Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 09-15-14STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO September 15, 2014 6:30p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF AGENDA ~ Staff Report(s) a) Ridge Road Catalytic Project Update b) Clear Creek Crossing Traffic Study Update 2. Animal Welfare Commission Update 3. Carnation Festival/Circus Update 4. Elected Officials' Report ADJOURNMENT ~~A~ ... .. City of _.~Wheat:Ri_dge ~PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ISSUE: Memo~andum Patrick Goff, City Manager~ Scott Brink, Director of Public Works September 2 , 2014 (September 15 , 2014 Study Session) Ridge Road Catalytic Project Update Earlier this year, staff submitted a request for funding from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DR COG) for the purposes of conducting a planning and conceptual design study for Ridge Road in the vicinity of the Gold Line Commuter Rail. With support from the City of Arvada , the City of Wheat Ridge was successful in attaining funds in the amount of $150,000 to engage in a study for Ridge Road between Miller Street and the Tabor Street (Wheat Ridge Ward Road Station). While the study is intended to focus on Ridge Road specifically within the limits mentioned above , it also considers the broader northwest area of Wheat Ridge between Ward Road and the Arvada Ridge (Kipling) Station. After a solicitation and interview process conducted by DR COG with the assistance of the cities of Wheat Ridge and Arvada, a contract was awarded to the consulting firm ofFellsburg, Holt , and Ullevig (FHU) to conduct the study. DRCOG is administering the study with concurrence from both cities. FHU commenced work on the study earlier this summer. The intent of this memorandum is to provide Council with an update ofthe progress of the study to date. BACKGROUND: Ridge Road is located parallel and adjacent to the future Gold Line Commuter Rail , which is scheduled to open for service in 2016 . An improved Ridge Road is eventually desired to accommodate future multi-modal transportation needs in the Gold Line corridor area , including vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation modes , and access to Gold Line stations. An improved Ridge Road will also serve as a catalyst in the construction of future development and re-development activities along the rail corridor and surrounding area. Ridge Road provides a direct link between two future Gold Line Stations, Wheat Ridge Ward Road and Arvada Ridge (Kipling Street). An improved roadway will encourage future public and private improvements that will drive long-term economic development in this area . The intent of the study is to provide a recommended conceptual roadway design alternative that can Ridge Road Catalytic Project Update September 15 , 2014 Page 2 eventually be utilized to engage in the production of final design plans and construction. Following are a few key components being considered as part of the study: 1. The City of Arvada has already engaged in design and construction plans for Ridge Road east of Miller Street. The intent is to extend similar roadway improvements west along the Gold Line Corridor to the western tenninus at Wheat Ridge Ward Road station. 2 . The study addresses multi-modal transportation options , including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian , and transit, particularly with regard to connectivity and access to future rail stations , and in accordance with the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan . In addition to addressing multi-modal accessibility improvements , the study and preliminary design also considers housing and economic development opportunities along the corridor. The study also considers the Wheat Ridge Northwest Subarea Plan which lays the groundwork for transit-oriented and private sector housing and business development in this portion of the City. 3 . The study is intended to examine the need for improvements to Ridge Road with the following considerations in mind: a. Higher level-of-service operations at key intersections and rail crossings b. Improved multi-modal facilities to access transit , schools , housing, businesses , and other destinations c. Reconstruction of current design and operation standards d . Adequate local access to service existing and planned adjacent land uses 4 . The objective of the study is to work with stakeholders to analyze and develop alternatives for an eventual preferred design and street section that will facilitate and improve operational performance, safety, local access , and economic development opportunities . The intent is to produce documents and deliverables that can be used for funding applications that can ultimately be utilized to prepare plans and specifications and construction in a phased approach as opportunities and resources present themselves . STUDY WORK COMPLETED TO DATE Purpose and Needs Statement: An essential element as part of the study process is specifically identifying the study's purpose, needs, and related goals , including the following: I. Identifying the visions of the Cities of Wheat Ridge and Arvada in relation to Ridge Road and the surrounding area. 2 . Compiling a list of issues from stakeholders to identify a list of key needs in the corridor. Ridge Road Catalytic Project Update September 15 ,2014 Page 3 3. Producing a written statement of purpose and need that serves as an "umbrella" statement for the corridor, based on identification of needs and deficiencies; reflecting the context sensitivity of the study area and consideration of the integration of transportation and mobility goals with land use , environmental , safety, and other infrastructure needs. FHU has developed a one-page draft purpose and need statement that staffs from both cities are currently reviewing. A final draft is expected to be fonnalized later this month. Existing Conditions Report and Data Collection: FHU has completed a draft existing conditions report , which is currently under review and being refined. The draft describes the Ridge Road corridor's existing conditions, including Ridge Road itself (street and right-of-way width , pavement and drainage condition, etc.), surrounding land use , environmental and soil conditions, and other factors that may affect a future design . Traffic data has also been collected. This included obtaining current traffic counts for the project limits and the surrounding roadway network to evaluate the existing traffic operations. Travel demand forecasting , utilizing adopted projections, has been considered , including traffic impacts to nearby local streets. In addition , existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are being reviewed for safety, adequacy, and connectivity, all in consideration of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Streetscape Design Manual. Alternatives Evaluation: The consultant has begun the process of developing preferred design alternatives and possible implementation phases , including the following: I. General profiles and typical sections 2. ROW and easement requirements 3. Phasing opportunities As part of the study development , a Resources Group tTeam comprised of members ofboth cities , DRCOG , and the consultant hasbeen meeting periodically. At the most recent meeting on August 13 , 2014, team members discussed the following elements related to possible design alternatives: 1. An extension of Ridge Road (now 50th Avenue) to Ward Road with bicycle lanes