HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 07/12/2010
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave. July 12. 2010 Upon adjournment from City Council Meeting Individuals
with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one
week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Staff/Council Report(s) a) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
with Jefferson County related to Community Development Block Grant Funds. b) Wadsworth Corridor Coalition 2. Public Works potential reductions of service ~ Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan
Review inspections 4. Parks and Recreation Budget Analysis a) Maintenance Service Level Analysis b) Anderson Building Cost Analysis c) Active Adult Center Cost Analysis ~ Town Hall Meeting
Discussion
~ A 4' ... ~ ~ City of "~Wheat~dge ~OMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Patrick Goff, City Manager.¢ Ken Johnstone, Community Development
Director Sally Payne, Senior Planner July 1,2010 (for July 1ih Study Session) IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG funds :;:;Iem I,a) The City has maintained an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) with Jefferson County regarding the City's allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Historically the IGA stated that the City, as a Participating
Jurisdiction, would automatically receive an annual allocation based on the percentage of low to moderate income persons within the City. In the past few years, due to a variety of factors,
the Jefferson County Community Development Department has not spent down the allocation of CDBG funds the County receives from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) at a fast enough rate. They are currently over the allowed ratio of unspent funds per HUD regulations. Due to this, HUD has been scrutinizing the County's process and procedures
for the expenditure ofCDBG funds. Many of the County's agreements and contracts with sub recipients regarding the expenditure of CDBG funds have been reviewed by HUD. This has included
the IGAs that the County has had with the Participating Jurisdictions in the Counties of Wheat Ridge, Golden, Edgewater and Mountain View. Based on their review, HUD is now requiring
that the County remove the automatic allocation to the Participating Jurisdictions in the IGAs. The Participating Jurisdictions will now have to compete for CDBG funds from the general
pool of funds the County makes available to nonprofits and the jurisdictions. The allocations that would have gone to jurisdictions will now go to that general pool of funds. The annual
applications for these funds are reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) who makes recommendations for projects to the Board of County Commissioners. The City has
membership on the CDAB so it would be involved in discussions regarding the fair expenditure of the funds. City staff will continue working closely with the County Community Development
staff as we make this change in funding status. The County has preliminarily indicated that once they are back in compliance with HUD and have their funding ratio at an allowable limit,
they would reinstate the automatic allocation to the Participating Jurisdictions.
IGA with Jefferson County regarding CDBG funds July 1,2010 Page 2 A draft copy of the IGA is attached for your review. If you have any questions please contact Ken Johnstone at 303-235-2844
or Sally Payne at 303-235-2852. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft copy of the IGA with Jefferson County
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT Between JEFFERSON COUNTY and the CITY ·OF -------CO~TYDEVELOPMENTBLOCKGRANTPROGRAMS (Federal Fiscal Years 20010 through 2011) THIS AGREEMENT,
dated for reference purposes only this _ day of --, 2010, is between Jefferson County, Colorado (the "County"), a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, and the City of
Wheat Ridge (the "Cities"), a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado located in Jefferson County. RECITALS A. Pursuant to The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5301 et ~., (the "Act"), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HVD") administers a wide range of local housing and community development activities
and programs under Title I of the Act. B. The primary objective of Title I of the Act is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment,
and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income. To further this objective, the Federal government provides Community Development Block Grant
("CDBG") funds to local governments to conduct and administer housing and community development activities and projects (the "CDBG Programs"). The CDBG Programs are governed by regulations
contained in 24 C.F. R. Part 570 (the "Regulations"). C. A determination has been made by HUD that the County is eligible to qualify as an urban county to receive funds from HUD by annual
grant agreement. C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 1
D. To become entitled on an annual basis to receive CDBG funds, a county must quality as an "urban county." Cities and other units of local governments may be included as part of the
urban county by entering into cooperation agreements. A city that has entered into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement with the County shall be considered to be a "Participating
Jurisdiction." E. The qualification by HUD of an urban county remains effective for the next three successive fiscal years, September 1, 2008, through August 31,2011 , (the "Program
Years") regardless of changes in the County's population during that period, except for failure of an urban county to receive a CDBG during any year of that period. F. The County is
submitting to HUD the required documentation to qualify as an urban county so as to become eligible to receive annual CDBG funds for the Program Years (as "Entitlement County"). The
Cities wish to be included as part of the urban county and to be eligible to participate in the County's CDBG Programs for the Program Years. G. Pursuant to c.R.S. Section 29-1-201 ,
et ~. , the Cities and the County may enter into agreements for joint or cooperative action and may contract with each other to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking
that each is authorized by law to perform. H. This Agreement sets forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, obligations, and the financial and other responsibilities ofthe parties. 1.
