The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-10-03 (Regular) Meeting Agenda Packet~Englewood 1000 Englewood Pkwy -Council Chambers Englewood , CO 80110 1. Call to Order. 2 . Invocation. 3 . Pledge of Allegiance . 4 . Roll Call. 5 . Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session. AGENDA Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Oct. 3 , 2016 •7:30 p.m . a. Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of Sept. 19, 2016. 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment. The deadline to sign up to speak for Scheduled Public Comment is Wednesday, prior to the meeting , through the City Manager's Office . Only those who meet the deadline can speak in this section. (This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification , but there will not be any dialogue . Please limit your presentation to five minutes .) a. Scott Gorski, from Citizens for Englewood Schools, will address Council regarding the November 2016 election bond issue. b. Duane Tucker, from Citizens for Englewood Schools, will address Council regarding the November 2016 election bond issue. c. Scott Gilbert, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding Council meeting start time. d. Brian Brockhausen, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding Title 7. e . John Odenheimer will address Council regarding residency registration for sex offenders. f. Coween Dickerson, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding communications. g. Susan Walker will address Council regarding sex offender registry. Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids o r services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-762 -2405) at least 48 hours in ad v ance of when services are needed . h. Kathleen Bailey, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding the consequences of incompetent and ineffective government. i. Doug Cohn, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding historic preservation. j. Robert Ellstrom will address Council regarding morality vs. legality. k. Ronnie Newman will address Council regarding residency restrictions. 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment. Speakers must sign up for Unscheduled Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting. (This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification, but there will not be any dialogue . Please limit your presentation to three minutes . Time for unscheduled public comment may be limited to 45 minutes, and if limited, shall be continued to General Discussion.) Council Response to Public Comment. 8 . Communications, Proclamations, and Appointments. a. A proclamation declaring October 10, 2016, Taiwan Friendship Day. 9. Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading. i. Council Bill 37-The Police Department recommends Council approve a bill for an ordinance authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) Regional Data Warehouse. Staff: Cmdr. Tim Englert b . Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. c. Resolutions and Motions. 10. Public Hearing Items. a. A public hearing for the resolution of the Iron Works Metro District -Service Plan. Staff: Planner II Audra Kirk 11. Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading . i. Council Bill 31 -Staff recommends Council approve this bill for an ordinance establishing the 2016 mill levy to be collected in 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood !303-762 -2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. ii. Council Bill 32 -Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget for fiscal year 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel iii. Council Bill 33 -Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriat ing funds for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for fiscal year 2017 . Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel iv . Council Bill 34 -Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the 2017 Budget. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel v . Council Bill 35 -Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriating funds for 2017 . Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel vi. Council Bill 36-Staff recommends Council approve a bill for an ordinance approving changes to Charter Article VII ; Section 52(g): to combine Parks & Recreation with the Library Department and to create a Communications Department. Staff: City Manager Eric Keck vii. Council Bill 38 -Staff recommends Council approve a bill for an ordinance amending the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 and the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Englewood City Council , to change the start time of regular Council meetings to 7:00 p .m ., effective November 7, 2016. Staff: City Manager Eric Keck viii. Council Bill 39 -Staff recommends Council approve a bill for an ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement w ith South Suburban Parks and Recreation District for the construction of a bike trail on the east side of the South Platte River at W . Union Ave . and W . Oxford Ave . Staff: Utilities Director Tom Brennan b . Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading . c . Resolutions and Motions . i. Staff requests Council approval by resolution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the EPBA and the City of Englewood for 2017 through 2018. The contract covers approximately 55 employees . Staff: HR Manager Jayleen Schell Please note: If you ha ve a disability and need au xilia ry aids o r serv ices, please notify the Ci ty of Englewood (303 -7 62-2405) at least 48 hours in ad v ance o f w hen services are needed. 12. General Discussion. a. Mayor's Choice. i. Memo on Calling the Question. b. Council Members' Choice. 13. City Manager's Report . 14. City Attorney's Report. 15 . Adjournment. Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or serv ices, please notify the City of Englewood (303-762-2405 ) at least 48 hours in ad v ance of when services are needed . •, FLOWCHART OF A MOTION -According to Robert's Rules of Order 1. Request the floor to make a motion 2. Request granted by mayor/chair 3. Motion made 4 . Motion seconded 5 . Motion stated by mayor/chair 6. Mayor/chair opens debate 7. Request the floor to make a OR 7. Request the floor to debate motion to vote 8 . Request granted by mayor/chair 8 . Request granted by mayor/chair 9. Motion to vote 9. OR debate/motion to vote Motion seconded Vote 10. 10. Request granted by mayor/chair 11. Vote 11. Outcome stated Motion to vote 12. Outcome stated 12. Motion seconded Vote 13. 13 . Vote Outcome stated 14. 14 . Outcome stated 15. Vote 16. Outcome stated Coween Dickerson 2835 S. Pennsylvania Communication and organization and actions in the City are not just misleading, but are somewhat out of control and not working to the benefit of and trust by the citizens. When a political consultant can take over City publications, (not part of his "contract") and not just "spin" the facts but in at least 2 instances, outright lie about Council's actions/reasons, presumably to gain additional fees, that is very wrong. The City has allowed this to happen and failed to act and correct the initial mistake in contracting with Mile High. I am afraid that the NEWEST proposed communications consultant, Cahoots(negative connotations with that name), will prove equally out of control by anyone and transparency, truth and valid communication will take a back seat to makeup and spin. In addition, the recent front page of the Villager calls control of City communications into question and raises ethical concerns about the 2 council members quoted as making the accusations. But the most troublesome actions and contradictions and unnecessary costs are caused by legal staff, specifically the contradictory words of and avoidance and outright refusal to execute the direction of Council by comer. I recently heard him say in Council, that he would refer the iBAKE license revocation to a CIRSA attorney because "it won't cost us anything". We have a hefty "premium" for this service and an lSOk deductible, so it is NOT free in any way. 1. The most current statements that call Comer's legal competence into question are his statements and actions regarding Ord 34 and the unnecessary 4 yr Ryal court action and the related but quite different Brockhausen case. The current issue is Brockhausen, which Comer's direction to police brought forward. 2. Comer said recently "Council cannot tell police which ordinances they can enforce and which they can't". Yet, Comer does so per police and his own actions & inactions as verified by documentation. 3. Comer has said that he did not know the police were now enforcing ord 34, yet he told them that the CO supreme ct told them they were "free to do so" and approved the wording of the letter "evicting" over 50 persons without due process or examination of facts. This is verifiable by documentation. 4. Comer said, long after the CO Sup Ct answered the certified question from the 10th Circuit Court, "We won! Victory for Home Rule". That is a spin that has no basis in reality or the 10th Circuit final decision. What the Supreme Court said in paragraph 34 was the City interpreted home rule too broadly, that just because the City has regulated, does not mean the regulation is exempt from state considerations. 5. The civil rights violations of ord 34 were not addressed in any way. Ryals complaint only asked for cessation of prosecution for continued violations of ord 34 to which the City agreed. The City's appeal was dismissed on mootless grounds. 6. The only reason the lawsuit was filed the day after the moratorium failed was because of the public comments of Comer, Gillit and Yates the previous night Despite comer's claim that the City cannot take action on the questionable ord 34 without "undermining pending litigation", which he brought about, that is what can and should be done now and should have been done in 2012. The ordinance is overly broad, violates civil rights, is a taking of property, and the residency requirements pertain only to the perceived danger of violent sexual pedophiles. But that concern is very misplaced in general because court orders take care of that possibility case by case as is shown in the recent public case of a counselor/pastor who touched a 13 yr old inappropriately and now cannot have contact even with his own minor children. Settle this case IMMEDIATELY. Revise the ord to allow the now law abiding citizens under close supervision to remain in their homes, in stable and supportive environments. Don't let comer continue failing to do the job he is being overpaid to do and cannot do without resorting to lining his and Tom Rice's pockets at taxpayer expense. PUBLIC COMMENT ROSTER AGENDA ITEM 7 UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT October 3 , 2016 Speakers must sign up for Unscheduled Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit your presentation to three minutes PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TOPIC REPORT ON SAFETY ISSUES RAISED BY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR AND LOCATION OF SEX OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY (j\ .... <t (j\ (j\,.,, <t <t ,.,, <t .... 00 (j\ (j\ <D l"ll"lN NN f'- l"l,.,,,.,, 000 ,.,, ,.,, ,.,, P.. ~u AS PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO ST A TE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Pursuant to Section 16.11.17-103(4)0),C.R.S.) March 15, 2004 Colorado Department of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Sex Offender Management Board 700 Kipling Street, Ste. 1000 Denver, Colorado 80215 http ://dcj.state.eo.us/odvsom Email: somb @ cdps.state.co .us ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management would like to thank all those who assisted in this research effort. Above all , we would like to thank the Sex Offender Management Board Research Workgroup for all of their hard work on this project. We are especially grateful for the assistance of Suzanne Pullen of the Division of Probation Services and the probation officers who participated in this study . Equally important were the treatment providers who spent many hours answering questions and surveys regarding sex offender living arrangements. We would also like to thank the Sex Offender Management Board for their valuable input. In addition , we would like to thank Kim English and the Office of Research and Statistics, especially Elisa Di Trolio for her work on mapping for this project and Linda Harrison for her assistance in managing the data for analysis. Finally, we would like to thank Raymond Slaughter, Director of the Division of Criminal Justice , and Carol Poole, Deputy Director of the Division of Criminal Justice for their support of this research effort. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 Background ........................................................................................................................... 7 Sex Offender Registration/Community Notification ............................................................ 10 National Information ............................................................................................................. 11 Shared Living Arrangements ................................................................................................ 12 Research Study ...................................................................................................................... 15 Table 1 Statewide Population Data .............................................. 15 Sample ....................................................................................................................... 16 Table 2 Random Sample .............................................................. 17 Table 3 Over Sample Population .................................................. 17 Table 4 Demographic Information ............................................... 18 Table 5 Residence Information .................................................... 19 Figure 1 Marital Status by Residence Type ................................... 19 Figure 2 Employment Status by Residence Type .......................... 20 Figure 3 Education Level by Residence Type ............................... 20 Table 6 Residence Type by Risk Level.. ...................................... 21 Table 7 Probation Officer Guidelines .......................................... 22 Results ....................................................................................................................... 22 Living Arrangements ..................................................................................... 22 Table 8 Non-sexual criminal violations ....................................... 23 Figure 4 Average number of violations ......................................... 26 Figure 5 Average number of violations for high risk offenders ......................................... 27 Table 9 How violations were discovered ..................................... 29 Table 10 Days between violation and when the violation was discovered ............................... 30 Proximity to Schools and Childcare Centers ................................................. 30 Support Systems ............................................................................................ 31 Table 11 Support by Residence Type ............................................. 31 Figure 6 Average number of violations for sex offenders with positive support ..................... 32 Figure 7 Average number of total violations for high risk sex offenders .......................................... 33 Figure 8 Average number of criminal violations for high risk sex offenders .......................................... 34 Figure 9 Average number of technical violations for high risk sex offenders .......................................... 34 Risk Levels .................................................................................................... 35 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 36 Attachments: Continuum of Housing Maps la -lh 1000 foot buffers around schools and childcare centers Maps 2a -2h 2000 foot buffers around schools and childcare centers Map 3 Local Ordinances Map 4 State laws concerning sex offender residences 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management, conducted research on the safety issues raised by living arrangements of sex offenders in the community. This research primarily focused on two questions : ( l) Do the living arrangements of sex offenders, including Shared Living Arrangements, have an impact on community safety? (2) Do the location of sex offender residences, specifically in proximity to schools and childcare centers, have an impact on community safety? To answer these questions, probation files were reviewed on both a random sample of sex offenders under probation supervision in the Denver metropolitan area and an all-inclusive sample of sex offenders under probation supervision in the Denver metropolitan area living in a Shared Living Arrangement (n = 130 for the combined sample). Data were extracted from the first 15 months of supervision for the sex offenders selected for this study. The findings and subsequent recommendations are presented below. (1) High-risk sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements had significantly fewer violations than those living in other living arrangements. In addition, the average overall number of violations was low in Shared Living Arrangements, which is surprising, given that this was the only residence type that had significantly more high- risk sex offenders. Shared Living Arrangements also had one of the shortest amounts of time between when a sex offender committed a violation and when the probation officer or treatment provider found out about the violation. In addition, the roommates 3 of sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements called in violations of probation and treatment requirements to the sex offender 's treatment provider and probation officer more times than roommates in any other living arrangement. This leads back to the conclusion that a positive support system, which 100% of the Shared Living Arrangements provided, is an important component of being successful in treatment. Recommendation: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders living in the community. (2) Although residences ' proximity to schools and childcare centers was not specifically analyzed; two things could be inferred from maps created for this project. One , in urban areas , a large number of schools and childcare centers are located within various neighborhoods , leaving extremely limited areas for sex offenders to reside if restrictions were implemented . Second, sex offenders who have committed a criminal offense (both sexual and non-sexual) while under criminal justice supervision appear to be randomly scattered throughout the study areas --there does not seem to be a greater number of these offenders living within proximity to schools and childcare centers than other types of offenders. In addition to the maps, the state oflowa's legal challenge to their law provides some insight into the constitutionality of restricting sex offender residence s. Recommendation: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionaly supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. 