 29th ""'en .. W\HI Ri<Igoe. co IOCIJ.l..IOOl 303.234.5900 DATE. 051071200 C'") ~ U ~ E-< E-< <t: 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ City o r r WncatR!9gc Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I Preliminary Prioritization Results (Top 10) Rank (Score) 1 (25) 1 (25) 3(24) 4(23) 5(22) 6(21) 6(21 ) 8(19) 8(19) 10(18) 10(18) Corridor Kipling Street from 261h Avenue to 51'1 Avenue Pierce Street from 261h Avenue to 441h Avenue 381h Avenue from Wodsworth to Sheridon 381h Avenue from Youngfield to Kipling Wadsworth Boulevard from 261h Avenue to Clear Creek Trail 32nd Avenue from Kipling to Wadsworth 32nd Avenue from Wadsworth to Sheridan Clear Creek Trail from Moore Court to Kipling Lena Gulch Trail from 381h Avenue to WR Recreation Center 261h Avenue from Wadsworth to Sheridan Ridge Road from Ward Road to Miller street ATTACHMENT 4 r[LSBURG HOLT & ULlEVlG \ _. ~ . _ CIty of ~Wheat~dge ~OLlCE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Randy Young, City Manager THROUGH: Daniel G. Brennan, Chief of Police FROM: Jim Lorentz, Division Commander Support Services Division DATE: June 1,2010 (for the Study Session of June 7, 2010) SUBJECT: Staff Report -Status of the City of Wheat Ridge Early Warning System On May 20, 20 I 0, the E-911 Authority Board agreed to fund the third and final phase of the Wheat Ridge Early Warning System. In late 2007, the Police Department and Public Works Department began working on an Early Warning System (EWS) to assist in providing emergency notification from a multi-hazard approach in cases of floods, severe weather, hazardous material spills, criminal acts, and terrorism. The outdoor siren system was chosen to supplement radio and television broadcasts, reverse 911 calling, and personal contact methods of warning that have been employed in the past. The EWS was designed to be implemented in three phases. The first six towers covering the Lena Gulch flood plain were installed in late 2008. In 2009, the second phase of the project involved the addition of five towers, which covered the Clear Creek flood plain and the Interstate 70 corridor. The [mal four towers will complete the coverage by including the southeast section of the City limits. The attached map depicts the coverage areas of Phases 1 and 2, as well as Phase 3. Funding for Phase I and 2 of this project was accomplished through grant money provided by the E-911 Authority Board. Each siren can vary in cost depending on whether it is powered from an electrical source or by solar power. No siren price has exceeded $20,000. The E-91 1 Authority Board for 20 I 0 has now decided to fund the third phase of the EWS project to cover the cost of the remaining four sirens in the southeast section of the City. While exact costs are not yet known, the board has approved funds not to exceed $20,000 per tower. There is no financial impact on the City due to funding by the E-911 Authority Board. By utilizing this source of funding, the City has saved approximately $300,000 over the course of the project. A TT ACHMENT: I. Siren location map I • ! I , ! • ! 'z": 0-F-u<_0 o· ....lS • "'::': ~ '-'l ....l ....l < 1 I · •~ I I •e ~, j • 0 U') tD I J go -& &. I E go" ~HI ~ ~~ 0:. ·.f! ~ ~' I 1 ~ J i ; I 1 ia: '.i W0 '-0 '! ~' lfil! ~i~&I~1 I .... · I][JDD I I I I -" ! J l[sljI · fl, ~ W '. ,111111!lll! ~ HI ii1j!llj1ifi . . ~o1 a •. cO) " 0 ~ ;Z; . . '" ~L i.hhl,tt.; .v-A 0 j • 3: c3-'" ! I' f1ill,ijl Jl ~u U-~~ ~ ;;: ~~8 ~u Y11W,.111I1111r1l1 ~ ~~f~ .1. 11 "I '.-' 8,~3.~. ! I • I ATTACHMENT 1 Mile High United Way Jeffco Head Start Recaptured funds from Head Start Recaptured funds from MHUW City of Edgewater City of Edgewater City of Edgewater City of Golden City of Wheat Ridge City of Wheat Ridge City of Wheal Ridge JCHA Set-Aside City of Edgewater City of Golden City of Golden City of Wheat Ridge City of Wheat Ridge Wheat Ridge BD Intervention CHAC JHe City of Edgewater City of Edgewater CIty of Edgewater City of Edgewater City 01 Golden City of Golden City of Wheat Ridge City 01 Wheat Ridge Town of Mountain View CHAC Brother's Redevelopment Jefferson Center for Mental Health Rea!located (Jewish Family Services award) City of Golden City of Wheat Ridge Town of Mountain View ~IDAS New bus -RCqe -200e 2006 2007 2001' . 2001' 1007 2001'. funds will go 10 WR BD Will go to BRI JCHA Rehab Lur1lberg Elementary JCHA Rehab SRC Bus Service Economic Development JCHA Rehab ""'ilOCI8IJCHA Rehab i Aehab Program Will gOloBRI : Economic Development Workforce Housing CHAC I 2OC)lJ.! Economic Development ~ Economic De .... elopment '2OOI'IComercial Rehab ," ao69j Victim Services ~ Downpayment 2009 COBG-R Rental Rehab Economic De .... elopment Rehab Program I.-.2QQIj Public Services 2009 COBG-R JCHA Rehab ~ Homeownershlp 2009 CDBG-R JCHA Rehab ~ Economic De .... elopment 2009 CDBG-R Senior Center ' !'2OOSWl Street Scaping "201'01 Downpayment srof(Jj Housing Counseling to1G~HomeIesS Prevention Program (hOlel .... oudlefs) 2Oto Homeowner Rehabtl~ation 201 Acquisition 01 one property 2Oto Public Facilities Improvements 201 Repair/replace storm sewer line Sub Total $0 $12,554 1:i ~-~~~ $21.422~ ::~~ $18,941 SO $18,941 .I!aQ& $0 e ="""IQI $37,647 $0 537,647 ~ $O~ $97,740 $0 $97,740 , ....... ,. $O ............ p;!!I!!I $1,003,355 $33,976 $969.379 tr'IO;2iI8 . U-;14i4301 ,, 4Sl $O~ __ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5948,097 $0 $948,097 $3,051.390 $249,4781 $2.801,9131 Amounts Recaptured Of expected to be Recapilled $1,040,000 $72,000 $1,112,000 TOTAL unexpended CDBG funds r-"S3.91 3.913 ) CDBG-R amounts will not count against our ratio 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 $38,475 projected to be spent by 2011 $3,692 unexpended but allocated $34,163 unallocated $212,668 projected to be spent by 201 1 $226.121 unexpendedbutaUocated o unallocated $47,000 projected to be spent by 201' $617,601 unexpended but allocated 2,240 unallocated $483,588 projected to be spent by 201 1 $703,866 unexpended byt allocated o unallocated 5349,013 projected to be spent by 2011 $677 ,848 unexpended but allocated $270.249 unallocated , . ~" _ City of yg-Wheat~ge ~OFFICE OF TI-I E CITY MANAGER TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Randy Young, City Manager r.l Patrick Goff, Deputy City ManageJJ.() June 1, 2010 Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 -£-fem (). Three significant statewide ballot measures will be voted on this November -Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61. Passage of any of these measures will have dramatic impacts upon municipal and local government finance. Attached is a packet of information concerning these measures which was assembled by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). Staff has in vi ted Dee Wisor, an attorney at Shennan & Howard who specializes in public finance, to the June 7'h study session to discuss these measures in greater detail. Staff will be using a tool provided by CML to develop a local fiscal analysis and will present this infonnation to Council at this meeting. Attaclunents: I. Dee Wisor Biography 2. CML Packet 3. Article dated March 8, 2010 from the Denver Business Journal Dee Wisor Biography Representative Matters • Represents govenunental entities and other transaction participants in public finance transactions and economic development matters in Colorado and Nevada • Financings include general obligation bonds, user fee revenue bonds, special assessment bonds, excise tax revenue bonds, lease transactions, tax increment financings and private activity bonds • Economic development matters include development or annexation agreements and economic incentive agreements • Clients include governmental entities such as municipalities, counties, special districts, school di stricts, transportation agencies, joint action agencies, urban renewal authorities, downtown development authorities as well as non-profit corporations, undelwriters, trustees and credit enhancers Professional Activities • Admittcd Colorado, 1976 • Member, National Association of Bond Lawyers • Member, Board of Education of the Cherry Creek School District, 1990 -1996 • Member, Board of Directors of the Colorado Association of School Boards, 1995 -1996 • Member, Board of Directors of the Willows Water Dishict, 1987 -1990 • Mcmber, Board ofTmstees of the University of Northern Colorado, 1986 -1991 • Participant, Denver Community Leadership Fomm, 1988 • Participant, South Metro Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program, 1990 Publications and Presentations • Co-Author with Paul Wisor, "Public Moneys and Ballot Issues Under the Fair Campaign Practices Act," 34 Colorado Lawyer, 81 (September 2005) • Co-Author with Amy Kennedy, "Enterprises Under Article X, s. 20 of the Colorado Constitution, Part 1,"27 Colorado Lawyer, 55 (April 1998) and Part 2, 27 Colorado Lawyer, 65 (May 1998) • Author, "Amendment One: Government by Plebiscite," 22 Colorado Lawyer, 293 (February 1993) Education • Juris Doctor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 1976 • Bachelor of Arts, Dickinson College, 1973 Honors and Awards • Fellow, American College of Bond Counsel • Winner, Denver Business Journal's "Best of the Bar" Award for Public Finance, 2005 • Recogni zed in The Best Lawyers in America® in the area of Public Finance since 2007 ATTACHMENTl To: From: Date: Subject: THE VOICE OF COLORADO'S CITIES AND TOWNS 1144 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 . (p) 303-831-6411/866-578-0936. (f) 303-860-8175 . www.cml.org Interested Municipal Officials ("' ~ __ Sam Mamet (smamet@cml.org) ~~---May 19, 2010 Proposition 101 , Amendment 60, Amendment 61 You are of course aware by now that these measures will be voted on November 2 as part of the statewide general election ballot. The League is formally in opposition to the three measures. These proposals have considerable negative municipal finance impacts. The purpose of this packet is to provide you with information on the initiatives; encourage your governing body to pass a resolution in opposition to them; and urge municipal elected officials acting in their individual capacities to speak out against 101 , 60, and 61 . We are working very closely with Colorado Counties, Inc., the Colorado Association of School Boards, and the Colorado Special Districts Association. I can't stress enough the importance of your efforts to reach across the local government aisle and engage these other important local officials in local and regional efforts to defeat the measures. A web site is up and running against the measures, www.donthurtcolorado.com and you can get more information there. Please do use our web site (www.cml.org) and go to the link on ballot initiatives. We are posting to it regularly. To the extent your municipality has prepared a fiscal impact analysis regarding the measures, we very much want a copy. We have worked with the Colorado Government Finance Officers Association on the enclosed template for your use in this regard . ' Be aware of the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act. It spells out what a municipality can and cannot do relative to activity on statewide measures. A copy of Geoff Wilson's excellent treatise is enclosed. Consult with your own legal counsel as well. A group of municipal bond attorneys and investment bankers with whom we have been meeting have put together a series of excellent 60 and 61 questions to review as you also ponder your understanding of these measures. We hope to co-host regional summer meetings with the other local government associations to barnstorm the state. In the meantime, should you want me to come and speak to a group of municipal officials about the measures, please do let me know. Thank YOU for your efforts_ ATTACHMENT 2 ENCLOSURES 1. A memorandum briefly summarizing the measures 2. Copies of each measure's title, summary, and actual text 3. A sample resolution to be modified for your own use 4. An explanation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act 5. A qualitative assessment tool produced by a variety of investment bankers and bond attorneys in consultation with the League, Colorado Counties, Inc., Colorado Association of School Boards, and Colorado Special Districts Association. It is intended to help you better answer at a staff level some of the issues and questions raised especially by Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 B6. A quantitative assessment tool prepared by the Colorado Government Finance Officers Association to help you develop a local fiscal impact analysis 7. A one pager prepared by Colorado Counties, Inc. for county officials that may help you locate some information needed to analyze further the measures 8. Talking points to use in opposition to the measures for elected officials to be modified to include impacts in your own city or town We urge you to consult with your county clerk and recorder for motor vehicle information; the state Department of Revenue for sales tax information if you are in the state's collection system (otherwise your own municipal sales tax auditors if you selfcollect); your county assessor for assessed valuation information; other local government finance officials in your area; and please do call CML with any questions. THE VOICE OF COLORADO'S CITIES AND TOWNS 1144 Sherman S1ree1. Denver. CO 80203. (p) 303-831-6411 f 866-578-0936. (f) 303-86().8175. www.cmf.org To: From: Interested Municipal Officials Sam Mamet Date: May 11 , 2010 Subject: #101 , #60, #61 Introduction What follows is a brief summary of three significant statewide ballot measures which will be voted on this November. They have dramatic impacts upon municipal and local government finance. Your careful analysis of these measures is strongly encouraged, as well as your communication with county commissioners, special district board members, neighboring city and town leaders, and school board members. Please go to www.cml.org for more information on these initiatives, including the actual ballot language. Proposition #101 (covers vehicle taxes and fees. the state income tax, and telecommunication taxes; initiated statute) Websites • www.cotaxreform.com (for) • www.donthurtcolorado.com (against) Key highlights (not comprehensive) • Specific ownership taxes decrease in 4 equal steps annually to $2 on new vehicles and $1 to all other vehicles. • Various state and local taxes on vehicle rentals and leases are significantly restricted. • Vehicle registration, license, and title charges combined shall total $10 annually per vehicle, • The state income tax is reduced over time to 3.5% under specific circumstances. • State and local telecommunications charges will end. Fees for 9-1 -1 are exempted, but limited to 2009 levels. Municipal implications • The proposal represents a virtual elimination of specific ownership taxes, which are collected and distributed back to local governments in lieu of a property tax on vehicles. According to the 2009 state Revenue Department annual report, this totaled $492.4 million for all local governments. • The rollback of vehicle charges will result in an estimated near 26% reduction in COOT's budget and a near 37% reduction in municipal HUTF proceeds, according to a COOT analysis. The "FASTER" League-supported fee increases from last year are eliminated. These increases are shared with counties and municipalities. • The restriction on telecommunications taxes is quite broad and will cover utility occupation taxes and sales and use taxes on telecommunication services. • 9-1-1 fees are locked permanently into their 2009 rates with no flexibility to be increased. This will have significant impacts on delivering emergency services. • The state income tax reduction it has been estimated by the Bell Policy Center could be over $1 billion, which means virtually no on-going state financial support for certain grant and loan programs available to cities and towns. • Major General Assembly changes to this initiated statute are highly unlikely as a political matter. Amendment #60 (covers property taxes; initiated constitutional amendment) Websites • www.limitpropertv1ax .com (for) • www.donthurtcolorado.com (against) Key highlights (not comprehensive) • Electors may vote on property taxes where they own real property. • Requires local governments to allow petitions to lower property taxes. • November elections only for property taxes and must be independent of debt questions. • Property tax bills are limited only to taxes and late charges. • Requires enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes. Local governments have to reduce their mill levies to offset this revenue. These entities may not levy a fee or tax. • Expires within 10 years all future property tax increases. • Extending an expiring property tax is a tax increase. • Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenues expire. • Future actions to keep excess property tax revenues must expire in 4 years. • Non-college school districts must phase out half their non-debt paying property taxes (Le., operations and maintenance taxes) by 2020 and requires the state to backfill the reduced revenue. Municipal implications • Elector is not defined and could mean just about anyone or anything: real property owners, corporations, residents out of state or in another country, property owners not registered to vote. This substantially broadens voter participation to entities and individuals having little stake and trump the interests of municipal residents. • The petition process is broadened to cover counties, special districts, and schools. • Separating a debt question from the property tax question may make it harder to finance debt. • What will the impact on school finance be; how will the state absorb this additional backfill responsibility; how will local communities be affected? • Prior voter-approved questions at the municipal level to keep and spend excess revenues are eliminated and other restrictions imposed. Over 400 such questions have been approved at the municipal level since 1993. • Municipal enterprise and authority operations will be severely hampered and these cover such services as sewer, water, electric, gas, aviation, downtown redevelopment. Rates and fees will increase and tax deductions will be lowered. • Statehouse flexibility to modify or implement these provisions will be virtually impossible. Anticipate costly litigation similar to TABOR implementation. Amendment #61 (covers debt limits; initiated constitutional amendment) Websites • www.limitcodebt.com (for) • www.donthurtcolorado.com (against) Key highlights (not comprehensive) • The state may not contract debt by loan in any form. • Prohibits local governments to contract debt by loan in any form without voter approval. • The ballot title for any question must detail how the moneys to be borrowed are to be used. • Prohibits any subsequent change in the use of the money borrowed. • Prohibits any voter-approved debt incurred from being repealed until it is fully repaid. • Imposes specified limits on borrowing pegged to a a percentage of assessed valuation after 2010 (10% of assessed value). • After current borrowing is repaid, tax rates must decline in an amount equal to that debt's planned average annual repayment, even if the debt is not repaid by taxes. Municipal implications • Traditional lease purchase and lease-leaseback financings will be considered debt. This could cover traditional property and equipment leases. • State level authorities which work with municipalities like CHFA on affordable housing projects and the Water/Power Resources Authority for water and wastewater will be curtailed from issuing bonds. Federal funds, like Rural Development loans, may also be affected . • New voter approvals will be required for: enterprise borrowings; certificates of participation; lower interest rate refinancings; URA borrowings; less than one year cash flow borrowings. • The 10% assessed valuation debt limit will severely impact local government and needs to be examined for full impact in each municipality. • Interest costs will increase as a result of the prepayment without penalty, which is not common in the current municipal marketplace. • The 10 year maturity requirement will force cities and towns to downsize substantially infrastructure and hamper the ability to plan for future long-term needs. • Anticipate that this measure will affect the rating agencies' views of the municipal market in Colorado both in the short and long run. • Infrastructure financing through debt will be substantially curtailed . • Statehouse flexibility to modify or implement these provisions will be difficult. Anticipate costly litigation similar to TABOR implementation. 101 Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2009·2010 #10 ' The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: /(-/5-Of An amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning lirnits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration,license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicies and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases? Hearing May 6, 2009: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 9:46 a.m. I Unofficially captioned "Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees" by legislative slaff for tracking purposes. Such caplion is not part of the titles sel by the Board. Page I of I ~ /D( Be it Enacted by tbe People of the State of Colorado: Title 39, article 25 ofthe Colorado Revised Statutes Reducing government charges (1) Enforcement This voter-approved revenue change shall be strictly enforced to reduce government revenue. It is self-executing, severable, and a matter of statewide concern that overrides conflicting statutes and local laws. Prevailing plaintiffs only shall have their legal fees and court costs repaid. The state shall audit yearly compliance witb this reform to reduce unfair, complex charges on common basic needs. (2) Vehicle. Starting January I, 2011: (a) All annual specific ownership taxes shall decrease in four equal yearly steps to: New vehicles, $2; and other vehicles, $1. All state and local taxes shall cease on vehicle rentals and leases, and on $10,000, reached in four equal yearly steps, of sale prices per vehicle. Sale rebates are not taxable. (b) All registration, license, and title charges combined shall total $10 yearly per vehicle. Except those charges, charges, and tax, fine, toll, parking, seizure, inspection, and new plate charges, all state and local government charges on vehicles and vehicle uses shall cease. Except tbe last six specific charges, added charges shall be tax increases. (3) Income. The 20 II income tax rate shall be 4.5%. Later rates shall decrease 0.1 % yearly, until reaching 3.5%, in each of tbe first ten years that yearly income tax revenue net growtb exceeds 6%. (4) Telecommunication. Starting January I, 2011, except 911 fees at 2009 rates, no charge by, or aiding programs of, the state or local governments shall apply to telephone, pager, cable, television, radio, Internet, computer, satellite, or other telecommunication service customer accounts. Added charges shall be tax increases. Proponents: Jeff Gross 801 7th St. Kersey CO 80644 (970) 353-9551 taxrefonn@frii.com Freda Poundstone 5342 E. Caley Ave. Centennial CO 80121 (303) 396-9200 Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2009·2010 #121 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language? Hearing May 6,2009: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 10:27 a.m. I Unofficially captioned "Property Toxes" by legislative staff for tracking purposes. Such caption is not part of the titles set by the Board. Page I of I Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Article X, section 20, The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, is amended to add: (10) Property taxes. Starting in 2011 : (a) The state yearly shall audit and enforce, and any person may file suit to enforce, strictest compliance with all property tax requirements of this section. Successful plaintiffs shall always be awarded costs and attorney fees; districts shall receive neither. This voter-approved revenue change supersedes conflicting laws, opinions, and constitutional provisions, and shall always be strictly interpreted to favor taxpayers. (b) Electors may vote on property taxes where they own real property. Adapting state law, all districts shall allow petitions to lower property taxes as voter-approved revenue changes. Property tax issues shall have November election notices and be separate from debt issues. Property tax bills shall list only property taxes . and late charges. Enterprises and authorities shall pay property taxes; lower rates shall offset that revenue. Enterprises and unelected boards shall levy no mandatory fee or tax on property. Future property tax rate increases shall expire within ten years. Extending expiring property taxes is a tax increase. Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring within four years. Non-college school districts shall phase out equally by 2020 half their 20 II rate not paying debt; state aid shall replace that revenue yearly. Nothing here shall limit payment of bonded debt issued before 2011. (c) These property tax increase, extension, and abatement rates after 1992 shall expire: (i) Taxes exceeding state laws, tax policies, or limits violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval. Those laws, policies, and limits, including debt limits, are restored. (ii) Taxes exceeding the one 1Ulnual fixed, final, numerical dollar amount first listed in their tax increase ballot title as stated in (3)(c). (iii) Those rates without voter approval after 1992 1992 of a ballot title as stated in (3)(c). Petition proponents are: Bonnie Solan 399 Juniper Road Black Hawk Colorado 80422 (303) 582-5458 Louis Schroeder 8901 E. Chenango Ave. Greenwood Village CO 80111 (303) 770-2128 Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2009.2010 #211 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows : Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations OD government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid? Hearing May 20, 2009: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 2:52 p.m. I Unofficially captioned "State and Local Debt Limftations" by legislative staff for tracking purposes. Such caption is nol part of the titles set by the Board. Page I of 1 Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Section 1. ArtIcle XI, section 3 is repealed and re-enacted to read, as stated in the original constitution: '''The state shall not contract any debt by loan in any fonn." Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) are repealed as obsolete and superseded. Section 6 (1) Is repealed and re-enacted as section 6 to read: "Without voter approval, no political subdivision of the state shall contract any debt by loan in any fonn. The loan shaU not be repealed until such indebtedness is fully paid or discharged. The baUot title shaU specify the use of the funds, which shall not be changed." SectIon 2. ArtIcle X, section 20 is amended to add: (4)(c) After 2010, the following limits on borrowing shaU exist: (i) The state and aU its enterprises, authorities, and other state political entities shall not borrow, directiy or Indirectly, money or other items of value for any reason or period of time. TIlls ban covers any loan, Whether or not it lasts more than one year; may default; is subject to annual appropriation or discretion; is caUed a certificate of participation, lease-purchase, lease-back, emergency, contingency, propeny lien, special fund, dedicated revenue bond, or any other name; or offers any other excuse, exception, or fonn. (II) Local districts, enterprises, authorities, and other political entities may borrow money or other items of value only after November voter approval. Loan coverage in (i) applies to loans in (II). Future borrowing may be prepaid without penalty and shaU be bonded debt repaid within ten years. A non-enterprise shaU not . borrow if the total principal of its direct and Indirect current and proposed borrowing would exceed ten percent of assessed taxable value of real propeny in its jurisdiction. (ill) No borrowing may continue past its original term. All current borrowing shaU be paid. Except enterprise borrowing. after each borrowing is fully repaid, current tax rates shaU decline as voter-approved revenue changes equal to Its planned average annual repayment, even if not repaid by taxes. Such declines do not replace others required. Future borrowing Is void if it violates this paragraph (c), which shaU be strictly enforced Confllcdng laws, rulings, and practices are repealed, overturned, and superseded. Russell Haas 13225 W. 15" Dr. Golden CO 80401 (303) 233-7260 khensu22@hoonaiJ com Michelle Northrup 329 Crest View Dr. Black Hawk CO 80422 (303) 582-3934 . -::;\1 i :d ; ~ ! : . ,;-. ' . MAY 052009 '!' .. J ;.~<§~ Sample Resolution Opposing Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 WHEREAS, state voters will have the opportunity at the November 2 statewide general election to protect the fiscal health oflocal government by defeating Proposition 101 , Amendment 60, and Amendment 6 I; and WHEREAS, during this current economic downturn (insert name of municipality) has already cut services and budgets dramatically like (cite several examples here); and WHEREAS, these measures individually and collectively significantly reduce or otherwise restrict both state and local revenues in a number of different ways including but not limited to: specific ownership taxes, telecommunication taxes, state income taxes, state-shared revenues to assist municipalities with local street and transit improvements, other state grants and loans to help local government, and property taxes; and WHEREAS, the ability to finance long-term capital improvements like water and wastewater treatment plants, recreational projects, fire stations, and other public facilities are dramatically impaired by the restrictions on debt financing as proposed by Amendment 61; and WHEREAS, the following services and programs in (insert name of municipality) will be limited or curtailed because of the numerous restrictions and revenue reductions proposed by these three measures (cite some key items here); and WHEREAS, (insert name of municipality) is concerned about the impact these three measures will have on our ability to work effectively with other local governments in the form of intergovernmental agreements like (cite several examples here); and WHEREAS, a number of prominent individuals, newspapers, and organizations including our own Colorado Municipal League are voicing opposition to these measures as not being in the best interests of Colorado and oflocal communities; and WHEREAS, provisions of state law do allow (insert name of municipality) to put forth this resolution as a statement of opposition to the measures known as Proposition IO I, Amendment 60, and and Amendment 6 I; NOW, THEREFORE, the (city council) (town board) of opposes Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61 and urges our citizens to vote against all three ballot measures. Campaign reform law: . Use of public funds restricted By Geoff Wilson, CML General Counsel Ballots in statewide or local elections often include issues of profound importance to Colorado municipalities. As community leaders, municipal officials can and should become actively involved in the public discussion of these issues. However, the state Fair Campaign Practices Act places significant restrictions on the use of public funds for advocacy purposes or for dispensing information in connection with local or statewide ballot issues (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.). The FCPA restrictions apply once a statewide petition has been submitted for title setting, once a title has been set on a local initiative or referendum, and upon final action of the governing body placing a referred measure on the ballot. These guidelines are intended to provide municipal officials and employees with general guidance concerning what they mayor may not do, consistent with the FCPA. However, the municipal attorney should be consulted before any action is taken that could be viewed as subject to the publicfunds restrictions in the FCPA. Permissible activities It is permissible to do the following in campaigns in support of or in opposition to a proposed measure: 1. The local governing body may take a position of advocacy on the issue. The governing body may pass a resolution and take a public stand urging the electorate to vote for or against any matter. Staff background research that leads to passage of a resolution is also permissible. Local govemments may report the passage of or distribute such 16 resolutions "through established, customary means, other than paid advertising, by which information about other proceedings of [the governing body] is regularly provided to the public· (such as via a local government newsletter or cable television broadcast). 2. The act provides that any public official who has policy-making responsibilities may spend up to $50 of public money on phone calls, letters or other activities "incidental to expressing his or her opinion on any such Issue." This provision Is intended to help public officials avoid technical violations of the act when they are otherwise endeavoring to avoid use of public funds in their advocacyactivity; it should not be viewed as affirmative authority to spend public funds on advocacy. 3. Elected officials may speak out on the issues presented on the ballot. There is no limitation in the FCPA on the right of public officials to address any matter before the electorate; the limitation is on expenditure of public funds. 4. Public employees and paid elected officials may work on the campaign and speak out on the issues on their own time. Any public employee who becomes involved in the campaign should document that the effort is done on his or her own time. If the public employee is on a recorded-hour system, make sure the record reflects that the public employee took time off from public duties to engage in campaign activities. 5. If the local government has a policy permitting public groups to use its facilities for community purposes, it may allow groups opposed to or supportive of the ballot proposition to use those facilities if the policy is applied in an evenhanded fashion. 6. Public employees may respond to unsolicited questions or requests for information about a ballot issue; however, the local government should carefully avoid producing information for distribution that is designed to influence the passage or defeat of the Issue. 7. The local governing body may use public funds to develop and distribute a factual summary on any issue that will appear on a ballot in the jurisdiction. The summary must include arguments for or against the proposal, but the summary itse~ may not contain a conclusion or opinion in favor of or against the proposal. Impermissible activities It is impermissible under the FCPA, except as indicated above, to do the following in campaigns in support of or in opposition to a proposed measure: 1. use or expend public funds or supplies; 2. allow employees or paid paid officers to work on a campaign during their working hours or use any public facility or equipment for the purposes of a campaign; 3. provide transportation or advertising using public property or funds to influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any issue; or 4. grant an employee or officer leave from his job or office with the local government, with pay, to work on a campaign. For more information, contact Geoff Wilson at 303-831-6411 .• Colorado Muntclpalities PLEASE NOTE: The term "district" is used herein in the TABOR sense and includes all Colorado counties, cities, towns, school districts, title 32 special districts and library districts. AMENDMENT 60 I. Does the district have any TABOR Enterprises? (TABOR Enterprise means "a government-owned business authorized to issue its own revenue bonds and receiving under 10 percent of its annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments.") If so, please list each such Enterprise by function, such as airport, water and/or sewer utility, storm drainage, park and recreation, etc., and describe the area served by the Enterprise as compared to the area of the district that owns the Enterprise. 2. For each TABOR Enterprise, please list the counties in which the assets of the Enterprise are located and the county or counties and school district or school districts in which the district is located. 3. If there are values, as "exempt" property, assigned by the county assessor(s) to the assets of your TABOR Enterprises, please indicate those values and the method of valuation, such as book value, insured replacement value, etc. If there have been any other values assigned to the assets of your TABOR Enterprises for purposes of appraisals, etc., please also provide those values and the method for determining them. 4. Does the district have any authorities, such as housing authorities, urban renewal authorities, etc. and, if so, please answer questions I through 3 above in connection of each of such authorities. 5. Is your district currently operating under a de-Brucing measure that includes property tax revenues? If so, please describe whether the duration of the de-Brucing is indefinite or for a specific period of time. (Under Amendment 60, property tax de-Brucing extending for a period in excess of four years would need to be re-approved each four years.) Please provide an estimate of the amount of property tax revenues you expect to be allowed to keep in the current fiscal year (2010 or 2010111) as a result result of your de-Brucing? (Please refer to the CGFOA model.) 14080.4 Page I of3 AMENDMENT 61 \. For any outstanding district borrowings of the types listed in paragraphs A through E below, please provide the following information: 14080.4 • Total principal amount outstanding • Original repayment term (i. e., the total term of borrowing from the issue date through the final scheduled principal payment date) • Source of repayment • Average annual payment over the total term of the borrowing • Total of remaining payments These would include borrowings of any type, including loans from any source (i. e., local or other bank, federal or state loan program, municipal bond market or other lending source). A. B. C. D. E. Governmental bonded debt (general obligation bonds, sales or excise tax revenue bonds, special assessment bonds, etc.). Lease Purchase Agreements (including leases that have been certificated or represented by lease revenue bonds or Certificates of Participation issued by a non-profit corporation, trust, trustee bank or other entity; and any other lease or installment purchase purchase agreement with vendors, leasing companies, banks etc.) to acquire property, buildings, equipment, vehicles or other facilities. Short Term Obligations (any financing transaction that does not extend beyond the fiscal year of issuance, including tax or revenue anticipation notes, cash flow loans from the State under any State program, bank lines of credit or any other cash flow management instrument that involves the credit of the district). TABOR Enterprise Obligations (obligations issued by a TABOR Enterprise as described in the Amendment 60 portion of this survey.) These obligations, including Enterprise revenue bonds or loans from any source (federal or state loan program, municipal bond market or local bank or other lending source), will be secured by the revenues of the Enterprise (such as water or wastewater utilities) and not by the tax revenues of the district. These obligations should not be included in paragraphs A through C above. Any other Obligations of the district (any other obligations the district uses in managing its fmances that are used to acquire facilities or property or involved any borrowed money in any form, regardless of how short the time period, with a brief description of each). Page 2 of3 2. If Amendment 61 is approved, all of the district's non-TABOR Enterprise borrowings would be limited to 10% of the taxable real property within the district (excluding taxable personal property). A. What is the total principal amount of the district's outstanding non-Enterprise borrowings (this includes the total of all items in paragraphs A, B, C and E, but not paragraph D, above)? B. What is the total assessed valuation of the taxable real property within the district? C. Dividing the principal amount in (A) by the assessed valuation in (B), what is the district's current debt ratio under Amendment 61? If it is greater than 10%, please note that the district would be prohibited from borrowing immediately upon Amendment 61 taking effect. 3. Please briefly describe the challenges the district would face if it could no longer utilize the financing andlor credit borrowings listed in paragraph I above, including, without limitation, the following. A. B. C. 14080.4 If Amendment 61 were approved, do you have capital projects that are currently in process that would have to be cancelled or deferred or would require additional financing to complete? If so, please describe the current status of the project. How would the loss of long term financing options affect the long term plans of the district? What effect would an inability to use any short term cash flow credit instrument have on the operations of the district? Page 300 A Few Talking Points For Elected Officials To Use Against Proposition 101, Amendment 60, Amendment 61 When Asked To Comment On Them • These measures individually and collectively will have a dramatic impact on reducing revenue at the state and local government level; services will be directly affected. (please insert local municipal impacts here) • Proposition 101 significantly reduces revenue which we collect from the specific ownership tax. This is a tax an owner of a vehicle pays like a property tax on your home. It has been a tax established in the Colorado Constitution since 1937. Last year, nearly $500 million was collected and is distributed back to all local governments to pay for local services. Our reduction in this tax revenue will be (fill in the blank) and result in the following programs or services either substantially reduced or eliminated entirely (fill in the blank here). I don't think these reductions are either fair to this community or to you as a resident. • Proposition 101 freezes E 9-9-1-1 fees at their 2009 level. These fees can never be increased to meet on-going demands for public safety and emergency service response calls. We believe this will impact us locally in the following way (fill in the blank here with information from your local emergency response agency). • The measure also reduces our revenue in several other areas, and here is where we think we are impacted (fill in local examples here). • We have already instituted belt tightening in our budget. Here is what we have done already as a response to the economic challenges facing our community (cite local examples). • We have also tried to jump start the local economy like a lot of other cities and towns around the state by boosting our support for local economic development programs and local jobs (cite some local examples). • I agree with Governor Ritter and many other respected state leaders from both sides of the political aisle who are afraid that these measures will limit both future job growth and our economic development activity by restricting our revenues and ability to plan for the future. I don't want to hurt Colorado and I surely don't want to hurt (name of municipality). • Amendment 60 places significant limitations on our ability to raise revenue from the property tax. For example, one of the things it does is substantially increase the number of people who can vote on a property tax increase in our community by allowing people who live outside ofthe town, the state, or even the country to have a vote. Your influence over local decisions will be diminished as a result. I don't think that this is a very good idea. • (use this talking point if you had a property tax de-brucing measure on the ballot) Amendment 60 will roll back and eliminate our prior property tax revenue retention vote dealing with (fill in the blank) and this is what it means to us locally (cite example). • Amendment 61 places severe restrictions on our ability to plan for the future and pay for much needed public improvements by limiting the type of debt financing we might want to undertake. It will also require simple leases, for equipment such as a fire truck or police car, from being used unless a vote is held. • Colorado is a below average tax burden state when state and local taxes are combined. It has been that way for a number of years. In (name of city or town), we have been prudent guardians and good fiscal stewards ofthe budget and of taxes and fees generally. We want to assure you that as a community we always want to move ahead. I am very afraid that these proposals will move us far behind and that their revenue reductions and restrictions on our municipal operations will not be in (name of city or town) best interests and our future. • I do hope that you vote no on 60, 61, and 101 in November. It's why we passed a resolution in opposition to them. I'll be glad to give you a copy if you want one. Don't hurt Colorado and don't hurt (insert name of municipality). I hope you will encourage others to be against these measures. , . ... Three ballot measures are 'absolutely lethal' to Colorado -Denver Business Journal Page I of2 Denver Business Journal-MarCh 8, 2010 Idenv,rls lorl~~20 I OIQJI~tory2 ,hlml ?b ~12Q.e0244 !)O% 5E2983 361 BUSINESS JOURNAL Three ballot measures are 'absolutely lethal' to Colorado 0['10'" BUSU)f~ \$ Journal y Renee McGaw Colorado's public finance managers are scrambling to prepare for the possibi lity that volers wilt approve three anti-tax and antiborrowing ballot initiati,'cs on the November ballol. If it passes, Amendment 60 and Proposition t a l would blow a big hole into already strained government budgets. Meanwhile, Amendment 61 would bar the state from borrowing any money, while local gO\'ernments could borrow limited amounts only after getling ap proval from voters for each item. "It would really preclude the state from financing infrastructure projects, like prisons, academic buildings on college campuses, or the move that the medical school made out to Fitzsimons -none of that would be possible," said Cary Kennedy, Colorado state treasurer, The measures would cut the state's general fund by a minimum of $ 1.6 billion, in addition to $2.5 billion in cuts that have been made since the recession began, said Tom Cla rk, executive vice president of the ~.!:..l!..QJ:?'.-=!!~~.!. ECOn~!lli~evel0l~.!~~.