in both directions and sidewalk on at least one side of the street , and the likelihood of a future traffic signal at the intersection of Ridge Road and Ward Road 2. A review of the intersections of Ridge Road with Tabor, Robb , Parfet, and Miller Streets, along with rail crossings and traffic signals 3. Consideration of future Tabor Street improvements south ofRidge Road which will be constructed in 2015 as a multi-modal facility 4 . Consideration ofRTD routes (current and future), particularly with regard to the Ward Road Station and access to nearby large emplo yers , such as Kaiser Permanente on Ward Road Ridge Road Catalytic Project Update September 15 , 2014 Page4 5 . Consideration of a future street section for Ridge Road that would include 11-foot travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes , and sidewalks . A proposed cross section discussion with regard to properties along the north side of Ridge Road that may be impacted , including future right-ofway acquisition needs. A preferred cross section will be refined and presented to the Resources Group Team for further discussion later this month. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS: The Resources Group Team is scheduled to meet again on September 17 to refine the draft altematives and design considerations further. A informational public meeting is subsequently anticipated in mid to late October. The entire study process is expected to be completed within the next six months , including the completion of a feasibility report that will include cost estimates , suggested phasing and implementation of future improvements , and other recommendations. REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY: Scott Brink , Director of Public Works Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ridge Road Catalytic Study Area Map \..,... ~ a ""' ~ W. 5oth Art. l..cii;;Nt SlM-DuiQf lllc. LEGEND , , Planning Study Area -Focus Study Area ~ ~ "' =- WHEAT ~[[) W. 56thPL ~ ~ ~ NORTH A Figure 1 Study Area Golcl ComdorWIIUt Ridge Wild 51111011 I Aodgt Aoocl CltalyiJC PrOjPd IC·094 07130/U "t-.. c .. E .1: u ! .. C( ,.~~~ .... ~ .,. City of • .. rPr'WheatR.i._dge ~PUBLIC WORKS TO: Patrick Goff, Ci::: ~Dd Uffi FROM: Scott Brink, Director of Public Works DATE: September 8, 2014 (September 15 , 2014 Study Session) SUBJECT: Clear Creek Crossing Traffic Study Update ISSUE AND BACKGROUND: Several years ago , an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared as part of the approval process for a proposed development ofthe property west ofl-70 between 32"d Avenue and Highway 58 , referred to as Clear Creek Crossing and also as the Cabela's site. The eventual approval of the EA involved a significant public process that also included a very detailed and comprehensive traffic study that identified a significant amount of infrastructure improvements that would be needed for the development proposed at the time. Because of the relatively large area of the site and the potential impact to both regional and local transportation facilities , several agencies were involved in the process, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Jefferson County, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), among others . Over the last few years , a portion of those infrastructure improvements have been constructed, including an underpass of I-70 at 401h A venue and the more recent completion of improvements at the intersection of 32"d and Youngfield. The City has worked with several developers over the last decade to develop the site. However, the high cost of the remaining infrastructure improvements required by the previous Environmental Assessment has been a primary impediment to developing the site . Recent interest in the site by a potential developer has elevated the need to review and reevaluate the EA , particularly with regards to looking at a phased approach to both development and further infrastructure construction . As a result , the City Council on April 28 , 2014 authorized a contract with the consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to review the EA and more specifically, conduct an updated traffic analysis . Whereas, the development proposal several years ago proposed a complete site build-out in a relatively short time period, the current traffic study is based on a phased approach in that ultimate site build out will likely occur in up to 3 phases over a period of several years . The intent has been to utilize as much of the previous EA work as is still relevant and applicable, while updating certain portions (such as traffic) as necessary. This procedure is referred to by CDOT as a Level 1 Re-Evaluation . STUDY WORK COMPLETED TO DATE Per the Scope of Services outlined and made part of their contract, PB has reviewed the previous EA and environmental documentation and also conducted two scoping meetings Clear Creek Crossing Traffic Study Update September 15 ,2014 Page 2 with representatives of COOT, Jefferson County, and the FHW A. From these meetings , PB and staff have been able to better ascertain the needs and requirements of the other agencies in terms of preparing an updated traffic study that meets Level 1 Re-evaluation guidelines . More specifically, the traffic study is intended to address infrastructure improvements that will be needed at certain development stages, depending upon the extent of generated traffic at different stages (trigger points), combined with both existing and future background traffic levels (non-development related) on the existing roadway network . As a result of the meetings with COOT and FHW A , the work required by PB has required a significant amount of traffic and data collection for a substantial amount of area adjacent to and beyond the site itself, including 1-70 , Highway 58 , Mcintyre Street , and other local roadways. PB is currently nearing completion of a traffic study draft. Preliminary indications are that the existing roadway infrastructure can adequately handle a Phase 1 development as currently proposed , in addition to the existing background traffic. However, subsequent phases and/or background traffic growth will necessitate the construction of additional infrastructure improvements, including hook ramps on 1-70 , and the eventual construction of an interchange on Highway 58 between Mcintyre and 1-70 . NEXT STEPS: PB and staff will be going over the Traffic Study draft with the other agencies within the next few weeks. Upon further discussion and refinement of the draft , a public informational meeting (open house) will be scheduled , similar to the public process conducted previously as part of the past approved EA. Upon completion of the public process and approvals per Level 1 Re- evaluation procedures , the initiation of a Phase I development can move forward. REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY: Scott Brink , Director of Public Works Patrick Goff, City Manager ~~A_, .... ~ r City of • .. ~WheatFi_dge ~OLICE DEPARTMENT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor Jay and City Council"'~ Patrick Goff, City Manager jJ!