4 (3) The research findings indicated that sex offenders on probation living with their families in the Denver metropolitan area were more likely to have a criminal and technical violation than those living in other types of residences. Support was another component related to the number of criminal and technical violations . Those who had support in their lives had significantly lower numbers of violations than those who had negative or no support. When support was examined for high-risk offenders, those with no support and living with a family member or friends had the highest numbers of violations (criminal, technical, and total). These findings suggest that although a high-risk sex offender may be living with a family member or friends , it does not necessarily mean that he or she is living in a supportive or healthy environment. Recommendation: Efforts should be made to ensure that the sex offender's support in the home is positive in order to aid in his or her treatment. Recommendation: While the findings in this report suggest a link between a sex offender's support in the home and performance in the community, more research in this area should be conducted to further inform this important finding. (4) General Recommendation: The Sex Offender Management Board should consider the findings from this report when revising the Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders. 5 INTRODUCTION The Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management, Division of Criminal Justice , Colorado Department of Public Safety, on behalf of the Sex Offender Management Board submit this report pursuant to section 16-1 l.7-103(4)(j), C.R.S .: "The board shall research and analyze the safety issues raised by living arrangements for and the location of sex offenders within the community, including but not limited to shared or structured living arrangements. At a minimum, the board shall consider the issues raised by the location of sex offender residences, especially in proximity to public or private schools and childcare facilities, and public notification of the location of sex offender residences. On or before March 15, 2004 the board shall prepare and submit a report concerning the research and analysis conducted pursuant to this paragraph OJ and any related legislative recommendations . " Presented in this report are findings from a study of issues related to public safety among probationers convicted of a sex offense who reside in a range ofliving situations . The study was designed to review and analyze the various types of housing in which supervised sex offenders in the community reside and whether or not there is a correlation between housing type and number and types of violations. The following findings may be utilized by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board to create guidelines regarding the living arrangements for persons convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior. 6 BACKGROUND Sexual offending behavior and the management of sexual offenders has been an issue of concern for the state of Colorado and across the country for many years. During the past decade , legislation and policy development directed at the management and treatment of these offenders has proliferated. Federal mandates , such as Megan's Law , The Jacob Wetterling Act, The Campus Sex Crimes Act, and The Pam Lychner Act were passed with the expectation that these would make it easier for law enforcement agencies across the country to identify and track convicted sex offenders. In Colorado , the creation of the Sex Offender Management Board allowed for the establishment of standards and guidelines for working with sex offenders . In addition , the passage of laws such as sex offender registration, genetic testing of sex offenders , lifetime supervision for certain sexual offenders and the creation of the Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation help illustrate policy makers' concerns regarding this population. Despite these and other efforts to decrease the risk sex offenders pose to public safety , concerns remain . Approximately 60% of convicted sex offenders in Colorado are sentenced to community placement with the remainder being sentenced to incarceration at the Department of Corrections or the county jail (Colorado State Court Administrator 's Office, 2003). Most of those incarcerated offenders will eventually be returned to their communities of origin , with or without the benefit of parole supervision . In short, most convicted sex offenders either will never leave the community upon conviction or will return to the community at a later date. The question arises, since convicted sex offenders in Colorado are managed with a combination of supervision, treatment and incarceration, does this population still pose an undue risk to the public? Studies show that persons who are convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior demonstrate a high likelihood of recidivism, thereby representing a risk to the 7 public. A meta-analysis of 61 research studies conducted by Hanson and Bussiere 1 in 1998 indicated that sexual recidivism was 18.9% for rapists and 12.7% for child molesters over a four to five year period. Study results comparing recidivism among sex offenders who have participated in specialized treatment with those who have not vary , but generally indicate that offenders who participate in offense specific treatment are less likely to recidivate than those who do not2 . In Colorado, limitations are imposed on convicted sex offenders who are under criminal justice supervision in the community . These include limits regarding contact with victims and potential victims and the requirement to reside in a location that has been approved by the supervising probation or parole officer. If the offender is living in a halfway house, the residence is , by definition, monitored (Colorado Sex Offender Management Board Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders, 2002). In many cases, convicted sex offenders are required to move away from their families to limit their contact with potential child victims3 . Living options available to these offenders include , but are not limited to, homeless shelters, motels, apartments, residential homes , and therapeutic communities . The officer ultimately decides where the offender lives, taking into consideration the offender's finances, travel needs and recommendations from treatment providers4. Any one of these options available to the offender may be located within close proximity to schools, day care centers, 1 Hanson , R.K . & Bussiere . (1998). Predictors of Sexual Offender Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis . Department of the Solicitor General Canada. 2 Schweitzer & Dwyer, 2003 ; Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques , Murphy, Quinsey, et al., 2002 ; Nicholaicuk, Gordon, Gu and Wong, 2000. 3 Research has indicated that sex offenders crossover in the types of offenses they had committed , the age of victims , and the gender of the victims (English, K. 1998). 4 Colorado Probation's Guidelines for Adult Sex Offender Management (SOISP , Non-SOISP and Presentence) clearly state that the supervising officer has the final authority to approve residence, employment or school (p . 17). 8 and playgrounds, however, supervising officers work hard to prohibit these situations5. However, in urban areas, there are numerous schools and childcare centers spread throughout various neighborhoods, making it difficult to find areas that are not near a school or childcare center. Please see Maps la-lh and Maps 2a-2h for pictorial descriptions of the livable areas in several cities and counties in Colorado that remain after 1000-foot and 2000-foot buffers around schools and licensed childcare centers are blocked off. These maps clearly depict the difficulty of finding safe residences that do not fall within predefined distances of places where children reside in densely populated areas . Currently, there are no state statutory restrictions that apply to the living arrangements and locations for persons convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior. Some municipalities and counties throughout the state have implemented local ordinances that prohibit more than one registered sex offender from living in a household, family, or group home (please See Map 3). While such ordinances are designed to limit options available to sexual offenders, in many cases, it is nearly impossible for these offenders to find appropriate housing away from schools, parks and/or childcare centers throughout metropolitan areas . Ironically, this situation may increase their risk of re-offending by forcing them to live in communities where safe support systems 6 may not exist or in remote areas providing them with high degrees of anonymity. This 5 Childcare centers can be especially difficult to identify in a residential neighborhood, given that they are frequently located inside a home, with no apparent indication of their presence. Additionally, childcare centers may be opened after an offender has taken up residence and their presence may go unnoticed by all parties involved . While officers are diligent in their attempts to ensure that offenders do not reside in locations where children are present, sometimes this proves to be impossible. 6 Sex offender treatment providers and supervising officers encourage sex offenders to utilize or identify people in their lives that will act in the capacity of a support system. These people are asked to hold offenders accountable for behaving in compliance with the terms and conditions of their community placement and to abide by their pro-social treatment contracts . These "support systems" are an important component of sexual offenders' community management process . 9 may also require more travel to and from work, treatment and other necessary appointments. Some housing options provide little to no supervision outside of regular community monitoring, while others are designed to provide relatively high levels of monitoring and supervision (please see Continuum of Housing on Page 39). Several factors contribute to an offender's risk ofre-offending while living in the community. These include, but are not limited to, their assessed level of risk based on individual factors, the amount of free time available to the offender, the degree to which they are progressing in their treatment program and the amount of monitoring and supervision that they are subject to . For example, a high-risk sex offender on probation or parole might be monitored via global positioning satellite (GPS) technology or an electronic monitoring device (EHM). This allows the supervising officer to either closely monitor the offender's whereabouts (with GPS) or to ensure that the offender is at home (with EHM). These technologies are used in conjunction with regular home visits and curfew checks. Lower risk offenders may only be subject to random home visits or curfew checks as a method of community monitoring. Offenders residing in a shared living environment might be subject to regular and multiple daily call-ins to the treatment provider as well as being accountable to house-mates in addition to the random home visits and curfew checks conducted by the supervising officer. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION/COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION The sex offender registry provides the public with certain information on the whereabouts of sex offenders so that members of local communities may better protect themselves and their children from these known sex offenders. Law enforcement agencies are required to release the following information regarding registered sex offenders: name, address, aliases of the registrant, photograph (if available), and a history of the convictions resulting in the registrant being required to register, and any other convictions he or she may have. 10 Registry information can be accessed by either visiting the local law enforcement agency and requesting the sex offender registry list or by checking the Colorado Bureau of Investigation website which contains a statewide list of only certain high-risk registered sex offenders. All citizens have the right to request registry information from their local law enforcement agency. In certain cases, if a convicted sex offender meets the criteria in the Sexual Predator Risk Assessment and is found by the court to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), the court may also find that the SVP is subject to Community Notification. The law enforcement agency would conduct a local community notification through a community meeting, in accordance with the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board's Criteria, Protocols and Procedures for Community Notification Regarding Sexually Violent Predators. Specific groups, such as schools, senior centers, and recreation facilities, would be invited to the meeting, as well as residents of the SVP's immediate neighborhood, as determined by the law enforcement agency. The meeting would consist of an educational presentation followed by the SVP notification. Residents who do not attend the meeting may request the SVP information at the law enforcement agency. All residents who receive the SVP information may report their name and address, so that the law enforcement agency may contact them if the SVP changes residences or leaves the community. NATIONAL INFORMATION Currently, eleven states in the United States have laws that address sex offenders' residences in regard to proximity to schools or childcare centers; however, none of these address the living arrangement type (please see Map 4). In 1992, the Iowa legislature passed a law that prohibited offenders convicted of a sex offense against a minor or a sexually violent offense from living within 2000 feet of a school or childcare center, but the law was deemed unconstitutional by the Iowa 11 Supreme Court (February, 2004). The judge who ruled on this case cited several ways in which this law violated the rights of sex offenders: it was wrongly applied retroactively to those convicted before July 1, 2002; it required sex offenders to provide incriminating testimony against themselves; and it infringed on their due process rights . In addition, there was no research study to empirically support whether proximity to schools is a factor in recidivism rates of sex offenders 7 . Seven of the eleven states with such laws were contacted to obtain a better understanding of their statute and to ascertain whether their statutes were based on research conducted specifically regarding the issue 8 . Of the four states that responded to the inquiry, none of the laws were based on research specifically done on sex offender residences' proximity to schools or childcare centers9 . During the inquiry, a representative from one state expanded on the issue, stating that enforcing the residency restriction law was very challenging to enforce and, in fact, were having trouble doing so. SHARED LIVING ARRANGEMENTS Shared Living Arrangements (SLAs) are a modality of treatment utilized by three sex offender treatment programs in the state of Colorado 10 . There are slight variations in the philosophies that drive the use of the SLAs among these programs; however, all contribute to the desire to improve sex offenders' social skills, their accountability to self and others, and the need for both treatment providers and the criminal justice system to share the task of monitoring sex offenders in the community. Shared Living Arrangements are loosely defined as either two or three sex offenders living together in a house that they either rent or own. The residence is the sex 7 Doe v. Miller, United States District Court for the Southern District oflowa Davenport Division, February 9, 2004. 8 The seven states that were contacted are: Alabama, Florida, Iowa , Illinois, Oregon, Louisiana , and Kentucky. 9 The four states that responded to the inquiry were: Illinois, Alabama, Florida, and Oregon. 10 An inquiry was sent to the ATSA listserv requesting information on other treatment agencies who utilize shared living arrangements. The inquiry resulted in feedback that Colorado was the only state that had agencies who utilize Share Living Arrangements. 12 offenders' responsibility, not the treatment provider's. The residence location and housemates are approved in advance by the treatment provider and supervising officer. Typically, the SLA would not be located within sight of a school, playground, or next-door to a residence that has "child-type" items (for example, a swing set). The general SLA philosophy is an extension of the Therapeutic Community treatment modality in which offenders' living environments can be seen as an extension of both treatment and monitoring . Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behaviors, such as returning home late or having contact with children. This type of accountability and support is different in an SLA than in other types of living arrangements in that the treatment provider makes holding each other accountable for their actions a requirement of living in the SLA. Typically, in other living arrangements, the probation officers or treatment providers do not have any jurisdiction over the other members of the household that the offender lives therefore there are no consequences if a roommate in a different type of living arrangement does not report a violation committed by the sex offender. In addition, all of these treatment programs conduct residence checks as a component of the treatment. These residence checks supplement those conducted by probation officers . Research has found that recidivism among sexual offenders is related to several factors, including lack of social skills (personality disorders), chaotic lifestyle, and being disengaged from treatment 11 . Shared Living Arrangements allow for a controlled opportunity for a therapist to work with an offender's cognitive and behavioral levels because the offender is influenced throughout the day by not only his or her peers, but by his or her therapist as well . In addition, because an offender 11 Hanson, R.K . & Bussiere. (1998). Predictors of Sexual Offender Recidivism : A Meta-Analysis . Department of the Solicitor General Canada . 