Accordingly, the parties have determined that is will be mutually beneficial and in the public interest of the parties to enter into this Agreement regarding the conduct of the CDBG
Programs. C:\Documents and Settings\K VanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK l O\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 2
AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and cooperative actions contemplated hereunder, the parties agree as follows: 1. Inclusion of Cities. The Cities shall be included
as a part of the County for CDBG qualification and grant calculation purposes for the Program Years. The parties recognize their mutual benefit to seeking entitlement status so that
there may be local control over CDBG monies and so that the parties may receive the benefits of yearly allocations of COBG monies. The Cities understand that because they have elected
to pursue entitlement status jointly with the County, HUO restricts the Cities during the Programs Years from applying for grants under the small cities or state COBG programs and from
participating in a HOME consortium, except through the urban county, regardless of whether the urban county receives a HOME formula allocation. 2. Period of Performance. This Agreement
shall remain in effect through the Program Years and such additional time as may be required for for the expenditure of funds granted and income received during the Program Years and
the completion of the funded activities (the "Period of Performance"). Neither the County nor the Cities may terminate, withdraw, or be removed from the Program during the Period of
Performance. 3. Renewals. This Agreement will renew automatically for participation by the parties in successive three-year (3-year) qualification periods, unless the Cities or the County
provide written notice to the other party that it selects not to participate in a new qualification period. The terminating party shall send a copy of the notice of termination to the
HUD field office by the date specified in HUD's urban county qualification period. The County will notify the Cities in writing of the Cities' right to make this election. A copy of
the County's notification must be sent to the HUD field office by the date specified in the urban county qualification notice. Failure by either party to adopt an amendment to the Agreement
incorporating all changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the urban county qualification notice applicable for a subsequent three-year urban
county qualification period and to submit the amendment to HUD as provided in the urban county qualification notice will void the C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary
Internet Files\OLKIO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 3
automatic renewal of such qualification period. If the Agreement is renewed, the subsequent three-year (3-year) period will constitute the new Program Years. 4. Mutual Cooperation. The
Cities and the County agree to cooperate as follows: a. To plan and prepare the CDBG Programs, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and Community Development Plan (the "Consolidated
Plan"), and detailed descriptions of CDBG Programs to be conducted or performed during each of the Program Years. The finalized activities and projects will be included in the Consolidated
Plan and in the requests for CDBG funds for the Program Years. The parties acknowledge, however, the County has responsibility, as mandated by HUD for selection of the CDBG Programs
to be included in the grant request and for submission of that request. The parties recognize that HUD requires the County to execute all grant agreements and holds the County legally
liable and responsible for the overall administration and performance of the CDBG Programs. Accordingly, the parties agree that the County shall have the administrative responsibility
necessary to meet the requirements of HUD for those Cities selected CDBG Programs to be performed or conducted by the Cities. The County will have full administrative responsibility
for all programs performed or conducted by the Cities. As further required by HUD and only to the extent required by HUD, the Cities and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or
assist in undertaking community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, as approved and authorized between the parties in the CDBG agreements, including the Consolidated
Plan. b. As required by HUD, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 570.501 (b) and § 507.503, Cities may enter into separate CDBG agreements (the "CDBG Agreements") with the County for the actual
conduct of the CDBG Programs, as approved and authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and the Consolidated Plan. As required by HUD, the parties agree to include standards relating
to the management and disposition of assets and real property acquired through the CDBG Programs, in accordance with 24 C.F.R.570. c. As required by HUD, to affirmatively further fair
housing within their own jurisdictions. The County may not provide any CDBG funding for activities in or in support of the Cities if the Cities C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local
Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK IO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 4
do not affll1llatively further fair housing within their own jurisdiction or if the Cities impede the County's actions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. This provision
is required because noncompliance by the Cities included in an urban county may constitute non-compliance by the urban county, which may provide cause for funding sanctions or other
remedial action by HUD. 5. Distribution of Funds. a. Administrative Allocation. The County may retain no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total CDBG funds allocated to the County
for purposes of general oversight, management, coordination, and related costs ("Administrative Allocation"). 6. Project Application and Approval Process a. Project applications from
the County, the Cities and other eligible applicants will be reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Board (CD Advisory Board) using evaluation criteria set forth in the applicable
Consolidated Plan and the goals of the Board of County Commissioners. Higher priority shall be given to eligible proposals submitted by the County and the Cities so long as proposals
are consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan. b. The decision for determining what funds receive block grant funding IS the responsibility of the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners. 7. Advisory Board. In furtherance of the cooperative process of developing the CDBG Programs, and m order to ensure coordination while respecting the role of the Cities,
Jefferson County has established a Community Development (CD) Advisory Board. a. Membership. The CD Advisory Board shall be appointed by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
and shall include at least one member from each participating jurisdiction. The Participating Jurisdictions shall advise the Board of County Commissioners of its nominee for the Advisory
Board. b. Duties. The CD Advisory Board shall recommend the allocation of funds to the County, the Cities and other eligible applicants. Although HUD requires the County to maintain
legal liability and C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIO\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 5
responsibility for the overall administration and performance of the CDBG Programs, the County will give strong consideration to the recommendations of the CD Advisory Board. S. Mutual
Agreements. The parties agree as follows: a. Books and Records. To maintain a complete set of books and records that account for the CDBG monies and the supervision and administration
of the CDBG Programs. The parties agree that they will provide access to these books and records to each other and to HUD, as necessary or requested, to confirm compliance with Federal
laws and regulations. b. Compliance with Laws. To take all actions necessary to comply with the following laws and to assure compliance with County certifications required by: I. Federal
Laws and Regulations. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sections 104(b) and 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 5301 , et ~., 24 C.F. R. Part 570, and especially 24 C.F. R. 570.501(b) applicable to subrecipients and 24 C.F. R. 570.503 applicable
to the minimum standards for a written agreement prior to disbursing any CDBG funds; 24 C.F. R. Part 570, et ~., relating to requirements governing any income generated from CDBG funds,
("Program Income"); all rules, regulations, guidelines, circulars, and other requirements promulgated by the various Federal departments, agencies, administrations, and commissions relating
to the CDBG. ii. State and Local Law Compliance. The responsibilities of the parties shall be subject to applicable state laws, city and county ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations,
and city charter provisions. 111. Nonviolent Civil Rights Policies. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 5304(b)(2), the County and the Cities each have adopted and are enforcing and, if requested,
will provide copies to each other of the following policies: (a) Prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencIes within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged
in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and C:\Documents and Set1ings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI O\CDBG-IGAdraft.doc 6
(b) Enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of nonviolent civil rights demonstrations
within its jurisdiction. c. Expenditure of Funds. All CDBG funds that are approved by HUD for expenditure under the grant agreements will be budgeted and allocated (i) to the County,
no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total CDBG funds allocated to the County for administrative, general oversight, management, coordination, and related costs, as allowed by HUD,
and (ii) to the specific CDBG Programs described in the Consolidated Plan, which shall be expended only for the CDBG Programs for which the funds are provided. d. Lobbying Requirement.