} Daniel G. Brennan , Chief of Police Jim Lorentz, Division Chief, Patrol Operations Division September 15 , 2014 Staff Report -Animal Welfare and Control Commission Discussion PRIOR ACTION : City Council met with members of the Animal Welfare and Control Commission (AWCC) at the May 6 , 2013 Study Session for a round table discussion of the AWCC duties and responsibilities . Council agreed on the following: 1. The City Attorney and Police Department will work together to bring the Chapter of the Code of Laws related to animals up-to-date ; 2. Police Department staff will work with the AWCC to clarify policy and the role of the AWCC; 3 . The AWCC and Police Department staff will work on producing educational programs and fliers regarding animals and Code of Laws related to animals ; 4. Police Department staff will provide more back-up information to the A WCC regarding kennel applications ; and 5. The Police Department will bring in a facilitator to work with the Department and A WCC on relationships and roles. FOLLOW-UP: On May 21 , 2013 , the A WCC met for their regularly scheduled meeting. Police Department staff reviewed the five items listed above and provided information regarding professional facilitators. Members of the A WCC advised that they felt a facilitator was an unnecessary expense for the City, and they believed they could accomplish the five items with the help of Police Department and City Attorney 's office staff. The A WCC voted 7--D to postpone working with a facilitator , and continue to work with the Police Department and City Attorney 's office. This information was presented to Council in a staff report dated July 15 , 2013. The following eight months , staff and the A WCC have worked together to try to define and clarify the responsibilities of the A WCC , and work on recommendations for City Council to consider revising the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, specifically: Sections 2-56 , 26-605 , and 4- 34. Staff and the A WCC endeavored to create rules of procedure for the Commission, and made some effort to evolve the Commission into a more viable resource to the Wheat Ridge community. The process was assisted by Carmen Beery of the City Attorney 's office. The A WCC did address the Code of Laws related to animals and suggested changes in this area , as well as worked on policy and trying to clarify the role of the A WCC. Infonnation provided to Staff Report -Animal Welfare and Control Commission {A WCC) Discussion September 15,2014 Page 2 the A WCC regarding kennel licensing was improved. The issue regarding the production of educational programs and fliers regarding animals and Code of Laws related to animals was somewhat stalled. After working on this process for more than eight months, staff and the A WCC felt that efforts lacked the effectiveness and efficiency that a professional facilitator could have provided. On January 10 , 2014, Division Chief Jim Lorentz requested through the chain of command the use of a professional facilitator. A WCC members were apprised of this request by letter, and have been supportive in this process. RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING: June Ramos of J. Ramos Associates , LLC was selected to work with staff and the A WCC. Interviews with members began in April , 2014. On July 15,2014, Ms. Ramos presented the A WCC City of Wheat Ridge Summary Report/Data Interviews to members of the committee. Ms. Ramos is scheduled to present her report to City Council at this September 15 , 2014 Study Session. ATTACHMENTS: 1. AWCC Summary Report , dated July 15 ,2014 2. AWCC Interviews April2014 • Started in April 2014 • 14 Interviews - 8 Commission Members - 6 City staff/representatives • In person (1), phone, and email/written • Same questions asked of everyone • Anonymous • Report to Commission-July 15, 2014 Copynght©2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC Attachment 1 Copynght ©2010 J Ramos AssoCiates LLC I • Passion for the animals • Commitment to service to the City • Varied accomplishments • Carmen's assistance • Shared interest and sense of compatibility Copynght ©2010 J Ramos AssoCiates LLC I ,'13 OssuES y Cop ynght C'2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC CopynghtCc)2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC • 1970's and today • Mission Changes • The expanded role of the Police Department/CSOs • Liability issues • Advisory vs. Policy Making Role • Mission/Vision and Roles and Responsibilities -Lack of clarity, uncertainty, or conflict -Lack of acceptance about new mission and roles -Working with Carmen in this area; sense of progress -No goals/plan for success or performance measures Copynght©2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC Copynght©2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC • Accountability to City Cou Role of Council? • Who I represent? Self or larger City needs? • No unified agreement about evolving role of the City/PD • Advisory Role vs. Policy Making? • Enforcement Role? • Accountability? • Willingness of members to commit to new roles? (e.g., education, events?) • Meeting management issues -leadin meetings/Robert's Rules of Order • Role of PD in meetings and role of leadership • Lack of Ground Rules/Code of Conduct -Tangents and complaining sessions by some members -Outspoken vs. quieter members -Focus on Agenda and issues -Meeting Purpose -Decision Making/Commitment to final decisions Copynght(cJ 2010 J Ramos Assooates LLC • No veterinarians on Commission per Charter Copynght ©2010 J Ramos AssoCiates LLC I 1. Maintain current Commission with marked improvements 2. Disband Commission 3. Change Commission -What does the City need today? 4. Other Copynght ©2010 J Ramos ASSOCiates LLC .. City of Wheat Ridge Animal and Welfare and Control Commission (AWCC) Interviews, April-May, 2014 Conducted by: June E. Ramos, J Ramos Associates, LLC Interviews (telephone, face-to-face, and email) were conducted of the AWCC Commission Members, as well as of City Staff/PD by June Ramos. Participants were told the interviews were confidential and that the data would be reported anonymously-no names attached to any bullet points. You will observe that in some cases perceptions of team members may differ-one person may comment about o specific strength, and that same strength may also show up as a weakness or challenge as reported by someone else. This is due to the varying perceptions of the individuals interviewed. Just accept that in your diversity you each may see things differently. I recommend spending no time on trying to "figure out" who said what-it is really not very productive. Use this as an opportunity to learn from the interview data and compare perceptions, adding to and creating a rich discussion about future actions and how the Commission con be even more successful. Candid feedback was given in a sincere, constructive way-if used in any way other than to learn and grow from the data it's not really helpful. All interview data from the City Staff members is reported in blue color font, in italics. As you review the data, please make notes and be prepared to answer the following questions for discussion at our session . • My quick reaction to the overall report-Also any surprises? • Questions of clarity I have about the data • General patterns, trends, or themes that I see • Next step actions Attachment 2 1. What is the mission of the Commission, and what is the role of AWCC in accomplishing that mission as you see it? 2 • Keeping the community safe from wildlife; Help assure that pet-associated businesses are running clean, efficiently, and up to code; deal with specific issues as they come up • Focus on welfare of animals, pets and livestock • We provide input to ordinances around animal issues • We don't know our mission and Carmen has been helping us-we do focus on the welfare of animals; we are appointed by