13 living in an SLA has to account for all of his or her time; SLAs become an approach that enables behavioral monitoring outside of the therapist's office 12 . While not all sex offenders in treatment with these providers are required to live in an SLA, those who have been assessed as posing the greatest risk to the community are typically recommended for such living conditions . This recommendation may occur for varying reasons, including the increased monitoring it allows and more socialization for the offender. The ultimate goal would be to create a continuum of progress in treatment with the goal of stabilizing at a level of reduced risk to re-offend. Treatment providers have found several benefits to Shared Living Arrangements, including more knowledge of offenders' involvement in high-risk behaviors (both through the offender accounting for his or her time and the other residents informing the treatment provider of conflicts or violations). Possibly one of the most important benefits to SLAs is that treatment providers are able to contact the offender's probation officer very quickly ifthere is a violation or if the offender is missing 13 • Finally, many offenders who are sentenced to the community have limited resources with which to obtain housing that meets the ideal placement criteria, leaving many living in potentially dangerous situations, such as a motel , living with friends who are not sufficiently supportive, or homeless. An SLA allows for the offender to live on his own, with informed roommates, in a controlled environment, and with close contact with his or her treatment provider and supervising officer. 12 Many sex offender treatment providers who do not utilize SLAs require offenders to keep a time log outlining their activites for each day . Time logs kept by sex offenders in SLAs have the added benefit of verification by housemates who are also being held accountable for the same behaviors and responsibilities . 13 The ability to contact the supervising officer immediately is also an element ofGPS and EHM monitoring . The difference between these two technologies and the SLA , however, is that GPS and EHM violation notifications are based solely on location, while violations detected in an SLA can also be behavioral. 14 RESEARCH STUDY A review of probation files was conducted to gather information on risk levels, types of residences, surveillance methods, number of violations, how quickly violations were discovered, and the method by which violations were identified on a sample of adult sex offenders under supervision, living in the Denver metropolitan area. Offenders under Parole and Community Corrections supervision were not included in the study for the following reasons : 1) Parole and Community Corrections has a significantly smaller population of sex offenders in the community, and 2) Parolees and those under Community Corrections supervision are typically not candidates for Shared Living Arrangements due to their limited time in the community 14 . Please see Table 1 for a snapshot of the number of sex offenders who were under criminal justice supervision living in the community on January 31, 2003 in Colorado. Table 1 -Statewide Population Data Census of Sex Offenders Under Community Correctional Status on January 31, 2003 Parole* Probation Non-Residential Residential Community Community Corrections Corrections 417 2,023 14 81 *as of June 11, 2003 14 Although most convicted sex offenders who have been sentenced to the Department of Corrections (DOC) since July of 1993 have received a mandatory period of parole, and those convicted since July 1996 have received a 5-year mandatory period of parole , many offenders currently being released from the DOC were sentenced prior to the imposition of mandatory parole provisions and are serving relatively short parole periods. Offenders sentenced to community corrections typically serve a six to nine month residential term and complete the sentence on non-residential status . 15 Sample The sample for this study was selected from the following judicial districts: 1st (Jefferson and Gilpin Counties), 2nd (Denver County), 18 1h (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties), and the 20th (Boulder County). These districts were selected for three reasons. First, treatment providers who utilize SLAs provide services within these districts . Second, the majority of the Colorado convicted sex offender population is in the Denver metropolitan area, which is largely comprised of these four districts . Finally, given that this study was conducted using existing resources , a relatively small sample and data collection effort was necessary . A total of 318 adult offenders in the 15 ', 2nd, 18th, and 20th judicial districts received a probation sentence for a sexual offense between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002. Approximately 50% of these offenders were randomly selected for inclusion in this study (n=148). In addition , an over-sample of 100% of adult sex offenders who were placed on probation between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002 in the same four districts as the random sample and were living in an SLA during their first 15 months of supervision were selected (n= 17) for inclusion in this study. The over- sampling of this population was done to ensure an adequate sample of offenders living under this unique arrangement. 16 Table 2 -Random Sample R d S l an om amp e Judicial District Received Probation between Selected for Completed January 1, 2001 and June 30, Study File Review 2002 I st 71 29 22 2nd 28 15 11 18th 160 82 64 20th 59 22 16 TOTAL 318 148* 113* Thirty-five (35) of those files that were initially selected for inclusion in the study could not be reviewed . These cases were dropped from the sample and were not replaced . Files were not reviewed for the following reasons : the offender 1) moved out of the district, 2) was deported out of the country, 3) absconded from supervision , 4) was serving a concurrent sentence in jail or DOC, or 5) had died in the first 15 months of supervision. *Five people from the Random Sample (3%) met the specifications of the Shared Living Arrangement Sample and are included in the total combined sample. Table 3 -Over-sample Population Sh dL'. A are lVtnf( rranf(emen tS l amp e Judicial District Received Probation between Selected for Completed January 1, 2001 and June 30, Study ·File Review 2002 and lived in a SLA durin2 the 1st 15 months I st 0 0 0 2nd 3 3 3 18th 6 6 6 20th 8 8 8 TOTAL 17* 17* 17* *The 5 people in the Random Sample who met the specifications for the Shared Living Arrangement Sample brought the total Shared Living Arrangement Sample to 23 people . Data were collected from case files for the first 15 months of probation supervision. Allowing for 15 months of supervision ensured that at least one or two polygraph examinations would occur for each individual and would allow time for offenders to be referred to SLAs . In addition, the risk level for this population is typically higher during the initial stages of supervision ; therefore, this timeframe allows for a conservative look at safety issues within the community during the time when they are likely to pose the greatest risk. Finally, the 15-month review period 17 allowed for a uniform time at risk, providing a comparable study period for each case . However, ten sex offenders in the sample (7. 7% of the combined sample) were placed on supervision for a sex offense at an earlier date , revoked, and their sentence reinstated during the selection timeframe for this sample (between January , 2001 and June , 2002). Demographic Information A total of 130 sex offender probation files were reviewed for this study-113 cases in the initial sample and 17 SLA cases. The majority of offenders in the study were male (98 .5%) with an average age of 36 years. Forty-three percent (n=55) had never been married and 51 % (n=67) had at least one child. The majority of the sample was working at least part-time (81 % ) and 8% were attending school (GED , college or technical school). T bl 4 D a e -h . I :ti emograp 1c n ormatton Age Average = 36 years AS?e Ran2e 19 years-67 years Marital Status Married, living together 16 (12.8%) Married, not living together 14 (11.2%) Separated or Divorced 39 (31.2%) Single, Never Married 55 (44.0%) Widowed 1 (0.8%) Last Grade Completed <High School 26 (22.2%) GED 15 (12 .8%) High School Diploma 25 (21.4%) Some College 34 (29 .1%) College Diploma 12 (10.3%) Graduate School 5 (4.3%) Attendin2 School 10 (7.7%) Employment Status Working full-time 87 (73 .1 %) Working part-time 8 (6 .7%) Unemployed 18 (15.1%) AFDC/S Sl/Disabili ty 4 (3.4%) Retired 2 (1.7%) 18 The types and number ofresidences represented in this sample are illustrated in Table 5. The majority of the sex offenders in this sample resided in only one residence during the first 15 months of supervision. However, 29% of the sex offenders in this sample moved two times, 11 % moved three times, 3% moved four times, and 1 % moved 5 times during the timeframe examined for this study. Please see Table 5 for the number and types of residences the combined sample lived in during the first 15 months of supervision. Table 5 -Residence Information SLA 32 (14.7%) Lives Alone 41 (18.9%) Lives with Family 65 (30.0%) Lives with Friends 49 (22.6%) Homeless/Shelter 5 (2.3%) Jail/Work Release 25 (11.5%) TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENCES 217 (100%) Figures 1 -3 illustrate demographic data by residence type. Figure 1: Marital Status by Residence Type 80 70 160 50 40 30 20 10 o"""'Lm~ ... ~~ ...... .t::.m~..._..13~_..i:;.ma.....,_.i;,; Jail SLA Friends Family Alone Shelter 19 CMarried, live together CMarried, not living together • Seperated/Divorced CSingle, never married •Widowed 90 80 70 160 so 40 30 20 ..... -10 0 ..., I Jail 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Jail Figure 2 -Employment Status by Residence Type ..... """ -.....__ -~ --• ,....., I I ..... I • --• n.. SLA Friends Family Alone Shelter Figure 3 -Education Level by Residence Type SLA Friends Family Alone Shelter []Work Full-time •Work Part-time []Sporadic [] AFDC/SSl/Disability •Retired •Unemployed IJGraduate School •College Degree Ill Some College •us diploma/GED []<High School Over half of the sample (54%) were assessed as "high risk" by the Probation Department. Thirty-four percent were medium risk and 9% were low risk. Over three-quarters of the offenders living in SLAs were classified as high risk . Pearson chi-square tests were used to determine whether a significant relationship between risk levels and residences existed for this sample . Sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements were significantly** more likely to be high-risk sex offenders. Sex offenders living alone were significantly*** more likely to be low or medium-risk 20 sex offenders. Statistically significant relationships between risk level and residence were not found for the other living arrangement types. See Table 6 for the breakdown of residence type by risk level. SLA Lives Alone Lives with Family Lives with Friends Homeless/ Shelter Jail/Work Release TOTAL **p :::: .025 ***p :::: .01 Table 6 -Residence Type by Risk Level Hh!h Risk Medium Risk Low Risk TOTAL 25 (78%)** (19%) 6 (19 %) (9 %) 1 (3 %) (6 %) 32 (100%) 17 (40%) (13 %) 19 (46%)*** (28%) 5 (12%)*** (28%) 41 (100%) 42 (65 %) (32 %) 21 (32 %) (31 %) 2 (3 %) (11 %) 65 (100%) 26 (53%) (2 0 %) 14 (29 %) (2 1%) 8 (16%) (44 %) 49 (100%) 4 (80%) (3 %) 1 (20%) (2%) 0 5 (100%) 16 (64%) (12 %) 7 (28 %) (10 %) 2 (8%) (11 %) 25 (100%) 130 (60%) (100%) 68 (32%) (100%) 18 (8%) (100%) 217 (100%) Sex offenders sentenced to probation may be sentenced to one of two programs : Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) or "regular" probation. Offenders within the SO ISP receive the highest levels of supervision that is provided to probationers. Offenders on SOISP have severely restricted activities , daily contact with the probation officer, monitored curfew, home visitation, employment visitation and monitoring, and drug and alcohol screening. Also , they are required to actively participate in treatment and undergo regular physiological monitoring. SO ISP is comprised of three phases , and mo v ement between the phases is dependent upon the offender meeting specific behavioral benchmarks . Supervision levels are commensurate with the phases of SO ISP , with Phase I being equivalent to a maximum supervision level , Phase II , medium and Phase III minimum. The supervision levels in the SO ISP program relate primarily to type and frequency of probationer-probation officer contact and monitoring . Offenders on regular probation, or non-SOISP sex offender supervision, are classified according to supervision levels: 21 maximum, medium or minimum . These supervision levels are determined by the offender's score on the Oregon Risk Assessment instrument, which is completed within the first 30 days of probation supervision. Supervision plans are developed to meet the specific risks and needs of each offender. These plans are based upon information contained in the risk assessment instrument, the sex offense specific mental health evaluation report and any other relevant information. Offenders classified as high risk are subject to more contact and oversight by the probation officer than those classified as low risk. While there are no standards dictating the number of contacts or other activities in which an officer must engage based on supervision level , there are some guidelines set out by the Division of Probation Services . These are presented in Table 7 below. T bl 7 G "d r a e -m e mes fl P b . Offi ' C t t . h P b . or ro at10n 1cer s on ac wit ro ationers b s 1y uperv1s10n L eve I ADULT SUPERVISION General Reference Maximum Level Medium Level Minimum Level 2 face-to-face contacts with 1 face-to-face contact with the 1 face-to-face contact with the offender per month. offender per month. the offender every 60 days . 1 home visit within the first 1 verification of residence No residency verification 90 days of supervision, unless every 60 days . required. transitioning from ISP . Thereafter, by supervision plan. Home visits shall be conducted in accordance with local policy. From Standards for Probation, Colorado Judicial Branch, July 2003 , p . 29 RESULTS Living Arrangements Fifteen new sexual offenses were reported among all 130 offenders in the sample during the first 15 months of data collection. One hundred percent of those offenses were "hands off' offenses- peeping , voyeurism , or exposure . Of the new sexual offenses reported , 27 % occurred while the 22 I offender was living with a family member, 27% while living with friends, 13% while living alone, 20% while living in an SLA, and 13% while in jail or work release. The 15 new sexual offenses were committed by 13 sex offenders (10% of the sample). A total of 52 non-sexual criminal violations were reported for the entire sample. See Table 8 for the description of non-sexual criminal violations by residence type. Table 8 -Non-sexual criminal violations Jail/Work SLA Family Friends Alone Shelter TOTAL Release N N N N N N Column% Column% Column% Column% Column% Column% Row% Row% Row % Row% Row% Row % Failed to 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 (100%) register as a (2%) (20%) sex offender (50%) (50%) Driving Crime 1 2 3 3 0 1 JO (100%) (4%) (6%) (5%) (6%) (20%) (10%) (20%) (30%) (30%) (10%) Contact with 0 3 2 1 0 6 (100%) the victim (5%) (4%) (2%) (50%) (33%) (17%) Threatened or 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 (100%) Assaulted (5%) (2%) another person (75%) (25%) Drug Use 0 2 8 7 1 2 20 (100%) (6%) (12%) (14%) (2%) (40%) (10%) (40%) (35%) (5%) (10%) Other non-0 1 1 1 0 0 3 (100%) sexual crime (3%) (2%) (2%) (33%) (33 %) (33%) Did NOT 24 27 47 36 37 1 172 commit a non-(96%) (85%) (72%) (73%) (90%) (20%) (100%) sexual crime (14%) (16%) (27%) (21%) (22%) (1%) TOTAL 25 32 65 49 41 5 217 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Comparison of means tests (ANOV As) were run to see if there were significant relationships between residence types and non-sexual criminal violations (sexual and non-sexual violations 23 combined). Sex offenders living with a family member averaged significantly***15 more criminal violations (0.68 criminal violations) than those not living with a family member (0.36 criminal violations). Sex offenders sent to jail had significantly** less criminal violations in jail (0 .12 criminal violations) than those not living in jail (0.49 criminal violations). No significant relationships were found between the other types of residences and criminal violations. A technical violation is a violation of either the probation requirements or the treatment requirements of the offender. These types of violations include, but are not limited to: staying out past curfew, going out without a safety plan, viewing or possessing pornography, missing a probation or treatment appointment, not paying treatment or court fees in a timely manner, drinking alcohol, not disclosing his or her crime to a roommate or employer, having unapproved contact with a minor (for example, not immediately leaving a residence if a minor comes to the residence), having a sexual relationship with a vulnerable person (for example, dating a woman who has small children), hostile behavior, or living in an unapproved residence. A total of 443 technical violations, committed by 103 sex offenders (79% of the sample), were reported during the first 15 months of supervision. The majority, thirty-four percent (n=l52), of those technical violations was for failing to appear for a probation or treatment appointment. Comparison of means tests (ANOVAs) were also run to see ifthere were significant relationships between residence type and technical violations . As with criminal violations, sex offenders living with a family member had significantly*** higher numbers of technical violations (2.55 technical violations) than sex offenders not living with a family member (1.47 technical violations). And, sex offenders in jail had significantly*** lower numbers of technical violations (0.52 technical violations) than those not in jail (1.96 technical violations). No significant 15 For the purpose of this report,*= p ::=: .05; ** = p ::=: .025; *** = p ::=: .01 24 relationships were found between the other types of living arrangements and technical violations. Figure 4 illustrates the average number of total violations, criminal violations , and technical violations in each residence type. To be expected, jail and work release had the lowest number of criminal violations, presumably due to their highly supervised, restrictive environment. The type of residence with the second lowest number of criminal violations was living alone, and sex offenders living in SLAs accrued just slightly more criminal violations than those living alone. It is important to remember when considering this finding that sex offenders living alone were significantly more likely to be classified as low or medium risk, and those living in a Shared Living Arrangement were more likely to be classified as high risk. Sex offenders living with friends, family, or in shelters , where there were no significant differences between these living arrangements and risk levels, had the highest numbers of criminal violations . While the lower rate of criminal violations for those living alone may be attributable to risk; it is likely that the lower re-offense rate among those living in SLAs may be attributable to the level of surveillance associated with an SLA and the sex offenders' extensive involvement in treatment which is a requirement ofliving in an SLA. When looking at the highest number of total violations (technical and criminal combined), sex offenders living with a family member had the most violations. As expected, sex offenders in jail or work release had the lowest number of violations , followed by the group of sex offenders living in SLAs who had the second lowest number of total violations. 