To the best of the knowledge and belief of each of the Cities and County: I. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal
grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement; 11. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer
or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement, each party agrees that it will complete and submit a Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. III. Each party agrees that
it will require the language of this paragraph be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Lo
cal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK I OICDBG-IGAdraft.doc 7
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certifY and disclose accordingly. 9. Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of
the parties. Any changes and modifications to this Agreement shall be made in writing and shall be executed by both parties prior to the performance of any work or activity involved
in the change and be approved by HUD. 10. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Choice of Law. This Agreement and the rights and duties of the parties shall be interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the State of Colorado applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within the state. b. Forum. The courts of the State of Colorado shall have sole and exclusive
jurisdiction of any disputes or litigation arising hereunder. c. Venue. Venue for any and all legal actions arising hereunder shall lie in the District Court in and for the County of
Jefferson, State of Colorado. d. Officials Not to Benefit. No member of the Cities or County government, commissioners or individual elected officers shall receive any share or part
of this Agreement or any benefit that may arise therefrom. e. Indemnification. To the extent allowed by law, the Cities and the County agree to indemnifY and hold each other harmless
from and against any and all claims, losses, expenses, and attorney fees, including but not limited to damages for personal injury, theft or damage to property, both public and private,
resulting from or arising out of an act or omission resulting directly or indirectly from the performance or failure to perform under this Agreement, provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not cause a waiver of the Governmental Immunity Act for either the Cities or the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly authorized
and executed. C:\Documents and Settings\KVanErt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK I O\CDBG-IGAdraft .doc 8
Background Wadsworth Corridor Coalition White Paper Suburban neighborhoods within Jefferson .and Broomfield Counties, Colorado, are connected and reliant on a 25 mile stretch of SH-121
(Wadsworth Boulevard) for the movement of people and goods. As a partially controlled access highway with many side streets and connections, the four to six lane roadway is a car dominant
environment that carries approximately 60,000 vehicles daily. Key interchanges along the corridor provide connections to interstate and state highways including US-36, 1-70, US-6, SH-287,
and C-470. Regional connectivity and significant traffic volumes have been effective in establishing local neighborhoods, shopping malls, urban centers, and employment hubs. However,
many of these areas are in decline and a few communities have initiated efforts to revitalize and move away from the suburban, car reliant, shopping mall/parking lot land use setting
to a more urban, walkable, and livable setting. To do so requires the consideration of other forms of transportation within and between communities. Finally, with the coming of FasTracks,
it is appropriate to evaluate a transit corridor along Wadsworth as shown in DRCOG's 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Some communities, such as Wheat Ridge, are situated
between FasTracks corridors and desire convenient, sustainable transportation between these corridors. Vision The Wadsworth Corridor Coalition is committed to improving the quality of
life, economic vitality, sustainability, walkability, and public health of its adjacent communities by creating a "complete corridor". Purpose Recent jOint initiatives from Federal agencies
for grant opportunities indicate a paradigm shift. While many have recognized for some time that the built, natural, and human environment cannot be "compartmentalized", it is only recently
that funding has followed this line of thinking. The elements that make up our communities do not operate independently -rather, community values, health, livability, transportation,
land use, and housing, to name a few, are interwoven and form the fabric of our neighborhoods. The Wadsworth Corridor spans several communities and each has its own character and goals
yet all can be defined by the above factors (and possibly more factors). Most importantly, the connection and commonality to all the communities along the Wadsworth Corridor is the form
of transportation. Planning Grants Thirty-five million ($35 Million) is available through the US Dot's National Infrastructure Investment (NIl) under the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 for transportation planning grants. The NIl grants are being referred to as TIGER II grants. Also, $40 Million has
been appropriated by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Community Challenge Grants. These grants have similar purposes, including corridor studies. It is proposed that the Coalition
apply for a planning grant (both TIGER II and Community Challenge) to conduct a study of the Wadsworth Corridor, evaluating the italicized factors addressed in the above paragraph "Purpose".
(While Arvada has given this some thought, the scope and outcome of the study must be discussed and agreed to by the Coalition.)
Initial List of Member Jurisdictions and Agencies and Invitees Broomfield (City and County) Westminster Arvada Wheat Ridge Lakewood Jefferson County CDOT RTD DRCOG LiveWell Colorado
Aging Well in Jeffco Next Steps The pre-application deadline for TIGER II has been extended 10 days until July 26, 2010. There is not sufficient time for any jurisdiction to sign any
type of coalition document. Arvada suggested steps: 1. Given the timeframe, a letter of intent to participate in the coalition from your City Manager or County Administrator (or equivalent)
is needed. The letter could simply be written to "Members of The Wadsworth Corridor Coalition" 2. Set a meeting for next week to discuss the scope of the planning grant. 3. Develop the
tasks needed to complete the grant pre-application due July 26, 2010 as well as the tasks to complete the final grant application due August 23, 2010. 4. Share tasks in order to prepare
the best pre-application package possible. 5. Submit grant pre-application and continue with final application. Prepared by City of Arvada 2 July 9,2010
~ ~ A ~ ... or City of !?nWheatRl..,dge ~PUBLIC WORKS Memorandum TO: THROUGH: FROM: Mayor and City Council r\ ~ Patrick Goff, City Manager -¥J Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works DATE:
June 10,2010 (for the June Ith Study Session) SUBJECT: Public Works Potential Service Reductions During the April 16-17, 2010 City Council Retreat several potential service reductions
were identified. The City Council requested additional information concerning the reduction in services provided by the Engineering Division, reducing the level of street snow and ice
control service, reducing the maintenance provided by the Public Works Department to the Parks and Recreation Department and elimination of the traffic count program. Staff was also
asked to provide additional information concerning uses for lodger's tax revenue. Engineering Division Services As outlined in earlier correspondence, the services currently being provided
by the Public Works Engineering Division have been reduced substantially to essential services. Based upon historic capital investment project (CIP) funding, the current staffing does
provide for the design and inspection of approximately $600,000 in small projects each year. Projects were not programmed in 2009 and are not budgeted for 2010. Staffing other projects
and temporarily assigning one technician to the Operations Division for one year have utilized the man-hours made available by the reduction in CIP projects. Staffing could be permanently
adjusted if there are no plans to return the CIP to historic levels. All future CIP projects could be designed and inspected through contracts with private engineering firms. Currently,
the Engineering Division primarily assists the Parks and Recreation Department with design related services. The Parks and Recreation Department could obtain these services from private
engineering firms. Possible staffing reductions per year CIP project design and inspection Parks support Traffic count program Total 2,140 man-hours 250 man-hours ~man-hours 2,560 man-hours
Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10, 2010 Page 2 Possible budget savings per year Reduce staff by 1.5 FTE Cost of outsourcing design of $600,000 in small projects (15%
fee basis) Cost of on-call engineering for Parks needs (Average $90 per hour) $105,000 -$90,000 -$22,500 -$112,500 Therefore, if funding is returned to the CIP there would be a net additional
cost of $7,500 It should also be noted that if the Cabela's Shopping Center project moves forward this year, there will be need for approximately 0.75 FTE for a one year period while
the project infrastructure is constructed. Traffic Count Program Elimination of the traffic count program would provide an $11,000 average yearly budget savings (assuming 170 man-hours).