City Council and we advise Code Enforcement but everything goes through the police department; our main role is to be representatives of the city and citizens • To assure that citizens with animals comply with the law around space, care and food. We help handle problems with people not complying through recommendations. We get reports/updates from code enforcement officers. Education? Still not sure what is our role today. • We are in the process of coming up with our mission -we never really had one . We have been advisors to City Council and Animal Control officers. Beyond that, I am not sure of what else . It has changed over time-we used to help license and enforce the codes. This may still be a bone of contention for some . • Educate people; help animals (such as exotic animals); used to do inspections. We are volunteers who focus on helping the animals and doing what is needed i n their best interests. We advise the Council and police department/code enforcement officers. We are not the policy makers. • It's not real clear to me. • I believe the AWCC was created at a time in the city's history (in the 70's) where there was little or no animal control/ management. The A WCC was set up as a body to advise the Chief of Police and Council on animo/ issues . I don't think it ever really did this very effectively because certainly by the early 80's, there was an animal control supervisor and a professional trained team that took on this role . The Municipal Code details the authority, scope, and responsibilities of the A WCC, and without exception, each of those items have been accomplished by Staff for well over 20 years . The prevailing view has been that although the A WCC does next to nothing, no one really wants to make the decision to disband it. Recognizing this, Staff has attempted to work with the AWCC to re -work the Code to find ways to clarify the code and find ways to make the Commission viable to the community. Carmen Beery helped in this effort, but all that seemed to be accomplished was to address the inconsistencies in the Code . There was no re -direction of duties or goals. I tried to advocate a new direction of providing training to the community, but the A wee did not want to do that. I have suggested that they appoint a Ntraining officer" from among their ranks to help the president establish an agenda and some kind of training for each session . Again, they choose nat to do this. 3 • In reviewing on old document from A WCC file, the "Animal Control Commission Overview," (not doted) was to serve in on advisory capacity to the police chief, mayor, city administrator and city council on issues involving animal control, animal welfare and wildlife management and control. The commission is responsible for reviewing kennel license applications for approval by the police ch ief The commission is responsible for reviewing variances for exotic animals to be kept by residents of the city. The document goes on to soy that they provide a valuable asset to the city in addressing emotional and sometimes controversial issues in the regards to animal ownership and animal related problems within the city. The A wee has outlived its function as an advisory to staff and addressing emotional and sometimes controversial issues as they relate to people and animals. There was a time when some of these functions were handled by the commission, but the city has grown and now professionally trained staff provide services in all areas of animal management. Staff utilizes the many experts that are available in all areas of animal management and law enforcement. Commission members ore not experts or professionally trained in the field of animal control, wildlife management, enforcement or working in all situations with the public. Each member may hove a concern or passion in a certain area as it relates to animals, but there is a bigger picture that involves all areas of animal control/management or enforcement of the code of lows. • The mission of the Animal Welfare and Control Commission is found in Section 2 - 56 of the City Code of Laws. The commission is an advisory board to the police chief, mayor, city manager and city council on issues related to animal control and disposition of animals; to receive and review complaints regarding the administration and ordinances related to animals; maintain a liaison with the county health officer; reports matters that may endanger the public's health (rabies, distemper) and approve or reject all applications for issuance of a kennel license. By ordinance the commission is supposed to have two (2) veterinarians on the board; however, the commission has not had any veterinarians on its board for over five years. The A WCC has been struggling to identify its purpose for many years and the police deportment has made many attempts to involve the AWCC in fulfilling its role. Unfortunately, some members of the A WCC hove taken the position staff is the nenemy." Some of these individuals have been discourteous and disrespectful towards department leadership and past CSO supervisors. There were two issues I was briefed on when I became Police Chief There were : 121 Under previous administrations, members of the AWCCwere allowed to conduct kennel license inspections . Stoff hod received complaints from kennel owners about A wee Board members about the professionalism of some board members. eJ There was a pending request before the AWCC to consider waiving the ordinance limiting the number of dogs a property owner could have, which was allowable by ordinance. In reviewing the ordinances there was no requirement for board members to conduct kennel inspections, so the practice was discontinued and explained to the A wee. In the second case, while Chapter 4 of the City Code of Laws granted the police chief the discretion to allow a property owner to keep more dogs or cats than allowed by ordinance, the ordinance was in conflict with the permissible uses for residences found in Chapter 26. Again, this was explained to theAWCC. • I transferred to the Support Services Division and the Division Commander/Division Chief in July, 2011 . The CSO Unit was transferred to the Patrol Operations Division in October, 2014 as a result of a reorganization of the police department. During this period of time, one of my job responsibilities wa s to attend the A wee meetings on behalf of the Police Chief. 