25 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 SLA Figure 4: Average Number of Violations in Each Residence Type Alone Family Friends O Criminal Violations •Technical Violations II TOT AL Violations Homeless/Shelter Jail/Work Release Figure 5 illustrates the average number of total violations, criminal violations, and technical violations in each residence type for HGH RISK sex offenders . When controlling for risk, sex offenders living in SLAs had the second lowest number of criminal, technical, and total violations (high risk offenders in jail had the lowest number of violations). Sex offenders living with a family member continued to have the highest number of criminal, technical, and total violations. 26 Figure 5: Average Number of Violations for HIGH RISK Sex Offenders 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 SLA Alone Family Friends D Criminal Violations •Technical Violations 111 TOTAL Violations Homeless/Shelter Jail/Work Release Comparison of means tests (ANOVAs) were run to determine ifthere were significant relationships between residence type and number of violations for sex offenders classified as high risk. High-risk sex offenders living in SLAs had a significantly*** fewer number of total violations (1.16 High-risk sex offenders living in an SLA had a significantly lower number of violations while high-risk sex offenders living with a family member had significantly more violations. violations) and technical violations (0 .84 technical violations) than high risk sex offenders not living in SLAs (2 .70 total violations and 2.03 technical violations). In addition, high-risk sex offenders living in an SLA had significantly16 fewer criminal violations (0 .32 criminal violations) than those not living in SLAs (0 .68 criminal violations). 16 This p-value for this finding was .07 . 27 High-risk sex offenders living with a family member had significantly*** more total violations (3.62 violations) and technical violations (2.79 technical violations) than high-risk sex offenders not living with a family member (1.83 total violations and 1.33 technical violations). High-risk sex offenders living with a family member also had significantly* more criminal violations (0.83 criminal violations) than high risk sex offenders not living with a family member (0.50 criminal violations). As expected, high-risk sex offenders in jail or work release had significantly*** less total violations (0.43 violations) and technical violations (0.31 technical violations) than high risk sex offenders not living in jail (2 .68 total violations and 2.00 technical violations). High-risk sex offenders living in jail or work release had significantly** less criminal violations (0.13 criminal violations) than high-risk sex offenders not in jail (0.68 criminal violations). Information was also obtained on how the violations were discovered among the different types of residences (please see Table 9). Understanding how violations are discovered is important because it speaks to the degree of support and community safety provided in each living arrangement. We are quite certain that if an offender is late checking in from work to a halfway house, the delay will be reported to the appropriate authorities and action will be taken. We are not so certain that the same tardiness would be reported if the offender were living with a friend or family member. The data below illustrates the differences in violation detection found among the various situations. Information from polygraph testing was the number one way violations were detected. Followed by that, the rates of how violations were found varied by In SLAs, roommates calling in to a probation officer or treatment provider was the most effective tool in detecting violations. residence. For example, in SLAs, roommates calling in to a probation officer or treatment provider was the most effective tool in detecting violations and home visits conducted by probation officers was a common way to detect violations for sex offenders living with friends. 28 Table 9 -How Violations Were Discovered How violation was discovered Jail/Wor SLA Friends Family Alone Shelter k-release Probation Officer (PO) found 0 10% (5 ) 9% (11) 16 % (33) 200~ (18) 22%(2) out (including self-report) Treatment Provider found out 25 % (4) 14% (7) 12% (14) 8% (18) 17 % (15) 22%(2) (including self-report) Both PO & Treatment Provi der 0 2 % (1) 3% (4) 1% (2) 3% (3 ) 0 found out (includin g self- report) PO did home visit 0 8% (4) 12% (14) 7% (14) 8% (7) 11 %(1 ) Polygraph 500/o (8) 16%(8) 12% (14) 14% (29) 200~ (18) 0 Fail to appear for treatment 0 4 % (2) 7% (8) 17% (35) 3% (3 ) 0 Fail to appear for PO appt. 0 2% (I) 10% (12) 7% (15) 7% (6) 22%(2) Roommate called PO or 0 16%(8) 7% (8) 2% (5) 0 0 Treatment provider PO called or visited employer 0 0 2% (2) 2% (4) 0 0 Employer called PO 0 0 0 1% (2) 0 0 Lab Re sult (UA) 0 14 % (7) 11 %(1 3) 13 % (27) 10 % (9) 0 PO called residenc e 0 2%(1) 1% (1) 0 .5% (1) 1% (1) 0 Victim Advocated called PO 0 0 2% (2) 1% (2) 1% (1) 0 PO called non-resident famil y 0 0 2% (2) 0 0 0 member Law Enforcement 19 % (3) 0 9% (10) 5% (11) 1% (1) 22%(2) Group member called 0 4 % (2) 1% (1) 5% (10) 1% (1 ) 0 Treatment prov ider or PO Sex Offender's friend called PO 6% (1) 2% (1 ) 0 1% (3 ) 1% (1 ) 0 GPS/EHM 0 4 % (2) 0 0 6% (5 ) 0 Computer Surveillance 0 4 % (2) 0 0 .5% (1) 1% (1 ) 0 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (16) (51) (116) (212) (90) (9) In addition to how the violations were found, the number of days between the day of the violation and when the violation was found by the probation officer or treatment provider were examined by residence types. The time between a violation and when the offender is "caught" is an extremely important factor when considering public safety. If an offender is committing violations , it is critical to act quickly to protect potential victims . The data indicated that sex offenders living in shelters had the shortest time period from when he or she committed a violation and when he or she was caught. However, the size of the sample living in a shelter in this analysis was extremely low . The second shortest time period between a sex offender committing a violation and getting 29 caught was with sex offenders living in SLAs. The longest period of time between violations and violations getting detected was with sex offenders living alone . However, there were no statistically significant differences among the types of residences and the number of days between the violation and when the violation was discovered. Please see Table 10 for the average number of days between a sex offender 's violation and when the violation was found , broken out by residence . Table 10 -Days between violation and when the violation was discovered Average number of days between Range of days between violation violation and when the violation and when the violation was was discovered discovered Living in a Shelter 0 .1 0-1 SLA 2.4 0-31 Living with Family 6.2 0-184 Living with Friends 7.4 0-258 Living Alone 10.6 0-113 Proximity to Schools and Childcare Centers Although getting exact measurements of residences ' proximity to schools and childcare centers could not be done for this study , due to limited resources , an illustration of the sex offender Very few of the sex offenders in this study engaged in criminal behavior during the study period, suggesting that a tight web of supervision , treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides . residences that had at least one criminal offense during the first 15 months of supervision and their proximity to schools and childcare centers were plotted using a mapping software program. These maps illustrated that these offenders seemed to be randomly located, and were , in fact , not usually within 1000 feet of a school or child care center. In addition, the maps illustrated (as said before) that in a densely populated area it is nearly impossible for anyone to find a residence that is not relatively close to a school or childcare center. However, sex offenders under criminal justice supervision usually have to abide by guidelines that restrict their 30 residence's proximity to schools or childcare centers and the residence would ha ve to get approved by their criminal justice authority figure. While it is not ideal for sex offenders to live in areas where children are frequently present, the data indicated that very few of the sex offenders in this study engaged in criminal behavior during the study period , suggesting that a tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides . Support Systems As with most behavioral health treatment, a positive support system is emphasized as a component of being successful in treatment. This component seemed to hold especially true with this population . For this report , support was defined as having someone significant to the offender and/or a roommate who attends treatment with the offender, has a positive relationship with the probation officer and treatment provider, and is well versed in the offender's probation and treatment requirements. Please see Table 11 for an illustration of the amount of support by the various resident types. Table 11 -Support by Residence Type Have Negative or Have Support Support system is TOTAL No Support unclear Living in a Shelter 1 (20 %) (2 %) 0 4 (80 %) (4 %) 5 (100 %) SLA 0 32 (100%) (46%) 0 32 (100 %) Li ving with 23 (35%) (44 %) 18 (28%) (2 6 %) 24 (37 %) (25 %) 65 (100 %) Family Living with 14 (29 %) (27 %) 11 (22%) (16 %) 24 (49 %) (25 %) 49 (100%) Friends Living Alone 11 (27 %) (21 %) 7 (17 %) (10 %) 23 (56 %) (24 %) 41 (100 %) Jail/Work Release 3 (12 %) (6 %) 1 (4 %) (1 %) 21 (84 %) (22 %) 25 (100 %) TOTAL 52 (24 %) (100 %) 69 (32%) (100 %) 96 (44 %) (100 %) 217 31 Comparison of means tests (ANOVAs) were run to determine whether positive support was significantly related to the number of violations incurred . Sex offenders who had support had significantly*** lower violations (1.86 violations) than sex offenders who had negative or no support (3.85 violations). The positive nature of support systems also held true for technical violations (1.45 technical violations for offenders with positive support vs . 3 .13 technical violations for those with negative or no support). Those with support also had significantly* lower criminal violations (0.41 criminal violations) than sex offenders with negative or no support (0. 71 criminal violations). Figure 6 illustrates the average number of total violations , criminal violations, and technical violations in each residence type for sex offenders who have POSITIVE support . When controlling for positive support, sex offenders living in SLAs had one of the lowest Sex offenders with positive support living in SLAs had one of the lowest numbers of violations . Sex offenders with positive support living with a family member continued to have the highest number of violations . numbers of criminal, technical, and total violations. Sex offenders living with a family member continued to have the highest number of criminal, technical , and total violations. Figure 6: Average Number of Violations for Sex Offenders with POSTIVE support 2.5 D Criminal Violations 2 1.5 0.5 SLA Alone Family Friends 32 Figures 7 -9 illustrate the average number of total violations, criminal violations, and technical violations in each residence type for HIGH RISK sex offenders controlling for support. Because of the high number of missing information regarding support (this variable was not easily obtainable from the files reviewed) missing data is included in the figure. When controlling for these two variables (risk and support), sex offenders living in SLAs had the High-risk sex offenders with negative or no support living with either a family member or friends had the highest number of violations. second lowest number of criminal, technical, and total violations (sex offenders in jail or work release had the lowest). Sex offenders with negative or no support living with either a family member or friends had the highest number of criminal, technical, and total violations. In fact, high- risk sex offenders living with a family member or friends had very similar outcomes when controlling for support. Figure 7: Average Number of Total Violations for High Risk Sex Offenders 6 5 4 3 2 SLA Alone Family --------------lOHave support Friends 33 •Negative or no ----------t support 8 Can not determine support Homeless/Shelter Jail/Work Release 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.8 0 .6 0.4 0.2 Figure 8: Average Number of Criminal Violations for High Risk Sex Offenders determine support o.J.llL_.. ___ _ SLA Alone Family Friends Homeless/Shelter Jail/Work Release Figure 9: Average Number of Technical Violations for High Risk Sex Offenders ---------------DHave support •Negative or no support mean not determine support o~L...J---.--- SLA Alone Family Friends Homeless/Shelter Jail/Work Release 34 Risk Levels Comparison of means tests (ANOV As) were run to see if offenders' risk levels were significantly related to the number of violations incurred during this study period . Sex offenders classified as high risk had significantly** more total violations (0 .93 violations) than sex offenders classified as medium or low risk (0.60 violations). High-risk sex offenders also had significantly*** more criminal violations (0.72 criminal violations) than medium or low risk sex offenders (0 .51 criminal violations). This finding is expected, given that higher risk levels are typically associated with higher rates of violations and/or failure. In addition , when controlling for high-risk sex offenders , those with support had significantly*** fewer total and technical violations ( 1.65 total and 1.21 technical violations) than high risk sex offenders with negative or no support (4.6 total and 3 .6 technical violations). High-risk sex offenders with support also had significantly** fewer criminal violations (0.45 criminal violations) than high risk sex offenders with negative or no support (1 .00 criminal violations). A logistic regression was run to determine whether risk level , support, and living with a family member' 7 act independently of one another or if they work as a cluster to predict violation Risk level does not independently contribute to total number of violations . Yet, risk level is the only variable of the three that independently contributes to the number of criminal violations . behavior. Support and living with a family member were found to be independent of one another, but risk level lost its significance when clustered with these two variables . This means that risk level does not independently contribute to total number of violations. Yet, risk level is the only variable of the three that independently contributes to the number of criminal violations. This suggests that higher risk sex offenders need higher levels of supervision, which may be afforded by SLAs . 17 These variables (support, risk level, and living with a family member) were selected for this analysis because they were found to be significantly related to number of violations. 35 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Persons convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior demonstrate a high likelihood of recidivism due to many factors. This study explored whether various types ofliving arrangements impacted sex offenders' risk to community safety. Several limitations to this study existed . First, this report focused on sex offenders under criminal justice supervision and cannot speak to sex offenders not receiving criminal justice supervision. Second, only data from the Denver metropolitan area were used. Therefore, these findings should not be generalized to Colorado's non-metropolitan areas . Third, data were collected from sex offenders who received a probation sentence; parolees were not included in this study. Fourth, data were only collected for the first 15 months of supervision. The time allowed for re- offending was relatively short 18 . And finally, the sample was only comprised of adult sex offenders; juveniles were not represented in the study. However, strengths of the data set include using both a random sample of probationers, who make up the majority of sex offenders receiving criminal justice supervision in the community, and an all-inclusive sample of sex offenders living in SLAs. High-risk sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements had significantly fewer violations than those living in other living arrangements. This finding is similar to Hanson and Harris' 1998 study 19 in which they found no overall difference in the frequency with which recidivists and non-recidivists were known to associate with other sexual offenders . In addition, the average overall number of violations was low in Shared Living Arrangements, which is surprising, given that this was the only residence type that had significantly more high-risk 18 Typical studies on recidivism occur over a 4 to 5 year period. 19 Hanson, R.K. & Harris , A . (1998). Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism. Department of the Solicitor General Canada . 36 sex offenders. Shared Living Arrangements also had one of the shortest amounts of time between when a sex offender committed a violation and when the probation officer or treatment provider found out about the violation. In addition, the roommates of sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements called in violations of probation and treatment requirements to the sex offender's treatment provider and probation officer more times than roommates in any other living arrangement. This leads back to the conclusion that a positive support system, which 100% of the Shared Living Arrangements provided, is an important component of being successful in treatment. Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders living in the community. Although residences' proximity to schools and childcare centers was not specifically analyzed; two things could be inferred from the maps. One, in urban areas, a large number of schools and childcare centers are located within various neighborhoods, leaving extremely limited areas for sex offenders to reside if restrictions were implemented. Second, sex offenders who have committed a criminal offense (both sexual and non-sexual) while under criminal justice supervision appear to be randomly scattered throughout the study areas --there does not seem to be a greater number of these offenders living within proximity to schools and childcare centers than other types of offenders. In addition to the maps, the state of Iowa's legal challenge to their law provides some insight into the constitutionality of restricting sex offender residences. Recommendation 2: Placing restrictions on the location of correctionaly supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism. 37 The research findings indicated that sex offenders on probation living with their families in the Denver metropolitan area were more likely to have a criminal and technical violation than those living in other types of residences. Support was another component related to the number of criminal and technical violations. Those who had support in their lives had significantly lower numbers of violations than those who had negative or no support. When support was examined for high-risk offenders, those with no support and living with a family member or friends had the highest numbers of violations (criminal, technical , and total). These findings suggest that although a high-risk sex offender may be living with a family member or friends , it does not necessarily mean that he or she is living in a supportive or healthy environment. Recommendation 3a: Efforts should be made to ensure that the sex offender's support in the home is positive in order to aid in his or her treatment. Recommendation 3b: While the findings in this report suggest a link between a sex offender's support in the home and performance in the community, more research in this area should be conducted to further inform this important finding. General Recommendation 4: The Sex Offender Management Board should consider the findings from this report when revising the Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders. 38 Continuum of Housing Options for Convicted Sex Offenders under the Criminal Justice System Place of Residence (level of Supervision Levels Available -Supervision Levels Available -Non-I Population monitoring provided by Residential Facilities Residential Facilities residence indicated by Supervision provided by facility Supervision provided by probation/parole shade of box: dark=high, officers/guards and treatment team . In officer and treatment team light= low) some cases, probation/parole officers irovide superv1swn . MEDIUM LOW HIGH MEDIUM LOW D D Adult sex offenders D D Mentally ill sex offenders D I I I i I Adult sex : offenders D Adult sex offenders D * I I I I Adult sex offenders D * I I I I I Adult sex offenders D* ID* ID* I Adult sex offenders D * I D * I I I I Developmentally disabled sex offenders Adult sex offender D * I I Mentally ill sex offenders Shared Living D D D Adult sex Arran2ement offenders Host Home D D D Developmentally disabled sex offenders Residential Home -living 10 10 10 I Adult sex with friends/famil . offenders 39 Place of Residence (level of Supervision Levels Available - monitoring provided by Residential Facilities residence indicated by Supervision provided by facility shade of box: dark=high, officers/guards and treatment team . In light= low) some cases, probation/parole officers provide supervision. Motel -living with friends/family Residential Home -living alone Motel -living alone Rooming House Homeless Shelter Homeless *case manager may also be part of supervision team NOTE: Low supervision may include any of the following: Contact with a supervisory officer on a regular, but minimum basis Contact with a treatment provider on a regular, but minimum basis Medium supervision may include any of the following : Contact with a supervisory officer on a regular basis Contact with a treatment provider on a regular basis Some restrictions put on offender by supervisory team High supervision may include any of the following : Contact with a supervisory officer on a regular and frequent basis Contact with a treatment provider on a regular and frequent basis Increased restrictions put on offender by supervisory team Supervision Levels Available -Non-Population Residential Facilities Supervision provided by probation/parole officer and treatment team D D D Adult sex offenders D D D Adult sex offenders D D D Adult sex offenders D * Adult sex offenders D * Adult sex offenders D * D * D * Adult sex offenders 40 Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism An empirical analysis Jill Levenson, Ph.D.* Lynn University Department of Human Services PaulZandbergen,Ph.D. University of New Mexico Department of Geography Timothy Hart, Ph.D. University of Nevada Department of Criminology December 23, 2008 *Please direct questions and correspondence to this author Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism Study Background and Purpose Residential restrictions for sex offenders have become increasingly popular despite a lack of empirical data demonstrating that offenders' proximity to schools or daycare centers contributes to recidivism. Using a matched sample of recidivists and non-recidivists from Florida (n = 330), we investigated whether sex offenders who lived closer to schools or daycare centers were more likely to reoffend sexually than those who lived farther away. Methodology Of the sex offenders listed on Florida's sex offender registry in 2004, 165 were re-arrested for a new sex crime in 2004-2006. A group of 165 non-recidivists, matched to the recidivists on relevant risk factors (prior convictions, age, marital status, predator status), was also identified. The offenders' addresses were mapped using GIS software, as were the locations of all schools and daycare centers. Mapping was conducted using individual property boundaries to the extent available. The offenders lived in counties throughout the state of Florida. For each offender the straight-line shortest distance to the nearest daycare center and school were determined. Buffers of 1,000 and 2,500 feet around each offender's residence were also determined to count the number of daycare centers and schools within these buffers. Results No significant differences were found in the distances that recidivists and non-recidivists lived from schools and daycare centers. We compared the proportions of recidivists and non- recidivists who lived within common buffer zones. Offenders who lived within 1,000, 1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers were no more likely to reoffend sexually than those who lived farther away. There was a virtually non-existent correlation between reoffending and proximity to schools (r = .004; p = .940) or daycares (r = -.043; p = .433). When the distances to schools and daycares were entered along with risk factors into a logistic regression model, neither proximity measure was a significant predictor of recidivism. Conclusions Proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, explains virtually none of the variation in sexual recidivism. Sex offenders who lived within closer proximity to schools and daycare centers did not reoffend more frequently than those who lived farther away. These data do not justify the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders. The time that police and probation officers spend addressing housing issues is likely to divert law enforcement resources away from behaviors that truly threaten our communities in order to attend to a problem that simply does not exist. Residence restrictions greatly diminish housing options for sex offenders, resulting in increased homelessness, transience, and instability, undermining the very purpose of registries and exacerbating known risk factors for criminal recidivism. Residence restrictions decisions should be made on an individualized risk management basis and not legislated. ~©_Lev~e_n_so_n_,Zan~d_b_e~~en_,_&_H_art~(2_0_08_)~~~""'( 2 ~l~~~~~~~~~~·-1_2_/2_3_/0_8~- Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism Table t: Sex offenders and proximity to schools N =330 White Minority Offender Predator Minor victim Distance to daycare Within 1000 feet Within 1500 feet Within 2500 feet Distance to school Within 1000 feet Within 1500 feet Within 2500 feet % Median 63% 37% 74% 23% 96% 1780 23% 42% 61% 2442 13% 26% 51% \lean 5182 4962 Table 1 presents data about the offenders and their proximity to schools and daycare centers. The mean represents the average distance, in feet. The median represents the midpoint value; half the offenders lived closer than the median and half lived farther away. More than half of registered sex offenders and predators live within 2500 of a school or daycare center, demonstrating that the majority of residential properties are within close proximity to such venues (many were "grandfathered" --they had established their residence before various laws went into effect). This sample was generated by identifying recidivists and then creating a matched sample of non-recidivists. The sample is not, therefore, representative of the sex offender population in Florida, and is actually a more high risk group than a randomly selected sample would be. Figure t: Distance to schools & daycares and recidivism 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000-~ feet to daycare feet to school o recidivist • non recidivist Figure 1 represents no statistically significant differences between recidivists and non-recidivists in terms of their average residential proximity to schools and daycare centers. In other words, sex offenders who lived within closer proximity to schools and daycare centers were no more likely to reoff end than those who lived farther away. _©_Lev_e_n_so_n_, _Zan_db_e_rg_e_n,_&_H_art_C_2_00_8_) ____ ( 3 ),.._ ___________ 1_2_/2_3_/o_s __ Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism Figure 2: Group comparisons between recidivists and non-recidivists based on distance. -Non-recidivist Recidivist -In 1000 ft of DC -ln1500ftDC within 2900 ft DC , .. © Levenson, Zandbergen , & Hart (2008) Figure 2 indicates that recidivists were no more likely to live within 1,000, 1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers than those who did not reoffend. ( § 0 0 4 1 wlrhln 1000 ft school ,.. within 1500 ft school within 2500 ft school 12/23/08 Residential proximity and sex offense recidivism Table 2: Number of schools and daycare centers within close proximity to recidivists and non- recidivists Da~·can.·s Daycares Schools Schools Count within IOOO feet within 2500 feet within 1000 feet within 2500 feet Non-Non-Non-Non- Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists Recidivists 0 116 115 65 57 123 127 68 1 31 28 30 35 26 25 35 2 12 12 14 19 13 10 35 3 5 7 17 21 2 2 12 4 or I 3 39 34 I l 15 more Sum 165 165 165 166 165 165 165 Table 2 presents data about the number of schools and daycare centers located within close proximity to the offenders. Recidivists did not systematically live within close proximity to a greater number of schools or daycare centers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors extend appreciation to the Florida Department of Corrections for providing access to recidivism data. AUTHORS' NOTE This report is a summary of a research article submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Comments or requests for information regarding the study should be directed to: Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., LCSW Associate Professor of Human Services Lynn University 3601 N. Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-237-7925 ilevenson@lynn .edu ~©_Le~~-n_so_n_,Zan~d_b_e~_e_n_,&~H-art_C_2_oo_s_)~~~~( 5 ~l~~~~~~~~~~-1_2_/2_3_/o_s~- 77 51 21 11 5 165 Residency restrictions result in ... In Colorado, as of 2008, six (6) jurisdictions had residency restrictions. Upon enactment of those restrictions, the number of offenders who violated registration laws increased in each of those six (6) jurisdictions. (Colorado Department of Public Safety (2008). White paper on the use of residence restrictions as a sex offender management strategy, retrieved from: http://www.csom.org/pubs/C0%20Residence%20Restrictions%202.pdf "This study compared data from jurisdictions that did not have residence restriction ordinances (n =22) to jurisdictions that did have them in place (n=6). The average population of the jurisdictions that did not have residence restrictions in place was twice as high as the average population in the jurisdictions that did have them in place; however, the average number of registered sex offenders was higher in the jurisdictions with residence restrictions in place. Additionally, the average number of sex crime arrests in jurisdictions with residence restrictions in place was twice as much as the average number of sex crime arrests in jurisdictions that did not have them. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of offenders who failed to register, by sex offender population, in both types of jurisdictions. Out of the six (6) jurisdictions that had residence restrictions in place, two (2) reported data regarding sex offender population, sex crimes, and failure to register information prior to when the ordinances were imposed. Of these two (2), there were no significant changes in the number of registered sex offenders or number of sex crimes after residence restrictions were enacted. However, the number of registered sex offenders who failed to register, perhaps going underground, seemed to increase after the ordinances were enacted (p . 3-4). " In California, 1 in 4 of over 63,000 registrants were in violation of registration requirements post residency restrictions. (California Position Paper -CCASA, 2008) California Coalition on Sexual Offending; retrieved from https:// ccoso .o rg/sites/ d efa u lt/files/Resid enceRestrictionsPa per 0 .doc In Florida, the number of absconders since enactment of registration equirements in 2005 has tripled within 2 years. Thomson, I. (2007, December 11) Miami News Times Newspaper, Miami, FL. Child molesters in CO who re -offended sexually did not live closer to schools or daycare cetners thatn who did not re-offend. Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004). Report on Safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board. http://www.cs om .org/pubs/C0%20Residence%20Restrictions%201 .pdf A Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007 study found that in 16 years, none of the sex offenders returning to prison contacted a juveniles victim near a school, park or daycare. Minnesota Department of Corrections (2007). Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. http://www.cs om. org/pu bs/M N%20Residence%20Restrictions 04-07SexOffenderReport- P roxim ity%20M N. pdf Depending on the study, at least 93% of children who are sexually abused, know their offender. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement (2000). Of the Annual average of 60-70,000 arrest for sexual assault nationwide, 115 are stranger abductions. That equates to less than 0%. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, retrieved from: http://www.bjs .gov I content/pu b/pdf /saycrle. pdf Housing Restriction Fact Sheet 1 There is a growing trend to pass residency restrictions and zoning ordinances in Colorado. Although these restrictions may make people feel safer, research indicates that, as demonstrated below, these restrictions do little to increase public safety. • The vast majority of sex offenses are committed against a person the offender knows. o 93% of child sexual abuse victims know their abusers. Children are at the highest risk of being sexually victimized by people they know including acquaintances, family friends, and family members (Snyder, 2000}. o 83% of adult female rape victims knew the offender (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006} • Over 86% of new sex crimes are committed by someon offense and 95% of new sex crimes against children conviction for sex offense against a child (Langan, - • Sex offense recidivism is unrelated to the pr or daycare centers (Minnesota DOC, 2007; S • When offenders victimize a strang neighborhood (Minnesota DOC, 200 • o previous conviction for a sex "tted by someone with no previous · ose, 2003}. ifferent are much less likely to sidency restriction from child care centers ation was unknown jumped from 1 in 46 od, 2006). • Following parolees regi 2009 (California The Jacob Wetterling Resour cy restrictions in California, the number of sex offender crea y 2400% from November 2006 through September agement Board, 2011). "Because residency restrictions shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to children, and may indeed actually increase the risks to kids, J -does not support residency restriction laws. Such laws can give a false sense of security while sapping resources that could produce better results used elsewhere." Colorado Sex Offender Management Board On September 19, 2011, the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board endorsed the following statement (SOMB Draft Minutes, September 19, 2011), "The SOMB does not support sex offender residency restrictions or zoning restrictions that are counter-productive to the effective supervision of sex offenders" [REFERENCES ON BACK] October 14, 2011 Sex Offense/Offender Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Housing Restriction Fact Sheet REFERENCES California Sex Offender Management Board (2011). Homelessness among California's registered sex offenders: An update. Sacramento, CA: Author. Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. {http://www.jwrc.org/KeepKidsSafe/SexualOffenderslOl/ResidencyRestrictions/tabid/84/Default.aspx) 2 Langan, P.A., Schmitt, E.L., & Durose, M.R. {2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice {NCJ 198281). Minnesota Department of Corrections. {2007). Residential Pro Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. htt : www.doc.state.mn.us ublications docu Rood {2006, January 23). New data shows twice as {Article based on a data request to the Iowa Sex Offender Management Board {2004) locations of sex offenders in the c htt : dc".state.co.us odvsom sex SOMB DRAFT Minutes (2011 htt : de· .state.co {These Minutes ar will be posted at the df ements for and approvat~until October 21, 2011 and, thereafter, Ced to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and cs, U.S. Department of Justice {NCJ No. 182990). Tjaden, P., and e, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from ey. Nationa1 Institute of Justice {NCJ No. 210346). Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. molesters: effects on s 218-240. uality of community reintegration planning for child ivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, October 14, 2011 Sex Offense/Offender Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Residence Restrictions I 2009 Colorado Sex Offender Management Board WHITE PAPER ON THE USE OF RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AS A SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Colorado Department of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice 700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000 Lakewood, CO 80215 303-239-4546 June 2009 1 Residence Restrictions I 2009 The United States has witnessed an increase in sex offender management policy beginning in the 1990's and continuing through as recently as 2006 at the Federal, State, and local level. As a result, laws have been enacted with the intention of protecting the community from sex offenders including the recent Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Part of this movement has included the passing of zoning and residence restriction s , which prohibit convicted sex offenders from residing within a certain distance of areas where children typically congregate or from living in the same residence with another convicted sex offender. Currently , approximately 30 of the states in the U.S. have enacted statewide residence restrictions (Koch 2007). Although well intentioned and with the safety of the community in mind , these ordinances are often passed without consideration of the research and are typically ineffective for a number of reasons. Consequently, there is an emerging and escalating necessity to address these laws, which may seem appealing to the community , legislature, and policy makers despite growing concerns regarding their actual effectiveness. A number of years ago Colorado experienced several jurisdictions contemplating such policies after a concerned citizen notified the media of a Shared Living Arrangement (SLA) in her neighborhood. (SLA 's are residences where more than one convicted sex offender resides while receiving intensive c01Tectional and treatment services). At the time there was a lack of knowledge and research regarding the use of SLA's and their effectiveness in managing high risk sex offenders. This, coupled with negative media exposure, led to the passing of several local zoning restrictions which prevented more than one sex offender per residence from being housed in the jurisdiction. When the Colorado Legislature became aware of what local jurisdictions were doing and received a request to pass a state law , they requested that the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) conduct a formal study on the s afety issues pertinent to SLA's and residence /zoning restrictions. The SOMB is a legislatively created board administered by the Di v ision of Criminal Justice , Colorado Department of Public Safety. The SOMB has been mandated to develop Standards for the treatment and supervision of sex offenders. The SOMB's philosophy is to support research based community and victim safety policy development through a collaborative approach . As requested, a research study was conducted in 2004 in reference to the proximity of sex offender residences to schools and childcare centers and the related impact on community safety. This study utilized information on 130 sex offenders from the Denver metropolitan area in conjunction with plotting the subjects' residences on maps. The findings of the research revealed that among sex offenders who reoffended , there were not a greater number of sex offenders living within proximity to schools and childcare centers than those who did not live in proximity locations . In addition, sex offenders who received positive support (i.e. family, friends , treatment, SLA's, and employers who were aware of the sex offender 's issues and held the offender accountable in a supportive fashion) had significantly lower numbers of probation violations and re- offenses than those with no support or negative support (Colorado Department of Public Safety 2004). It should be noted that this finding has been supported by numerous other research studies related to residence restrictions and recidivism rates regarding the reintegration of sex offenders (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2003 & 2007; Ohio State University 2009; Levenson, Zandbergen, & Hart 2008). 2 .. Residence Restrictions I 2009 Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted two important studies in 2003 and 2007 regarding the impact of residence restrictions. The first study focused on residential placement issues of high risk offenders and found that there was no evidence that residential proximity to schools or parks affected recidivism. This was replicated by Levenson, Zandbergen, & Hart in 2008. Furthermore, the Minnesota study revealed that residence restrictions were limiting most high risk sex offenders to residing in rural, suburban, or industrial areas resulting in fewer supervising agents and less available services (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2003). The latter study conducted in 2007 was about residential proximity and recidivism and revealed that none of the 224 sexual recidivists studied would have been affected by residency restrictions . It was also learned that even when offenders made direct contact with juvenile victims, the offenders were unlikely to do so close to where they lived because they were attempting to maintain anonymity. One of the most compelling factors discovered in this research was that in 16 years of discharging sex offenders from the prison, none of the recidivists who returned due to a new sex offense resulted from contact with a juvenile victim near a school, park, or daycare (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007). There has recently been a considerable amount of research focusing on the successful reintegration of sex offenders. As a result, common themes have been discovered that significantly impact recidivism, which are stable housing or living accommodations , secure employment, and positive support systems /resources. States that have enacted residence restrictions have conducted empirical studies showing that the laws have actually proven counterproductive to these factors because they often cause destabilization to sex offenders (Iowa, California, Florida, and Ohio). Consequently, there has been discussion that the ordinances may in fact inadvertently exacerbate the factors correlated with recidivism (Ohio State University 2009). A recommendation was made by the SOMB in 2004 indicating that placing restrictions on the location of correctionaly supervised sex offender residences may not deter sex offender re-offense and should not be used as a universal sex offense management strategy. Such decisions should be made on an individualized basis by the sex offender's Community Supervision Team. Furthermore, it was suggested that the imposition of residence restrictions may increase the risk of re-offense by forcing sex offenders to live in communities where positive support systems may not exist, and they may be removed from accessible resources or live in remote areas providing them with high degrees of anonymity. This has been further supported by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA 2005). More recently, in 2008, the Colorado SOMB conducted a statewide survey of varying law enforcement jurisdictions regarding their sex offender residency restriction policies, if any. Twenty-eight (28) jurisdictions across Colorado participated in this on-line survey. Approximately 20% of participants had sex off ender residence restrictions in place. Most of the jurisdictions that had the restrictions limited housing for registered sex offenders to at least 1,000 feet from any schools or daycare settings. This study compared data from jurisdictions that did not have residence restriction ordinances (n=22) to jurisdictions that did have them in place (n=6). The average population of the jurisdictions that did not have residence restrictions in place was twice as high as the average population in the jurisdictions that did have them in place; however, the average number of registered sex offenders was higher in the jurisdictions with residence restrictions in place. Additionally, the average number of sex crime arrests in jurisdictions with residence restrictions in place was twice as much as the average number of sex 3 Residence Restrictions ! 2009 -crime arrests in jurisdictions that did not have them. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of offenders who failed to register, by sex offender population, in both types of jurisdictions. Out of the six (6) jurisdictions that had residence restrictions in place, two (2) reported data regarding sex offender population, sex crimes, and failure to register info1mation prior to when the ordinances were imposed. Of these two (2), there were no significant changes in the number of registered sex offenders or number of sex crimes after residence restrictions were enacted. However, the number of registered sex offenders who failed to register, perhaps going underground, seemed to increase after the ordinances were enacted . On a national level, research from the U. S. Department of Justice conducted in 2000 indicated that 93% of child sexual abuse victims knew their abusers (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). This information has been confirmed through subsequent research and may in fact be a conservative number. Studies have also shown that most sexual offenses are committed in the offender's or the victim's home (Greenfeld 1997; Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000; Smallbone and Wortley 2000; Colombino and Mercado 2009). Research conducted in other states, including Iowa and California, indicate that homelessness, absconding from supervision, and not registering for tracking purposes all appeared to be significant byproducts of residence restrictions (Davey and Rood 2006, Thompson 2007). Additional research has revealed that residence restrictions have negatively impacted the risk for recidivism with sex offenders due to increased isolation , financial hardship, decreased stability, and lack of support (Levenson and Cotter 2005). The national legislation that began in the 1990's in this country were purportedly enacted to better track sex offenders in an effort to increase public safety, which appears at odds with proximity restrictions as many sex offenders end up going underground and /or providing false or inaccurate address information. This renders registration databases incomplete and unreliable, making tracking ineffective. Many of the states that originally enacted residence restrictions have expressed regret due to aforementioned issues, along with enforcement difficulties and legal dilemmas regarding constitutional rights. Many constituents in Iowa have been actively working to repeal their residence restriction law and victim centered programs have begun publicly expressing disagreement with such laws due the negative impact they have on treatment and monitoring efforts of sex offenders (Iowa County Attorney's Association, California Coalition on Sexual Offending & New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence). One of the most concerning aspects of the implementation of residence restrictions, locally or nationally, is the passing of policy and law without consideration for research, best practice, and effective methodology. This often results in unintended, counterproductive consequences which negatively impact community safety . An additional important factor to note is the false sense of security that can result from these types of ordinances . The concept of limiting where a sex offender sleeps at night versus where he/she spends time during the day if not supervised through the criminal justice system seems ineffective. Many residence restrictions are worded so that the prohibited party is able to frequent any place, but is excluded from residing near areas where children commonly gather. There are sex offenders living in all communities because nationwide the minority of convicted sex offenders are sentenced to imprisonment or incarceration. Accordingly, housing has become a near epidemic issue, especially for those labeled 4 Residence Restrictions I 2009 high risk. Legally, these offenders have the right to secure a residence and as previously stated they are most likely to succeed in the community if they are afforded that right. Politically speaking, a government official does not typically want a reputation of being soft on sex offenders. This is likely the perception of a political figure opposing residence or zoning restrictions if the community as a whole is not sufficiently educated, regardless of the ineffectiveness of such laws . Society often relies on sensationalized media accounts to educate them about sex offenders , policy, and laws . Thus, creating effective and responsible community safety policy and laws on a local and national level are cumbersome and complicated. Communities are obviously concerned with their overall safety and as a result sex offenders have become a common topic of debate and controversy . This is evident in the legislature, the justice system, and in the media. Representatives of such systems have tended to focus on extreme cases and as a result , myths have been perpetuated and led to emotional reactions of sort. The Federal laws driving sex offender policy (Wetterling , Megan's Law , and the Adam Walsh Act) are all a result of tragic crimes that received media and legislative attention. Ironically , they are in fact, the rarest types of sex offenses and represent less than l % of sexual assault convictions in the nation (Levenson and D' Amora 2007). As a result , implementation of these policies has been problematic because once a law is enacted, it becomes difficult to reverse . Furthermore, to date there is no research indicating that residence restrictions are correlated w ith reduced recidivism or increased community safety. Colorado has historically been proactive with regard to the management of sex offenders . The state has a Board, standards for treatment providers , and has conducted valuable research . Thus, the following resources, alternatives , and suggestions are provided for governmental agencies and advocacy group s involved in policy-making and legislative activity. They include, but are not limited to: implementing policy based on relevant research ; funding relevant research ; identifying and promoting effective methods of community education; educating Jaw enforcement, policy makers and legislators ; encouraging the use of Shared Living Arrangements (SLA's) as utilized in Colorado; promoting the containment model; and multi-disciplinary collaboration among agencies in sex offender management. In conclusion, the ethical and responsible choices with regard to the management of sex offenders are not always the most popular. This is especially true in the current socio-political environment that emphasizes accountability, and many times, has a punitive tone with regard to sex offenders. However, the long lasting impact on sex offenders, communities , and victims require thoughtful research based policies and laws . There is much to learn from the states that have enacted such laws and research conducted thereafter. It appears counterproductive to endorse and/or institute policy and law based on fear, ignorance , and politics when it causes more problems than it solves . Community safety is paramount and should be the common goal when considering any policy or law regarding sex offenders. Residence restrictions and zoning laws as a whole are clearly counterproductive to this goal. Cathy Rodriguez and Amy Dethlefsen on behalf of the SOMB Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice cathy.rodriguez@ cdps.state.co .us amy.dethlefsen@ cdps.state.co.us 5 Residence Restrictions I 2009 BIBLIOGRAPHY Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2005). (Press release), Retrieved from : http://www.atsa.com/pubPPapers.html Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000). S exual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcem ent: Victim, In c ident, and Offender Characteristics, Retrieved from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf Colombino, N., Mercado , C.C., & Jeglic, E .L. (under review). Situational aspects of sexual offending: Implications for residency restrictions and GPS monitoring laws. Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004 ). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO : Sex Offender Management Board. California Coalition on Sexual Offending; Retrieved from: http://www.ccoso.org/library _articles. php#Residency+Restrictions Davey, M. (2006 , March 15). Iowa's Residency Rules Drive Sex Offenders Underground. New York Times, Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://travel2.nytimes .com/2006/03 / l 5/national/15offenders Greenfield, L. ( 1997). Sex offenses and offenders : An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Koch, W. (2007) Sex-offender residency laws get second look. USA TODAY, Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday .c om/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover x.htm . Levenson, J.S. (in press). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justi ce Studies. Levenson, J .S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168-178. Levenson, J.S. and D'Amora, D.A. (2007) Social Policies Designed to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Emperor's New Clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review; 18; 168 Levenson, J.S., Zandbergen, P ., and Hart, T. (2008 , December 23). Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism, an empirical analysis. Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Minnesota Department of Corrections (2007). Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota . St. Paul , MN . 6 Residence Restrictions I 2009 Minnesota Department of Corrections (2003). Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues. St. Paul, MN. New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence; Retrieved from: http://www.nhcadsv.org/index . cfm Ohio State University (2009 , March 25). Assessing housing availability under Ohio's sex offender residency restrictions. Columbus, OH Rood, L. (2006, January 23). New data shows twice as many sex offenders missing. Des Moines Register, retrieved January 23 , 2006 , Retrieved from: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060123/NEWSO 1/301230002 &SearchID=73233456946076 Smallbone , S.W., and R.K. Wortley (2000). Child Sexual Abuse in Queensland: Offender Characteristics and Modus Operandi. Brisbane, AUS: Queensland Crime Commission. Thompson, I. (2007 , December 11) Miami New Times Newspaper. Miami , FL US Department of Justice (2000) Uniform Crime Reports . Retrieved from: http://www.fbi .gov/ucr/OOcius.htm 7 SMART OFFICE Sex Offender Registration and Notification Registration was first used in the 1930s with repeat criminal offenders as well as sex offenders. California became the first state to implement sex offender registration in 1947, while Washington became the first state to implement community notification on sex offenders in 1990. The goals of Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) programs have been summarized as deterring offenders from reoffending, giving law enforcement an investigative tool, and increasing public protection (CSOM, 1999). The federal government first implemented a national registration law with the Wetterling Act in 1994. A national notification law was enacted with the Megan's Law amendment to the Wetterling Act in 1996. Subsequently, all 50 states have implemented SORN systems. The federal government repeatedly refined and expanded the scope of SORN via a series of amendments to the Wetterling Act, 17 and then ultimately set forth a new SORN scheme with the passage of Title I of the Adam Walsh Child . Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA)-the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)-which repealed the Wetterling Act. SORNA's requirements and how they differ from the Wetterling Act have been documented in other sources.18 The changes include enhanced registration requirements and procedures, increased availability of sex offender registration information to the public, strengthened information sharing and enforcement mechanisms, and greater federal assistance in operating and upgrading sex offender registration programs, sharing and disseminating sex offender information, and enforcing registration requirements. Research SORN requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness. It has been suggested that SORN may be a specific deterrent for sex offenders; that it would facilitate sex offender awareness, SMART OFFICE monitoring, and apprehension; and that it would in the end help prevent sex offenses-particularly repeat sex offenses-from occurring. While these hypotheses were not empirically tested prior to the implementation of SORN requirements, a significant body of research using various methods has since examined the impact of SORN, particularly in relation to recidivism. Interrupted Time Series Analysis Studies One research method employed to assess the effectiveness of SORN for adult sexual offenders is interrupted time series analysis, which essentially examines an outcome of interest using many observations before and after the implementation of a specific intervention. Several interrupted time series analyses assessing SORN have been completed in recent years. In one analysis of state SORN laws, Prescott and Rockoff (2011) found that SORN may have contributed to a decrease in sex crimes. More specifically, the study found that sex offender registration led to a decrease in the rate of victimization of nonstrangers and a reduction in recidivism for identified sex offenders. However, community notification did not appear to reduce recidivism for identified sex offenders (Prescott & Rockoff, 2011). A similar analysis focused on the impact of SORN on rape in 10 states. Using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data on rapes reported to the police as the outcome measure, the study found that statistically significant reductions in reported rape occurred following the implementation of SORN in 3 of the 10 states (Hawaii 19 , Idaho20 , and Ohio 21 ). In six states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and West Virginia), no significant change was observed following SORN implementation, and one state (California) actually had a statistically significant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation.22 Based on the varied findings, the authors concluded there was no systematic influence of SORN on the rate of reported rape (Walker et al., 2006). (For more on UCR data, see the "Uniform Crime Report" section of chapter 1, SMART OFFICE "Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending," in the Adult section.) Presently, 41 states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses; 30 states either permit or require public website posting for those juveniles, and the vast majority require registration and public notification for juveniles transferred for trial and convicted as an adult. 23 In reviewing UCR sex crime arrest data from 47 states for 1994 through 2009, Holmes (2009) did not find a statistically significant decrease in the rate of sex crime arrest in either juvenile registration states or juvenile notification states (post-SORN). Several studies have examined the impact of SORN in individual states. For example, in South Carolina, adult sex crimes were compared to nonsexual assault and robbery crimes pre-and post- SORN implementation (N = 194,575, of which 19,060 were sex crime arrests). Data were examined for 1990 through 2005. SORN implementation occurred in 1995. The study found that the sex crime rate declined by 11 percent24 from pre-to post-SORN while the rates of assault and robbery did not, suggesting the possibility that SORN was a deterrent to sex crimes (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, & Sinha, 2010). In another study from New Jersey, a downward trend in the sex assault rate was observed both pre-and post-Megan's Law (SORN), but the rate of decline increased after Megan's Law was implemented (Veysey, Zgoba, & Dalessandro, 2008). A number of state studies did not find evidence that SORN implementation positively impacted the rate of sexual offending or recidivism. Interestingly, one of these studies focused on South Carolina, where another study did find evidence of a positive SORN impact (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, and Sinha, 2010). In the South Carolina study that did not find evidence of a positive SORN effect, recidivism was examined in the context of registration status for 6,064 male offenders convicted of at least SMART OFFICE one sex crime in that state between 1990 and 2004. The study found that registration status did not predict recidivism (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010). Another state study taking place in New York analyzed sex crime, assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny arrests from 1986 through 2006. Study results indicated that the implementation of the state's sex offender registry did not decrease the rearrest rate for convicted sex offenders, deter nonregistered offenders from offending, or decrease the overall rate of sex crimes. It was also noted that 94.1 percent of child molestation arrests were for first-time sex offenders (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008). Finally, an analysis that focused on South Carolina juveniles who committed sexual offenses between 1990 and 2004 (N = 1275) found that 7.5 percent were charged with a new sex offense and 2.5 percent were adjudicated for a new sex offense during a 9- year followup period (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010). More importantly, the researchers found that registration was not associated with recidivism; however, nonsexual, nonassault recidivism (defined as a new charge) significantly decreased for those on the registry25 (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010). Limitations: Interrupted Time Series Analysis Studies One of the primary limitations of the studies cited above is that time series analysis and before/after methods in general are not as capable of isolating intervention effects as a randomized controlled trial. While an interrupted time series analysis based on a sufficient number of observations can produce highly trustworthy findings, outside factors such as changes in supervision, treatment, and other sex offender management practices pre-and post-SORN may also be influencing study results. Further, the authors in the New Jersey study cautioned that wide variety across county sex crime rates was noted, and the analysis did not uniformly and consistently demonstrate downward trends, suggesting that the statewide pattern identified might represent a spurious effect and be an aggregation artifact (Veysey, Zgoba, & Dalessandro, 2008). Finally, other variables SMART OFFICE such as sex crime underreporting (which could be aggravated by SORN due to the unwillingness of intrafamilial victims to report because of fears about SORN) and the limitations of official sex crime statistics may be confounding these results. Studies Employing a Comparison Group A number of studies have examined the impact of SORN by comparing the outcomes of sex offenders subject to SORN with those not subject to this strategy. These studies have generally produced mixed results. One study finding a positive effect examined the recidivism of 8,359 sexual offenders in Washington State. Some of those offenders were subject to SORN, while others were not because SORN requirements were not yet in place. The study found that the sex offenders subject to SORN sexually recidivated (defined as a new Washington state conviction for a felony sex crime) at a 2-percent rate, while the pre-SORN group recidivated at a 7- percent rate 26 (WSIPP, 2005). Another study finding a positive impact took place in Minnesota. Researchers compared Level III sexual offenders subject to community notification between 1997 and 2002 (n = 155) with precommunity notification sexual offenders retrospectively scored as Level III offenders (n = 125), and Level I and II sexual offenders not subject to community notification (n = 155). 27 Based on a 3-year followup period, the community notification group had a statistically significantly lower sexual recidivism rate based on reconviction (3.2 percent), compared to the prenotification group and nonnotification group (32.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively)28 (Duwe & Donnay, 2008). On the other hand, several state-level studies have not found evidence of a positive SORN effect. For example, in an Iowa study, a group of sex offenders subject to registry requirement (n = 233) who were also under legal supervision were compared to a matched group of preregistry sex offenders not under supervision (n = 201). In a 4.3-year followup, the registry group sexually recidivated (defined as a new sex crime conviction) at a SMART OFFICE rate of 3 percent, compared to the nonregistry group's 3.5- percent recidivism rate. This difference was not statistically significant. However, when the recidivism rates of parolees and probationers were compared, the researchers found that registration requirements may have had more of an impact on parolees (Adkins, Huff, & Stageberg, 2000). In New Jersey, researchers compared the recidivism rates of offenders subject to SORN with those of offenders who were not subject to this strategy (n = 550). Based on a 6.5-year followup period, offenders subject to SORN recidivated at a rate of 7 percent, compared to 11 percent for offenders who were not subject to SORN; however, these differences were not found to be statistically significant (Zgoba & Bachar, 2009; Zgoba et al., 2008). "Research on SORN as it relates to offender recidivism has produced mixed results." In Wisconsin, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to registration and extensive notification between 1997 and 1999 (n = 47) were compared with those of sex offenders who had limited notification requirements (n = 166). No statistically significant differences in sex crime rearrest rates over a 4-year followup period were found, as 19 percent of the extensive notification group sexually recidivated, compared to 12 percent for the limited notification group (Zevitz, 2006). Similar findings were reported in a Washington State study. Again, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to SORN (n = 139) were compared with those of sex offenders not subject to SORN. Based on a 54- month followup, sex offenders subject to SORN were found to have a sex crime rearrest rate of 19 percent while the rate for the non-SORN group was 22 percent, a difference that is not statistically significant. However, the researchers noted that the offenders subject to SORN were arrested more quickly than offenders in the comparison group (Schram & Milloy, 1995). Finally, in a study of New York sex offenders pre-and post- community notification (N = 10,592), researchers found no SMART OFFICE significant differences in sexual (7 percent) or general ( 46.6 percent) rearrest rates based on an 8.2-year followup period. However, the community notification offenders were rearrested twice as quickly for a new sex crime as the noncommunity notification offenders29 (Freeman, 2012). Limitations: Studies Employing a Comparison Group The primary limitation of the studies described above is the inability to control for all outside factors and to isolate the effects of SORN requirements on recidivism. Survey Data Surveys of stakeholders can provide descriptive data about the impact of SORN on different populations, including the public, sexual offenders, and supervision officers. Impact on the Public One multistate study (n = 115 from 15 states) of community members found general familiarity with and support for SORN, along with a belief that it prevents offending (Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). State-level surveys of community members regarding SORN in Florida, Nebraska, Washington, and Wisconsin found that the public- • Was aware of and supported SORN (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). • Thought it was fair (Brannon et al., 2007). • Believed that it provides safety for their family (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000a). • Thought it makes sex offenders follow the law (Phillips, 1998, as cited in CSOM, 2001; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008; Brannon et al., 2007). • Saw the benefits of SORN and learning about sex offenders through SORN (Phillips, 1998, as cited in CSOM, 2001; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). • Took preventive measures (38 percent)30 based on SORN information (Anderson & Sample, 2008). SMART OFFICE • Reported suspicious behavior of offenders (3 percent)31 (Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). • Accessed the registry (31 percent), 3 2 but those who did were more likely to be female, to be affluent, and to have children (Sample, Evans, & Anderson, 2011). "Survey responses indicate that SORN has both negative and positive impacts on offenders and that the public is generally supportive of SORN as promoting public safety." Impact on Offenders In a review of eight individual surveys on SORN's impact on sexual offenders subject to it, 33 Lasher and McGrath (2012) found that- • Eight percent of sex offenders reported physical assault or injury. • Fourteen percent reported property damage. • Twenty percent reported being threatened or harassed. • Thirty percent reported job loss. • Nineteen percent reported loss of housing. • Sixteen percent reported a family member or roommate being harassed or assaulted. • Forty to sixty percent reported negative psychological consequences. However, more than one-third of adult sex offenders reported communities being safer and approximately three-fourths felt it was a deterrent to offending (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). A number of studies involving surveys of sexual offenders in states across the country indicate that SORN requirements have a range of negative impacts on sexual offenders. These include negative impacts on sex offenders' jobs, housing, friends, and family {Ackerman, 2009; Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2004; Vandiver, Dial, & Worley, 2008), which results in stress, isolation, loss of hope, and shame/embarrassment (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a), and the greater likelihood of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods where services are less available (Hughes & Kadleck, 2008). Studies have also found that 10-13 percent of sex offenders report experiencing violence (Brannon et SMART OFFICE al., 2007; Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007) and harassment (Vandiver, Dial, & Worley, 2008; CSOM, 2001). While many sexual offenders report the belief that SORN would not deter reoffending and was unfair punishment (Ackerman, 2009; Brannon et al., 2007; Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury & Lees, 2007; Tewksbury, 2004), many also report that SORN requirements motivate them to be successful (Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a). Impact on Supervision Officers In a survey of probation and parole officers (n = 77), respondents reported they generally believed community notification served an appropriate goal but had a high cost for corrections in terms of personnel, time, and money. They also believed it made sex offender housing difficult to locate (Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b). Limitations: Survey Data The limitations of survey data have previously been identified and are applicable here. Impact of Failure To Register Several studies have examined whether sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements are more likely to recidivate than offenders who do comply. For example, in a Washington State study, WSIPP (2006) found higher recidivism for noncomplying sex offenders compared to their registration- compliant counterparts. Noncomplying sex offenders had a felony sex crime conviction recidivism rate of 4.3 percent, while complying sex offenders had a rate of 2.8 percent. It is unknown whether this difference was statistically significant (WSIPP, 2006). Studies in Minnesota, South Carolina, and New Jersey, however, failed to find any significant differences in recidivism between registration-compliant and noncompliant sex offenders. In Minnesota, Duwe and Donnay (2010) compared the recidivism rates of 170 sex offenders who had a failure-to-register charge SMART OFFICE between 2000 and 2004 with those of 170 nonfailure-to-register sex offenders and found that the noncompliant sex offenders were no more likely to sexually recidivate (defined as a new sex crime arrest or conviction) (Duwe & Donnay, 2010). Similarly, a study focused on sex offenders in South Carolina (N = 2,970) found that those who failed to register were no more likely to sexually recidivate ( 11 percent) than those not so charged (9 percent) (Levenson et al., 2009). Finally, in a study of New Jersey sex offenders (N = 1, 125), 644 of whom failed to register and 481 who did register, researchers again found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their sexual rearrest rates (18 percent for the failure-to-register group compared to 11 percent for the registering group) (Zgoba & Levenson, 2012). Limitations: Impact of Failure To Register Relatively few studies have examined whether noncompliant offenders are more likely to reoffend than compliant offenders, and the studies again suffer from the low base rate for sexual recidivism and limited generalizability. Accuracy Research A number of studies have examined the accuracy of sex offender registries. For example, Hughes and Kadleck (2008) reviewed the accuracy of sex offender registries in Nebraska and Oklahoma and found that approximately 90 percent of the Nebraska records were accurate (n = 975), while 56.5 percent of the Oklahoma records were accurate (n = 5, 163). In a random sample of New York registry records (n = 200), 37 percent of the records were found to be inaccurate, including 27 percent that did not match driver's license information and 2.5 percent that had wrong addresses (Office of the New York State Comptroller, 2006). Finally, in a Vermont study of sex offender registry records (n = 57), 75 percent of the records were found to have critical or significant errors (Vermont State