~!!!._~.!lEP' Educat ion, transportation and health ca re -the three legs that support the Colorado economy -would be hurt the most, he said, "What that will leave us with is a s tate that, frankly, nobody in the world will have any interest in doing business with," Clark said. "They [the ballot issues] are absolutely lethal." If voters apprm·e the measures in November, they'd go into effect on Jan. 1, 20] 1. Given that possible deadline, many municipal finance directors are at least considering accelerating their borrowing plans to secure additional financing before yea r-end. "It 's an unintended consequence of these citizen initiatives -not only these three, but others we've seen in the past -that it influences behavior in the run-up to the election," said Dee Wisor, an attorney at Sherman & Howl!rd LLC in Denver who specializes in public finance, "We saw it when [the Taxpayer Bill of Rights] and some of its predecessors were on the ballot, and ",:e've seen it with SOllle proposals since TABOR's pass.:'\ge." Among the advice the law firm is giving its clients: • State and local government borrowers who are plannjng to issue bonds that might require voter approval should consider getting it now; that way. if Amendment 61 passes, they could complete the financing in the final two months of 2010. • Government borrowers with outstanding interim financing should be prepared to convert it to permanent fin:lI1cing before the end of this year. • Government borrowers with obligations that mature in 2011 should think about prepaying them this year. Ot hen\~se. as soon as they repay the debt, they'll be requi red under Amendment 61 to reduce their tax revenues to an amount equal to the average yearly repayment amount -even if if the bor ro\\~ng wasn't repaid through taxes. • Any nonprofit or private entity planning to use tax-exempt pri vate acti vity bonds, as ,veil as any state or local issuer of such bonds. should be prepared to complete any transactions scheduled for the next few years in 2010, if possible. Pre\~ous TABOR restrictions have been interpreted to exclude private activity bonds, but it's possible that Amendment 61 's broad language would change that. If a municipal ity has a st rong credit rating and revenue stream, it's not difficult to issue bonds with low interest rates. But many state and local governments have experienced drops in tax re\·enue as a result of the recession, and may not be able to support additional borrowing. "The market is reasonably good," Wisor said. "In 2008, the credit markets se ized up and even the [most creditworthy borrowers] were unable to access the capital markets, but that's changed .... We tell our clients that it's a great time to be a borrower if you think you can repay the debt." The stale Treasu ry isn't accelerating its bo rro"~ ng schedule, Kennedy said. "We can't anticipate what will happen in November, and we have a regular course of financings that move through our office," she said. "We finance school construction around the state, and we are moving fOl'\va rd as planned, as local voters have authorized, but we're not accelerating the financing of those projects," Bob Eichem, finance director for t he city of Boulder, said that Boulder was considering various options. "Based on the numbers ,ve have now, Proposition tOI would mean a $5.8 million reduction in revenues [in 201 1] and Amendment 60 ATTACHMENT 3 Three ballot measures are 'absolutely lethal' to Colorado -Denver Business Journal Page 2 of2 would lead to a $4.9 mill ion reduction," Eichcm said. The impact of Amendment 6J, which would bar ci ties from issu ing any debt wi th a maturi ty or longer than 10 years, is harder to forecast because the city doesn't know how many bonds it wi ll issue or how many borro\\ings it might do in t he futu re. he said. "We have a split AAA/AA+ rating on OUl" general obl igation bonds and our water and sewer bonds," Eichem said. "We figure if we had to issue them and they could only be fo r 10 years, we \\'ou ld pay about $445,000 more per year -maybe a little bit higher, because you have to have call features in them. But tha t's a 'what if; it doesnOt mean it would actually happen:' Ron Speaker, a former Janus bond manager who now runs Equus Priva te Wealth Management LLC in Carbondale, said that he hadn't noticed any increased bond issuance lately, The firm im'ests exclusiyely in Colorado muni cipal bonds, so Speaker Speaker and his tea m keep a close eye on the market. "I can'l say that \,,,'e've seen anything; in fact, issuance has been down compared with the year before," Speaker said, Newly created Colorado debt totaled $26 million in January, compared \\~ th 5351 million in January 2008, he said. Most public borrowers are facing budget cons traints and aren't planning big capital projects, which makes them less likely to borrO\ ..... Interest rates also have been low for a whi le, so issuers aren't under pressure to refinance bonds to get a lower rate, Amendment 61 would require voter approval on obligations that up to now haven't needed it, such as lease-purchase agreeme nts or certificates of participation. "The impetus oCthe amendment is that with TABOR, people should be allowed to vote on every obligation of a city, but that's not always practical," Speaker said. The free market has its own built-in mecha ni sms for discouraging bad ideas, he said. "If a county is trying to issue a certificate of pa rticipation rticipation fo r a putt-putt golf course, the buyer c.'ln always say no," Speaker said. All contents of this site ~ American City Business Journals Inc. All righls reserved. Election November ProposItion 101 a Amendments 60 and Dee Wisor, Esq: .. Sherman . dwisor@shermanhoward.com" 303-299:8228 • Fair Campaign Practices Act now applies, -Public resourc¢scan.norbe expended to adllocilt position • Difference between a Proposition and Amendment • Proponents' websites. -www.cotaxreform.com -www.limitpropertytax.com -www.limitcodebt.com 1 • Reduces various motor vehicle fees and taxes. • Reduces the State income tax. • Reduces fees on telecommunication services. • Specific ownership taxes must decrease in equal yearly stepstQ reach $2 for new vehicles and $1 for old vehicles. • All registration, license, and title charges shall total $10 yearly per vehicle. • There will be no State or local rentals or leases. 2 ( • There will be no State or local taxes on the $10,000 of value of vehicle sales prices (this be phased in over four yearly equal steps). • All other State and local charges on vehicles vehicle uses must cease (except for the c-n;"rD" listed above and tax, fine, toll, parking, ~t::"<l!!fF' inspection, and new-plate chi,rg§2) • Any new charges would be deE~IT1E~(rlg}~, apparently invoking the voting Constitution. • No charge by,oraiclingprograms of, the State local governments sh(jllapply to telephone, cable, television, radio, internet, computer, satellite, or other telecommunication service customer accounts. • Any new charges would be rI",>m,>rI apparently invoking the H"j-;rin," Constitution. • Emergency 911 fees permitted to rates. 3 • The income tax rate. would be 4.5 percent from the current rate of 4.63 percent). • Later rates would decrease 0.1 percent yearly, I each of the first ten years that yearly income revenue net growth exceeds 6 percent, until rate reaches 3.5 percent. Other Pr,.'vil~iAI • "This voter-approveqrevenue change shall strictly enforced to reduce government -The phrase "vbter"approved revenue change" seems to referto ArticleX,Section 20 of the Constitution (TABOR). -The drafters may intend, with this proposal, reduce the TABOR permitted revenue limits .. -This may apply to gov'ernmenl:?th~lt>i)'av©. • ·.. ~ revenue change (i.e., oeOrUCIlnI 4 Other pr(]lvlslOl1 • Self-executing, severable, and a matter of statewide concern that overrides conflicting statutes and local laws. . • Prevailing plaintiffs (but not defendants) must have their legal fees and court costs repaid. • The State must audit yearly compliance "to unfair, complex charges on common basic Amenchnent 60 Would Limit Property Taxes 5 • Would add a new sectiCln (Section 10) to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or TABOR. • Proponents say the goal of this amendment is protect your home from abusive property • All provisions of Amendment 60 would begin in 2011. • Electors may votfg:oapropfgrty taxes where own real property.; . . -Persons whoowha property in a jurisdiction don't live there canvofeon property tax meaSL'" -It is not clear what is meant by electors. • Only Colorado residents? • Out-of-state (or out-of-country) residents? • Corporations or partnerships? -Proponents say their intent persons who are residents anywhere in the state who,·. ~·thj such as a cabin, condominium, I 6 • All districts must allow petitions from citizens propose property tax reductions. -Citizens can already initiate petitions for most municipalities, but not with many other local governments. -Would give citizens of school districts, moont;;,,", special districts the ability to initiate petitiol15 reduce property taxes. -Change applies to "distri,cts"a~i:clE!flnie§ Primarv Pr()vl~;IO (~qlj~}:lJ • All property tax e1e£:tiol7s November. -Change from current laW, which allows nrnn"rru elections to beheld at other times, dp"pndinoc, the type of government involved. • Property tax increases must be voted <:pn;>r;>tij from related debt questions. -Overrules TABOR case law and related tax increases to, voted in a single question. -Could result in a local gOllenlmoen\i'r approval to incur a debt, bul:nC)t:r approval to increase """~".ViP 7 • Property tax bills may list only property taxes late charges. -Current law allows for delinquent utility fees charges and for special assessments to be collected on the property tal( bill . • Enterprises and aiJthbritiesmust pay nmlnp,rfv taxes/lower ratesshall()ffset that revenue. -Intends to requir~g()yernment-owned h""in.'«. such as wat~rand sewer utilities, public ,,'rl·,,~t facilities and public hospitals, and authorities as housing authorities, urban renewal ~"th()riti and water authorities to pay property -Entities would likely need .v'~e~;o, fees to do so, meaning fees for services like water (which are not deductible for fe9,~rgl, purposes) and lower propertyt deductible). 8 • Enterprises and une(ected boards may not mandatory fees ortaxes on property. -Potential examples include stormwater or nr;,;n:,! enterprises and appointed boards such as improvement districts and downtown de'vel,opln~ authorities. • Future property tax rate increases shall expire within 10 years. -It is unclear whether the ~:~;Yi;~I~~l~r~~t~~~~~ the date of voter approval or increase is imposed. Primary Pr()vi!l;rj • Extending eXi'Jiri'nqlJF(Jbt~rtv taxes is a tax increase. -This overrules TABOR case law. It also means that i future such tax extensions will have to comply with TABOR's more restri.ctive election rules applicable to increases. • Prior revenue change (i.e., debrucing) ele'7tio{)"S:c: allowing property tax revenues to be rpf;.im,rk;'" expired. Future debrucings are expire in four years. -With the expiration of prior properlty. t,ax,je governments may hav'ee~to~~:;~:'~~:,~~~,!i:' increases pursuant to T TABOR.became effective, 9 • By 2020, schoo/districts must phase out of their 2011 tax rates (excluding debt ""rvir,' levies). The State must backfill the -The intent seems to be to finoln,,,,i11I,,'i"im education through the state gov'ernli11e"t'8 local property taxes. ,";;;;",~;;;:;;:;:;l Primary Dr,,,,,j,,c!i • Nothing in Amendf7J(Jnt 60/s to limit to the payment of bonds/ssugdbefore 201L 10 Additional Pr()"\/i!iiOllS • Property taxes after 1992 exceeding state and tax policie~ orJimits violate~ change~ weakened without state voter approval shall expire. Those law~ policie~ and limit~ im:luctim debt limit~ are restored. -This provision seems to be intended to n""O+"." case law upholding the legislature's mill levy for school districts. -Also would reinstate any delWli!l weakened or removed by 1992 . • Property taxes afl'et1992th;ltexceed the annual fixe~ dollar amount listed in their iIi~i~~f~b~a~lllottitle, as stated (J)(c) of IriO'l.IA, <;, -Requires that 11 tax .inCrease be stated as a specific amount that cannot be exceeded without further approval. -For example, a ballot question that aut:horized increase of $100,000 in the amounts are raised I by subsequent years would, authorize a maximum collection ~"',n,n, -Will require a review of the <np,rifi.-each post-1992 property tax 11 • Property tax rateslmpqsed after 1992, WlTl70U voter approval ofa bE!llot item as stated in of TABOR, shall expire. -This provision may be intended to overturn case law an expiring tax could be extended without using mandatory ballot formulation for tax increases. • The state must conduct annual audits of and enforce "strict compliance" with its nrnnprl1j tax provisions. Any person may,,,",=,,,~ .. " it. -The purpose appears to be to overrlJle6Jurt C have stated a "substantial compliance" TABOR. • Successful plaintl~f1fe always awarded attorney fees; districts receive neither. • The Amendment.svpersedes all conflicting opinions and constitutional Provisions, and always be strictly interpreted to favor ta)(pa.vet: 12 Amendme Would Limit State and Local Government Debt General Pr"vi'c:iil • Amends Article X,SeGtion 2()of the Collxaclo. Constitution ("TA60R'0 to add a new section prohibit State debt and Jimit local government financings, in addition to all other provisions TABOR. • Amends certain sections of Article XI of the Colorado Constitution to also prohibit State and limit local government fin,mi'in{ • Applies after 2010. 13 General Prov'isi(ji1!i • Redefines the obligations that will be ('orl~itlpri "debts" of the state and local governments. • Applies to "any loan, whether or not it lasts than one year; may default; is subject to ann appropriation or discretion; is called a rp,;-ifir"t participation, lease-purchase, lease-back, emergency, contingency, property lien, fund, dedicated revenue bond, nr·;,nv or offers any other excuse, ex(:ep,tiOrlf'<E1j ",.;"";;;;;;;;;;;;;; General Pn)visioiA • Traditional lease-pl:frc:!1Clse .and lease-Ieaset)atl financings would how be considered debt. • It is unclear hoW farthe new definition of will reach. -Traditional property or eq~ipment leases? -Economic development agreements? -Employment contracts? 14 • The State and its €;!nterprises, authorities and political entities are prohibited from borrowing, directly or indirectly, money or other items of value for any reason or for any period of time. • Would prohibit authorities such as the Colorrlrl Housing and Finance Authority and the Colon., Educational and Cultural Facilities Authority issuing bonds. • Would prohibit the State's annu;:irG~fuiti Tax and Revenue Anticipation Nolte·(;asn,·t borrowings and Building Excellent (BEST) and other . • Local governments.~ncf their enterprises, authorities and Oth~rlb~al political entities borrow money, .but onlYaffer a November • Will add a new voter approval requirement for transactions such as: -Enterprise borrowings -Refinancings at a lower interest rqte -Borrowings by Urban ,thn,ritiF'< -Cash flow borrowings betinn·lcio. 15 Local Govelri1I1I1~:u'itl • For local governmentsotherthan enterprises, there will be a debt limit of 10 percent of the assessed taxable Value of the real property in jurisdiction. -This excludes personal property. • This limit applies to all financings combined, including general obligation, revenl,le, leasepurchase, and other obligations. Local Govelr.,,, • This would be a'sl icjriific,ant law, even for Ant·it;".: obligation debt. -School districts have a debt limit which is npr,pr"II' 20 percent of the assessed value of all taxable property. -Most special districts have a percent of the assessed property, which is subject to would also be repealed. 16 • May only be in the form of bonded debt. • Must be subject to prepayment without penalty any time. -This is not common in the current municipal marketplace, and will likely increase interest for issuers. • Must mature within 10 years. -Current borrowings often will increase the annual rep'ayrrlerltieoSts borrowing, which may force IOCillqove,rru'l downsize projects. • "No borrowing term." • "All current borrowingsshall be paid." -Meaning of this provision unclear. Proponents argue that this prohibits local governments choosing to terminate their financings that are. currently subject to annual appropriation. 17 Other Pr<llvis;iorI5 • Except for enterprise borrowings, when a borrowing is repaid, tax rates must decline in amount equal to its planned average rpnl"vrnPlnt even if the debt is not repaid from taxes. -The proponents intend this to include when a . current lease purchase or other non-debt transaction is repaid. -The proponents state that if no pledged to the debt, which tax to decrease. • A State level borroweroflotal .government that has plans calling for newcijpitalprojectsor planned in the next couple of years should consider revisiting plans in light of the potential passage of AmlPnlrlmpnt • Obligations issued before the end of 2010 would subject to new Significant financing~ j;;~tl~~~':' imposed by Amendment 61 if it is al 18 • Any SOl( c)(3) nonprofit organization or other private planning to utilize tax~exelT1pt private activity bonds State or local issuer of private activity bonds should to complete any transactions scheduled for the next in 2010, if possible. • If a government has obligations with a final (including short-term obligations anticipation notes), it should corlsi(je(pr~lQa! those obligations no later than triggering a decrease in revenue if Arr,pn,rlmphl M;"+~;; approved. Proposition 61-WhCit1;p(Jlo • Any State or local borrower with outstanding interim should be prepared to.cQiwertto permanent fin,,,ncinn 2011. . . ... • A government that has outstanding variable rate by a letter of credit or standby bond purchase "nrppr will expire before the debt is repaid should conlsid'er,llx the term of the I facility or . fixed rate during avoid a new liquidity facility 19 Proposition 101 !3 ... .rf 61-What • If a local government is considering asking its voters property tax increase as a sustainable source of part of its long term plans,it may be worthwhile to election question for that increase in 2010. • Local governments that are I bmitiirlo tax increase to their voters this year dollar amount listed in the election question limit for all future years, and should si;z€~thl accordingly. Proposition .LV,.Lg 61 -WI-I::.ff"tf" • Local governments shbuld beaware that any electicln retain property tax revenues above the TABOR limit called "debrucing" elections) approved in 2010 or would be voided by Amendment 60. • A local government that submits ,'In election 'JU'O~LI'UJ voters seeking the extension of an 2010 should consider using the full TABOR to decrease the likelihood of void if Amendment 60 is approved. 20 Proposition 101 61 -What to do in 2010? • Local governments that rely upon property taxes or charged against property and which have unelected should consider whether it would be advisable (and is possible under law) to change their boards to an board in 2010. Election Proposi'ion 101 an Amendments 60 and Questions & Answers 21 MURRAY DA ....... L KUs;;:C ...... s;;:NMIiii:15TI;:R RILNAUO LLP AITOItNI:VSAT LAW MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Gerald Dahl, City Attorney; Dan Brennan, Chief of Police and Ken Johnstone, Director of Community Development DATE: May 28, 2010 RE: Medical Marijuana Licensing and Regulation Recently the General Assembly adopted House Bill 10-1284 concerning the regulation of medical marijuana. Through the bill, the General Assembly legalized medical marijuana businesses and clarified terms used in Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution. Significantly, House Bill 10-1284 changes the concept under which existing medical marijuana dispensaries will be able to continue in operation. Dispensaries will no longer be able to operate as "primary caregivers" under Amendment 20, but instead, those businesses will have to obtain state and local licenses to operate as "medical marijuana centers" with "optional premises cultivation operations." In addition, addition, House Bill 10-1284 creates a new type of a business called a "medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer." If the City chooses to allow the operation of these medical marijuana businesses in the community, the City must license those businesses by, at a minimum, following the state's procedural guidelines as outlined in House Bill 10-1284. Alternatively, House Bill 10-1284 authorizes the City to ban medical marijuana businesses from operating in the City. To consider those alternatives, House Bill 10-1284 also authorizes the City to extend its existing moratorium until the effective date of rules adopted by the Colorado Department of Revenue ("DOR") to implement bill's provisions. The purpose of this memorandum is to present an update to the Mayor and City Council on House Bill 1 0-1284 and to request from Council further direction on how to proceed with appropriate licensing and regulation, or banning, of medical marijuana businesses in the City. The following documents are attached for your your reference: • The "Bill Summary" for House Bill 1 0-1284; • A memorandum summary of House Bill 10-1284 from this office; • A copy of the existing Wheat Ridge draft ordinance concerning medical marijuana; and • A copy of the City of Lakewood ordinance concerning medical marijuana dispensaries. Options for Council Action Staff is proposing the following options for Council's consideration: 1. Extend the City's moratorium until the effective date of rules adopted by the DOR. 2. Adopt the City's ordinance with changes consistent with House Bill 10-1284. 3. Adopt an ordinance similar to the City of Lakewood's ordinance. 4. Adopt an ordinance banning medical marijuana businesses from operating in the City. Option 1 -Extend the City's moratorium until July 1, 2011 . Last year, the City adopted a moratorium concerning medical marijuana dispensaries which is set to expire on July 13, 2010. One of the purposes of the moratorium was to allow the state to adopt provisions so that any City regulation of medical marijuana businesses would be consistent with that law. In adopting House Bill 10-1284, the General Assembly has now created a licensing and regulatory scheme for medical marijuana businesses. However, to implement House Bill 10-1284, the state's licensing authority, the DaR, is authorized to adopt emergency rules and regulations for medical marijuana businesses. Those rule making sessions are required to begin immediately with a public hearing on the rules and regulations to be conducted by September 1, 2010. Any regulations adopted by the DaR will likely impact any regulations adopted by the City. The General Assembly recognized this issue and authorized a municipality with an existing moratorium to extend that moratorium until the DaR rules become effective. In addition, House Bill 10-1284 contains some restrictive dates for legitimizing existing medical marijuana businesses. All medical marijuana businesses that seek to be grandfathered under the bill must be considered "established" by June 30, 2010. To be established, a medical marijuana business must have an existing local business or tax license or have submitted an application for such license to a municipality that is eventually granted. The City currently has three (3) existing medical marijuana businesses that can be considered established under those provisions. Unfortunately, because the City's moratorium does not end until July 13, 2010, no new business is currently able to be grandfathered in the City. In consideration of the issues described above, Staff recommends that Council extend the City's moratorium in accordance with House Bill 10-1284, to the effective date of the DaR rules. This will provide the City with sufficient time to adopt appropriate rules and regulations in furtherance of House Bill 10-1284. Option 2 -Adopt the City's ordinance with changes consistent with House Bill 10-1284. Attached to this memorandum is the current draft of the City's ordinance licensing and regulating medical marijuana establishments. This ordinance needs to be amended to harmonize its provisions with that of House Bill 10-1284. Some changes to the City's ordinance required by House Bill 10-1284 include: o Primary caregivers cannot be licensed to operate a medical marijuana business under House Bill 10-1284. The City's ordinance was drafted based on the premise that the terms in Amendment 20 controlled who was lawfully allowed to possess and distribute medical marijuana. As such, the City's ordinance only authorized "primary caregivers" to operate medical marijuana dispensaries. Under House Bill 10-1284, that premise has changed, and primary caregivers are prohibited from operating medical marijuana businesses. In addition, House Bill 10-1284 limits the number of patients for whom a primary caregiver may provide services. As a result, the City's definitions will have to be amended accordingly. o House Bill 10-1284 authorizes local governments to license three types of medical marijuana businesses. The City's ordinance only includes two types of medical marijuana establishments whereas House Bill 10-1284 authorizes local governments to issue the following medical marijuana business licenses: 2 1. A medical marijuana center license; This is a license for a business "that sells medical marijuana to registered patients or primary caregivers .. . but is not a primary caregiver." 