4 The mission of the Commiss ion should be to serve as an advisory commission to the City (Mayor, City Council, and City Manager) and the police department more specifically to the Community Services Officers Unit. The commission is responsible to advise the CSO Unit in matters involving Chapter 4 of the City Code regarding animals, review of applications for new and renewable kennel licenses, and exotic animal permits. • The Commission needs to articulate its mission, I'm not sure it has one . I think the current members perceive their mission as to make the lives of all animals residing in the City better. !2. How AWCC role maps to City's role? • No experience yet; I am very new. • We used to partner in conducting investigations; now we cannot do that due to liability issues; most ·of the work is now done through the code enforcement officers and they keep us informed about what is happening. We have asked them what we can do to help; once they recommended we help with a neutering clinic, but I don't think that is our role. Right now we are purely advisory. • There has been past confusion over our role with the police department; many changes over the years; the police department has replaced our role. How do they see us today? Are we helping them or are we just getting in their way? • We are advisors with no authority • As our code enforcement is responsib 'le for enforcing the laws, we are in an advisory capacity and we can make recomme,ndations (such as dwarf goats); we can make recommendations to Oty Council based on data 5 • Animal control officers take the action; Ma.ry 'keeps us apprised of issues -she is very compassionate . There are some clear l.ines i n some areas; they suggest they would like the Commission to do event~/pet fairs, etc. ,Is this our role? • We used to report directly to the Counci'l; now we report to the Chief and his department. Can we get other opinions other than the Chief's? • I think the A WCC wants more "authority" than they're given . It also appears they want to have more involvement (their "'agenda"), but when given ideas by staff on how they could be involved they don 't seem interested or they don 't have the time. • I really don't know . There is no person or entity is charge of the Commission . Technically, they should answer to Council, but there is no contact between the two. There are no criteria, performance measures, evaluations, or tasks . Certainly, no one holds the Commission accountable for anything that is done or needs to be done, I don 't believe that anyone reads the minutes or is interested in their affairs . On an official/eve/, there are no questions or dialog between Council and the A WCC. There is no training offered by the City to AWCC except they were offered o class in conducting meetings that was voluntary . Only a couple of members took advantage of that. AWCC knows nothing about the City's ACTION program , pay for performance, or any issue that I am aware of. • I am not aware of any role maps the AWCC has to the city's role. • Wheat Ridge had a history of many having many commissions and boards. I assume that early in this city 's history this commission had more of a role in animal welfare and control then is currently needed with a professional staff of animal control officers . I am not sure the commission's role maps to o specific need. City ordinances give the commission very limited responsibilities, many of which come up infrequently . Current ordinances address animal welfare and control issues. Some members believe CSO's should bring animal welfare and control issues to them before action is taken seeking direction . This has caused conflict when CSO's have cited animal owners in the past for animal neglect or cruelty, and some commission members have become upset because regulatory actions were token that were opposed by some members of the commission . There is certainly a lock of understanding between the advisory role of the commission and the regulatory responsibilities of the CSOs . • The Animal Welfare and Control Commission was created in 1977. Their authority is granted to them in Section 2-56 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws . The Code requires an advisory role in the following : • Chapter 4 of the Code concerning animals . 6 • Receive and review complaints concerning the administration and effect of City Ordinances relating to animals and make recommendations to the city council, mayor city manager or police chief. • Conduct public hearings on applications for a kennel license, make findings of fact and decide whether to grant or reject the application . • Conduct public hearings concerning the renewal of kennel licenses . • Conduct public hearings regarding exotic animal permits and gront or deny such applications for exotic animo/ permits. • Maintain liaison with the county health officer and report all matters that may endanger the public health . The A WCC views their role as the direct involvement, rather than advisory in nature, in the daily operational and administrative activities of the C50 Unit. • The A wee could promote its mission through educational outreach efforts, aided by City staff/money, and by reviewing and recommending changes to City ordinances concerning animals . 3. How do you see your role moving forward into the future? Any changes you anticipate? • Unknown at this point-I am still new • "Same old, same old." Some of us have asked "are you sure you still need us?" The response has been yes, so far . • Probably won't change from what it is today. Our role is probably changing to more education. I wish the PO would use our expertise more. We all have specialties-allow us to be in on the solutions. • Uncertain. We are limited by our By-laws • Will there be a Commission in the future? Does Chief Brennan want us to be in place? • Unknown • The A WCC had the opportunity to talk about re -direction during this past year, and they chose not to do anything differently. They are focused on having some kind of Nauthority" but I do not see that occurring, as they are really not qualified. I do not believe the City has the administrative courage to truly assess the public value of the A WCC and make it go away. • Without an effort on their part I do not see the role of the A wee moving forward into the future . We have met over the last year to discuss their role and review the code to better define their function and they cannot seem to move out of the past. I do not anticipate any changes or forward thinking from the A WCC members . • Members of the PD have always strived to maintain a professional and respectful relationship with the commission . Efforts to engage the commission in focusing on animal education efforts have not been well-received, as well as providing education on Robert 's Rules of Order and city animal ordinances by a member of 7 the City Attorney's Office. Most members do not understand their responsibilities, policy or strategic direction . Efforts by staff and the city attorney to establish a by-laws for the commission have been unsuccessful. In a recent survey conducted by staff, there were no similar boards/commissions for animals in municipalities along the front-range or Denver Metro Area. City Council, staff and members of the A WCC have been unable to find two veterinarians to sit on the board. Council needs to determine if this commission should continue to exist, what Council would like for them to accomplish and find two qualified veterinarians who can provide professional input. • I do not see a role for the A WCC moving forward in the future. The commission membership does not have the knowledge, skill sets and abilities to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in question 2. During my association with the AWCC as noted above, it was impossible to fill the ex-officio veterinarian positions. • I don't believe the Commission has been very active in recent past. If it is to continue as a useful City body, I think it needs to be more proactive in doing those • things described in # 2 above. 