Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2006 6:30 p.m. Pre-Meeting ~~!~~~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING November 13. 2006 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 23. 2006 CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK 1. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3 Minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster. 2. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA ROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to be heard. APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS Item 1. RESOLUTION 51-2006 - ADOPTING THE 2006 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND BY SUCH ADOPTION, AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS Item 2. RESOLUTION 52-2006 - DESIGNATING THE JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AS THE GOVERNING BODY TO OVERSEE THE ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORY CLEANUP ON PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: November 13, 2006 Page -2- Item 3. Award of RFP-Q6-31 Custodial Services at City Hall in the amount of $29,760 annually to KG Clean, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado. Item 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Appointment. ~ I I I I I : I : I I : : I I I I I : :-1 I I I I I : I I I : I I : : : I : : .. Motion to adjourn to Executive Session for a Personnel Matter under Charter Section 5.7(2) and Section 24-6-402(4)(F), C.R.S., specifically Performance Evaluation of the City Manager. Return to Open Meeting at close of Executive Session for the purpose of taking any formal action deemed necessary. ......:: I : I I I : I I I I I I I I I I : : I: I I I I 1 : I I : : I I I I I : I : : .. CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS ADJOURNMENT (ITf_1JB1II CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO October 23. 2006 Mayor DiTullio called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Karen Adams, Karen Berry, Dean Gokey, Lena Rotola, Wanda Sang, Larry Schulz, Mike Stites, and Terry Womble. Also present: City Clerk, Pamela Anderson; City Manager, Randy Young; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; Director of Community Development, Alan White; Director of Public Works, Tim Paranto; staff; and interested citizens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 9. 2006 Motion by Mr. Stites for approval of the Minutes of October 9, 2006; seconded by Mrs. Sang and Mrs. Rotola; carried 8-0. CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK David Kuehn, District Manager for Prospect Park and Recreation District, requested that the City Council consider waiving the use tax of $5,095.00. Item 1. Consent Agenda A. Award ITB-06-45 Roof Installation at the Senior Center and the Anderson Building to Independent Roofing Specialists, LLC, in the total amount of $29,889.00. B. Award of Contract for Design of Restroom Building at Creekside Park to Root Rosemann Architects in the amount of $32,750.00. Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Mrs. Adams. Motion by Mrs. Adams for approval of the Consent Agenda; seconded by Mrs. Sang and Mr. Gokey; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING .Item 2. and Item 3. COUNCIL BILL 22-2006 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO THE AGRICULTURAL AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TABLE OF USES AND ACCESSORY USES. (Case No. ZOA-06-06) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: October 23, 2006 Page -2- And COUNCIL BILL 23-2006 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26-603 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO FENCING. (Case No. ZOA-06-04) Mayor DiTullio opened the joint public hearing for Items 2 and 3. Council Bill 22-2006 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Womble. City Clerk Pamela Anderson read the executive summary and assigned Ordinance No. 1375. Council Bill 23-2006 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Womble and he read the executive summary. City Clerk Pamela Anderson assigned Ordinance No. 1376. Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner, presented a PowerPoint staff presentation for both items. No one from the public was present to speak to the items. Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing. Motion by Mr. Womble to approve Council Bill 22-2006 (Ordinance 1375), Case No. ZOA-06-06 and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Schulz; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Womble to approve Council Bill 23-2006 (Ordinance 1376), Case No. ZOA-06-04, order it published and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 8-0. Item 4. COUNCIL BILL 24-2006 - AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL-ONE AND R-1, RESIDENTIAL-ONE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11210 WEST 45TH AVENUE. (Case No. WZ-06-04) (City of Wheat Ridge) Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 24-2006 was introduced on second reading by Mrs. Rotola and she read the executive summary; City Clerk Pam Anderson assigned Ordinance No. 1377. Mayor DiTullio administered the oath to all present planning on testifying in the quasi- judicial public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: October 23, 2006 Page -3- Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner, made a PowerPoint staff presentation. She entered into the record the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, case file and packet materials, and the digital presentation. She stated that all notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Kent Young, Wheat Ridge, testified regarding his concerns about the barbed wire fence and his property line and lighting nuisance into his property. He is also not wild about surveillance cameras in his backyard. He would like assurances about carte blanche future changes. He requested allowances for landscaping on his side of the property line. Meredith Reckert responded as the applicant to the comments. City Council asked questions of the applicant and discussion followed. Recess called at 7:50 p.m. Reconvened at 7:57 p.m. Questions continued. Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing. Zone ChanQe Motion by Mrs. Rotola to approve Council Bill 24-2006 (Ordinance 1377), Case No. WZ- 06-4 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will consolidate zoning on the property. 2. Although not consistent with the designation on the Future Land Use map, it meets the goals and objectives of other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; seconded by Mrs. Sang. Motion to amend by Mr. Schulz to add a condition that the City provides up to $1,000.00 for the planting of trees on Mr. Young's property based on recommendations of an arborist to be consulted by Mr. Young and that payment shall be made following determination of an actual plan as to what those trees shall be and be planted; and that budget adjustments be made accordingly; seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 8-0. Main motion as amended carried 8-0. Variances Motion by Mrs. Rotola to approve variances to the development standards in the Public Facilities zone district for property located at 11210 West 45th Avenue being considered concurrently with Case No. WZ-06-04, for the following reasons: 1. The variances will legitimize the existing conditions on the property. 