The City traffic count map is available on the City web site and is accessed approximately ten times each day. The traffic information is typically sought by developers, real estate
agents, traffic engineering consultants and businesses. Additionally, City staff uses this information when analyzing requests for traffic control devices, reviewing traffic control
plans, determining the need for roadway improvements in conjunction with land use cases, preparing grant applications, etc. Street Snow and Ice Control The City provides snow removal
service to three priorities of streets during snow storms as shown on the attached map. A reduction in snow removal service can be accomplished by reducing the streets serviced (Scenario
# 1) or by performing the service with fewer trucks. (Scenario #2). Scenario #1, reduce streets serviced Current streets serviced Priority Level 1 streets: 27 miles Priority Level 2
streets: 18 miles Priority Level 3 streets: 41 miles Steep intersections: 1.0 miles Proposed streets serviced Priority Level 1 streets: 27 miles Priority Level 2 streets: 18
miles (2 lanes only) Priority Level 3 streets: 0 miles Steep intersections: 1.0 miles In 2009 the cost of snow and ice control was $303,000. Labor accounted for approximately 19% of
the cost of this service. Approximately 75% of the snow removal effort is directed to the Priority Level 1 streets. Eliminating Priority Level 3 streets from routine plowing, and plowing
only two lanes on Priority Level 2 streets is estimated to reduce the cost of snow removal by 15%. Priority Level 3 streets are those streets that are in the hilly residential areas
of the City.
Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10,2010 Page 3 A reduction in snow removal would reduce the time spent by Staff driving plow trucks. Reducing snow removal also reduces
over-time labor. It is estimated that reducing snow removal service would provide approximately 400 man-hours available for other tasks. Staff would return to performing other inclement
weather duties, such as sign repair, sign construction, graffiti removal, etc. earlier than under the current service policy. Ultimately, the reduction in snow removal would allow additional
pavement repairs to be performed; thereby reducing the amount of pavement repair out-sourced each year. Estimated snow removal cost reduction Increased pavement patching Reduced pavement
repair out-sourcing Total savings $44,000 -$18,000 $24,000 $50,000 Scenario #2, three trucks deployed (instead of the current four truck service) There would be no savings in the cost
of snow removal, but streets would be cleared from six to twenty-four hours later than currently performed. Reducing the size of the snow crews would facilitate a reduction of two FTE
in the staff. Additional work would have to be out-sourced to accomplish the other services performed throughout the year by a reduced staff. Possible budget savings Two FTEs staff reduction
Out-source street sweeping Out-source traffic signal maintenance Net additional cost $110,000 -$108,000 -$72,000 -$180,000 $70,000 If street sweeping were out-sourced, the capital cost
of replacing the two street sweepers ($400,000) would not be necessary. However, when compared to performing the street sweeping in-house and assuming a six year useful life for street
sweepers (the current sweepers are eleven years old), this option becomes budget neutral. Lodger's Tax Uses The 1998 ballot question establishing a hotel/motel tax designated that forty
per cent (40%) of the lodger's tax be used for redevelopment and public improvements within the City. The City Attorney has provided opinions that the revenues may be used for construction
activities such as landscaping, traffic signals, and concrete rehabilitation anywhere within the City. Mr. Dahl has also determined that the funds could be used to operate and maintain
improvements constructed with the lodger's tax. This portion of the lodger's tax may also be used for activities related to redevelopment and encouraging existing businesses to expand.
Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10, 2010 Page 4 While the City has historically used the lodger's tax revenues to construct streetscape improvements in the hotel! motel
districts of the City, this money ($174,0001 year) could finance other on-going construction, maintenance and redevelopment activities including: Maintenance of the streetscape along
Kipling Street and the 1-70 Frontage Roads Sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement (City-wide) Salary and benefits of the Economic Development Specialist Economic development marketing
and organization memberships Summary Yearly $30,000 $50,000 $70,000 $65,000 Engineering Staff could be reduced if the CIP is not expected to include design projects in 2011. However,
the trained and experienced employees should be retained if the CIP is expected to be funded in 2012. While the elimination of the Traffic Count Program will provide a yearly savings
of $11 ,000, the program data is heavily used and does promote development within the City. Changing the Snow and Ice Control Policy to eliminate Priority 3 streets will save $50,000
each year. Priority 3 streets are located in the hilly residential sections of the City and property owners along these streets have become accustomed to receiving snow removal service.
Servicing these streets is a minimal cost in relation to the total City Budget. The portion of the lodger's tax currently funding infrastructure improvements in the hotel! motel districts
can be diverted to fund other programs, providing a $174,000 benefit to the General Fund Budget. As always, I am available to discuss these matters and provide supporting information.
ATTACHMENT: 1. Snow Route Map
3100000 3125000 City of Wheat Ridge Snow Routes LEGEND Snow Route TYPE -Priority #1 .~:_ -Priority #2 -Priority #3 -• Lakewood ,_. . COOT , •• .J City of Wheat Ridge Boundary --RoadCenlenine
N I 1.900 1,900 3,800 ~ ~~~§iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~~ Feet St.bt Plane Coordinate Projection Colorado Central Zone Carum. NAD83 Thil • • pdoriIoI,~ationof!il~a(I(IdenIog,~ .. ~bOn
. R~uponlM .c:Q.IrKY, .-.IabiIlyandaYIlIcdy oIIhi1.InJormMlon.~fequ_·.~, Th.Cilyof Wleal Ridge, In JefralSOl'l County. CoIolWodo · • poMiceI a\lbdI¥Won oI ..... S .. "ofCok>rado. IIa6~Ior
.. UM~aln~eriled Infomllltion. Th. information i& ."Hable 10 auI8Iln identifying tor*-' ., ... of concem only. Th. compulef2ed infonnalion PI'IMOed shoolclon'v .. ,e!i&dupOII ..... hc:onoborationdth.