4. What are some of the upcoming challenges or issues that you see in the future that the Commission needs to deal with? • I think more citizens want to have different kinds of animals (people want to eat more local and eat more naturally and raise their own food); we seem to have a resurgence of chickens, roosters, etc . • We may be dealing with less exotic animals in the future; still having problems with small animal code-there is no written 'limit to chickens or rabbits. We seem to respond to complaints but no changes in code • More focus on urban farming. There will be an impact on the laws . We have a younger population-they have more awareness and more education and are more active about mini-farms • Desire for more farm animals • We deal with whatever comes up . Probably foxes and more around coyotes • Unknown • Policy issues are really few and far between. A Coyote Management Plan was established -researched, written, and presented by Staff. The AWCC recommended approval of the Plan to Council, which was approved by Council, yet, at just about every meeting, some members of the A wee question whether they recommended the Plan or not. The AWCC has yet to approve their own by- laws that they have been working on since last year. There is on upcoming issue involving whether the AWCe should recommend approval of a variance for an animo/ rehab that has been previously denied by zoning. • Possibly the request for approval of a wildlife rehabilitation provided by a residential homeowner. We do not see many animo/ related/citizens related challenges or issues brought before the commission . 8 • There are no significant policy decisions or challenges in the near future related to this commission to address . The most recent example involved the approval of a Coyote Management Pion that was brought to the board for approval. Stoff presented the draft pion, listened to their concerns, come to consensus on changes and obtained approval. When the pion was taken to Council in o study session, severo/ members opposed the pion. The pion was token back, discussed and approved by the commission . When it come to City Council for approval, it was opposed by one member of the board who claimed in essence that staff was lying about the approval of the plan by the commission. • The Commission is required to hove two ex -officio members who ore licensed veterinarians that maintain o practice within the City. In my assignment of attending their meetings on behalf of the Police Chief, these membership positions hove never been filled. The prior veterinarian left the Commission os o result of his frustration and lock of direction and progress of the group . The Commission members insist on having o direct role, rather than advisory, in the doily operational and administrative activities of the CSO Unit. This includes to responding to animo/ calls for service, conducting kennel inspections and making operational policies and procedures . • The urban homesteading movement-the use of limited residential property in urban environments to raise animals must be regulated in a way that protects everyone involved, including the animals. The A WCC could help evaluate and craft appropriate regulations. I 5. Best accomplishments of AWC:C? • We finally have clean codes with Carmen 's h elp-there used to be a few contradictions within the codes • Helped with the Dog Park • Input on dwarf goats; bird sanctuary; impmvement of kennel reports (we didn't use to have enough detail); pit bul'l 1issue; c.oyote control (some argument over which traps and how often fo1r notifiicat·ions) • Noticing less loose dogs running arouAtl; big im1provement from previous yea r s • Dog Park; Special permits-great1e;r acceptance by c.itizens that special permits are required • Wild bird rehab; Dog Park appr ova iJ.; App:r<ov ing ~enne:I ILicenses-we no 11onger can do site visits, but they changed the f:orm ,; g.ood addition of space to add photos and document notes • Establishment of a Dog Park • Their work on the dog pork. Working with Carmen on o variety of revisions, their mission statement, etc. 9 • They really haven 't done anything in my tenure. A dog park has been established, the Coyote Management Plan has been approved in the last couple of years, but Staff did these things without A WCC assistance. • I have not seen any accomplishments of most of the A WCC members or the commission as a whole. I would like to say that we have and continue to work with one commission member on a project to assist citizens with feral cat problems. This commission member has been a great resource to the community and the CSO Team. Staff works with the commission as is required by the municipal code, but staff completes all of the work on animal related projects. • A city dog park and the Coyote Management Plan have involved members of the A WCC. Some members have been contributors to these accomplishments; however, some bring conflict and distrust to any discussion . This occurred in both of these situations. In the case of the dog pork, a member of the Pork Commission openly challenged a member of the AWCC for her negative attitude. • When given direction and focused on community-oriented activities, the membership often has some great ideas for projects. These project ideas include educational fairs related directly to animals. Joelle Hedden has been invaluable to the Commission . She is respectful, knowledgeable (especially in the area of feral cats}, and has been very helpful to the CSO Unit. When asked for her expertise and assistance, she makes herself available and helpful in a timely manner. • They did a nice job on a bird sanctuary seeking City approval. The Commission conducted a good hearing on the application. 6. What is working well among the Commission t ·eam members 1in accomplishing your role? • We are pretty compatible • Very casual group • We have same interests-it is OK for us to have differ,ing ~opinions • We receive great help from City and Carmen for l ega :l adYice-it used to be very loose; new guidelines and structure is he'lping • We have pretty good commitment from members • Not sure they know their role or agree with the role they have been given. • Carmen Berry is very helpful in keeping them on task, giving advice and options, and reminding them of their duty as on official municipal board. Despite this, I don't think they accomplish any gaols. Carmen cannot attend all meetings, and should the City continue to pay an attorney to guide them through a meeting? • Carmen Beery attending the A WCC meetings. She is very helpful in running the meetings and most the dialog during each meeting is about how the run the meeting. • The A WCC has not established any gaols . There is such a culture of negativity with some members of the commission that any positive work is difficult to accomplish. 10 • I om unable to describe what is working well for the Commission in accomplishing their goals due to their inability to maintain direction, focus and on overall positive 'can do' attitude. The Commission has a different view of what their goals ore than what the City Code and police deportment view them to be. • I think each of the Commissioners is sincerely committed to the (unstated) mission of the A wee to better the lives of animals . Each member has an individual passion for it. 7. What are some of the challenges of working with the Commission team members? • We don't stick to the agenda . There is a lot of moving and jumping around . We get off track with side stories that are not necessary . Meetings feel disorganized. Meetings are supposed to be one hour-do we stick to that time frame? • Frustrat i ng and confusing process ; I would like faster respons iveness from departments when we need information (for example , Plann i ng -wildlife rehab request) • Need more members to speak up more-some are too quiet • We use a "loose" version of Roberts Rules of Order-pros and cons to that. New people have different views, which is good . We need to get new people up to speed more quickly. We need to get