2. A medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer license. This is a license for a business that manufacturers a product containing medical marijuana for use or consumption by a patient. Examples of products include edibles, tinctures and ointments. The City's ordinance does not contemplate this type of operation. Council should consider whether to authorize operation of such facilities in the City. 3. An optional premises cultivation operation license, This is a license that can only be issued to either a medical marijuana center or a medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer for a location in which the licensee is authorized to grow and cultivate medical marijuana. o House Bill 10-1284 prohibits medical marijuana businesses from operating within 1000 feet of certain locations. The City's draft ordinance prohibits medical marijuana establishments from operating within 500 feet of schools, child care facilities or drug treatment and rehabilitation centers. House Bill 10-1284's limitation is 1000 feet. However, House Bill 10-1284 authorizes the City to adopt less stringent distance requirements. Thus, the 500 feet distance provision may remain as is in the City's ordinance. o House Bill 10-1284 requires that local governments name a local licensing authority. House Bill 10-1284 requires all local governments issuing licenses to medical marijuana businesses to name a local licensing authority. Council may designate an administrative office or a division thereof, such as the Tax and Licensing Division of the City Manager's office, as that local licensing authority. Alternatively, Council may designate a deliberative body, like the City's Liquor Authority, as the local licensing authority. Staff recommends that Council name the Tax and Licensing Division of the City Manager's office as the City's local licensing authority for medical marijuana businesses. Although, the Liquor Authority has expressed interest in becoming the licensing authority for medical marijuana business, staff contends that such body would make the process less efficient and effective because the requirements of House Bill 10-1284 are detailed and technical. As such, a citizen committee is unprepared to interpret and apply those requirements. Naming an administrative office is preferable because it is will be more efficient. For instance, regardless of who is named as the City's licensing authority, City staff will be involved in processing license applications. By naming a new or existing deliberative body as the licensing authority, City staff will be required to expend additional time advising that body. This would include members of the Police Department, the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office all assisting the deliberative body's application of the law. That would likely lead to a costly process. 3 Option 3 -Adopt an ordinance with provisions similar to the City of Lakewood's ordinance. Attached to this packet is the City of Lakewood ordinance concerning medical marijuana dispensaries. Council should note that this ordinance was adopted prior to the General Assembly adopting House Bill 10-1284. Thus, this ordinance needs to be amended so that it is in harmony with House Bill 10-1284 prior to its consideration by Council. The purpose of including this ordinance is to allow Council to consider a more stringent type of regulatory scheme. Lakewood's ordinance includes the following more stringent provisions: a limits the location of medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within three quarters of a mile of another medical marijuana facility. Under this provision, no medical marijuana clinic would be authorized to operate within three quarters of a mile of an existing medical marijuana clinic. This is a significant restriction on operation that is not contemplated in the City's draft ordinance. House House Bill 10-1284 would allow this type of more stringent zoning regulation. o Only allows cultivation of marijuana on-site at the retail outlet locations. The current draft of the City's ordinance requires all medical marijuana growing facilities to be off-site of a medical marijuana clinic location. The purpose for distinguishing between the retail clinic location and the industrial growing facility in the City's ordinance was due to the potential land use impacts associated with an operation that grows marijuana. The land use impacts from growing operations may include additional electrical power usage, Significant water use, chemicals and odors associated with growing plants. Those types of impacts are typically not conducive to retail locations. Thus, the City's ordinance limited growing operations to its industrial districts. If on-site cultivation is required at all medical marijuana clinic locations, Council should consider whether to prohibit medical marijuana clinics from operating in the City's commercial districts due to the potential land use impacts from cultivation operations. Under the City's draft ordinance zoning limitations, all cultivation operations must occur in the City's industrial districts. As a result, with a combined retail and cultivation operation, all of the City's medical marijuana retail outlets would be pushed into the City's industrial districts. The Police Department does not support this position. Rather, in their professional opinion, it would be safer to keep all medical marijuana retail outlets and cultivation operations in commercial districts. If Council would like to follow the Lakewood ordinance format, Staff seeks guidance from Council concerning the following two issues: Should the City require that all medical marijuana cultivation operations occur on-site at a retail medical marijuana clinic location? Should the City require that those combined operations be limited to industrial districts? Option 4 -Adopt an ordinance that bans medical marijuana businesses from from operating in the City. House Bill 10-1284 contains a local opt out provision authorizing local governments to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana businesses from operating in those communities. There are two methods by which a local government may exercise this opt out provision: o By a vote of a majority of registered electors of the local government at a regular or special election; or 4 o By a vote of a majority of the members of the governing board of the local government. Here, Council, acting as the governing board for the City, may, by majority vote, ban medical marijuana businesses from operating in the City. Alternatively, Council could refer this question to the voters of Wheat Ridge, by calling for a special coordinated election. This election would be coordinated with the statewide election set for November 2, 2010. If Council decides to pursue this route, then Staff recommends that Council also adopt the moratorium recommended in Option 1 of this memorandum to provide the City with sufficient time to consider alternatives should a vote not result in a ban. ATTACHMENTS: 1. The "Bill Summary" for House Bill 10-1284 2. A memorandum summary of House Bill 10-1284 from this office 3. A copy of the existing Wheat Ridge draft ordinance concerning medical marijuana 4. A copy of the City of Lakewood ordinance concerning medical marijuana dispensaries 5 Second Regular Session Sixty-seventh General Assembly STA TE OF COLORADO REREVISED This Versioll/m:/udes All AmelldmelJts Adopted ill ,lie Secund House LLS NO. 10-0773 .02 Michae l Dnhr HOUSE BILL 10-1284 I-lOUSE SPONSORSHIP Massey and Summers, McCann, Rice SENATE SPONSORSHIP Romer and Spence, House Committees Judiciary Appropriations Sellate Committees Local Government and Energy Appropriations 101 102 A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING REGULA TlON OF MEDICAL MARf.iiJAN~; ~ND MAKLNG AN A1'PROPwA-Tio}fTm~6R. Bill Summary (Note: This summmy applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the hOllse of introdllction, Q bill SlIIllmalY that applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at http://wlvw.!eg.state.co.us/bi llSlIlII maries.) Section 1. The bill creates the medical marijuana licensing authority (state licensing authority) in the department of revenue. The state licensing authority grants, refuses, or renews a medical marijuana center license after the licensee has received local approval. The state licensing authority also administers aspects of medical marijuana ~nDding-deootcs1}Q1J~j:.:Mi]!!Q~rit Double Imderlinim! denotes SENA'ffi amendment. Capital leiters indicate IJI!W malerillllO be lidded 10 ex/sliltg statllte. Dashes through tile lVords illdicate deletiolls from existillg stulute. ATTACHMENT! " • "ii ~ Eo "' ~ N U) ~ -P ",N o " N "''"11 ~ 0. 1"l ''' ~ ·k'" 0 ,,~ tI.1 :B 0 CIla::~ o " 0 0 ~ N XNl1 OJ 0. "~ " w E " licensure, including rulemaking. Many of the functions and duties ofthe state licensing authority are similar to those held by the state licensing authority for alcoholic beverages. Section 2. Under the bill, the department of public health and environment (department) will promulgate new rules related to standards for issuing registry identification cards, documentation for physicians who prescribe medical marijuana, and sanctions for physicians who violate the bill. A physician who certifies that a patient can use medical marijuana shall certify certain information to the deparlment and maintain a record-keeping system for his or her medical mru-ijuana patients. A physician who certifies that a patient can use medical marijuana shall not rcceive remuneration from or offer it to a primary caregiver, distributor, or any other provider of medical marijuana. The bill requires patients under 21 years of age who want to be registered medical marijuana patients to receive recommendations from 2 doctors. A primary caregiver may serve no more than 5 patients on the registry at one time, unless the deparlment allows more patients due to exceptional circumstances. A patient who is permitted to use medical marijuana must have in his or her possession a registry identification card at all times when in possession of mcdical marij uana. The bill lists various places and situations in which the patient or primary caregiver may not use or possess medical marijuana. A physician who certifies that a patient can use medical marijuana may not receive remuneration from a primary caregiver related to medical marijuana or from a medical marij uana center. The bill imposes a one-year moratorium on the opening of new medical marijuana centers, but allows current medical mru'ijuana centers to operate for a year before becoming licensed. Section 3. The bill provides an exception to the adulterated food offenses for medical marijuana centers that manufacture or seB food that contains medical marijuana if the food is labeled as containing medical marijuruJa and the label specifies the amount of medical marijuana. Sections 4, 5, and 6 make conforming amendments. I Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 2 ~!tei!'19~~'1!ll';1Jm!!JJ;g!~-j~It~:r~]mJ!~~1~{IDg~~111i'{~ 3 4 -2-1284 MURRAV DAt-tL KU~C'-'E.NMkISTkR RC:::NAUD LLP ATIORNEYS AT LAw MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council FROM: Gerald E. Dahl DATE: May 28, 2010 RE: House Bill 10-1284 concerning medical marijuana In May 2010, the Colorado General Assembly adopted House Bill 10-1284 concerning the regulation of medical marijuana which was first legalized in this state under Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution. In addition to further clarifying the terms used in Amendment 20, House Bill 10-1284 legalizes and creates a framework for the distribution, sale, cultivation and manufacture of medical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize House Bill 10-1284, provide a review of the legalization of marijuana under Amendment 20, and finally, to take an indepth look at the provisions of House Bill 10-1284'. I. Summary of House Bill 10-1284. a. Major Provisions. House Bill 10-1284 concerning the regulation of medical marijuana does the following: Adopts the "Medical Marijuana Code," C.R.S. §§ 12-43.3-101 et seq. that creates a state and local licensing model for two types of medical marijuana business operations: o The medical marijuana center; and o The medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer. Creates a third license for optional premises cultivation operations that can only be acquired by either a licensed medical rnarijuana center or a licensed medical marijuanainfused products manufacturer. Authorizes local governments to ban the operation of medical marijuana business from operating in their communities. , This memorandum does not include a specific reference to each provision in House Bill 10-1284. For more information, please refer to the bill. It can be located at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/C LlCS/C LI CS20 1 OAlcsl. nsf/fsbillcont3/0C6B6577E C60 B 1 E8872576A80029 07 E2?Open&file-1284 enr.pdf ATTACHMENT 2 Places a one year moratorium on the opening of new medical marijuana businesses starting July 1, 2010 and ending July 1, 2011 . Requires medical marijuana centers to grow 70% of their marijuana. Authorizes medical marijuana centers to sell medical marijuana to other medical marijuana centers. Requires all medical marijuana sold in medical marijuana centers and used in medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing to be grown in the State of Colorado. Only permits Colorado residents to obtain licenses. Requires license applicants to disclose all persons who have a financial interest in obtaining the license. There is no exception from this reporting requirement. Requires all owners, officers, manager, contractors, employees and other support staff working for a medical marijuana center or a medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer to obtain state identification cards. Limits a primary caregiver to serving five patients absent extraordinary circumstances. Names the Colorado Department of Revenue as the state's licensing authority and authorizes the Department to adopt emergency regulations to implement House Bill 10-1284. b. Important Dates. o December 15, 2009 The date by which an individual must have established Colorado residency in order to obtain a medical marijuana business license. o June 30, 2010 The last date in 2010 by which new medical marijuana businesses can become "established" under state law. To be established, a business must have an existing state or local business/tax license or have submitted an application for such license that is eventually granted. o July 1, 2010 The starting date of the state's moratorium. No new medical marijuana businesses may be established after that date until July 1, 2011 . o August 1, 2010 The date by which established medical marijuana businesses must submit an application for an interim state license to operate unless the business was still in the process of receiving their local license. Those in-process applicants have thirty (30) days following issuance of a local license to obtain a state license. o September 1, 2010 The date by which all established medical marijuana businesses must certify to the state that they are cultivating at least 70% of the marijuana that they sell at retail. o September 1, 2010 The date by which the Department of Revenue and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment must conduct a public hearing to receive input on any interim emergency rules adopted pursuant to House Bill 10-1284. o July 1, 2011 The end date of the state's moratorium. The date by which all medical marijuana businesses must be licensed under the Medical Marijuana Code to properly conduct business. II-Overview of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution. In the 2000 November election, Colorado voters passed Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution. Amendment 20 legalizes the medical use of marijuana by provision an exception and an affirmative defense to the state's criminal laws for patients and their primary caregivers. Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14. Under Amendment 20, a "patient" is a person who suffers from a debilitating medical condition. Amendment 20 defines "primary caregiver" as: a person other than the patient and the patient's physician who is eighteen years of age or older and has a significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition. Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14(1)(f). Upon adoption, Amendment 20 required the state to name a public agency as the entity responsible for implementing Amendment 20's provisions. In 2001 , the General Assembly named the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") as that governmental entity. See C.R.S. § 25-1 .5-106. One of the programs the CDPHE was tasked with creating was the patient registry program. Under this program, a patient submits a state application to the CDPHE with a doctor's recommendation for the use of medical marijuana in order to obtain a patient registry card. A patient in possession of a patient registry card is entitled to the exception from criminal prosecution under Amendment 20. On the CDPHE application for a registry card, the patient is afforded the opportunity to name a primary caregiver. Under Amendment 20, primary caregivers are also entitled to an exception from criminal prosecution when in possession of a registry card. However, the CDPHE has not directly issued registry cards to primary caregivers since 2004. An individual in possession of patient registry cards that name that individual as a primary caregiver is entitled to the exception from prosecution afforded patients under Amendment 20. Thus, so long as patients or primary caregivers have actual or photocopies of CDPHE registry cards with their names listed thereon, they are entitled to an exception from criminal prosecution for the medical use of marijuana. Amendment 20 defines "medical use" to include the "acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana .. . . " Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14(1)(b). The term medical use does not include cultivating, growing, dispensing, selling or purchasing marijuana. In July 2009, the CDPHE adopted a rule to define the phrase used in Amendment 20's definition of a primary caregiver, "significant responsibility for managing the well being of a patient," to mean: assisting a patient with daily activities, including but not limited to transportation or housekeeping or meal preparation or shipping or making any necessary arrangement for access to medical care or services or provision of medical marijuana. Under this definition, a primary caregiver could significantly manage the well-being of a patient solely by providing him or her with medical marijuana. Although this rule was not adopted by the CDPHE until 2009, as early as 2006, commercial operations known as medical marijuana dispensaries were being established by primary caregivers under this premise. Thus, so long as a patient registry card named the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary as that patient's primary giver, the dispensary owner was entitled to the same protections afforded the patient under Amendment 20. Those protections have limitations. Under Amendment 20, a patient and his or her primary caregiver may not possess more than two (2) ounces of medical marijuana in a usable form and not more than six (6) marijuana plants in varying stages of development at anyone time. Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14(4)(a). This limit as applied to a primary primary caregiver is cumulative as based on the number of patients for whom that primary caregiver is responsible. For example, if a primary caregiver has 10 patients, none of whom grow their own marijuana, than the primary caregiver is entitled to possess up to Sixty (60) plants. III. Substantive Review of House Bill 10-1284. a. House Bill 10-1284 is the General Assembly's response to the growth of medical marijuana dispensaries in the state. In July 2009, there were approximately 13,000 CDPHE registered patients. As of April 2010, it has been rumored that there are now more than 80,000 individuals who have submitted applications for a CDPHE registry card. Thus, in less than one year, the state has seen a 600% increase in patient registration. Due to the substantial increase in patient demand, a significant number of medical marijuana dispensaries began operating throughout the state in 2009. Most municipalities and the state were unprepared for this growth. Because the state did not have licensing requirements for primary caregivers and/or medical marijuana dispensaries, some local governments created their own regulatory systems. All of those systems were based, at a minimum, on the idea that the person operating the medical marijuana dispensary was a primary caregiver as defined in Amendment 20. House Bill 10-1284 discontinues this model by, at a minimum, prohibiting a primary caregiver from operating a medical marijuana dispensary. b. House Bill 10-1284 's new primary caregiver requirements and limitations. Section 2 of House Bill 10-1284 amends C.RS. § 25-1.5-106 to clarify the patient to primary caregiver relationship described in Amendment 20. As amended, under the new language, a primary caregiver must be a natural person who will be limited to providing services to a maximum of five (5) patients at anyone time absent exceptional circumstances. C.RS. § 25-1 .5-106 (6). Previously, there was no limit under state law on the number of patients that a primary caregiver could serve. Next, the act of supplying marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia alone will no longer allow a primary caregiver to claim that he or she has "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient." C.RS. § 25-1.5-106 (3)(b)(I). Currently, some medical marijuana dispensaries are providing additional services to their patients. Under the provisions in House Bill 10-1284, all primary caregivers will be required to provide their patients with a service(s) in additional to providing them with medical marijuana to qualify for the protections described in Amendment 20. Other provisions in House Bill 10-1284 prohibit patients from naming more than one primary caregiver at a given time. C.RS. § 25-1 .5-106(6)(b). In addition, a patient will be prohibited from naming a primary caregiver if he or she is named as a primary caregiver on another patient's registry card. C.RS. § 25-1 .5-106(6)(c). Under House Bill 10-1284, primary caregivers are prohibited from joining together to cultivate medical marijuana. C.RS. § 25-1 .5-106(5)(b). In addition, primary caregivers may not charge more than the "cost of cultivating or purchasing the medical marijuana, but may charge for caregiver services." C.RS. § 25-1 .5-106(6)(d). Due to House Bill 10-1284's provisions clarifying the role of the primary caregiver and his or her relationship with patients, it is likely that existing medical marijuana dispensaries will no longer be able to operate as primary caregivers. Those medical marijuana dispensaries will have to obtain state licenses under the model provided in House Bill 10-1284. c. House Bill 10-1284 adopts the Medical Marijuana Code. Section 1 of House Bill 10-1284 adopts the Medical Marijuana Code in a new Article 43.3 of Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Code"). Rather than legitimizing the primary caregiver model of operation for medical marijuana dispensaries, the Code legalizes a vertically integrated (seed to retail sale) business model for the distribution, sale, manufacture and cultivation of medical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products. In so doing, the General Assembly has created a new business licensing model that requires some municipal action in response. i. Local governments may ban medical marijuana businesses. Under the Code, local governments may ban medical marijuana businesses from operating in their jurisdictions. C.R.S. § 12-43.3-106. This provision is known as the local opt out provision. There are two methods by which a local government may exercise this opt out provision: • By a vote of a majority of registered electors of the local government at a regular or special election; or • By a vote of a majority of the members of the governing board of the local government. ii. State and local government licensing. Both a state and local government license are required for the operation of a medical marijuana business. If a municipality does not choose to ban medical marijuana businesses under the local opt out provisions of the Code or otherwise2 by July 1, 2011 , and does not adopt an ordinance containing licensing requirements for medical marijuana businesses, than the Code's licensing and regulatory requirements will act as the minimum licensing requirements 2 In 2009, some municipalities banned the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in their jurisdictions under their municipal zoning powers. within the municipality. Thus, it is recommended that every Colorado municipality adopt some measure of regulation as permitted under the Code. • Local licensing authority Under the Code, a local government is empowered to license medical marijuana businesses through a local licensing authority. The Code defines local licensing authority as "an authority designated by municipal or county charter, municipal ordinance or