moll'lodti. ~lioM.andr ... by.qualifledln6ependenllOUlOe. 8 Th.UMrofthil lnlormatlo!'lwl llld~andtwNclfr"'NCity ~o5<_ ofWlMl RidQ.lrom any and ...b iIitin, 6amaen. "Wllln, arid .....-.oI~thllltuUIIS4
.--..quenco.oIhil,.aianoeon infon'nl.tionptovidedh ... .." City City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 303.234.5900 DATE. 05/071200
City Council Study Session PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Service Reductions Potential Public Works Service Reductions • Reduce Engineering Division • Eliminate Traffic Count Program • Reduce
Snow Removal Service Tim Paranto June 21. 2010 • Eliminate Lodger's Tax Infrastructure Program Public Works Engineering Division Services • Community Development support 11 % • External
customer support 4% • Internal customer support 13% • Stormwater Program 6% • Right-of-way permits 18% • Administrative support 13% • Capital Investment Program 26% • Traffic data and
misc. 9% 1
Engineering Division Services Reductions • Reduce CIP design and inspection • Eliminate Parks Department support • Eliminate traffic count program Reduce staff by 1.5 FTE $105,000 Traffic
Count Program • $11,000 yearly cost • Information accessed by external customers approximately 50 times each week • Used for internal traffic analysis • Used for land use case review
• Used for grant applications Snow and Ice Control Program • $300,000 yearly cost • 75% of effort on Priority 1 streets (27 miles) • Four snow plow trucks deployed 2
Snow and Ice Control Program Reductions • Service fewer streets No service to Priority 3 streets Plow only two lanes on Priority 2 streets • Plow with fewer trucks All priority streets
plowed Service completed 6-24 hours later Possible staff reduction Snow and Ice Control Program Reductions • Service fewer streets $50,000 yearly savings • Plow with fewer trucks $70,000
additional yearly cost Lodger's Tax • 40% designated to redevelopment and public improvements • $174,000 currently used to construct streetscape improvements in hotel/motel district
3
Lodger's Tax Re-allocation • Finance Economic Development Position • Finance economic development marketing • Finance economic development memberships • Maintain Kipling St. streets
cape • Repair sidewalks, curbs & gutters in City Summary • The Public Works Department is providing minimum services • There are few opportunities for significant budget savings 4
~~A" ... ~ City of ~Wheat~dge ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: Memorandum Mayor DiTullio and City Council Patrick Goff, City Manager.D)r Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development
Director John Schumacher, Chief Building Official July 1,2010 (for July Ith Study Session) ;;+e,nt, 3. SUBJECT: Budget impact of outsourcing building inspections and plan reviews The
Building Division currently employs one combination inspector and one plans examiner/combination inspector on a full-time employee basis to conduct field inspections and review submitted
plans required for issuance of permits. The combination inspector position is a long standing position. The plans examiner/combination inspector position was filled in November of2009,
as approved in the 2009 budget and recommended by the external assessment of the Building Division conducted in early 2009. Currently, all plan reviews are conducted by the Building
Division staff, and all revenues generated by these reviews are retained by the City. The City has a contract with Code Consultants International, Inc. (CCI) to perform plan reviews,
as needed. Per our contract terms, CCI would retain 100% of the plan review fee collected by the City. No contract plan reviews have been conducted by CCI in the past three years. In
a typical year, approximately ninety percent of all field inspections are performed by Building Division staff, with the remaining field inspections performed on a per inspection fee
basis by a firm contracted by the City. At this time the contracted firm is Code Consultants International, Inc., and the per-inspection rate is $30. The figures for 2009 and 2010 in
the chart below reflect contract inspection costs related to the storm of July 20,2009, which increased the percentage of contract inspections performed by approximately fifty percent
and inflated the actual expenditure for contract inspections well above the normal range. The chart below reflects the total costs to the City to perform inspections and plan reviews
through use of full-time employment of inspectors and plans examiners (total net revenues from inspector/examiner positions) in comparison to the cost of performing plan reviews and
inspections on a solely contract basis (total revenue change to perform inspections and reviews on a contract basis). These costs are calculated using the following formulas: Existing
Staffmg Model Total Cost to City (Column 4) = Staff Salaries and Benefits + Minimal Contract Inspections Net Revenue to City (Column 6) = Plan Review Revenues -Total Cost (above)
Budget Impact of Outsourcing Inspections July 1,2010 Page 2 Outsourcing Model To out source 100% of inspections and plan review, the City would lose all ofthe revenue generated from
plan review fees. Those plan review fees would be transferred to a contract firm to pay for the plan review services. Additionally the City would need to pay for contract inspectors,
which is typically a more costly approach than using in house inspectors. The total revenue change (loss) to outsource is represented in Column 8. Revenue Change for 100% Outsourcing
(Column 8) = Additional Contract Inspection Cost -Total Net Revenues (Column 6). Parentheses are used to represent a net loss in revenue. 2007 Column I Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column
5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Actual Total Cost to City Total Net Total Cost to Total Revenue # of Plan Review Revenues from Change to Perform Inspectors/Total Salaries Expenditure to
Perform Revenue Inspector Conduct 100% Inspections and Examiners For Contract Inspections and Received· /Examiner Contract Reviews on a Inspections Reviews Positions Inspections Contract
Basis 1 ($77,183) ($12,960) ($90,143) $352,022 $261,879 ($114,510) ($376,389) 2008 1 ($80,164) ($20,070) ($100,234) $481,351 $381,117 ($150,300) ($531,417) 2009 1.125 ($82,670) ($171,900)
($254,570) $165,972 ($88,598) ($319,140) ($230,542) 2010** 2 ($139,056) ($116,640) ($255,696) $90,7026 ($164,970) ($349,290) ($184,320) * 100 percent of plan review revenue received
is, by contract, paid to the contract inspection and review firm if reviews are performed by that firm. The current contracted cost for plan reviews is one hundred percent of plan review