past what the "OLD" Commiss ion did • We have too many type A personalities . It is hard to deal with the outspoken members. Some do not agree with the role of Code Enforcement . The Police Commanders tend to take over the meeting. They are not very patient with Erna. Seems like we use bits and pieces of Roberts Rules of Order. • Can we express ourselves freely in front of the City? I along with some others are, intimidated by City being at our meeti ngs and being recorded (fear of retaliation). Don't feel we can approve variances as easily. • They seem to be somewhat confrontational at times. The lost few meetings have been better. • There ore some that display extremely negative attitudes toward Staff and actual contempt for the Chief of Police . While some are nice enough people, they are not qualified as advisors to animal control specialists, the Chief, and Council . They do not make or contribute to an agenda. They do not know how to conduct official meetings. I understand that a strict Robert 's Rules approach is not necessary for this Commission, but they cannot even make a motion, second, and vote without guidance . Stoff spends time preparing information for them just to let them know something. They don't really oct on anything . • During my tenure I have attended many meetings where A WCC members will openly express their dislike far the chief of police and recently other staff members. In a recent meeting when the Division Chief was unable to attend, severo/ members hod a discussion and openly expressed their dislike for 11 him. Staff stopped the negative discussion and asked commission members not to speak in this manner; this wos a very uncomfortable situation . The expectation of our staff is to provide exceptional customer service, ond yet we hear some of the most negative comments from some commission members about our police chief. In most meetings there will be a discussion on how they used to go out and inspect kennels with the officers. Each time staff will again explain why this is not o function of the A WCC. During my tenure this has been brought up many times and I see this will continue in the future as will the negative staff comments. Staff provides on agenda and CSO reports and updates and since I hove been working with the A WCC I hove yet to see o commission report . • I do not question the interest and concerns for the we/fore of animals by any member of the commission. Unfortunately, o majority of the commission distrust staff, they are negative, they lock on understanding of their purpose and there are no veterinarians to provide reasonable and objective guidance about animal issues to the commission members. • The majority membership of the Commission is difficult to work with. With the exception of Joelle Hedden, the membership is contentious, verbally abusive towards staff and hove their own agenda's, which ore often contrary to the role of the group. They choose to make inappropriate and negative comments about staff members when that staff member is not present in their meetings. This is especially true for Chief Brennan. However, when staff members are present, they will generally put on o "happy face" which is disingenuous and superficial. Too often, some members become negative and "stir the pot" in an unproductive manner during meeting discussions. They will focus on the department not willing to provide them the direct, doily operational and administrative involvement in the work of the CSO Unit they are determined to get. Often times, these members would express personal opinions regarding the actions taken by the CSO Unit rather than analyzing the facts of the situation giving the appearance of having the Hgood, old boyH system of business rather than a rational and professional approach to providing their feedback and input to the police department. During the City Council study session where A WCC roles were discussed, we needed members who are able to fairly present both sides of the story regarding conflict between the police department and the commission. The Commission lacks direction amongst its membership even though they have good ideas regarding community-oriented projects. However, they are given ample opportunity to actively engage and participate in their project ideas and they choose not to do so ond expect City staff to develop, implement and toke core of any and all details/issues that may arise. 12 Police Deportment staff found it necessary to create meeting agendas to help the Commission fulfill their duties and responsibilities in order to provide direction and focus . The members often balked and scoffed at such attempts even when the purpose of the agenda was explained to them . There is no one currently on the Commission who knows how to properly conduct the commission meetings. • Maintaining their focus and moving forward when they ore not unified. When they all agree, things seem to go smoothly. When 1 or more members disagree with the will of the rest of the group, progress con be stymied. Each Commissioner must understand that the Commission acts by majority vote and not by individual direction . I 8. What ideas for improvement do you suggest? • We are chaperoned and controlled by the PD. We can do awesome things if we are allowed to. We need more brainstorming sessions and greater discussion time on issues . • More and better orientation for new members; in meetings, things are bogged down with motions . As a new person I did not initially feel comfortable speaking up. Need to run meetings better and give us a better idea of when to speak up; the process hinders natural conversation and is awkward • Suggest we send Minutes soon after the meeting-Action Items in the Minutes serve as a reminder to us. Recommend that Minutes get sent out one week after the meeting. • Provide the new Chair and Vice-Chair meeting training, especially around Roberts Rules of Order. More clearly define Jim Lorentz's role-he seems to take over the meetings . I would like more information about what is happening in the City. And separate us from the PO -let us become a more City-wide Commission . • Give every member two to three minutes at the end of the meeting to speak about their issues and concerns for the animals. Need more discussion time. • We need more demonstration of respect by the Commissioners to the Animal Control officers, and to each other. We need Ground Rules-how we say things to others, etc . We need to watch not insulting the officers and each other. • We need more detail from Mary's reports. I miss having a Vet on the Commission. Would like to have a meeting by ourselves, without the City representatives. • We need to take time to research issues . For example, we could take a day and go to a llama farm. We need training for Erna and Joelle as leaders of the Commission. Jim takes over the meetings. What is his role? We should be separate from the PO-we should work with them, not under them. 13 • To make sure the mission and everyone's roles ore clearly defined ond stated. • My ideo was to evolve the A WCC into a body that provides and promotes education and training to the community in areas of wildlife management and domestic animal control. Since they have specifically said they don 't wont to do that, I don 't know where to go. My recommendation is to disband the Commission . • Disband the Commission • Efforts to hove the commission engaged in more community outreach and education has been resisted and there has been no outcome in efforts