2. There should be no additional impact on adjacent properties as a result of the variances; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 7-1, with Mr. Gokey voting no. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: October 23, 2006 Page -4- ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING, Item 5. COUNCIL BILL 28-2006 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 2005, NFPA 70: NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. Council Bill 28-2006 was introduced on first reading by Mr. Gokey. Motion by Mr. Gokey to approve Council Bill 28-2006 on first reading, order it published, and I further move that Council Bill 28-2006 be referred to a Council Study Session on November 6, 2006 prior to being scheduled for second reading and public hearing; seconded by Councilmembers Womble and Stites; carried 8-0. Item 6. COUNCIL BILL 29-2006 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2005 EDITION OF THE NFPA 99 HEALTH CARE FACILITIES CODE. Council Bill 29-2006 was introduced on first reading by Mr. Schulz. Motion by Mr. Schulz to approve Council Bill 29-2006 on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, November 27,2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs. Sang and Rotola; carried 8-0. DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS Item 7. RESOLUTION 49-2006 - REPEALING AND REENACTING THE CITY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES FOR THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, FOR THE 2007 BUDGET YEAR. Resolution 49-2006 was introduced by Mrs. Sang. City Clerk Pam Anderson read the executive summary. Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve Resolution 49-2006; seconded by Mrs. Rotola. Comments followed. Motion carried 8-0. Item 8. RESOLUTION 50-2006 - APPROVING AN AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BY AND BETWEEN APPLEWOOD BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, ENTERPRISE WHEAT RIDGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JEFFERSON ECONOMIC COUNCIL, THE WEST CHAMBER, AND WHEAT RIDGE 2020, INC. Resolution 50-2006 was introduced by Mrs. Sang. City Clerk Pam Anderson read the executive summary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: October 23, 2006 Page -5- Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve Resolution 50-2006; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 8-0. Motion by Mr. Stites to adjourn to Executive Session for a Personnel Matter under Charter Section 5.7(2) and Section 24-6-402(4) (F), C.R.S., specifically Performance Evaluation of the City Manager. I further move to return to the Open Meeting at close of Executive Session for the purpose of taking any formal action deemed necessary; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 8:17 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS HELD. Meeting resumed at 10:32 p.m. City Attorney Gerald Dahl briefed the City Council on the Mayor's role in breaking a tie. Motion by Mr. Stites to defer decision on the City Manager's compensation package to the November 13th City Council meeting; seconded by Mr. Gokey; tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Schulz, Berry, Rotola, and Adams voting no. Mayor DiTullio broke the tie by voting yes; Motion carried 5-4. Motion to adjourn by Mr. Gokey; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. /......) ;'c Gtw.J. ~.\. \~\ nrJ tll . _ Pamela Y. A~rson, City Clerk APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 BY A VOTE OF to Mike Stites, Council President The preceding Minutes were prepared according to 947 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e. they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions. ~- ITEM NO: \ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ~.. .~ ,.,' ~--:g;.~... ~b.. III ~ ,I:l,):.,i. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 13,2006 TITLE: RESOLUTION 51-2006 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE 2006 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND BY SUCH ADOPTION, AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ PUBLIC HEARING D BIDS/MOTIONS ~ RESOLUTIONS D ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: D ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ) Quasi-Judicial: D Yes ~ No dR;cr~:'~/ Ci~O-)~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed in 1992 and last updated in 1997. A majority of the recommendations of the current Master Plan have been accomplished. Due to the changing needs and conditions of the City, and the importance of the park system in accomplishing the goals and visions outlined for the City through the Strategic Plan and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan was commissioned. The new plan is based on information compiled in the initial phase of the project through a "Needs Assessment". Input from the community was received by conducting a community survey, open houses and interviews with special interest groups. Study sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council were also held to receive input for the plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with a vision as well as a policy document by which to guide future decisions regarding facilities and park amenities for the next 10-15 years. Adoption of the Master Plan supports Strategic Plan Goal 1 : Creating A Sustainable City Government, Objective 1: Well-Maintained City Facilities and Infrastructure, Goal 2: City Prepared for Growth and Opportunities, Objective 1: Vision Clearly Defined and Used in Planning, Policy Development and Decision Making, Objective 3: Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plans Reflect the City's Vision and Goals, Goal 3 : Strong Partnership Between City and Community, Objective 4 Citizens Appropriately Involved in Policy Development and Project Planning. Both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission recommend adoption of the Plan. Staff recommends adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan with the additions noted under the "Statement of Issues" section of this Council Action Form. COMMISSIONIBOARD RECOMMENDATION:, The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends adoption of the Master Plan. (October 18,2006). The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Master Plan (October 5, 2006) - Resolution No. 03-2006. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The Parks and Recreation system is aging. Many of the programs and amenities desired by individuals have changed over the years and the way people use parks has also changed. Although the parks system is well maintained, many of the amenities and structures need updating and new types of amenities added. The Master Plan provides not only a vision and recommendation for these updates, but lists specific action items to aid in achieving these recommendations. At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of October 18,2006 the Commission reviewed the Parks and Recreation Master Plan final draft which included the Commission's original recommended additions and changes. The Commission has recommended additional language in several sections. Listed below are the significant recommended additions and changes to the Master Plan Draft presented at the October 16, 2006 City Council Study Session. 1) Page 2-32 Urban Tree Canopy (addition) "It would be advisable to work towards increasing the forestry program to the prior level as funds allow." 2) Page 4-18 D. Trail Projects (addition) "The standard along Clear Creek Trail, where possible, is to meet soft surface trail users' needs. " 3) Page 5-3 1 st paragraph (change) "As the area redevelops, Prospect Park should become a (the) community gathering area. .. (substitute (a) for the) Staff recommends the following clarification: 4) Page 4-20 "To implement the vision ofthe Lena Gulch and Rocky Mountain Ditch Trail will require the support of the current and future landowners. Implementation of the plan will also require recognition of specific characteristics of properties in terms of conservation easements and appropriate locations for a trail and trail connections." The final plan will also reflect punctuation and grammatical corrections, minor clarifications and format changes. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan if adopted will become part ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan and amend the current plan. Planning staff is recommending that the new plan supersede the previous 1991 plan in its entirety and supersede the Parks and Open Space sections of the Community Amenities and Services Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The new plan is far more comprehensive in addressing park and recreation needs and in making recommendations than the Comprehensive Plan. The new plan addresses all of the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and it does not serve the public, Council, staff, or developers well to have two documents to refer to in determining the City's requirements for parks. AL TERNA TIVES CONSIDERED: To not adopt the plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of the Master Plan itself does not have a financial impact. The recommendations in the plan include a list of estimated costs for specific projects. City Council will discuss these recommendations and the prioritization of funding for projects at a future study session. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution 51-2006 - A Resolution ofthe City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, adopting the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and by such adoption, amending the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan." "I further move that the final Parks and Recreation Master Plan reflect punctuation and grammatical corrections, minor clarifications and format changes in addition to the significant recommended additions and changes to the Draft Master Plan presented at the October 16,2006 City Council Study Session and outlined in the "Statement of Issues" section of this Council Action Form." or, "I move to deny adoption of Resolution 51-2006 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, adopting the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and by such adoption amending the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan for the following reason( s) " Report Prepared by: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director Alan White, Community Development Director Reviewed by Randy Young, City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 51-2006 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-2006 061113 eAF Adoption of Master Plan.doc CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 51 Series of 2006 TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE 2006 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND BY SUCH ADOPTION, AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1991 and a Comprehensive Plan in 2000; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that a comprehensive plan, or parts thereof, may be adopted and amended by the City from time to time; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Wheat Ridge, when necessary, to undertake review of the existing documents and update these documents; and WHEREAS, the consultant to the Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with a technical advisory committee, has produced a plan which was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission made recommended changes to the document that have been incorporated into the plan; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission has held a public hearing on October 5,2006 as provided by C.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on September 21, 2006. WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on November 13,2006 as provided by Section 2-60 (b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on November 2,2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge hereby adopts the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan attached as Exhibit A. 2. The 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan shall supersede the 1991 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Parks and Open Space sections of Chapter 4, Community Amenities and Services, of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. An attested copy of this resolution shall be attached to the Plan and a copy of the Plan as attested shall be certified to Jefferson County, Colorado. ATTACHMENT 1 DONE AND RESOLVED THIS ATTEST: PAMELA Y. ANDERSON, CITY CLERK day of ,2006. JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR 2 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. .:3 Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND BY SUCH ADOPTION, AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1991 and a Comprehensive Plan in 2000; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that a comprehensive plan, or parts thereof, may be adopted and amended by the City from time to time; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Wheat Ridge, when necessary, to undertake review of the existing documents and update these documents; and WHEREAS, the consultant to the Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with a technical advisory committee, has produced a plan which was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a study session on September 21, 2006 and recommended changes to the plan; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission has held a public hearing on October 5,2006 as provided by c.