fees collected. Some contract inspection and review firms charge the total plan review fee collected plus an additional ten percent. No contract plan reviews have been conducted by the
contracted firm since early 2007. ** Annual figures for 20 I 0 are projections based on costs and revenues during the first trimester, which is typically the slowest period of activity
each year. In each of the above test cases, the result of outsourcing inspections and reviews would be a significant loss of revenue, ranging from a projected $184,320 in 2010, to an
actual loss of $531,417 in 2008, had these services been outsourced. The average annual loss in revenue from 2007 to 2010 had inspection and plan review services been outsourced would
be $330,667. In addition to the loss of revenue that would occur from outsourcing of inspection and plan review services, other consequences would be reduced consistency in inspection
and plan review practices and procedures, a decline in customer service due to reduced or limited access to inspectors and plans examiners by customers, added expense incurred by the
City to provide response to requests for assistance by emergency personnel, and an inability to provide over-thecounter permitting and consultation services without additional expense
to the contract firm for these services. 2
~.~~ ... or City of '~Wheat&"'-dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION ~fem ~. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager.9}J FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation
Director DATE: June 14, 2010 (for the July lih Study Session) SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Department Budget Analysis 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 July 12, 2010
Study Session presentation topics will provide information on three specific programs. Topics to be covered include the following: 1) Information on the programs and service levels currently
appropriated in the Parks, Forestry and Open Space Division Budget. The information will include the program, for example, Right-of-Way Maintenance, the scope of work and tasks required
to complete the program and the cost. Also included will be the impacts of a service level reduction for that program. 2) Information on the cost of operating the Anderson Building,
the programs that are offered at that location, and revenue and service level reduction impacts 3) Information on the programs and costs attributed to the Active Adult Center, and revenue
and service level reduction impacts
q~ City of WheatBLdge PARK..~ AND RECREATION Parks, Forestry and Open Space Service Levels Analysis 2009 Scope of Work • 150 Acres of developed parks --17 parks, 17 playgrounds, 8 restrooms
structures, 9 shelters and pavilions, trash removal, turf management • 18 Ball fields --soccer, football, softball and baseball field maintenance and preparation for approx 530 games
per year • Historic Park and Baugh House • Richards Hart Estate • Ye Olde Firehouse • Veteran's Memorial Gazebo • Recreation Centers and City Hall grounds • Outdoor Pool 1
Funding Sources • General Fund--Salaries -$667,380 -10 benefitted positions and seasonals -Supplies-$647,862 -CIP -$36,175 • Open Space Fund --Salaries -$437, 533 -6 benefitted positions
-CIP -$450,000 Secretary Parks. Forestry. Open Space Manager Parks Project Coordinator 2
Definition of Service Level Costs • Represent benefitted employee labor, seasonal costs and supplies • Do not include four management/supervisory positions: -Parks, Forestry and Open
Space Manager -Parks Project Coordinator -Staff Assistant -Parks Operation Supervisor -Forestry and Open Space Supervisor Service Level Categories • Athletic Field Maintenance • Christmas
Lighting • Fountain Maintenance • General Maintenance • Graffiti Removal • Inspections • Playground Maintenance • Pool Maintenance 3
Service Level Categories • Port-O-Lets • Restroom Maintenance • Right-of-Way Maintenance • Snow Removal • Trash Removal • Turf Maintenance • Utilities Athletic Field Maintenance • Tasks
-Field layout, preparation, painting, turf maintenance and mowing for 18 ball fields for adult and youth sports leagues • Cost -$51,881 • Impacts of service level reduction --Reduced
Revenues -$29,405 -Increased Liability-fences, play surfaces -Invasive Weeds -Increased costs to restore turf 4
Christmas Lighting • Tasks -Repair, replace and restring lights, set-up, take down -City Hall, 38th Avenue, Active Adult and Recreation Center • Cost -$8,783 -(labor only) • Impacts
of Service Level reduction -Elimination of city sponsored Christmas lights at a chosen location or all locations Fountain Maintenance • Tasks -Drain, clean out, refill, routine maintenance,
shut down. (excludes Town Center Park Fountain) • Cost -$1 ,277 • Impacts of service level reduction--Leave fountains dry -Removal or reconstruction costs -RHE loss of fountain amenity
5
General·Maintenance • Tasks -Sport courts, goals, benches, bleachers, fence, signs, lighting, shelter and pavilion cleaning • Cost-$33,646 • Impacts of service level reduction --Hazards
-Lead to increase of deterioration of infrastructure -Less sanitary conditions in shelter and pavilion areas Graffiti Removal • Tasks -Labor, material, tracking for facilities and/or
structures • Cost -$4,296 • Impacts of service level reduction-Unsightly -Graffiti breeds graffiti-multiple incidents of tagging and increased cleaning of layers -Bad influences/gangs
-Promotes bad images of City -Increased enforcement 6
Inspections • Tasks -Bleachers, playgrounds, skateboard park • Cost -$17,000 • Impacts of service level reduction --Increased possibility of hazards -Ability to plan for infrastructure
replacements. -Increased vandalism -Increased liability Playground Maintenance • Tasks -Repair/replacement, fall surfacing, vandalism, certification • Cost -$14,095 • Impacts of service
level reduction --Increased out-sourcing/costs -Loss of revenue-no attraction -Lead to increase of deterioration of infrastructure 7
Pool Maintenance • Tasks -Start-up, maintenance, materials, shut down • Cost -$9,382 • Impacts of service level reduction --Increased out-sourcing/costs -Loss of revenue -Lead to increase
of deterioration of infrastructure Port-O-Lets • Tasks -Year round rental, observation, tracking of units in developed parks and school field sites. • Cost -$15,610 • Impacts of service
level reduction --Less sanitary conditions at the parks and fields -No restrooms provided during fall, winter and spring • Parks used year round 8
Restroom Maintenance • Tasks -Start-up, cleaning, maintenance, shutdown, concession stands open/close • Cost -$25,940 • Impacts of service level reduction --Less sanitation -Less use