county resolution ." C.R.S. § 12-43.3-104(5). Under this provision, unless a municipal government is otherwise limited by its charter, the municipality is empowered to designate its local licensing authority. The local licensing authority is responsible for issuing and approving medical marijuana business licenses authorized in the Code. Although the Code provides a local licensing authority with the option of holding a public hearing on every application for a license, such hearing is not required. Thus, local consideration of an application for a medical marijuana business license can be a purely administrative process. If a municipality opts to require a public hearing on each application for a medical marijuana business license, that municipality must adhere to the Code's hearing requirements. These requirements include posting notice of the public hearing on the property of the proposed medical marijuana business and publicizing notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the medical marijuana business will be located at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. A local licensing authority must issue a decision on the application in writing within thirty (30) days of completing its investigation or conclusion of the public hearing. The written decision must be sent to the applicant by certified mail. Upon approval of a local license, the local licensing authority must notify the state licensing authority of that approval. A local licensing authority may request that the state conduct a concurrent review of any license application. This procedure procedure is recommended because the state may deny issuing its license even if the local government has already approved. During the concurrent review, the state may advise the municipality of "items that it finds that could result in the denial of the license application ." C.R.S. 12-43.3-302(5)(b). A local licensing authority is prohibited from issuing a license until the state license application has been approved. If a local licensing authority seeks to suspend a license issued under the Code, it must conduct a hearing pursuant to the procedures outlined in Part 6 of the Code. These procedures require that the local licensing authority notify the licensee in writing • State licensing authority Under the Code, the Colorado Department of Revenue ("DOR") is named as the state's medical marijuana licensing authority. Before the DOR will issue a medical marijuana business license, the license applicant must obtain and file a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) surety bond with the DOR for the payment of sales and use taxes. Failure to obtain this bond is grounds to deny a license. There are no provisions in the Code describing the specific licensing procedures for DOR consideration of license applications. Under the Code, the DOR is authorized to adopt emergency rules for enforcement and implementation of the Code that include: 1) Instructions for local licensing authorities and law enforcement officers; 2) Development of individual identification cards for owners, officers, managers, contractors, employees and others employed by medical marijuana businesses licensed by the DOR; 3) Minimum security requirements for operation of medical marijuana businesses; 4) Regulations for the storage, warehousing and transportation of medical marijuana; 5) Medical marijuana product labeling standards; 6) Record keeping and reporting requirements; 7) Reporting requirements for medical marijuana businesses; The DOR is required to hold a joint public hearing with the CDPHE by September 1, 2010 to receive public input on emergency rules adopted pursuant to the Code. • Licenses offered The Code authorizes state and local licensing authorities to issue three types of medical marijuana business licenses for a period not to exceed two (2) years: 1) A medical marijuana center license; A medical marijuana center is a retail location where patients will be able to obtain their medical marijuana and/or medical marijuana-infused products. Under House Bill 10-1284, if using a medical marijuana center to obtain his or her marijuana, a patient is limited to obtaining that medical marijuana from a single medical marijuana center. The patient will name his or her primary center in the application for a medical marijuana registry card. 2) A medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer license; and A medical marijuana-Infused products manufacturer produces products infused with medical marijuana that are intended to be consumed in manner other than by smoking. Examples of infused products include edible products, ointments and tinctures. None of the products produced by a manufacturer will be considered a food or drug under Colorado's Food and Drug Act, C.R.S. §§ 25-5-401 et seq. All products must be include a label stating that the product includes marijuana, that it has been produced without regulatory oversight and that there may be risks associated with consumption of the product. Medical marijuana from five (5) centers may be incorporated into a single infused product. 3) An optional premises cultivation operation license. An optional premises cultivation operation is the location where a medical marijuana center or a medical marijuana-infused product manufacturer grows marijuana. Although the Code describes these licenses as separate and distinct, only a licensed medical marijuana center or medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer may obtain an optional premises cultivation license. Under the Code, a medical marijuana center must obtain an optional premises cultivation license because it is required to cultivate seventy percent (70%) of the marijuana that the center sells at retail. A center may only obtain the remaining thirty percent of medical marijuana that it sells at retail from another licensed medical marijuana center. A medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer is not required to cultivate medical marijuana used in its products and is thus not required to obtain an optional premises license unless and until it seeks to cultivate marijuana. Some in the municipal government community have opined that the optional premises cultivation license is jurisdictionally restrained to the location of the medical marijuana center or medical marijuana-infused product manufacturer. So long as a licensee cultivates its marijuana at its optional premises cultivation operation, there is no restriction or requirement in House Bill 10-1284, that the licensee operate those premises within a single jurisdiction. The Colorado Municipal League expects that this issue will be resolved through DOR rulemaking and/or in the 2011 legislative session. The League expects the state to require each rnedical marijuana center to obtain an optional premises cultivation operation license within each jurisdiction that the licensee operates a medical marijuana center. • Limitations on licensees The Code prohibits a significant number of persons from serving as licensees including: 1) Persons not of good moral character. This provision is expanded to include corporations whose officers, directors or stockholders are not of good moral character and any person who employs, is assisted by or is financed by a person who is not of good moral character; 2) A licensed physician that makes recommendations concerning the use of medical marijuana to patients under Amendment 20; 3) A person under twenty-one years of age; 4) A person who has discharged a sentence for a felony conviction within the past five years; 5) A person who has been convicted of felony drug possession, distribution or use; 6) A person who employs a person at a medical marijuana business who has failed a criminal background check; 7) A person whom the CDPHE has prohibited from acting as a primary caregiver; 8) Any law enforcement personnel including prosecutors; 9) Any employee of a state or local licensing authority; and 10) Any individual who was not a resident of Colorado as of December 15, 2009. • Application requirements Under House Bill 10-1284, license applicants must submit the name and address of every person who is an owner, officer, director or manager of the applicant. The applicant must also include the name and address of every person who has provided financing for operation of the licensed premises. Each of those individuals must submit to and pass a criminal history background investigation. The applicant must also submit a copy of his or her fingerprints to the DOR for the purposes of conducting a criminal history background investigation. Those fingerprints will be kept on file with the license application. Local governments may require applicants to submit a license application fee with the local license application. In addition, applicants must provide the plan for the interior layout for licensed premises showing where marijuana will be stored, grown or manufactured. • Some local licensing and zoning law control Under the Code, municipalities are authorized to adopt more stringent licensing standards pursuant to their zoning and general welfare powers. These standards include, but not limited to, distance limitations between licensed premises and reasonable restrictions on the size of licensed premises. The Code limits licensed premises from locating within 1000 feet of any schools, alcohol and drug treatment facilities and child care facilities. Under the Code, a municipality may adopt a shorter distance requirement. However, when the local licensing authority approves a license application, it must identify whether a school, alcohol and drug treatment facility or child care facility is within 1000 feet of the licensed premises. In addition, the Code defers to local sign laws and regulations. All licensee's are prohibited from displaying signs not in conformity with local sign code provisions. • Limited access areas and employee identification requirements The Code restricts who is authorized to enter portions of a licensed medical marijuana business. All licensed operations will be required to clearly designate the limited access areas within the licensed premises. Limited access areas are those areas where medical marijuana is "grown, cultivated, stored, weighed, displayed, packaged, sold, or possessed for sale by the licensee." Only the following individuals may access those areas: 1) Patients and primary caregivers with CDPHE registry cards and appropriate state identification cards, e.g. driver's license; 2) The licensee's employees, owners, managers, directors, contractors and support staff with appropriate DOR identification cards; 3) DOR investigators; 4) Local law enforcement officers; and 5) Local licensing authority investigators. Under the Code, each person employed by the licensee must obtain a DOR identification card and submit to and pass a background investigation. A licensee may not employ any person until such time as that person passes the criminal background investigation. Failure to follow this requirement will result in an immediate suspension of a medical marijuana license. All employees must display their DOR identifications while in limited access areas. A licensee must notify the DOR in writing within ten (10) days of when an owner, officer or employee is no longer associated with the licensee. That individual must surrender the identification card to the DOR prior to the notification date. • Prohibited acts Under the Code, the following are prohibited: 1) No person may consume medical marijuana in a medical marijuana center; 2) No licensee shall allow consumption of medical marijuana upon its licensed premises. 3) No medical marijuana business may operate without obtaining the required state and local licenses. 4) No medical marijuana center may possess more than two ounces of a usable form of medical marijuana or six (6) plants for each patient who has named the center as their primary center unless authorization to exceed these amounts has been obtained. 5) No licensee shall fail to report a change of managers. 6) No licensee shall sell medical marijuana except from the specific location designated in the license. 7) No licensee may sell or distribute marijuana except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. 8) No licensee may sell medical marijuana below its cost or otherwise violate the state's anti-competitive laws. 9) No licensee may acquire medical marijuana from or sell medical marijuana to an unlicensed person. • Disciplinary actions Under the Code, local licensing authorities are authorized to suspend or revoke a license and fine licensees for violating any provisions of the Code or the local licensing requirements. After proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the licensing authority may suspend a license for a maximum of six (6) months except in the case of a summary suspension. A summary suspension is authorized when the licensing authority finds that the licensee has committed a deliberate or willful violation or that the public health, safety and welfare require imperative action. All summary suspensions must proceed promptly to a suspension and/or revocation hearing as provided in C.R.S. § 24-4-104(4). Local licensing authorities must report to the DOR all actions that it takes that result in fines, suspensions, or revocations concerning a medical marijuana business license. iii. Local governments are authorized to extend moratoria until after the effective of any rules adopted by the Department of Revenue. In response to the growth of medical marijuana dispensaries, many municipalities adopted temporary moratoria on the acceptance and processing of business licenses and permits in order to allow sufficient time to consider appropriate local regulation of those business operations consistent with state law. The Code authorizes those municipalities to extend their moratoria until the effective date of the rules adopted by the DOR pursuant thereto. d. Other Issues in House Bill 10-1284. • Home deliverv. Medical marijuana centers and primary caregivers are prohibited from delivering medical marijuana to a patient's home unless that patient has obtained a waiver from the CDPHE. • Smoking clubs. The bill prohibits the formation of a business that permits patients to smoke or consume medical marijuana on-site. • State Sunshine Law. A state or local license application, a state or local license and the location for any optional premises cultivation operation will NOT be considered a "public record" under the Colorado Open Records Act. C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)(b)(XIII). • Law enforcement access to records. The COP HE must provide twenty-four hour per day access to its patient and primary caregiver registry information to law enforcement personnel to the extent that the release of such information is consistent with the provisions in Amendment 20. If a patient or primary caregiver has not registered with the cDPHE then the agency is authorized to respond accordingly to law enforcement inquiries. • Possession and use limitations. Under House Bill 10-1284, no person may possess medical marijuana on the grounds of school or in a school bus or engage in the use of medical marijuana in any vehicle, in a correctional facility, while subject to incarceration, in a place open to the public or in plain view, or if the person does not suffer from a debilitating medical condition. IV. Conclusion. There is much discussion in the state concerning House Bill 10-1284 and the expected rules and regulations that will be adopted by the DOR and the cDPHE for its implementation. Because this is a new business model in the state, those discussions and the law concerning the regulation of medical marijuana will take time to fully develop. As those events occur, our office will keep you up to date. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _ _ _ _ Council Bill No. __ _ Ordinance No. ___ _ Series 2010 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 11 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XII CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS WHEREAS, in the November 2000 general election, the voters of the State of Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution ("Amendment 20") which authorizes and limits the sale of medical marijuana for use in the treatment of debilitating medical conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been made aware of a proliferation of businesses wishing to cultivate medical marijuana and/or provide it to those who qualify under state law; and WHEREAS, the City has no current land use or business regulation governing the operation of businesses or cooperatives that cultivate and/or offer medical marijuana for sale and/or distribution ("Medical Marijuana Establishments"); and WHEREAS, the City imposed a one hundred eighty (180) day moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, and approval of all applications for City licenses and licenses relating to the operation of Medical Marijuana Establishments to allow the City staff and the City Council to investigate the City's ability to regulate such establishments, and to develop and implement any appropriate regulations consistent with state law; and WHEREAS, because marijuana is a controlled substance under Colorado and federal law the use as contemplated by Amendment 20 has the potential for abuse that should be closely monitored and regulated by local authorities to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, if not closely monitored and regulated the presence of marijuana, even for the purposes legally permitted by Amendment 20, can potentially cause an increase in illegal activities within the City affecting the health, safety, order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, if Medical Marijuana Establishments operating pursuant to Amendment 20 were allowed to be established and to operate without appropriate local regulation of their location, such establishments might be established in areas that would conflict with the City's comprehensive land use plan; be inconsistent with surrounding uses; or otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. ATTACHMENT 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Moratorium Concluded. The moratorium imposed by Ordinance 1453 on September 14, 2009 shall conclude upon the effective date of this ordinance .. Section 2. Chapter 11 of the Code is hereby amended by the adoption of a new Article XII to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 11-270. Sec. 11-271 . Sec. 11-272. Sec. 11-273. Sec. 11-274. Sec. 11 -275. Sec. 11-276. Sec. 11-277. Sec. 11-278. Sec. 11-279. Sec. 11-280. Sec. 11-281. Sec. 11-282. Sec. 11-283. Sec. 11-284. Sec. 11 -285. Sec. 11-286. Sec. 11-287 Sec. 11-288. Sec. 11-289. Sec. 11-290. Sec. 11-291 . Sec. 11 -292. Article XII. Medical Marijuana Establishments Authority Definitions Medical marijuana establishment license required. Application for license. Application fee. Standards for issuance of license. Authority to recommend and impose conditions on license. Contents of license Denial of license. Notice of decision. Appeal of denial or conditional approval approval of license. License not transferable. Duration of license, renewal. Duties of licensee. Hearing, suspension, revocation of license Operation limitations for medical marijuana clinics. Operation limitations for medical marijuana growers. Prohibited locations. Signage. Required warnings to be posted. Paraphernalia. Taxes. Penalties, injunctive relief. Sec. 11-270. Authority. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has the power to adopt this article pursuant to: (a) The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, article 20 of title 29, C.R.S.; (b) Part 3 of article 23 of title 31 , C.R.S. (concerning municipal zoning powers); (c) Section 31-15-103, C.R.S. (concerning municipal police powers); 2 (d) Section 31-15-401, C.R.S. (concerning municipal police powers); (e) Section 31-15-501 , C.R.S. (concerning municipal authority to regulate businesses); (f) The authority granted to home rule municipalities by article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and (g) The powers contained in the Wheat Ridge City Charter. Sec. 11-271. Definitions. As used in this article the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Administrative hearing officer has the meaning provided in section 2-87 of this code. Amendment 20 means the voter initiated amendment to the Colorado Constitution adopted November 7,2000 which added Section 14 of Article XVIII to the Colorado Constitution. Applicant means and includes: (1) If an individual, that person making an application for a license under this article; (2) If a partnership, the partners owning ten (10) percent or more of the partnership, or all partners if there are ten (10) or total partners in the partnership which is making application for a license under this article; (3) If a corporation, the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, the directors, manager and each stockholder owning ten (10) percent or more of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Application means an application for license submitted pursuant to this article. City Manager shall have the meaning provided in section 2-26 of this Code. Good cause means and includes (1) When a licensee violates, does not meet, or fails to comply with any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this article and any rule and regulation promulgated pursuant to this article; (2) When the licensee has failed to comply with any special terms or conditions that were placed on its license at the time the license was issued , or that were placed on 3 its license in prior disciplinary proceedings or that arose in the context of potential disciplinary proceedings; or (3) When the licensee's medical marijuana clinic has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the pubic health, welfare, or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the medical marijuana clinic is located. Evidence to support such a finding can include: (i) a pattern of disorderly conduct as defined in section 11 -54(a)(1) of this code within or immediately adjacent to the premises of the licensee; (ii) a pattern of drug-related criminal conduct within the premises of the medical marijuana clinic, or in the immediate area surrounding the medical marijuana clinic; (iii) a pattern of criminal conduct directly related to or arising from the operation of the medical marijuana clinic; (iv) a conviction in any local, state or federal court of any employee of a licensee for the distribution or sale of marijuana. License means a license to operate a medical marijuana establishment issued issued by the City pursuant to this article. Licensee means the person or entity to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this article. Marijuana means all parts of the plant cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin. It does not include fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, or sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination if these items exist apart from any other item defined as "marijuana" herein. "Marijuana" does not mean marijuana concentrate which includes hashish, tetrahydrocannabinols, or any alkaloid, salt, derivative, preparation, compound, or mixture, whether natural or synthesized, of tetrahydrocannabinols. Medical marijuana clinic means the use of any property or structure within the City by primary care-givers to distribute, transmit, give, dispense, or otherwise provide marijuana in any manner to their patients in accordance with Amendment 20 and its implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. Medical marijuana establishment means either a medical marijuana grower or a medical marijuana clinic. Medical marijuana grower means the use of any property or structure within the City by primary care-givers for the purposes of growing medical marijuana for distribution to their patients in accordance with Amendment 20 and its implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. Patient has the meaning provided in Amendment 20, the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. 