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on September 21, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado as follows: 1. That 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan attached as Exhibit A, is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. 2. The Commission further recommends that the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan supersede the 1991 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Parks and Open Space sections of Chapter 4, Community Amenities and Services, of the Comprehensive Plan. r:--/I1- DONE AND RESOLVED THIS J day of October, 2006. s;~~~ L Scott Wesley, Chairperson ( ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM NO: {;1. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION I~~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 13,2006 TITLE: RESOLUTION 52-2006 - A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AS THE GOVERNING BODY TO OVERSEE THE ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORY CLEANUP ON PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE o PUBLIC HEARING o BIDSIMOTIONS [g] RESOLUTIONS o ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: o ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ) Quasi-Judicial: o Yes [g] No g;/ jtJv.- Chief df Police City~' '~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: House Bill 04-1182 has mandated that property contaminated due to the presence of an illegal, clandestine methamphetamine lab be cleaned up and that property owners who comply with cleanup standards be immune from future lawsuits. The law left open how property owners would receive applicable cleanup information and what agency would maintain cleanup records. The law made a provision that a "Governing Body" could be designated. The Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment (JCDHE) has written standards compliant with the law and is asking for the City of Wheat Ridge to pass a resolution designating the JCDHE as the governing body for all of Jefferson County. A memorandum regarding this designation (Attachment 1) was distributed and discussed at the November 6, 2006 City Council Study Session. COMMISSIONIBOARD RECOMMENDATION:, N/A STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Colorado State law 25-18.5 states that the "Governing Body" of the jurisdiction where a property contaminated by methamphetamine production is located is to be designated by the City Council. If no such designation is made, the governing body is to be the Department of Health, the Building Department and the Law Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property in question. Over the past year, the JCDHE has worked with agencies including the West Metro Drug Task Force to develop cleanup standards as well as record keeping standards. The JCDHE has volunteered to be the governing body as described in 25-18.5. In addition, the JCDHE has developed resources for use by affected property owners including informational publications, answers to frequently asked questions and lists of recognized cleanup companies. They have established protocols for the reporting of contaminated properties, placarding of such properties and inspection and certification of cleaned properties. The JCDHE is now ready to handle the administration and record keeping duties associated with the provisions of 25-18.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The City of Wheat Ridge can designate a different governing body. In order to comply with the law, it must be the Department of Health, Building Department or Law Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated to affect the City of Wheat Ridge. The JCDHE, citing the reduced number of methamphetamine labs operating within the county does not anticipate charging fees to any property owners effected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution 52-2006 - A Resolution Designating the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment as the Governing Body to Oversee the Administration of Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup on Properties within the City of Wheat Ridge." or, "I move to deny approval of Resolution 52-2006 - A Resolution Designating the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment as the Governing Body to Oversee the Administration of Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup on Properties within the City of Wheat Ridge for the following reason( s ) " Report Prepared by: Commander Dave Pickett Reviewed by: Chief Dan Brennan Attachments~ 1. October 31, 2006 Memorandum 2. State of Colorado Department of Health and Environment questions and answer publication concerning CRS 25-18.5 3. Resolution 52-2006 cc: City Attorney Gerry Dahl JCDHE Mitchell Brown 061113 JCDHE Council Action.doc WHEAT RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council DATE: Randy Young, City Manager Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police ~ October 31, 2006 VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Designation of the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment as the Governing Body to Oversee Methamphetamine Lab Cleanup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: House Bill 04-1182 has mandated that property that has been contaminated due to the presence of an illegal, clandestine methamphetamine lab be cleaned up and that property owners who comply with cleanup standards be immune from future lawsuits. The law left open how property owners would receive applicable cleanup information and what agency would maintain cleanup records. The law made a provision that a "Governing Body" could be designated. The Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment (JCDHE) has written standards compliant with the law and is asking for the City of Wheat Ridge to pass a resolution designating the JCDHE as the governing body for all of Jefferson County. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: Colorado State law 25-18.5 states that the "Governing Body" of the jurisdiction where a property contaminated by methamphetamine production is located is to be designated by the City Council. If no such designation is made, the governing body is to be the Department of Health, the Building Department and the Law Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property in question. Over the past year, the JCDHE has worked with agencies including the West Metro Drug Task Force to develop cleanup standards as well as record keeping standards. The JCDHE has volunteered to be the governing body as described in 25-18.5. ATTACHMENT 1 JCDHE Memorandum October 31, 2006 Page 2 In addition, the JCDHE has developed resources for use by affected property owners including informational publications, answers to frequently asked questions and lists of recognized cleanup companies. They have established protocols for the reporting of contaminated properties, placarding of such properties and inspection and certification of cleaned properties. The JCDHE is now ready to handle the administration and record keeping duties associated with the provisions of 25-18.5 FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated to affect the City of Wheat Ridge. The JCDHE, citing the reduced number of methamphetamine labs operating within the county does not anticipate charging fees to any property owners effected. ALTERNATIVES: The City of Wheat Ridge can designate a different governing body. In order to comply with the law, it must be the Department of Health, Building Department or Law Enforcement Agency with jurisdiction over the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends designating the JCDHE as the governing body over methamphetamine lab cleanup as described in 25-18.5 by City Council Resolution. Prepared by: Dave Pickett, Interim Commander STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692.2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691.7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado hltp:l/www.cdphe.state.co.us Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations Backl!round On April 21, 2004, Governor Owens signed House Bill 04-1182 (the Bill) requiring the Board of Health to set cleanup standards for properties used as clandestine methamphetamine (meth) labs. The Bill provides that a property owner who cleans up a property under these standards will have immunity from civil lawsuits by future owners, occupants, or neighbors for alleged health-based losses related to the meth lab. Verification testing must be conducted by a Certified Industrial Hygienist or industrial hygienist as defined by 24-30-1402, C.R.S., and a copy of the results must be provided to the Governing Body, in order for immunity to be established. The term Governing Body is not defined in the Bill. For reference, the definitions of Certified Industrial Hygienist and industrial hygienist are provided at the end of this document. The Bill does not provide for regulatory agency involvement in the cleanup process, nor does it include a mechanism to ensure that cleanup contractors or consultants are qualified to perform, or experienced in, meth lab cleanup. Therefore, the cleanup standards must be self-implementing, and provide a clear and detailed process to ensure that the property is properly decontaminated and that adequate documentation of the decontamination process is provided to support the immunity from civil lawsuits. Some local agencies have independent authority to require cleanup of meth labs. This authority is usually based on occupancy of the structure, and may be tied to local health or building codes. The requirement for cleanup established by the Bill does not add to nor diminish this independent authority because the Bill does not address re-occupancy standards. Local agencies may choose to incorporate the standards set by the cleanup regulations into their local requirements, or they may require that additional measures be taken before they will allow re-occupancy. When reviewing the meth lab cleanup regulations, it is important to understand that the immunity shield established by the Bill is independent of any local requirements based on re-occupancy. Ouestions Rel!ardiul! the CleanuD Rel!ulations Following are answers to general questions regarding the meth lab cleanup regulations, also referred to herein as the "cleanup regulations". These questions address general topics associated with House Bill 04-1182, the cleanup regulations, and meth lab cleanup in general. As defined in section 3.0 of the cleanup regulations, references in the following discussion to "cleanup contractor" are intended to mean the contractor hired to perform the cleanup, and references to "consultant" are intended to mean the Certified Industrial Hygienist or industrial hygienist that conducts verification testing and certifies that cleanup standards have been met. I ,;.;....~;.:__,~"-:..:;...;....~,...,...,.''-'.;.~~!.-",--",o>_..._',., Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations February 2005 What are the responsibilities of the property owner under the cleanup regulations? In order to receive the immunity from health-based civil lawsuits afforded by House Bill 04-1182, the property owner is responsible for: Ensuring that the cleanup standards are met and the results certified by a Certified Industrial Hygienist or industrial hygienist as defined in Section 24-30-1402, and Providing a copy of the cleanup report to the "Governing Body," or In lieu of decontamination, the property owner may elect to demolish the property. The property owner must also ensure that cleanup is conducted in accordance with existing Federal, State and local requirements. These include, but are not limited to, requirements for the proper handling of asbestos, lead-based paint, contaminated material and debris, and contents of septic systems. What are the responsibilities of local agencies and/or governing bodies with regard to the meth lab cleanup regulations? Section 25-18.5-101(2) creates a liability shield for property owners who clean their properties up to the standards set in the cleanup regulations and provide a copy of the test results to the governing body. Although this section does not create an explicit requirement for the governing body to maintain records of the test results, such a requirement is implicit. In addition, both HB 04-1182 and the cleanup regulations are public health laws of the State. Various provisions of Title 25 provide local governments and CDPHE the authority to enforce public health laws. See. e.!!., ~~ 25-1-109; 25-1-506(1); 25-1-508(1); 25-1-512; and 25-1-708, C.R.S. What is law enforcement's role in notifying property owners of meth labs requiring cleanup? In accordance with the Bill, the requirement to meet cleanup standards set forth in the cleanup regulations is established upon notification by law enforcement that chemicals, equipment, or supplies indicative of a meth lab are located on a property, or when a meth lab is otherwise discovered and the property owner has been given notice. What about rental properties and personal property? The owner of the real property is ultimately responsible for the cleanup of the property. However, the owner of the real property would only be responsible for decontaminating the tenant's personal property if it were to remain at the l'LUperty. If the personal property is not removed by the tenant, the landlord may have to go through an eviction process in order to remove the personal property and dispose of it. The issue of how to handle contaminated personal property that is not owned by the real property owner is not addressed by the Bill, and