-Rental revenue loss -Increased enforcement without daily visits Right-of-Way Maintenance • Tasks -Chemical weed control, trash removal and weed and grass mowing services in designated
City of Wheat Ridge right-of-way, turf and sidewalk areas as required. • Cost -$51,469 • Impacts of service level reduction --Unsightly trash and weeds -Increased Code Enforcement calls
-Hazards-site triangles -Sidewalks-trip hazards, forces people to walk in roadways -Negative image of the City -Increased dumping -Increased storm water issues from lack of clean sidewalks
9
Snow Removal • Tasks -All Parks & Recreation facilities, roads, lots and paths • Cost -$43,203 • Impacts of service level reduction-Increased safety and liability issues -Less accessibility,
less usage and revenue for facility use -Build-up of snow layer causes increased workload Trash Removal • Tasks -Trash can and hand pick-up, yearly dumpsters • Cost -$57,627 • Impacts
of service level reduction-Health and sanitation issues -Promotes a bad image of the City -Increased workload when trash runs are dumped 10
Turf Maintenance • Tasks -Irrigation start-up, repair and blow-out. Aeration, broad leaf application, edging, leaf pick-up, mowing. • Cost -$198,424 • Impacts of service level reduction--Increased
liability due to poor play surface -Increased cost to restore turf-water, aeration, broad leaf, seeding and sodding, fertilization. -Infrastructure issues with irrigation systems. -Increased
liability -Reduced revenues -Reduced sites for athletic programs puts stress on remaining fields Utilities • Tasks -Water, electrical, sanitation all locations -Examples -Ballfield lights,
outdoor pool water costs, turf irrigation • Cost -$254,766 • Impacts of service level reductions-No lights in ballfields -Shelter and pavillion lighting -Loss of turf 11
Scope of Work • Forestry -Tree/Plant Planning & Maintenance • Right-of-Way & Medians • City Owned Property -Parks • Urban Canopy • Traffic Calming Islands (74) • Streetscape -38th Avenue
-Harlan Street Walk -Kipling & 1-70 Monument Sign -Arborist Licensing -Arbor OaylTree City USA Categories • Tree Care • Planting Bed Care • Education • Memorial Trees 12
Tree Care • Tasks -Planting, watering/fertilizing, disease prevention, hazardous tree, inspection/inventory, tree removals, tree ring maintenance, tree pruning in parks and City ROW
• Cost -$209,495 • Impact of service level reduction --Health and safety issues with unmaintained trees within Parks and/or Right of Way, Streetscapes or in Traffic Calming Island -Physical
injury to property or humans/pets when limbs fail or are not trimmed up from sidewalks streets or parking areas. -Acute problems with traffic control signs; stop yield speed limit crosswalk,
directional signs and a school crossings -An unhealthy tree canopy and tree populations spread of disease to other privately own properties and trees Planting Bed Care • Tasks -Planting,
watering/fertilization, mulching, tilling, composting, edging, pruning, shrubs, annual and perennial flower care, manual and chemical weed control • Cost -$54,941 • Impacts of service
level reduction-Decrease in overall aesthetics -Violation of City code and State weed law -Decrease in annual flower bed plantings 13
Education • Tasks -Arbor Day/Tree City USA, tree walks, Demonstration Gardens • Cost -$750 • Impacts of service level reduction-Less education on arid climate plantings/water usage -Loss
of Tree City USA status -Cancellation of Arbor Day Memorial Trees • Tasks -Promotion, application process, planting, tracking • Cost -$700 (matching funds for donations) • Impacts of
Service Level Reductions-Loss of revenue source for new trees -Loss of community connection 14
Scope of Work • Open Space -250 acres of Open Space • Four lakes, conservation area, five miles of hard surface trail, five miles of soft surface trail -Interpretive programs -Noxious
Weed Management -Lewis Meadows Park -Undeveloped park sites Service Level Categories • Trail Maintenance • Natural Resource Management 15
Trail Maintenance • Tasks -Trail clearance, flailing, weed cutting, pruning, inspections, debris removal, vandalism mitigation, graffiti removal, trail repair, trailhead maintenance,
bridge/footbridge/boardwalk maintenance, signs, kiosks, maps • Cost -$111,051 • Impact of service level reduction--Increased health and safety issues with potential physical injury to
users on uneven or surfaces covered with debris or snow and ice -Community and regional connector inconvenience and lose of a community meeting spot -Loss of trail amenity Natural Resource
Management • Tasks -Inventory/Survey/Inspection, vegetation management including trees and noxious weeds, revegetation, ditches, lakes, ponds, water quality, wild fire mgmt • Cost -$40,548
• Impact of Service Level Reduction --Loss of managed open space amenity 16
City of Wheat~dge PARKS AND RECREATION Anderson Building Cost Analysis 2009 Scheduled Programs • Adult Leagues -Volleyball, basketball • Fitness -Yoga, dance, Kettlebells, Pilates •
Jazzercise • Rentals -Adult and youth sports leagues and practices • Youth Sports Classes 1
Anderson Building Usage Rentals Participants # of hours Jazzercise 25-40/class 572 Private Rentals 127 359 Class Participants # of hours Pilates 550 689 Dance 21 9 Kettle bell 100 132
Yoga 169 114 Youth Sports Classes(9) 78 52 Annual Usage Summary • 1,085 Individual Participants • 1,927 Hours of Use • 266 Classes • 12 Different Programs 2
Other Uses • Outdoor Pool -combined utility meter • Carnation Festival -Wheat Ridge Art League art show • Storage -Concession stand supplies/food -Youth sports equipment -Wheat Ridge
Piranhas' equipment • Youth soccer pass processing Operation & Maintenance Costs • Building Supervisor -$21,500 • Utilities -$17,872 » Gas and Electric • Custodial Contract -$5,427 •
Facility Repair and Maintenance -$4,209 • TOTAL -$49,008 3
Capital Improvement Costs • Average cost over the last 7 Years -$5,014. -Projects include new roof, gym floor resurfacing, sports flooring fitness room Indirect Costs -Costs associated
with benefitted employees and time spent on scheduling, maintenance and programming for the building. • Athletic Supervisor -4% • General Program Supervisor -1 % • Fitness Coordinator
-3% • Maintenance Supervisor -12% -There are no cost savings associated with these indirect costs, as closure of the building does not result in a staff reduction due to the remaining
job responsibilities of these positions. 4
Program Expenditure Revenue Adult Leagues $ 7,425 $ 9,900 Youth Classes $ 1,200 $ 3,000 Dance Classes $ 558 $ 800 Yoga $ 4,400 $ 6,285 Kettle bell $ 7,000 $10,000 Pilates $15,162 $21,660