to have the commission develop a set of by-laws. Efforts by staff, commission members and City Council to find two veterinarians have been unsuccessful. Other vacancies have remained unfilled for many months before being filled . The current responsibilities of the commission are more regulatory in nature and could be handled by staff. Since policy issues are infrequent, these issues could be brought forward to City Council for consideration in the future . • It would help them to articulate their mission and be guided by that, consistent with the bounds of their authority as set by the City Council. I 9. Other comments? • When requests for special permits come up -does Code Enforcement/PD say "no" too often? As a result, do some people now not come forward to permit their exotic animals? I think we now have a reputation that Animal Control will say no, but they (citizens) will keep the animals anyway • We need a Commissioner who has large and farm anima'! expertise to round out the Boa .rd • When we p ~esent i deas to the Chief he tells us they will not 1grant variances . I think we need more cooperation from them. They se.em to kill our iideas . It seems 1like a lot of hard work for nothing. • We have two newer members . They are still too new to know . Not ·sure what their Agenda is at thi s time nor do we know their perso n a ~l ,ities yet. • Some members see Anima l Control as trying to take power and control away from the Comm ission . I don't want to see the Commission become a burden to the City . Mary is doing a better job of keeping us informed and updated on cases . We need to do a good job of working with each other, and not against each other. • tt is not the same as it used to be . We used to talk about i ssues as they came up. Only one person (Mary) would show up . Now the City i s running the meeting-it used to be our meeting and we ran it. Preferred it the old way-but I 1know it is hard to go backwards. We are too serious now-more formal and no l aughter. • Coyote Management Plan-use of leg hold traps -P.O said we approved but d i d we? I abs t ained, someone changed her vote, and did we even have a quorum? We need a better solution since non-targeted an i mals can get caught -use of sedative-based traps, for example . We need to focus mo:re on education and 14 programs for the citizens, such as a program for first-time puppy owners. Maybe we can have discussion sessions similar to Coundl study s·essions, in-between our meetings for longer discussion. • Reading my comments back to myself, I am surprised as to how negative and hopeless it sounds . That is disappointing to me, as I have truly looked toward a way to turn this around. I feel that I have responsibility in making this system work and I feel that my efforts have failed, and to some degree, I take that personally. I feel that this system and concept of an A WCC does not work in Wheat Ridge . I would also point out that there is not a similar Commission in the entire state. • I would like to say that during my tenure working with the A WCC has not been a positive experience . I feel that staff has made every effort to assist the A wee in being a successful commission and this has not happened. • I have always strived for ways to build consensus and achieve goals that make the Wheat Ridge community safer. Wheat Ridge in no longer a rural, farming community; rather it has become a metropolitan city with all the associated benefits and issues of a big city. The city now has professional staff to regulate animal welfare and control that can promote sound policies related to animals and provide education to community members. Lastly, efforts by the Police Chief, both Division Chiefs and CSO supervisor to engage this commission in proactive and positive activities have been unsuccessful, and oftentimes met with negativity and disrespectful communications by some commission members . ~~J.~ .. .,. City of ArY!' WheatB..i_dge ~ARKS AND RECREATION TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council ()l Patrick Goff, City Manager W' Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director September 9 , 2014 (for Study Session of9/15 /14) Zoppe Family Circus 'L+errv 3. y Attached is the final report, including the financial information , for the 2014 Zoppe Family Circus event. 2014 Budgeted Expensed Revenue Difference $102 ,815 $ 99 ,485 59,900 $ (39 ,585) This is the final year for the contract approved for the years 2013 and 2014. The contract approval and renewal for the second year was based on the amount of revenue recouped. The circus did meet the revenue goal in 2013 for renewal in 2014. 2013 Budgeted Expended Revenue Difference $105,610 $ 94,398 62,467 $ (31 ,931) The revenue in 2014 was $7 ,653 less than 2013 and expenditures were $4 ,087 higher. ATTACHMENTS: I. Zoppe Circus Final Report 2014 2. Zoppe Circus Final Report 2013 BUDGET FOR 2014 PROPOSED ACTUAL ZOPPE' IT ALlAN FAMILY CIRCUS (CIRCUS ONLY) Created by Gina Hallisey, Get Connected Events UPDATED 09/05/14 (unaudited) REVENUE Sponsorship I Advertising Sales Circus Ticket Sales I Schools GENERAL EXPENSES Marketing I Advertising I Misc . Circus Fee Circus Tech Rider /Logistics LABOR EXPENSE Contract Labor-Event Coordination Other Contract Labor City of WR Staff over time Event Security (police if needed) BUDGET SUMMARY TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL EXPENSES DRAFT TOTAL REVENUE GENERALEXP.TOTAL LABOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET PROPOSED ACTUAL 18,000.00 18,930.00 53,000.00 40,970.00 71,000.00 59,900.00 PROPOSED ACTUAL 8,400 .00 5,923.66 70,000.00 70,000.00 7,440.00 7,423 .00 85,840.00 83,346.66 PROPOSED ACTUAL 12,500.00 12,500.00 3,875.00 3,088.30 600.00 549.65 n/a n/a 16,975.00 16,137.95 102,815.00 99,484.61 PROPOSED ACTUAL 71,000.00 59,900.00 102,815.00 99,484.61 (31,815.00) (39,584.61) (7,769.61} NOTE : This draft is unaudited. A final budget accounting will be presented to City Council in October with the Wrap-up Report of the Carnation Festival as a whole. Expenses came in under budget but unfortunately the revenue fell short of the goal. The shortfall in revenue is due to Jeffco Schools budget cuts which resulted in no school field trips being booked as in past years. Online ticket sales were up from 2013 but the pre-sales at the Rec Center and on -site ticket sales were down about $2,200 from the 2013 actual ticket sales which was $43,166.76. Sponsorship goal was achieved and several group sales helped as did managing the expenses closely and saving $3,300 on expenses but the deficit is for the most part the school field trips not coming through as planned. Attachment 1 BUDGET FOR 2013 Fl AL;;____.,~ ZOPPE'ITALIAN !FAMILY CIRCUS (C RCUS ONLY) Created by Gina Hallisey, Get Connected Events PREPARED 10/08/12 REVENUE Sponsorship I Advert,ising Sales Circus Ticket Sales I Schools GENERAL EXPENSES Marketing I Advertising I Misc. Circus Fee Circus Tech Rider /Logistics LABOR EXPENSE Contract Labor-Event Coordination Other Contract Labor City of WR Staff over time/in-kind Event Security (police if neededl BUDGET SUMMARY TOTAL R~EVE1NUE TOTAL E>C'PENSES TOTAL REVENUE lABOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET Attachment 2 2013 17,250.00 56,400.00 73,650.00 2013 9,885.00 70,000.00 8,,000.00 10,500.00 4,225 .00 3,000.00 WR 17,725.00 105,610.00 PROJECTED 73,6SO.OO 105,610.~00 (31,960.00 PREPARED 9/6/13 19,300.00 43,166 .76 3,952 .20 70,000.00 7,744.88 ACTUAL 10,500.00 1,651 .34 549 .65 n/a ACTUAL 28.69