4 Primary care-giver has the meaning provided in Amendment 20, the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. (b) In addition to the definitions provided in subsection A of this section, the other defined terms in Amendment 20 are incorporated into this article by reference. Sec. 11-272. Medical marijuana establishment license required. No person or entity shall operate a medical marijuana establishment within the City without a valid medical marijuana establishment license issued in accordance with this article. This requirement to obtain a medical marijuana establishment license is in addition to the requirement to obtain a business license pursuant to Article II of this chapter and any other license or permit as so required by the City. Sec. 11-273. Application for license. (a) A person seeking to obtain a license pursuant to this article shall file an application with the Tax and Licensing Division on a form provided by the Tax and Licensing Division. (b) An application for a license under this article shall contain the following information: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and last four digits of the applicant's social security number; 2. The name, address, telephone number and last four digits of the social security number for each primary care-giver authorized to operate out of the applicant's proposed location; 3. The street address of the proposed medical marijuana establishment; 4. If the applicant is not the owner of the proposed location of the medical marijuana establishment, a notarized statement from the owner of such property authorizing the submission of the application; 5. A completed set of the applicant's fingerprints and the fingerprints of each primary care-giver authorized to operate out of the applicant's proposed location; 6. The number of patients for whom the applicant serves as primary care-giver and the number of patients for whom each primary caregiver authorized to operate out of the applicant's proposed location serve as primary care-giver; 7. A A business plan that contains the following items: 5 a. A security plan that includes but is not limited to a description of the security provisions and systems to be utilized; b. Hours of operation; c. Number of employees and/or volunteers expected to be onsite; d. An external lighting plan; and e. A description of any cultivation activities including; I. Where plants will be grown; II. The expected number of plants that will be grown on site; III. A description of the internal lighting system; iv. A list of the fertilizers, pesticides and/or other chemicals to that will be utilized; and v. Expected water usage. 8. A statement by the applicant that the applicant and the applicant's employees understand that they may be subject to prosecution under federal law; 9. A statement by the applicant that the applicant is a primary caregiver; 10. A statement by the applicant that the City accepts no legal liability in connection with the approval and subsequent operation of the medical marijuana establishment; and 11. Any additional information that the Tax and Licensing Division reasonably determines to be necessary in connection with the investigation and review of the application. Sec. 11-274. Application Fee. An applicant shall pay to the City a non-refundable application fee when the application is filed. The purpose of the fee is to cover the administrative costs of processing the application. The amount of the application fee shall be fixed by the City Council by motion. Sec. 11-275. Standards for issuance of license. The Tax and Licensing Division shall issue a license under this article when: (a) The application (including any required attachments and submissions) is complete and signed by the applicant; (b) the code; The applicant has paid the application fee and any other fees required by (c) The application does not contain a material falsehood or misrepresentation; 6 (d) The application complies with all of the requirements of this article; (e) Written approval from the City of Wheat Ridge Police Department as to: 1. The applicant's business plan; and 2. The applicant's criminal background. No written approval will be issued to an applicant whose criminal history reflects a prior conviction for a felony offense. (f) Written approval from the Community Development Department that the location and zoning requirements imposed by this article and Section 26-204 of the Code have been met. Sec. 11-276. Authority to recommend and impose conditions on license. (a) Any City department shall have the authority to recommend reasonable terms and conditions on a license as may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to obtain compliance with the requirements of this article and applicable law. (b) The Tax and Licensing Division is authorized to approve a license subject to such reasonable conditions as required by the City. (c) In the event an application application is conditionally approved, the Tax and Licensing Division shall clearly set forth in writing the conditions of approval. Sec. 11-277. Contents of license. A license shall contain the following information: (a) The name of the licensee; (b) The date of the issuance of the license; (c) The address at which the licensee is authorized to operate the medical marijuana establishment; (d) Any special conditions of approval imposed upon the license; and (e) The date of the expiration of the license. Sec. 11-278. Denial of license. The Tax and Licensing Division shall deny an application for a license under this article when the applicant fails to meet all of the standards setforth in section 11-275. Sec. 11-279. Notice of denial or conditional approval of license. The Tax and Licensing Division shall notify the applicant of its decision to deny or conditionally approve the application in writing within three business days of rendering the decision. Notice shall be given by mailing a copy of the decision decision to the applicant by regular mail, 7 postage prepaid, at the address shown in the application. Notice shall be deemed to have been properly given upon mailing. Sec. 11-280. Appeal of denial or conditional approval of license. (a) An applicant has the right to appeal the denial of an application or condition imposed thereon to an administrative hearing officer. (b) The applicant must file a written notice of appeal with the Tax and Licensing Division within fifteen days after the date of mailing of the denial or conditional approval of the application. (c) Upon notice from the Tax and Licensing Division that the applicant has satisfied the requirement in subsection (b), the City Manager shall appoint an administrative hearing officer. (d) The applicant shall be provided with not less than ten days' prior written notice of the appeal hearing to be held by the administrative hearing officer. (e) applicant. The burden of proof in an appeal filed under this section shall be on the (f) If the administrative hearing officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Tax and Licensing Division was correct, the administrative hearing officer shall uphold that decision. If the administrative hearing officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the Tax and Licensing was incorrect, the administrative hearing officer shall set aside the denial and issue the license. The administrative hearing officer may impose additional conditions on the license issued (if it was previously denied) or the conditions of approval stricken or modified. (g) Any decision made by the administrative hearing officer pursuant to this section shall be a final decision and may be appealed to the district court pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicant's failure to timely appeal the decision is a waiver of the applicant's right to contest the denial or conditional approval of the application. Sec. 11-281. License not transferable. A license is non-transferable and nonassignable. Any attempt to transfer or assign a license voids the license. Sec. 11-282. Duration of license, renewal. (a) Each license issued pursuant to this article shall expire on the first day of the month one year from the month of issuance, and may be renewed as provided in this section. (b) An application for the renewal of an existing license shall be made to the Tax and Licensing Division not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date of 8 expiration. No application for renewal shall be accepted by the Tax and Licensing Division after the date of expiration. The City Manager or his or her designee may waive the forty-five (45) days time requirement set forth in this subsection if the applicant demonstrates adequate justification. (c) If a renewal application has not been filed by a licensee, the City shall send a renewal notice no less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the license. (d) At the time of the filing of an application for the renewal of an existing license the applicant shall pay a renewal fee in an amount fixed by the City Council by motion. Sec. 11-283. Duties of licensee. Each licensee shall: (a) Post the license in a conspicuous location on the premises of the medical marijuana clinic; (b) Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the license; (b) Comply with all of the requirements of this article; (c) Comply with all other applicable City ordinances; (d) Comply with all state laws and administrative regulations pertaining to the medical use of marijuana, including, but not limited to, Amendment 20; section 18-18-406.3, C.R.S.; and the administrative regulations issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found at 5 CCR 1006-2, all as amended from time to time; (e) Comply with all applicable federal laws, rules, or regulations, other than a federal law, rule or regulation concerning the possession, sale or distribution of marijuana that conflicts with Amendment 20; (f) Permit inspection of its records and operation by the Tax and Licensing Division for the purpose of determining the licensee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the license and the City's tax laws; and (g) Permit inspection of the premises by authorized City officials during permitted business hours for the purpose of determining compliance with this Article. Sec. 11-284. Hearing, suspension, revocation of license. (a) A license issued pursuant to this article may be suspended or revoked by an administrative hearing officer after a hearing for the following reasons: 1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or a false statement of material fact contained in the license application; 9 2. A violation of any City, state, or federal law or regulation, other than a federal law or regulation concerning the possession, sale or distribution of marijuana that conflicts with Amendment 20; 3. A violation of any of the terms and conditions of the license; 4. A violation of any of the provisions of this article; or 5. Good cause. (b) Request for suspension or revocation, notice of hearing, burden. 1. Any authorized City official may request in writing that a license issued under this article be suspended or revoked. 2. The City Manager shall appoint an administrative hearing officer to preside over the hearing on the suspension or revocation of a license. 3. The administrative hearing officer shall a. Set a date and time on which to determine whether to revoke or suspend such license; b. Notify the licensee in writing of the date and time of the hearing at least ten (10) days prior to conducting such hearing. Such notice shall be sent by regular mail postage prepaid. Notice is deemed to have been given upon mailing; c. Conduct a hearing based on the allegations provided in the written request. This shall be an informal hearing where no rules of evidence shall apply. The burden shall be on the City to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee has violated the provisions in subsection 11-284 (a); and d. Provide a written decision to the licensee within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing. (c) In deciding whether a license should be suspended or revoked, and in deciding what conditions to impose in the event of a suspension, if any, the administrative hearing officer shall consider: 1. The nature and seriousness of the violation; 2. Corrective action, if any, taken by the licensee; 10 3. Prior violation(s), if any, by the licensee; 4. The likelihood of recurrence; 5. All circumstances surrounding the violation; 6. Whether the violation was willful; 7. The number of previous violations by the licensee; and 8. Previous sanctions, if any, imposed against the licensee. (d) In connection with the suspension of a license, the administrative hearing officer may impose reasonable conditions thereon. (e) Any decision made by the administrative hearing officer pursuant to this section shall be a final decision and may be appealed to the district court pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicant's failure to timely appeal the decision is a waiver of the applicant's right to contest the decision. (f) No fee previously paid by a licensee in connection with the application shall be refunded if such license is suspended or revoked. Sec. 11-285. Operation limitations for medical marijuana clinics. Medical marijuana clinics shall be subject to the following additional requirements: (a) No marijuana may be distributed, sold, given away, or transferred at a medical marijuana clinic except to the licensee's patients. (b) All product storage shall be indoors. Products, accessories, and associated paraphernalia shall not be visible from a public sidewalk or right of way. All products shall be in a sealed/locked cabinet except when being accessed for distribution. (c) A medical marijuana clinic may be open seven days per week from the hours of 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. (d) No on-site consumption of marijuana is allowed on the premises. (e) The sale or consumption of alcohol on the premises is prohibited. (f) Cultivation, growing, processing. The growing, cultivation, or processing of marijuana on or within the premises of a medical marijuana clinic is prohibited. (g) All medical marijuana clinics shall provide adequate security on the premises. At a minimum the security shall include: 11 1. Security surveillance cameras installed to monitor the main entrance along the interior and exterior of the premises and all other entrances or exits only along the interior of the premises. Security video shall be preserved for at least 72 hours by the licensee; 2. Robbery and burglary alarm systems that are professionally monitored and maintained in good working condition; 3. Exterior lighting that illuminates the exterior walls of the business during evening hours and is compliant with the City Code; and 4. A locking safe permanently affixed to the premises that is suitable for storage of the entire inventory of saleable marijuana. (h) No person under the age of eighteen (18) is permitted on the premises when not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Sec. 11 -286. Operation limitations for medical marijuana growers. Medical marijuana growers shall be subject to the following additional requirements: (a) A medical marijuana grower may not: 1. Distribute, sell, give away, or transfer a usable form of marijuana or marijuana plants on or from its premises except to its patients. 2. Distribute sell, give away, or transfer other products, accessories, or associated paraphemalia of any kind on or from its growing premises. (b) A medical marijuana grower may be open seven days a week during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (c) No on-site consumption of marijuana is allowed on the premises. (d) The sale or consumption of alcohol on the premises is prohibited. (e) Cultivation, growing, processing. The growing, cultivation, or processing of marijuana on or within the premises of a medical marijuana grower: 1. Shall be conducted indoors in such a manner that marijuana plants at any stage of development are not visible from a public sidewalk or right-of-way; 2. Shall be prohibited unless the operation is equipped with a proper ventilation system that filters out the odor of marijuana so that the 12 odor is not capable of being detected by a person with a normal sense of smell at the exterior of the clinic or any adjoining business, parcel or tract of real property. (f) All medical marijuana growers shall provide adequate security on the premises. At a minimum the security shall include: 1. Security surveillance cameras installed to monitor all entrances and exits of the premises. Security video shall be preserved for at least 72 hours by the licensee; 2. Robbery and burglary alarm systems that are professionally monitored and maintained in good working condition; 3. Exterior lighting that illuminates all entrances and exits of the business during evening hours and is compliant with the City Code; and 4. A locking safe permanently affixed to the premises that is suitable for storage of the entire inventory of usable marijuana. (g) No person under the age of eighteen (18) is permitted on the premises when not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Sec. 11-287. Prohibited locations. (a) Except as provided in subsection e of this section, no medical marijuana establishment shall be located at a location that does not conform to the requirements of this section. (b) No medical marijuana establishment shall be located: 1. Within 500 feet of a licensed child care facility; 2. Within 500 feet of any educational institution or school, college or university, either public or private; and 3. Within 500 feet of any drug rehabilitation or drug treatment center. (c) The distances described in subsection (b) shall be computed by direct measurement from the nearest property line of the land used for child care, school, or halfway house purposes to the nearest portion of the building housing the medical marijuana establishment using a straight line. (d) Each medical marijuana establishment shall be operated from a permanent location. No medical marijuana establishment shall be licensee to operate from a moveable, mobile, or transitory location. 13 (e) The suitability of a location for a medical marijuana establishment shall be determined at the time of the issuance of the first license for such establishment. The fact that changes in the neighborhood that occur after the issuance of the first license might render the site unsuitable for a medical marijuana establishment under this section shall not be grounds to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the license for such establishment so long as the license for the establishment remains in effect. Sec. 11-288. Signage. (a) All signage for a medical marijuana establishment shall comply with the requirements of chapter 26 of this code. (b) No licensee shall display a sign for the medical marijuana establishment that contains the word "marijuana," "cannabis," or any other word or phrase commonly understood to refer to marijuana unless such word or phrase is immediately preceded or followed by the word "medical." Sec. 11-289. Required warnings to be posted. There shall be posted in a conspicuous location in each medical marijuana establishment a legible sign containing the following warnings: (a) A warning that the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a violation of state and federal laws; (b) A warning that the use of medical marijuana may impair a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery, and that it is illegal under state law to drive a motor vehicle or to operate machinery when under the influence of or impaired by marijuana; (c) A warning that loitering in or around the medical marijuana establishment is prohibited by state law; (d) A warning that possession and distribution of marijuana is a violation of federal law; and (e) A warning that no person under the age of eighteen (18) is permitted on site without the presence of his or her parent or legal guardian. Sec. 11-290. Paraphernalia. Devices, contrivances, instruments, and paraphernalia for inhaling or otherwise consuming marijuana including, but not limited to, rolling papers and related tools, water pipes, and vaporizers may lawfully be sold at a medical marijuana clinic. Such items may be sold or provided only to patients or primary caregivers. Sec. 11-291. Taxes. Each licensee shall collect and remit sales tax on all medical marijuana, paraphernalia, and other tangible personal property sold by the licensee at 14 the medical marijuana establishment according to the provisions of Code chapter 22 and any regulations issued pursuant to it. Sec. 11-292. Penalties, injunctive relief. (a) It is a misdemeanor offense for any person to violate any provision of this article. Any person convicted of having violated any provision of this article shall be punished as set forth in section 1-5 of this code. (b) The operation of a medical marijuana establishment without a valid license issued pursuant to this article may be enjoined by the City in an action brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 3. Section 26-123 of the Code, entitled Definitions, is hereby amended by the addition of the following terms: Medical marijuana clinic has the meaning provided in Article XII of Chapter 11 of this code. Medical marijuana grower has the meaning provided in Article XII of Chapter 11 of this code. Section 4. The Table of Uses for Commercial and Industrial Districts provided for in Section 26-204 of the Code is hereby amended as follows: Uses Notes NC RC C-1 C-2 I Medical and dental Pharmacies and P P P P P offices, clinics or optical stores laboratories, excluding are accessory substance abuse use clinics MEDICAL P P P MARIJUANA CLINICS MEDICAL P MARIJUANA GROWERS Mini-warehouses for P P inside storage Section 5. Police Power Finding. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the order, comfort and convenience of the City of Wheat Ridge and the inhabitants thereof. 15 Section 6. Authority. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that it has the power to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to: (i) the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, Article 20 of Title 29, C.RS.; (ii) Part 3 of Article 23 of Title 31, C.RS. (concerning municipal zoning powers); (iii) Section 31-15-103, C.RS. (concerning municipal police powers); (iv) Section 31 -15-401, C.RS. (concerning municipal police powers); (v) Section 31-15-501 (concerning municipal power to regulate businesses); (vi) the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and (vii) the powers contained in the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Home Rule Charter (the "Charter"). Section 7. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption as permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this __ day of , 2010, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of_ to _, this day of ,2010. SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2010. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney 16 First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 17 0-2010-1 AN ORDINANCE FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/10 AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.51 CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARE-GIVER FACILITIES AND AMENDING TITLE 17, ARTICLES 2, 5,9,13,19, AND 22 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LOCATION OF CARE-GIVER FACILITIES WHEREAS, in the November 2000 general election, the voters of the State of Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution ("Amendment 20") which authorizes and limits the sale of medical marijuana for use in the treatment of debilitating medical conditions. Amendment 20 added Section 14 to Article 18 to the Colorado Constitution, and created a limited exception from criminal liability under Colorado law (as opposed to federal law) for seriously ill persons who are in need of marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under the limited, specified circumstances described in Amendment 20; and WHEREAS, federal and state law prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana generally, and marijuana sales have never been specifically addressed in the Lakewood Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the adoption of Amendment 20, marijuana is still a controlled substance under Colorado and federal law. As a result, making it legal for a person to obtain, possess, cultivate, grow, use, or distribute marijuana, even for medical use as contemplated by Amendment 20, has the potential for abuse that should be closely monitored and regulated by local authorities to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, if not closely monitored and regulated, the presence of marijuana, even for the purposes legally permitted by Amendment 20, can potentially lead to an increase in illegal activities within the City affecting the health, safety, order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, marijuana is a valuable controlled substance and the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes and the storage of large volumes of marijuana is reasonably likely to lead to robberies, burglaries, and other related crimes; and WHEREAS, in fact several instances of aggravated robbery, burglary, and theft related to the sale of medical marijuana have recently occurred within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been made aware of a proliferation of businesses wishing to dispense medical marijuana and/or provide it to those who qualify under state law; and ATTACHMENT 4 FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City has no current land use or business regulations governing the cultivation, distribution, or use of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, if businesses wishing to dispense medical marijuana pursuant to Amendment 20 were allowed to be established and to operate without appropriate local regulation, such establishments might conflict with the City's comprehensive land use plan, be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the concentration of one type of business is not conducive to the need for a diversity of businesses to create a balanced neighborhood and an invigorated economy; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lakewood finds and determines that it is necessary to enact an ordinance to provide for the licensing and location of Caregiver Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Lakewood, Colorado, that: SECTION 1. A new Chapter 5.51 is hereby added to the Lakewood Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 5.51 Medical Marijuana 5.51 .010 Purpose. A. It is the purpose of this Chapter to adopt reasonable regulations governing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, referred to herein as "Care-giver Facilities," consistent with the provisions of Amendment 20 and the statutes and administrative regulations implementing Amendment 20, including: 1.. Requiring that any business dispensing medical marijuana pursuant to Amendment 20 ("Care-giver Facility") be operated in a safe manner that does not endanger the public welfare; 2. . Mitigating potential negative impacts that Care-giver Facilities might cause on surrounding properties and persons; and 3. Establishing a non-discriminatory mechanism by which the City can control, through appropriate regulation, the location and operation of Care-giver Facilities within the City. B. Nothing in this Chapter allows a person to: FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 3 1. Engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; 2. Possess, cultivate, grow, use, or distribute marijuana that is otherwise illegal under applicable law; or 3. Engage in any activity related to the possession, cultivation, growing, use, or distribution of marijuana that is not otherwise permitted under the laws of the City or the State of Colorado. 5.51.020 Definitions. A. As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall be defined as follows: "Amendment 20" means the voter-initiated amendment to the Colorado Constitution adopted November 7,2000 which added Section 14 of Article 18 to the Colorado Constitution. "Applicant" means and includes an individual who is a Primary Care-giver and who is making an application for a license under this Chapter. "Care-giver Facility" means a business operated by a Primary Care-giver on any property or in any structure within the City for the purpose of cultivating, processing, preparing, distributing, transmitting, dispensing, or otherwise providing marijuana in any manner or form to patients in accordance with Amendment 20 and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City of Lakewood or his/her designee. "License" means a license to operate a Care-giver Facility issued by the City pursuant to this Chapter to a Primary Care-giver. "Licensee" means the person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this Chapter. A Licensee is an individual who is a Primary Care-giver authorized to distribute, transmit, dispense, or otherwise provide marijuana to patients only in an approved Care-giver Facility or by delivery from a Care-giver Facility. "Patient" has the meaning provided in Amendment 20 and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 4 "Primary Care-giver" has the meaning provided in Amendment 20 and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. B. In addition to the definitions provided in Subsection A of this Section, the other defined terms in Amendment 20 are incorporated by reference into this Chapter as if those terms were defined herein. 5.51.030 License Required to Operate a Care-giver Facility. A. No person shall operate or cause or permit the operation of a Care-giver Facility within the City without having first obtained a valid Care-giver Facility license pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. The requirement to obtain a Care-giver Facility license is in addition to the requirement to obtain a sales tax license and any other license required by the City. No sales tax license may be issued for a Care-giver Facility until a license has been issued pursuant to this Chapter. B. This licensing requirement shall apply regardless of whether or not a Care-giver Facility has has commenced operation prior to the adoption date of this Chapter. Any Caregiver Facility that commenced operation and submitted a complete sales tax license application for a Care-giver Facility prior to the adoption date of this Chapter may continue in operation pending final action by the City Clerk on the application for Caregiver Facility license. Any such preexisting Care-giver Facility that does not or cannot meet the licensing requirements set forth in this Chapter and therefore fails to obtain a license shall cease operation immediately upon such denial. 5.51 .040 Location of Care-giver Facility. A. It is unlawful to operate or to cause or permit the operation of a Care-giver Facility in any location except as provided in the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any business for which the City had issued a sales tax license for a Care-giver Facility prior to the effective date of this Chapter for a location that is not in a zone district in which a Care-giver Facility is a permitted use may continue to operate as a legal non-conforming use to the extent allowed by Section 5.51 .030 (B). B. It is unlawful to operate, or to cause or permit the operation, of a Care-giver Facility within three quarters (3/4) of a mile of any other licensed Care-giver Facility. For the purposes of this Section, the minimum distance shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures, from the nearest property line of one Caregiver Facility to the nearest property line of the parcel on which the structure of another Care-giver Facility is located. FINAL AS AMENDED 02108/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 5 C. It is unlawful to operate, or to cause or permit the operation of, a Care-giver Facility from a moveable, mobile or transitory location. A Care-giver Facility shall be permitted to operate only from a fixed location. D. It is unlawful to operate, or to cause or permit the operation of, a Care-giver Facility within one thousand (1 ,000) feet of any elementary, middle or high school, or any athletic facilities associated with such schools, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the school is located. For the purposes of this Section, the minimum distance shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures, from the nearest property line of any Care-giver Facility to the nearest property line of the parcel on which the school or athletic facility is located. 5.51.050 Application. A. All applicants for a Care-giver Facility shall file a completed application for such license with the City Clerk on a form to be provided by the City Clerk. Each applicant, each partner of a partnership, each officer, director or person owning ten percent (10%) or more of the stock of a corporation, and each manager or member holding ten percent (10%) or more of the interest of a limited liability company applying for a license for a Care-giver Facility shall be named in each application form and each such individual shall be photographed and fingerprinted by the Lakewood Police Department. The applicant shall pay all fees for the photographs and fingerprints. B. Each application for a Care-giver Facility shall be accompanied by a current state driver's license or government-issued photo identification card showing proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age, or other proof of lawful presence in the United States, and shall contain the following information verified by oath or affirmation of the applicant: 1. The application shall include: a. The applicant's name or any other names or aliases used by the individual; b. The applicant's date of birth, place of birth, height, weight, color of eyes and hair; c. The current residential and business addresses and telephone number of the applicant; d. Every residential and business address of the applicant for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the application, and the dates the applicant resided and/or conducted business at such address; FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 6 e. The applicant's business, occupation and employment history for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application; and f. A statement by the applicant that the applicant is a Primary Caregiver together with: i. a listing of the current registry identification numbers of the Primary Care-giver's patients; or ii. such alternative documentation deemed acceptable by Amendment 20 to establish an individual's status as a patient of the Care-Giver. Such documentation may be redacted to the minimum extent necessary to conceal the Patient's identity. 2. If the applicant is a partner in a partnership, the applicant shall state the partnership's complete name, the names of all partners and whether the partnership is general or limited, and shall provide a copy of the partnership agreement, if any; 3. If the applicant is an officer, director or shareholder of a corporation, the applicant shall state the corporation's complete name, the date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in good standing under the statutes of the State of Colorado, or in the case of a foreign corporation, evidence that it is currently authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, the names and capacities of all officers, directors, and persons owning ten percent (10%) or more of the stock thereof, and the name of the registered corporate agent and the address of the registered office for service of process; 4. If the applicant is a member of a limited liability company, the applicant shall state the company's complete name and the date of its formation, and shall submit evidence that the company is in good standing under the statutes of the State of Colorado, or in the case of a foreign company, evidence that it is currently authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, and the name of all the members owning ten percent (10%) or more interest therein, and the manager and registered agent and the address of the registered office for service of process. 5. The City shall have the authority to investigate the financial background of the applicant and all individuals required by Section 5.51.050 to undergo a background investigation. C. Each license application for a Care-giver Facility shall contain the following information verified by oath or affirmation of any individual applicant, and of any of the other individuals set forth in Subsections B. 2, 3, and 4 of this Section 5.51 .050: FINAL AS AMENDED 0210812010 0-2010-1 Page 7 1. The license or permit history for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application, including whether such applicant has ever had a license, permit, or authorization to do business denied, revoked, or suspended, or had any professional or vocational license or permit denied, revoked, or suspended . In the event of any such denial, revocation, or suspension, state the date, the name of the issuing or denying jurisdiction, and describe in full the reasons for the denial, revocation, or suspension. The applicant shall list any licenses or permits previously or currently held from any other jurisdiction, and if so, the name and jurisdiction that issued such other license or permit; 2. Whether the applicant has been arrested for any criminal act, the date of the arrest, and the location of the offense; 3. The street address of the proposed Care-giver Facility; 4. If the applicant is not the owner of the proposed location of the Care-Care-giver Facility establishment, a notarized statement from the owner of such property authorizing the submission of the application; 5. A description of any cultivation activities including; a. Where plants are grown; b. The expected number of plants that will be grown on site; and c. A description of the ventilation system for the premises; D. Each applicant for a license to operate a Care-giver Facility license shall submit written verification from the City that the location requirements imposed by this Chapter and the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance have been met. E. The Police Department may require each applicant for a Care-giver Facility license to submit a copy of the applicant's criminal history and those of any individuals set forth above in Subsections B. 2, 3 and 4 of this Section 5.51 .050 from additional states as warranted. F. The City Clerk shall not accept any application that is not complete in every detail. If the City Clerk discovers an omission or error, the application shall be rejected and returned to the applicant for completion or correction without further action by the City Clerk. All fees shall be returned with the application. For the purposes of this Chapter, the date the City Clerk accepts an application that is complete in every detail shall be considered the filing date. G. Each individual applicant shall pay an application processing fee of three thousand dollars ($3,000) at the time of submitting any application to the City Clerk. In FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 8 the future, all fees required by this Chapter will be set by City Council resolution. Such application fee shall be nonrefundable, unless the application is returned for being incomplete. H. Each applicant shall pay an application investigation fee in the amount then charged by the Colorado Department of Public Safety for each person who will be investigated as required by this Chapter. I. Complete applications for a license to operate a Care-giver Facility shall be processed in the order in which they are received by the City Clerk for the purpose of applying the location restrictions referenced in Section 5.51 .040 (B). In the case of any business which submitted a complete sales tax license application for a Care-giver Facility on or before the adoption date of this Chapter, priority will be established for the purposes of the location restrictions referenced in Section 5.51 .040 (B) based on the date of the submission of the sales tax license application to the City. 5.51.060 Investigation of Application. When a complete application for a license has been accepted for fi ling, the required individuals have been fingerprinted and photographed, and the license fee has been paid, the City Clerk shall transmit the application to the Lakewood Police Department for the following: A. Investigate the background of each individual applicant and each of the other individuals required to be listed in the license application, and to investigate the accuracy of all the information submitted as a part of the application. The investigation required by this section should be completed within ninety (90) days from the date the application is submitted to the Police Department. Failure to complete the investigation within ninety (90) days shall not constitute approval of the application. The Police Department shall promptly forward the application and its completed investigation to the City Clerk for administrative review; and B. Conduct a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) evaluation to address any security concerns regarding the exterior of the facility. A police agent trained in conducting CPTED evaluations shall conduct the review. The purpose of the CPTED review is to create an environment that impedes criminal activity by improving lighting, mitigating obstructions caused by such things as trees, bushes, fences, and dumpsters that create blind spots or hiding spots, and using security cameras to monitor the property. The Police Department shall promptly forward the results and recommendations of the CPTED evaluation to the City Clerk for administrative review. 5.51.070 Approval or Denial of Application FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 9 A. An application with completed background investigation shall be administratively approved or denied by the City Clerk. The requirements set forth below shall apply to the applicant and any individuals set forth above in Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 5.51 .060. An application shall be approved and a license shall be issued unless the City Clerk or his/her designee finds that the applicant or any of the individuals required by Section 5.51 .050 to undergo a background investigation: 1. Knowingly made a false statement or knowingly gave false information in connection with the application; 2. Is under eighteen (18) years of age; 3. Is not of good moral character at the time of the application as evidenced by a conviction of a felony or other offense involving moral turpitude, after giving consideration to the pertinent circumstances connected with such conviction; 4. Will operate the Care-giver Facility as a business prohibited by local or state law, statute, rule or regulation; 5. Has had a Care-giver Facility license, care-giver certificate, or similar local or state license or approval revoked or suspended within five (5) years of the date of the current application; or 6. Has failed to comply with the results of the CPTED evaluation unless the City Clerk finds good cause to grant the applicant additional time to implement CPTED requirements; or 7. Has otherwise failed to comply with the provisions of this Chapter. B. The applicant and any individuals set forth above in Subsections 2, 3, and 4 of Section 5.51.050 may present written documentation to the City Clerk regarding his/her criminal history, including but not limited to evidence of mitigating factors, rehabilitation, character references, and educational achievements, especially those items pertaining to the period of time between the applicant's last criminal conviction and the consideration of the application for a license. 5.51.080 Appeal of Application Denial. A. Written Findings. In the event that that the City Clerk denies a license application, the City Clerk shall prepare written findings of fact stating the reasons or basis for the denial. A copy of the City Clerk's findings shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address of the applicant as shown in the application within ten (10) days after the date of the City Clerk's denial. The City Clerk's decision to deny a license application shall become a final administrative decision of the City on the fourteenth FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 10 (14th) day following the date of the denial unless the applicant files a timely request for appeal to the City Manager as provided in this section. B. Appeal Hearing. In the event that the City Clerk denies a license application, an applicant shall have the right to a quasi-judicial hearing before the City Manager for the purpose of appealing the City Clerk's administrative decision. Any request for a hearing must be made in writing to the City Manager within ten (10) days of the date of the mailing of the City Clerk's written findings and denial of the license application. The hearing shall be conducted within fourteen (14) days of the City Manager's receipt of the written request for a hearing unless the applicant requests a later date. C. Scheduling. Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing, the City Manager shall schedule a hearing and notify the applicant of the date, time, and place of the hearing. The City may make such notification by telephone provided that a written notice shall also be mailed or delivered to the applicant at the applicant's address shown in the application. An attorney or other representative may represent an applicant at the hearing. An applicant or the City may request a continuation or postponement of the hearing date. D. Subpoenas. The City Manager shall have the power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons, and when necessary, grant continuances. Subpoenas may be issued to require the presence of persons and production of papers, books, and records necessary to the determination of any hearing which the City Manager conducts. It is unlawful for any person to fail to comply with any subpoena issued by the City Manager. A subpoena shall be served in the same manner as a subpoena issued by the District Court of the State. Upon failure of any witness to comply with such subpoena, the City Attorney or the applicant may: 1. Petition any judge of the Municipal Court of the City, setting forth that due due notice has been given of the time and place of attendance of the witness and the service of the subpoena, requesting that the court, after hearing evidence in support of or contrary to the petition, enter its order compelling the witness to attend and testify or produce books, records or other evidence, under penalty of punishment for contempt in case of willful failure to comply with such order of court; or 2. Petition the District Court in and for Jefferson County, setting forth that due notice has been given of the time and place of attendance of the witness and the service of the subpoena, requesting that the court, after hearing evidence in support of or contrary to the petition, enter its order as in other civil actions, compelling the witness to attend and testify or produce books, records or other evidence, under penalty of punishment for contempt in case of willful failure to comply with such order of court. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 11 E. Conduct of Hearing. At the hearing, the City Manager shall hear and consider such evidence and testimony presented by the City, the applicant, or any other witnesses called by the City or the applicant which evidence is relevant to the stated reason and basis for the City Clerk's denial of the license application. The City Manager shall conduct the hearing in accordance with quasi-judicial proceedings and shall permit the relevant testimony of witnesses, cross-examination, and presentation of relevant documents and other evidence. The hearing shall be recorded stenographically or by electronic recording device. Any person requesting a transcript of such record shall pay the reasonable cost of preparing the record. F. Written Order. Not less than fourteen (14) days following the conclusion of the hearing , the City Manager shall send a written order by delivery confirmation, to the applicant at the address as shown on the application. The order shall include findings of fact and a final decision concerning the approval or denial of the application. In the event that the City Manager concludes that the application is approved, such approval shall constitute approval by the City Clerk, and the applicant may seek issuance of a license in accordance with this Chapter. G. Appeal of Order. The order of the City Manager made pursuant to this section shall be a final decision and may be appealed to the District Court pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4). For purposes of any appeal, the City Manager's decision shall be final upon the earlier of the date of the applicant's receipt of the order or four (4) days following the date of mailing. 