Facility Rentals $21,500 $12,855 Building Supervisors All activities and rentals TOTAL $57,245 $64,500 Summary • Participants -1,085 • Hours of Use -1927 • Number of Classes held -266
for 12 programs • Expenditure -$84,744 -$21,500 Building Supervision -$27,508 Facility Maintenance -$35,745 Program -$ 5,014 Average CIP $85,257 • Revenue -$64,500 5
Impacts • Alternative programming space limited or not available • Elimination of programs • Demand for this service and these programs will not be met • Expenditure -$85,257 • Revenue
-$64,500 -Difference $21,757 75% cost recovery • QUESTIONS 6
~7 City of WheatBl-dge PARKS AND RECREATION Senior/Community Center or Wheat Ridge Active Adult Center Budget Analysis 2009 What does the budget include? • Staffing -Benefitted positions
-$227,248 -Center Supervisor (1 ) -.5 & .625 Coordinator (2) -Administrative support (2) • Part Time Hourly positions -$63,616 -Building Supervisors for night and weekend activities
-I nstructors and activity leaders 7
What does the budget include? • Program Supplies -$81,768 • Facility Operation & Maintenance Costs -$73,013 • Utilities, custodial, maintenance, facility repair • TOTAL -$445,655 Indirect
Costs • Costs associated with the Center -not directly charged to the Senior Center budget -Facility Maintenance Supervisor • 14% oftime -$9,035 • Paper and cleaning supplies -$4,775
-Park Maintenance costs for the grounds 8
Revenue Event Revenue Participant visits Computer classes $7,119 138 Art classes/groups $4,678 1,275 Special events $10,759 1,658 Trips $47,398 3,978 Drop in games $2,486 3,995 Well
ness/fitness/dance $94,281 20,000 Facility Rentals $23,000 315 TOTAL $189,721 31,359 Cost Recovery • Program Expenditures -$277,380 • Facility Expenditures -$168,275 • Revenue-$189,721
• Program only cost recovery -68% • Cost Recovery with facility costs included -43% 9
Cost Recovery Comparisons Facility Cost Recovery Formula Wheat Ridge Direct costs + 30% Golden -Front Porch Direct costs + 25% APEX Community Recreation Direct costs + $15 per contact
Center hour Malley -Englewood Direct costs +10-15% The MAC -Westminster Direct costs +20% Broomfield Senior Center Direct costs +60% * Direct Costs represent instructor and program supplies
only Trends • Deleting the word "senior" from building name and programs • Active, working baby boomers -Require expanded program hours • Jefferson County--A large % of older seniors
still active • Requesting higher volume of Fitness & Well ness classes • Area for socializing -Coffee or snack bar • Increase in technology related classes -Computer webcams, film making,
downloading music, digital photography • Programs that enhance enrichment, vital aging and learning opportunities. • Programs "outside the walls" of the Center. • Intergenerational programs
10
~~~.( ..... r City of ~WheatRdge ~OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of Wheat Ridge Town Meeting Participant Survey The following survey has been designed for residents to provide
input to the Mayor and City Council on the following topics presented and discussed at the Town Meeting.
Please rate the following statements by placing a checkmark ( -V ) in the statement box which best represents your opinion. This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Thank you for providing us with your feedback. Survey results will be posted on the City Website on the "City Council" Web page approximately one week following this meeting. Issue Topic
#1: City-wide Waste Collection System To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following ways for the City to provide waste collection service to residents? Strongly Somewhat
Neither Somewhat Strongly Do Support Support Support or Do Not Not Support Not Support Support 1. A voter-approved waste collection system (in the form of a franchise with with a single
trash hauler) 2. A non-voter approved waste collection system, adopted by City Council (in the form of a utility fee billed to residents) \ 3. Provide recycling as an \ optional service
in the waste collection s~TE!m", "-4. Require rna datory -""'" recycling in t e waste "1\ collection system 5. Leave the waste collection ) system as it exists today Comments: ,¥ 1
Issue Topic #2: City Budget To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following ways to balance the City's budget? Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Do Support Support
Support or Not Do Not Not Support Support Support 1. Increase property tax rate 2. Increase sales tax rate 3. Decrease levels of service and/or eliminate programs and services '" 4.
I ncrease the cost of ( services and programs "-to users .~ •.... \ .. 5. Implement a new fee '>.. '-. to fund improvements I" to infrastructure such as roadways 6. Implement a new fee
to fund improvements to infrastructure such as storm water/drainage '< /' Issue Topic #3: Designating & Revitalizing 38th Avenue as the City's "Main Street" To what extent do you support
or oppose each of the following ways to promote efforts to designate 38th Avenue (between Wadsworth and Sheridan) as the "Main Street" in the City? Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat
Strongly Do Support Support Support or Not Do Not Not Support Support Support 1. Promote efforts to designate 38th Avenue as the City's "Main Street" 2. Consider modifying or narrowing
the design of the street to better accommodate bikes and pedestrians 3. Publicly finance projects that strengthen the identity and image of 38th Avenue 4. Consider City initiated rezoning
of portions of the corridor to 2
encourage mixed-use development Issue Topic #4: Community Policing Efforts in Neighborhoods To what extent do you support efforts to promote partnerships with the Police Department,
community partners and neighborhoods, such as the East Wheat Ridge Neighborhood Community Policing Project, in an effort to reduce crime, improve the quality of life, revitalize neighborhoods
and create a healthier community? Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Do Support Support Support or Not Do Not Not Support Support Support 1. Assist neighborhoods in their efforts
to reduce crime through crime prevention and education efforts citywide 2. Assist neighborhoods in their efforts to address nuisance code issues in their neighborhoods 3. Assist neighborhoods
in their efforts to address traffic issues in their neighborhoods 4. Assist ou r schools by providing School Resource Officers to our High Schoo and .... Middle Schools ... "-Comments
for issue~ 3, & 4: ~ '-, J I ""' /.; '-. --/.Y Thank you for taking time to complete complete this survey! 3