is outside the scope of the cleanup regulations. Additional action by the legislature may be necessary to address this issue. What about waste disposal? Is meth lab waste hazardous waste? The chemical wastes produced by the process of manufacturing meth are often hazardous wastes. These chemicals are generally removed by law enforcement at the time of the meth lab seizure. There is an established process for the removal and disposal of these chemical wastes; therefore, these wastes are not the subject of the cleanup regulations. The cleanup regulations are intended to address residual contamination left behind after law enforcement and emergency responders have left the property, or 2 Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations February 2005 when the meth lab and associated chemicals and wastes are otherwise removed (e.g., by the meth cook). That being said, there are several types of wastes that may be generated during the cleanup process. These include: Debris and contaminated material that may be disposed of as solid waste with notification made to the landfill for meth lab contaminated material. Wash water from the decontamination process that may be disposed of as solid waste or to the sanitary sewer if allowed by the local POTW (discussed in the following question). Contents of septic tanks that may be disposed of as either hazardous or solid waste depending on waste characterization. Contaminated Material or Debris Based on best professional judgment and knowledge of meth labs, the Department has determined that material and debris that are contaminated with residual concentrations of meth lab chemicals and wastes can be managed as solid waste. This determination is based on the following analysis: In the case of contaminated material ( waste) or debris from the cleanup of residual contamination at meth labs, the primary contaminants are typically meth and iodine, which are not hazardous wastes, and acids and/or bases, which could exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity (pH<2 or> 12). When characterizing debris for disposal, the sample would include a composite of the material, so in the case of pH, even if the surface pH of the material is I, a sample of the entire material could have a pH of 4, which would not be a hazardous waste. Likewise, in a situation where a solvent has been spilled on a porous material, the material would probably not exceed the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) limit and be considered a characteristic hazardous waste. This is similar to waste characterization of construction debris with lead-based paint. Although the paint itself may fail the TC test, a composite of the whole wall usually does not, so it is disposed of as solid waste. It is highly unlikely that a situation would arise involving a listed hazardous waste, most of which are defined based on specific industrial processes. But in cases where a hazardous waste listing was attached to the chemical waste that may have been spilled on a surface, the concentration of that chemical in the debris would probably not be high enough to retain the listing. This determination is consistent with the "Contained-Out" determination procedure referenced below. Contents of Seotic Tanks Liquid wastes removed from septic tanks would only be considered to be hazardous if they were to exhibit a characteristics of hazardous waste, or if they included a listed waste. The liquid would generally only exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste ifthe liquid had a very high or low pH, or had a very high concentration of a solvent with a TC value, such as benzene. It is even more unlikely that the liquid would exhibit the characteristics of ignitability or reactivity. Since the waste determination would be based on the entire contents of the tank, it is unlikely that the contents would exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic if the volume of meth waste in the tank were small in comparison to the volume of common household waste. Similarly, if the contents of the tank included a listed hazardous waste, it is likely that the volwne of the listed waste would be small in comparison to the volume of household waste, resulting in a relatively low concentration of the chemical that was the basis of the listing. It may then be possible to make a "Contained-Out" determination to remove the listing from the septic tank contents, in accordance with the "Contained-Out Determination Procedure for Environmental Media Contaminated with RCRA Hazardous Waste", provided as Appendix 2 in the Department's "Corrective Action Guidance Document," httn:/ /www.cdnhe.state.co.uslhmlcawidance. ndf. 3 Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations February 2005 There are existing State and local requirements for maintaining septic systems and handling wastes from septic systems. Likewise, there are existing regulations that establish the disposal requirements for solid and hazardous waste. The cleanup regulations do not create a new regulatory mechanism to address septic systems. Language included in the cleanup regulations is intended to aide property owners, cleanup contractors and consultants in ensuring that they comply with existing requirements. How do you get approval to dispose of wash water to the sanitary sewer and how should this be documented? Requirements of the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) may vary across the State. The cleanup regulations do not establish or incorporate requirements for disposal to the sanitary sewer, it simply puts property owners, cleanup contractors and consultants on notice that they must comply with local requirements if wastes are to be disposed of into the sanitary sewer. Enforcement ofPOTW requirements is the responsibility of the POTW, and the cleanup regulations do not establish an independent enforcement mechanism. If disposal of wash water is necessary at a cleanup site, contacting the local POTW should provide the needed answers. Usually, the POTW will be willing to write a brief letter recording their acceptance of the wash water. "Who will be trained and authorized to allow re-occupancy? The Bill and the cleanup regulations do not address re-occupancy, only cleanup for the purpose of establishing an immunity from health-based civil lawsuits. Any requirements for, or decisions regarding re-occupancy would be based on independent local authority and would be made by the regulatory body with such authority. Do the references in the cleanup regulations to the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations make these regulations fully applicable to property owners? References to the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations (CHWR) do not create additional regulatory authority where it doesn't already exist. References to the CHWR, as well as the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations and to Water Quality Control Regulations are included in the cleanup regulations in order to put property owners, cleanup contractors and consultants on notice that they must conduct the cleanup in a manner that does not violate these existing regulations. The cleanup regulations do not create a new mechanism to enforce these existing regulations. "Who is responsible for conducting the Preliminary Assessment? The Preliminary Assessment is to be conducted by the consultant that will certify that the cleanup standards have been met. It seems like there should be some oversight of the cleanup contractors and consultants to prevent property owners from being taken advantage of. The Bill did not create a mechanism for contractor or consultant oversight. The Bill did create a liability shield, but did not establish regulatory oversight or enforcement programs. The Bill attempted to create some protection for the property owner by requiring that an industrial hygienist certify the cleanup. Cleanup contractors and consultants must comply with the detailed standards and procedures set forth in the cleanup regulations. These regulations may assist the property owner in determining whether a cleanup is being conducted in an appropriate manner, and whether the contractor or consultant is including all of the steps in the cleanup process, or is attempting to do more work than is necessary. 4 Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations February 2005 If cleanup is also required under independent local authority, the agency with this authority may have the ability to establish qualification and performance requirements for cleanup contractors and consultants. If the cleanup contractor or consultant fails to comply with the cleanup regulations, is the property owner liable? Section 25-18.5-103(1) establishes an affirmative obligation for the owner of property that was used to manufacture methamphetamine to either clean up the property to the standards established in the cleanup regulations, or demolish the property. As noted above, this obligation may be enforced by the State or by local government. Additionally, if the cleanup contractor or consultant fails to comply with the cleanup regulations, the immunity from civil lawsuits may not be established, and the pLU}Jerty owner may be subject to health-based civil lawsuits. The cleanup regulations specify that a negative air unit, equipped with HEP A mtration system, be used throughout the decontamination process to reduce airborne particulates. HEP A mtration would not protect against volatile organic compounds (VOCs), is this a concern? Based on the results of testing conducted by the National Jewish Medical and Research Center, VOCs were not found at former meth lab properties at levels above what would commonly be detected at properties that had not been used as meth labs. The intended use of HEP A filtration is to capture any particulates, specifically meth, that may be stirred up during decontamination. How do the cleanup regulation deal with shared ventilation systems in multi-unit properties? The cleanup regulations require that common ventilation systems, common areas, and adjacent units be identified and documented as part of the Preliminary Assessment. If contamination of ventilation systems, common areas or adjacent units is identified, these areas must be decontaminated to meet the cleanup standard in order for the liability shield to apply. If adjacent units are not owned by the owner of the unit where the meth lab was located, access would need to be obtained from that property owner in order to conduct testing and decontamination. In addition, local agencies may have authority to require testing and cleanup of adjacent units; however, this authority would be independent of the cleanup regulations. Defmitions As defined in the meth lab regulations, "Certified Industrial Hygienist" means an individual who is certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene or its successor. As defined in 24-30-1402, C.R.S, "Industrial Hygienist" means an individual who has obtained a baccalaureate or graduate degree in industrial hygiene, biology, chemistry, engineering, physics, or a closely related physical or biological science from an accredited college or university. The special studies and training of such individual shall be sufficient in the cognate sciences to provide the ability and competency to: (a) Anticipate and recognize the environmental factors and stresses associated with work and work operations and to understand their effects on individuals and their well-being; (b) Evaluate on the basis of training and experience and with the aid of quantitative measurement techniques the magnitude of such environmental factors and stresses in terms of their ability to impair human health and well-being; 5 Questions and Answers Regarding the Meth Lab Cleanup Regulations February 2005 (c) (I) Prescribe methods to prevent, eliminate, control, or reduce such factors and stresses and their effects. (II) Any individual who has practiced within the scope of the meaning of industrial hygiene for a period of not less than five years immediately prior to July 1, 1997, is exempt from the degree requirements set forth in this subsection (2.2). (III) Any individual who has a two-year associate of applied science degree in environmental science from an accredited college or university and in addition not less than four years practice immediately prior to July 1, 1997, within the scope of the meaning of industrial hygiene is exempt from the degree requirements set forth in this subsection (2.2). 6 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 52 Series 2006 TITLE: A Resolution Designating the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment as the Governing Body to Oversee the Administration of Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup on Properties within the City of Wheat Ridge WHEREAS, providing property owners within the City of Wheat Ridge with assistance in complying with applicable state law regarding cleanup of methamphetamine labs is outlined in CRS 25-18.5; WHEREAS, providing a central repository of records and information for all jurisdictions within Jefferson County regarding methamphetamine cleanup regulations is in the public interest; WHEREAS, although the Police Department and the West Metro Drug Task Force are tasked with the initial response to methamphetamine laboratories as well as the seizure of the hazardous contents of clandestine laboratories, property owners are responsible for the decontamination of their private property; WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment has the necessary regulations, resources and expertise to assist property owners and administer a methamphetamine cleanup, inspection and certification program; WHEREAS, there is no financial impact to the City of Wheat Ridge; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: The City of Wheat Ridge hereby designates the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment as the "governing body" for the purpose of the administration of the cleanup from methamphetamine lab contamination of private property within the City of Wheat Ridge as described in Colorado Revised Statutes title 25 Section 18.5. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS 13th DAY of November 2006. Jerry Ditullio, Mayor ATTEST: Pam Anderson, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM NO: 3 \ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION d~ ~[ Ul COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 13,2006 TITLE: AWARD OF RFP-06-31 CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT CITY HALL IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,760 ANNUALLY TO KG CLEAN, INC., OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO o PUBLIC HEARING [gI BIDS/MOTIONS o RESOLUTIONS o ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: o ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ) Quasi-Judicial: o Yes [gI No a d Recre[~:l ~/ City M~OV'1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The previous contract for custodial services at the municipal building has expired. There are no renewal options available. Purchasing guidelines require a formal competitive bid process for all services over the amount of $25,000. On September 26, 2006, twelve (12) proposals were received. Three firms were short listed and interviewed. Overall, the number one ranked firm was KG Clean, Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado in the total amount of $29,760.00 annually. Staff recommends award based on experience, qualifications, approach, references and fee schedule. Term is for one year with the option to renew for three, one- year periods. COMMISSIONIBOARD RECOMMENDATION: N/A STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Purchasing policies require the formal bidding process when service contracts over $25,000 are expired and the service is still required. Staff has evaluated the proposals and interviewed firms. Award is to a firm that has not done business with the city. There will be a transition period. This award is for the municipal building only and has no impact on the custodial services for the other city buildings. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: To not award the contract and therefore not receive custodial services for the municipal building. FINANCIAL IMPACT: $29,750 annually with options to renew the contract for three one-year periods. Vendor can adjust pricing annually. Funding for this service is budgeted in account #01-118-700-774. Invoices are approved monthly. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to award RFP-06-3l Custodial Services at City Hall to KG Clean, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado in the amount of $29,760.00 annually to be charged to 01-118-700-774." or, "I move to deny award ofRFP-06-31 Custodial Services at City Hall for the following reason(s) " Report Prepared by: Reviewed by: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director Linda Trimble, Purchasing Agent Attachments: 1. Bid Tabulation Sheet 061113 Custodial RFP-06-31 CAF.doc (j).<<'f>.~C<"\ \)Q;" ~&- ~f\..- As~e,('\ ~\v.e ~,'A\~ ~ \ Se~ CJ..eA-n ~t-100R \\'(j~ - b;o:(~(\~ \\l- t"-. ' \ \ ~\\\~(\u.. ~(\ ~11~<;> ""{..... - _ ....... ~ ...:... A (p-:- .\ ('~ "\ La\! - - }. ~i'O~ -u ~ --fe.ftt'^s -:- Oe.\Jve.R'( -:- "le5 \ 'ie.~ ues""'""Qtl ~ I sEl"""es 'e.,S \e.s ~es 1...\ S\GNP-i\JRE pp-GE \e,~ ~eS i~ \ "i e.S iGS i~s ie5 ~ ItJ..EGI'L ALIEN CERTlflCA iE. 1e.s \ ies ~t~ ~f:; ~e~ n .- ~es QUp-\Jf\CP- i\ONS 'fes \ '~e..S \$ - itS ~e.s ~es ~6 ~eS S E)(PER\ENCE '1es ~e.s. ~o 'ie.s 'ie..s 3'1 , '1 ("D~ ~ 11\ P-PPROF>-c\-\ ~~ I tsJ~ ~ ct; l\5\~q~ t.\1 \'~'1lo ~ l..\~I'3aD$ 3q J SSd.~ ~ - Pt~'(\u.o.." 'i~s 'ie:S fEE SC\-\EO\J\..E 'ies \ ~es "ie..~ \ ~ - ~~ \ ACl'-NOINLf-oGE p.OOENOUlA jI\ L-- ,J- C"1" Cl.lS100ll\.L SERVICES 1\.1 CI1'f I'II\.LL pROJE. ,,: SIO/PROPOSAl NO. RfP-06-3'\ ~E 09126/06 b~ ~EPi.10N\S\ON f F>-C\\Ji\ES OPEtlEO -e'l . t Li{\d3,rill\\)\e. pUlCl"l$\{\g 1'9"' ~. J~ ?AGt:.J--Of~ \ I-- L-- C~ CUS10QI"'L SERVICES ",1 CI1'Il\"'LL pROJE. ,\: -- ~NOOR ~\{\.~\tf!., ~ \'p- .,,- NeO(\ ~ 01 \ t> ""'- t'. BIO/PRbPO$AL NO. RfP-06-31 ~E 09/26/06 ~ ~Ep-T.Jt)NISIOt4 f~C\U1\E.S Cx\~ ~ ~~{\~e('" Se\'l \c.~ ~. ~\lP\'"\N'.^ bP\:KEO g'( . 1\., t Linda "rl,"~\ng r4"n ~'( . ._"'''''C. JU\ie~ ?"'GE.~Of~ -So. t"6 \ ~ \J) '\'IO-i't\.e,. ~~ ~ \~ "':!.. 't::>. ~-''' r ITEM NO: Lt, REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 13, 2006 TITLE: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT D PUBLIC HEARING [g] BIDS/MOTIONS D RESOLUTIONS D ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: D ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ) Quasi-Judicial: D Yes [g] No (~~:~-tn.0-'- ---- CitYM~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application for the City Council position for the Parks and Recreation Commission has been received for the current opening in District III. The Parks and Recreation Commission members are appointed by City Council. The term of this appointment expires in March of 2008. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: None STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: There will be a vacancy if the applicant is not appointed. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to appoint expire March, 2008." to the Parks & Recreation Commission, term to or: Report Prepared by: Janice Smothers (303) 235-2815 Reviewed by: Pam Anderson, City Clerk (303) 235-2823 Attachments: 1. Application - Helen Huitt PLEASE APPLY ONLY FOR ONE BOARD OR COMMISSION i z:!L t1kE, ~;J l:r: i~? ;- 06 OCT 30 PH 3: 2 f APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE: /PfJfA J~ ~ If ~.~ (BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE) DATE: fIJ :;2 5 - t) ~ DISTRICT HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF WHEAT RIDGE: 3 t? k- ~ ARE YOU A REGISTERED VOTER? L-/ ~ o WHY ARE YOU SE ::KING THIS A~POI~TMENT? ~-- tv ~ ~jJ ~ ~ t:9-7-L/ .~~ r~. DOYOUHAVEEXPERIENC~INJHlgAREA? 1Il J ./Le-aQ'r-- -d- ~ ()f~O Vt?L ~:r /~ (L ~1P~ HAVE YOU EveR SERVED, OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY ON A BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE AND IF SO, WHICH ONE? HOW LONG?~ .;/ .iA->.~ ;!;d)7f~ ~LJ ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS WHICH WOUL...Q INTERFERE WITH REGULAR ATTENDANCE OR DUTIES? JA-l) SIGNATURE -~~'- ~~.-~L/&--, PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME: J-I r? / e-- j,1 Hu / if ADDRESS: ~ -:r t? 7 ~- /11 ~g~ b' HOME PHONE: ~() 3 '-/ b2. () .3 <is ~ / DIStributed e?o'NEse:;,~: ~VL-L- Date: 101 0 Mayor: I C~ty Clerk: -MAIL A~. ts J,p h {L; -+- +- , n...L-7 City T reas: ~tY P:;:: I ~pt~Lle' 110N WILL BE KEPT ON FILE FOR ONE YEAR t I =.~ ....._-_:.::--_..~~~=~.:.:.=.....:.. _:: __=...J