5.51.090 License Fee. The annual license fee for any license issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be payable to the City Clerk at the time an initial license application is filed or at the time a renewal application is filed. The license fee is in addition to any application fee required by this Chapter. The license fee shall be nonrefundable unless an application is denied. The fee shall be two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). In the future, all fees required by this Chapter will be set by City Council resolution. 5.51.100 Term of the License. A Care-giver Facility license shall be valid for a period of one year from date of issuance, unless revoked or suspended. 5.51.110 Renewal. A. As a prerequisite to renewal of an existing license issued pursuant to this Chapter, the applicant must pay the annual license fee and file a completed renewal application with the City Clerk not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date of the license expiration. The City Clerk may waive the timely filing requirement where the licensee demonstrates in writing that the failure to timely file is not solely the result of the licensee's negligence; provided that no renewal application shall be accepted by the FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 12 City Clerk from any licensee after the license for which renewal is requested has expired. B. A license that is under suspension may be renewed in accordance with this Section provided that such renewal shall not modify, alter, terminate, or shorten the period or term of the suspension. The suspension of a license shall not extend the term of the license or otherwise relieve the licensee from timely seeking renewal of the license in accordance with this Section. The City Clerk may administratively renew a license. 5.51.120 Denial of Renewal, Suspension or Revocation of License. A. Denial of Renewal, Suspension or Revocation. The City Manager may deny renewal of, suspend, revoke, modify, or place conditions on the continuation of a Caregiver Facility license upon a finding that the licensee: 1. Has violated any of the provisions of this Chapter; 2. Has operated the Care-giver Facility in a manner that adversely affects the public health, welfare, or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the Care-giver Facility is located. Evidence to support such a finding includes but is not limited to the occurrence of disturbances upon the licensed premises or upon any parking areas, sidewalks, access ways or grounds within the immediate neighborhood of the licensed premises involving a patient or customer, manager, employee, or the licensee; 3. Has violated City, state, or federal law or regulation regarding the possession, distribution, or cultivation of controlled substances, other than a federal law or regulation concerning the possession, sale or distribution of marijuana that conflicts with Amendment 20; or 4. Has failed to comply with the results of the CPTED evaluation regarding the exterior of the facility; or 5. Has allowed or permitted any other person to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter or engage in criminal conduct on the premises. B. Other Enforcement Authorized. A licensee shall be entitled to a quasi-judicial hearing before the City Manager if the City seeks to deny renewal, suspend, revoke, modify, or place conditions on a license based on a violation of this Chapter. 1. When there is probable cause to believe that a licensee has violated or permitted a violation of this Chapter or other laws, the City Attorney may file a written complaint with the City Manager setting forth the circumstances of the violation. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 13 2. The City Manager shall send a copy of the complaint by delivery confirmation to the licensee at the address as shown on the license application, together with a notice to appear before the City Manager for the purpose of a hearing to be conducted at a specified date and time and at a place designated in the notice to show cause why the licensee's license should not be suspended. Such hearing shall be held on a date not less than fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of the complaint and notice to the licensee. A licensee may be represented at the hearing by an attorney or other representative. C. Conduct of Hearing. At the hearing, the City Manager shall hear and consider such evidence and testimony presented by the Police Department or other enforcement officers, the City, the licensee, or any other witnesses called by the City or the licensee, which evidence is relevant to the violations alleged in the complaint. The City Manager shall conduct the the hearing in conformity with quasi-judicial proceedings and shall permit the relevant testimony of witnesses, cross-examination, and presentation of relevant documents and other evidence. The hearing shall be recorded either stenographically or by electronic recording device. Any person requesting a transcript of such record shall pay the reasonable cost of preparing the record. Subpoenas may be issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.51.080. D. Written Findings. The City Manager shall make written findings of fact from the statements and evidence offered and shall reach a conclusion as to whether the alleged violations occurred. Such written findings and conclusion shall be prepared and issued not less than fourteen (14) days following the conclusion of the hearing. If the City Manager determines that a violation did occur which warrants denial of renewal, suspension, revocation, modification, or conditioning of the license pursuant to this section, he or she shall also issue an order suspending, revoking, modifying, or placing conditions on the license. A copy of the findings, conclusion, and order shall be hand delivered or mailed to the licensee by delivery confirmation, at the address as shown on the license application. E. Appeal. The order of the City Manager shall be a final decision and may be appealed to the District Court pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4). For purposes of any appeal to the District Court, the City Manager's decision shall be final either on the date the applicant receives the findings, conclusion, and order or four (4) days following the date of mailing of the City Manager's decision, whichever is earlier. F. No Refund and Costs of Enforcement. In the event of suspension, revocation, modification, conditioning, or cessation of business, no portion of the license fee shall be refunded . Any person whose license is suspended, revoked, modified , or conditioned under this Section shall be required to pay the costs incurred by the City to FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 14 enforce this Chapter, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, expert witness and/or consultant fees. 5.51.130 Transferability. A license issued under this Chapter shall not be transferable. 5.51.140 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any licensed Care-giver to: A. Consume or allow any other person to consume, inhale, or ingest any marijuana or product containing marijuana on, or within, the premises of a Care-giver Facility; B. Distribute, sell, or transfer any marijuana or any product containing marijuana at a Care-giver Facility or by way of delivery from a Care-giver Facility to anyone other than a patient or to a Primary Care-giver who is the parent of a minor patient; C. Dispense more than the amount of medical marijuana permitted under the provisions of Amendment 20 and/or the statutes or administrative regulations implementing Amendment 20; D. Store or display any marijuana or product containing marijuana outdoors, or in a manner in which it is visible from a public sidewalk or right of way; E. Operate a Care-giver Facility earlier than 8 a.m. or later than 9 p.m. the same day. A Care-giver Facility may be open seven (7) days a week; F. Allow the possession of marijuana or any product containing marijuana in a Caregiver Facility by anyone who is not a Primary Care-giver or patient; G. Sell or allow any person to consume alcohol on the premises of a Care-giver Facility; H. Cultivate, process, or store marijuana at any location within the City of Lakewood other than at the Care-giver Facility; I. Violate any of the provisions of Amendment 20, or the statutes or administrative regulations implementing Amendment 20; or J. Employ any person under the age of eighteen (18) years old .. 5.51.150 Ventilation. A Care-giver Facility shall be equipped with a proper ventilation system that filters out the odor of marijuana so that the odor is not capable of being detected by a person with a normal sense of smell at the exterior of the Care-giver Facility or any any adjoining business, parcel, or tract of real property. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 15 5.51.160 Security Requirements for Licensed Premise. All Care-giver Facilities shall provide adequate security on the premises, which shall include: A. Security surveillance cameras installed to monitor the main entrance along the interior and exterior of the premises and all other entrances or exits only along the interior of the premises. Security video shall be preserved for at least one week by the licensee and shall be available to the City upon the demand; B. Robbery and burglary alarm systems that are professionally monitored and maintained in good working condition; C. A locking safe permanently affixed to the premises that is suitable for storage of the entire inventory of processed marijuana and any product containing marijuana except when being accessed for distribution to a patient; and D. A secure environment for the storage of live marijuana plants. 5.51.170 Ledger Required. A licensee shall keep a ledger for at least three (3) years which shall record the following information, and which shall be made available to the City upon demand: A. The quantity of medical marijuana dispensed in each transaction; B. The type of medical marijuana or a description of the product containing marijuana that was dispensed; C. The total amount paid by the patient for the transaction for all goods and services provided; D. The patient's medical marijuana Card Number or if no number has been issued, such alternative documentation deemed acceptable by Amendment 20 to establish an individual's status as a patient of the Care-Giver. Such documentation may be redacted to the minimum extent necessary to conceal the Patient's identity. E. Confirmation that the licensee verified the identity of the patient receiving the medical marijuana with a governmental issued photo identification; F. The date and time that the medical marijuana or the product containing marijuana was dispensed; and G. The source of the medical marijuana dispensed in the Care-giver Facility. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 16 5.51.180 Right of Entry. The application for a Care-giver Facility license shall constitute consent of the licensee and his agents or employees to permit the Lakewood Police Department or any other authorized agent of the City to conduct routine inspections, from time to time, of any licensed Care-giver Facility to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. 5.51.190 Required Warnings to be Posted. There shall be posted in a conspicuous location in each Care-giver Facility a legible sign containing the following warnings: A. A warning that the use of medical marijuana may impair a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery, and that it is illegal under state law to drive a motor vehicle or to operate machinery when under the influence of, or impaired by, marijuana; and B. A warning that possession and distribution of marijuana is a violation of federal law. 5.51.200 Duties of Licensee. Each licensee shall: A. Post the license in a conspicuous location on the premises of the Care-giver Facility that may be readily seen by persons entering the premises; B. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the license; C. Comply with all of the requirements of this Chapter; D. Comply with all other applicable City ordinances; E. Comply with all state laws and administrative regulations pertaining to the medical use of marijuana, including, but not limited to, Amendment 20; Section 18-18-406.3, C.R.S.; and the administrative regulations issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found at 5 CCR 1006-2, all as amended from time to time; and F. Comply with all applicable federal laws, rules, or regulations, other than a federal law, rule or regulation concerning the possession, sale or distribution of marijuana that conflicts with Amendment 20. 5.51.210 Signage. No licensee shall display a sign for the Care-giver Facility establishment that contains the word "marijuana," "cannabis," or any other word or phrase commonly commonly understood to refer to marijuana unless such word or phrase is immediately preceded or followed by the word "medical" in substantially similar size print or font. 5.51.220 Penalty. FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 17 A. Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be punished pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Lakewood Municipal Code. Each violation or non-compliance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense. Further. each day of continued violation or non-compliance shall be considered as a separate offense. B. All remedies and penalties provided for in this Chapter shall be cumulative and independently available to the City. and the City shall be authorized to pursue any and all remedies to the full extent allowed by law. C. Nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict the City from taking such other lawful action in any court of competent jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation or non-compliance. Such other lawful actions shall include. but shall not be limited to. an equitable action for injunctive relief or an action at law for damages. 5.51.230 Reasonable Procedures. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to adopt such reasonable policies and procedures as are deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this Chapter. SECTION 2. Subsection 17-2-2 Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of new subsections 51 . 275. 285 with subsequent sUbsections to be renumbered accordingly: (51) Care-giver Facility: Care-giver Facility means a business operated by a Primary Care-giver on any property or in any structure within the City for the purpose of cultivating. processing. preparing. distributing. transmitting. dispensing. or otherwise providing marijuana in any manner or form to patients in accordance with Amendment 20 and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. (275) Patient. Patient has the meaning provided in Section 14 of Article 18 to the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 20) and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. (285) Primary Care-giver. Primary Care-giver has the meaning provided in Section 14 of Article 18 to the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 20) and the implementing state statutes and administrative regulations. SECTION 3. Section 17-5-16. 1-C: Convenience Commercial District. of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-5-16(2)(a)(4) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0 -2010-1 Page 18 17-S-16(2)(a)(4). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Section 17-S-17, 2-C: Neighborhood Commercial District, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-S-17(2)(a)(4) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-S-17(2)(a)(4). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION S. Section 17-S-18, 3-C: Community Commercial District, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-S-18(2)(a)(8) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-S-18(2)(a)(8). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 6. Section 17 -S-19, 4-C: Regional Commercial District, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-S-19(2)(a)(9) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-S-19(2)(a)(9). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 7. Section 17-S-20, S-C: Large Lot Commercial District, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17 -S-20(2)(a)(11) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-S-20(2)(a)(11). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 8. Section 17-S-22, PO: Planned Development Zone District, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-S-22(2)(c) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-S-22(2)(c). A Care-giver Facility shall not be permitted in a Planned Development Zone District unless the Planned Development Zone District explicitly names Care-giver Facilities as a permitted use and shall comply with all spacing and licensing requirements for a Care-giver Facility as specified in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 9. Section 17-19-6(1)(a), Colfax Mixed Use Zone DistrictNeighborhood Sub-District (CMU-N) Permitted Uses -Colfax Frontage Parcels, of the FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 19 Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-19-6(1)(a)(4) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-19-6(1)(a)(4). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 10. Subsection 17 -19-6(2)(a), Colfax Mixed Use Zone DistrictCommunity Sub-District (CMU-C) Permitted Uses -Colfax Frontage Parcels, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-19-6(2)(a)(7) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-19-6(2)(a)(7). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 11 . Subsection 17-19-6(2)(b), Colfax Mixed Use Zone DistrictCommunity Sub-District (CMU-C) Permitted Uses -Non-Colfax Frontage Parcels, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17-19-6(2)(b)(2) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-19-6(2)(b)(2). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 12. Subsection 17-19-6(3)(a), Colfax Mixed Use Zone DistrictRoadside Sub-District (CMU-R) Permitted Uses -Colfax Frontage Parcels, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection 17 -19-6(3)(a)(11) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17 -19-6(3)(a)(11). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 13. Subsection 17-19-6(3)(b), Colfax Mixed Use Zone DistrictRoadside Sub-District (CMU-R) Permitted Uses -Non-Colfax Frontage Parcels, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (2) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: 17-19-6(3)(b)(2). Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 14. Subsection 17-22-6(2)(a), Transit Mixed Use Zone DistrictCommercial (TMU-C) Permitted Uses, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (4) with subsequent subsections to be renumbered accordingly: FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 20 17-22-6(2)(a)(4) Care-giver Facilities, subject to the spacing and licensing requirements established in the Lakewood Municipal Code. SECTION 15. Subsection 17-9, TABLE 9-4 Required Parking Ratios, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by inserting Care-giver Facility into the table alphabetically. USE DESCRIPTION RATIO Care-giver Facility Medical marijuana facilities 4.0 spaces/1,OOO s.f. of aross floor area SECTION 16. Section 17-13-10, Home Occupations -Specific Exclusions, of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (5): (5) Care-giver Facilities. SECTION 17. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 18. This Ordinance shall take effect forty-five (45) days after final publication. All persons conducting business as a Primary Care-giver at the time of adoption of this Ordinance shall submit a completed license application to the City Clerk as required by Chapter 5.51 within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Ordinance. I hereby attest and certify that the within and foregoing ordinance was introduced and read on first reading at a regular meeting of the Lakewood City Council on the 25th day of January, 2010; published by title in the Denver Post and in full on the City of Lakewood's website, www.lakewood.org, on the 28th day of January, 2010; set for public hearing on the 8th day of February, 2010, read, finally passed and adopted by the City Council on the __ day of February, 2010 and, signed and approved by the Mayor on the __ day of February, 2010. Bob Murphy, Mayor ATTEST: Margy Greer, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Cox, City Attorney FINAL AS AMENDED 02/08/2010 0-2010-1 Page 21 · . , , City of !p("WheatRL.dge ~PUBLIC WORKS Memorandum TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works DATE: June 1, 2010 (for the Study Session of June 7, 2010) SUBJECT: Wadsworth Federal Environmental Study In 2007, the City was successful in obtaining 50% Federal funding of the environmental study required in anticipation of widening Wadsworth Boulevard from 38th Ave to 44th Ave. The project is currently in the Denver Regional Council of Government's (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). While the project was originally scheduled for 20 I 0, City funding was not available and the project was moved to 20 II to maintain the Federal funding. Staff had planned to re-visit this project when preparing the 20 II Budget. DRCOG is in the process of allocating newly available 2010/2011 Federal project funds. The DRCOG Board has requested a confirmation of commitment to undertake programmed 20 II projects, such as the Wadsworth Environmental Study. This information will be used in selecting projects for the new allocation of funding. DRCOG has requested the City's commitment to fund the Wadsworth project by June 16, 20 I O. Having the environmental study completed would provide the ultimate guidance on the future design of Wadsworth Boulevard and assist in the planning of land redevelopment along the street. However, the cost of the widening project is large and no additional funding (Federal, State or City) has been identified at this time to pursue the remaining phases of the project. The Environmental Study was estimated to cost $1, I 00,000, with $550,000 being contributed by the City. The total cost of the highway widening is estimated at: Environmental Clearances Right-of-way acquisition Design and engineering Construction Total $1,100,000 $8,700,000 $1 ,900,000 $15,300,000 $27,000,000 City of 'r?WheatB.-L..dge ~PARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: June 1, 2010 (for Study Session of June 7, 2010) SUBJECT: Evaluation of Parks and Recreation Department Fees and Charges Strategic Planning Budget Information As requested by City Council during the recent strategic planning budget session, the Parks and Recreation Department has completed several presentations on revenue sources for the department. The June 7, 2010 study session presentation topic will provide information on program and faci lity fees and charges. Topics to be covered include the following: 1) Department pricing philosophy 2) The Fee Policy currently in use for determining parks and recreation facilities and program fees 3) Definition of terms such as direct and indirect costs 4) The method used to complete a market analysis and determine a specific fee 5) Examples of specific programs and their fees at different different cost recovery rates and market comparIsons Policy Direction Options for policy direction on cost recovery and revenue will be presented. 1 Benefits ... parks and recreation programs b.erlefi;t~ to the entire community I Fees and Charges oarticipal:ion is a way to by Current Fee Policy 2 Definitions ... 3 Fee Pricing Strategies 4 5 Options and Cost Options 6 7 City of ·r?'Wheat&....dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: June I, 20 I 0 (for the Study Session of June 7, 20 I 0) SUBJECT: Carnation Festival Cost Analysis As requested by City Council during the recent strategic planning budget session, the annual detailed report of direct and indirect costs as well as the City Council cash donation to the Carnation Festival has been completed. 2009 Carnation Festival Expenditures Direct Costs: Parks OT Parks Materials Police OT City Contribution Total Direct Costs In-Kind Contributions: Parks Labor Public Works Labor Public Works Equipment $ 4,234.98 $ 31.00 $16,772.00 $17,500.00 $38,537.98 $ 1,315.34 $ 6,752.88 $ 1,980.60 Total In-Kind Contributions: $10,048.82 Grand Total $48,586.80