Auditor, 2010). Limitations: Accuracy Research SMART OFFICE Audits of sex offender registry records provide important insights about the accuracy and reliability of sex offender registries. The major limitations of these studies are that they often are based on small sample sizes and their generalizability to other jurisdictions remains unknown. Summary In summary, research on the effectiveness of SORN remains relatively limited and findings from the studies are somewhat inconclusive. Findings from time series studies are mixed. Some studies find lower rates of sex crimes following SORN implementation, while others do not. Studies based on a comparison of outcomes for sex offenders subject and not subject to SORN also produced mixed findings. An arguable lack of sufficient scientific rigor may further cloud the import of studies in this area. Therefore, the results of SORN research undertaken to date continue to leave open questions about the effects of registration and community notification requirements. Finally, few if any studies to date have examined the multifaceted elements of registration laws generally or Title I of AWA (SORNA) specifically, which incorporates requirements and procedures, and information sharing and enforcement mechanisms, going beyond those prevalent in SORN programs examined in past studies. "Research findings on the effectiveness of SORN are mixed, and more high-quality studies with sufficient scientific rigor are needed." Sex offenders in survey responses claim a range of negative impacts from SORN; however, many see it as a deterrent to committing future crimes. Further research is clearly needed to corroborate these survey findings. Surveys of community members indicate that the public is familiar with SORN laws, and also that they are generally supportive of SORN. Finally, registry accuracy studies have found significant problems with registry records in some states. The need for accurate registry information was recently highlighted by the sex SMART OFFICE offender management experts who participated in the 2012 SOMAPI forum. Clearly, additional research is needed to help better answer questions about SORN effectiveness and about which aspects of the policy may be beneficial and cost-effective and, conversely, which may not. Given the limitations of existing research regarding SORN, the SOMAPI forum participants recommended that future changes to SORN be studied prior to enactment, particularly in the context of existing knowledge about sexual offender risk and recidivism. Pilot testing prior to full- scale implementation provides one mechanism for examining potential impacts, both positive and negative. Residence Restrictions Sex offender residence restrictions that limit where convicted sex offenders may legally live have become more popular across the country. These restrictions typically prevent sex offenders from living within 1,000 to 2,500 feet of schools, daycare centers, and other places where children congregate. The first states to adopt residence restrictions were Delaware and Florida in 1995. Currently, 30 states and many more municipalities have residence restriction laws, some in accordance with Jessica's Law (Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008). As with many other sex offender management strategies implemented across the United States, there was no research evidence to support the effectiveness of residence restrictions prior to the enactment of this policy. However, empirical evidence questioning the effectiveness of residence restrictions is becoming available. Outcome Data Several studies have looked at sexual offender recidivists to determine whether living in proximity to places where children congregate was a risk factor and whether residence restrictions would have deterred reoffense. In one study commissioned by the Colorado legislature for the purpose of studying the potential impact of residence restrictions prior to implementation (a SMART OFFICE recommended practice), no significant difference in recidivism (defined as any new criminal conviction) patterns was found based on whether or not an offender lived in proximity to schools and daycare centers (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004). In a study of sex offenders subject to residence restrictions in Florida (n = 165), researchers found no significant difference in the distance recidivists (defined as a new sex crime rearrest) and nonrecidivists lived in proximity to schools and daycare centers (Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010). In Jacksonville, FL, researchers investigated the effects of a 2,500-foot residence restriction ordinance on sexual recidivism (which was defined as a new sex crime arrest) and sex crime arrest rates. No significant differences in recidivism were found pre-and post-policy implementation. Similarly, there was no significant difference in sex crime arrest rates pre-and post- policy implementation. The authors concluded that the residence restriction ordinance did not reduce recidivism or deter sex crimes (Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin, 2012). In a study of county and local residence restrictions in New York (N = 8,928 cases; 144 months of data from each of 62 New York counties), researchers found no significant impact on sexual recidivism against child or adult victims or on arrests for sex crimes against child victims. However, there was a 10-percent decrease in the rate of arrests for sex crimes against adult victims. 34 As a result, the researchers concluded that residence restrictions do not appear to deter sexual recidivism or sex crime arrests where the victim was a child, but they may deter sex crimes involving adult victims (Socia, 2012). The Iowa Department of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning studied the effect of Iowa's 2,000-foot residence restriction law, which was implemented in August 2005. The number of charges for sexual assaults involving minor victims was examined for both the 12-month period preceding the law's implementation and the 24-month period after the law went into effect. The study found no significant downward trend in the number of charges following SMART OFFICE passage of the law. In fact, sex crime arrests increased steadily over each of the 3 years (913, 928, and 1,095) of the study (Blood, Watson, & Stageberg, 2008). One of the more comprehensive studies of residence restrictions occurred in Minnesota. The researchers examined the characteristics of recidivism events for 224 sex offenders who committed a new sex crime and were reincarcerated between 1990 and 2002. The researchers found that 79 percent of these offenders knew the victim prior to the reoffense. Moreover, 85 percent of the reoffenses studied occurred in a residential location and 39 percent occurred outside the home, with 9 percent taking place within 1 mile of the offender's house. Of these 9 percent, three offenders contacted a victim at a restricted location; two of the offenders were not in proximity to where they lived and the third contacted an adult victim. The researchers concluded that none of the reoffenses would have been deterred by residence restrictions (Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008). It is interesting to note that in Minnesota, the Department of Corrections raised concerns about the unintended negative consequences of residence restrictions, including the potential for sex offenders to congregate in rural areas without ties to the community, thereby resulting in social isolation; a lack of work, education, and treatment; and being farther away from supervision (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003). Finally, in a convenience sample study of sex offenders randomly selected after being released from prison between 1996 and 2006 (n = 293 child molesters and 112 rapists), researchers found that 76.5 percent of the offenders met their victim in a private location and only 6.8 percent met a victim in proximity to a residence restriction setting. Additionally, 82.2 percent of offenses occurred in a private setting and 9.1 percent of victims were strangers to the offender, with 18.8 percent of rapists and 14. 7 percent of child molesters meeting the victim in a public location. Based on this analysis, the researchers suggested that social rather than geographic proximity influenced offending (Columbino, Mercado, & Jeglic, 2009). SMART OFFICE Limitations: Outcome Data Limitations of residence restriction outcome studies are similar to those previously identified for other research, including small sample sizes, short followup periods, low sexual recidivism rates, and the inability of most studies to isolate the impact of residence restrictions from other influences. Survey Data Impact on the Public A number of researchers have studied the impact of residence restrictions on where sex offenders reside in the community. In a Chicago, IL, study (n = approximately 4,000), researchers found that sex offenders were more likely to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods (30 percent of sex offenders lived in these areas, which is nearly 5.5 times greater than the number living in affluent areas). In a study of those sex offenders violating the residence restriction law (n = 1,008), 29 percent lived in a disadvantaged neighborhood and 2 percent lived in an affluent neighborhood. Finally, it was noted that 70 percent of the disadvantaged area was off limits to sex offenders, compared to 32 percent of affluent areas. The research suggests that residence restrictions lead to a disproportionate number of sex offenders living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008). Similar results concerning the disproportionate impact of residence restrictions have been found in other studies. A Minnesota Department of Corrections study found that more offenders would be relegated to rural areas as a result of residence restrictions (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003). In a New Jersey study of three different areas (rural Phillipsburg and Alpha, urban Newark, and suburban Bergen County), researchers found that half of the rural area, 93 percent of Newark, and 66 percent of Bergen County would be restricted (Mandelstam & Mulford, 2008). Impact on Offenders SMART OFFICE Research from multiple states indicates that many sexual offenders have had to move or would have to move due to the implementation of residence restriction laws (Barnes et al., 2009; Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010) despite having limited housing options, particularly in urban areas (Barnes et al., 2009; Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Levenson, 2008). This combination led to a report of increased homelessness (Levenson, 2008), loss of family support, and financial hardship (Levenson & Cotter, 2005b). Limitations: Survey Data Limitations of survey data have previously been highlighted. Summary In summary, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified, including loss of housing, loss of support systems, and financial hardship that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk. In addition, residence restrictions lead to the displacement and clustering of sex offenders into other areas, particularly rural areas. Given the above, expansion of this policy was not recommended by the group of sex offender management professionals attending the SOMAPI forum. Back To Top Summary This chapter has focused on the effectiveness of a number of prominent sex offender management strategies, including specialized supervision, COSA, polygraph, GPS, civil commitment, SORN, and residence restrictions. Specialized supervision, in conjunction with rehabilitation, appears to be effective in reducing recidivism for sexual offenders. However, the use of specialized supervision in the absence of rehabilitation is not supported by SMART OFFICE research. The few studies of COSA that have been undertaken thus far have produced encouraging findings, but far more research employing larger samples of offenders and more rigorous designs capable of isolating COSA effects are needed. Nevertheless, given COSA's ability to facilitate collaboration with members of the community, the SOMAPI forum experts recommend COSA as a sex offender management strategy. Research related to the use of polygraph assessment is somewhat less definitive. Therefore, the polygraph, if used, should only be used in conjunction with a comprehensive supervision and treatment approach. In terms of SORN, research to date has exhibited mixed results on sex offender crime rates and recidivism. Studies have not adequately controlled for outside factors that might serve as an alternative explanation for the observed study outcomes. Future, more rigorous research on the effects of SORN is needed. Despite these limitations, there is broad public and policymaker support for SORN, and a perceived public safety benefit among these groups. Finally, the evidence is fairly clear that residence restrictions are not effective. In fact, the research suggests that residence restrictions may actually increase offender risk by undermining offender stability and the ability of the offender to obtain housing, work, and family support. There is nothing to suggest this policy should be used at this time. Sex offender management policies are often implemented on a one-size-fits-all basis for all sexual offenders. The merits of using targeted rather than one-size-fits-all strategies were recently acknowledged by participants in the 2012 SOMAPI forum. The SOMAPI forum experts recommend implementation of all of the above-noted policies that show a positive impact, with the caveat that the use of any strategy should always be commensurate with offender risk and need. Future Directions SMART OFFICE The SOMAPI forum experts recommend that sex offender management policymakers strive to use empirically supported strategies. Granted, there are times when new strategies are identified in the absence of research and need to be tested for effectiveness, as innovation in criminal justice practice, including sex offender management, is important. Therefore, it is recommended that future implemented policies should be evidence-generating. RESULTS FROM THE SOMAPI INVENTORY OF PROMISING PRACTICES • • • PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Republic of China (Taiwan) will be observing its 105th anniversary of National Day on October 10 , 2016; and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and Taiwan entered into a sister state relationship on May 5, 1983;and WHEREAS, the bonds of true friendship and a steadfast trade partnership between the City of Englewood and Taiwan have been strengthened, resulting in a strong economic, social, and tourism and cultural exchanges; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood is looking forward to further promoting the relationship with Taiwan for mutual benefits; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood is delightful to join in observing the annual tradition and extend congratulations to Taiwan during this celebration. NOW THEREFORE, I, Joe Jefferson, Mayor of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby proclaim October 10, 2016, as: TAIWAN FRIENDSHIP DAY in the City of Englewood, Colorado, and I urge all Englewood citizens to extend congratulations and best wishes to Taiwan during this celebration. GIVEN under my hand and seal this 3rd day of October, 2016. Joe Jefferson, Mayor .. • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: October 3, 2016 9ai Intergovernmental Agreement -CISC Regional Data Warehouse Initiated By: Staff Source: Police Department Commander Tim Englert PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION City Council previously approved our participation in the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) (Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2014). RECOMMENDED ACTION The Police Department is recommending that City Council adopt a Bill for an Ordinance on first reading authorizing the Chief of Police to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement to allow our participation in the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) Regional Data Warehouse. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The CISC was established in 2007 to further the sharing of information between and among law enforcement agencies within the State of Colorado through the use of "Coplink" which is hosted by IBM. In June of 2016, the CISC Board invited IBM and two other industry partners, Numerica and Xerox, to offer proposals as to how they would help the CISC establish its own secure data warehouse; an electronic "tank" or secure "cloud" that could safely store a copy of all authorized Member Agency data. The CISC Board subsequently chose Numerica to make the regional data warehouse (ROW) a reality. As part of this agreeme.nt, Numerica will provide access to the Lumen Client Software Service (LCSS) which is a data analytic software service that enables the searching, analyzing, and sharing of law enforcement and criminal justice data. FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost (until the CISC Board finalizes the budget) will not exceed $76.01/certified officer= $5,852.77 . These funds are already appropriated for in the budget as we have been a member of the CISC since 2010 . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for an Ordinance Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 37 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ENTITLED "SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA WAREHOUSE" BETWEEN THE COLORADO INFORMATION SHARING CONSORTIUM (CISC) AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in 2014 the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado approved the City's participation in Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) by the passage of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2014; and WHEREAS, in June of 2016 the CISC Board invited IBM and two other industry partners, Numerica and Xerox, to off er proposals as to how they would help the CISC establish its own secure data warehouse ; and electronic "tank" or secure "cloud" that could safely store a copy of all authorized Member Agency data; and WHEREAS, the CISC Board subsequently chose Numerica to make the regional data warehouse (RDW) a reality; and WHEREAS, as a part of this Agreement, Numerica will provide access to the Lumen Client Software Service (LCSS) which is a data analytic software service that enables the searching, analyzing and sharing of law enforcement and criminal justice data; and WHEREAS, the passage of this Ordinance authorizes the City of Englewood to participate in the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) Regional Data Warehouse; and WHEREAS, no federal funding will be used by the City in the execution ofthis agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO , THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the Intergovernmental Agreement for the City of Englewood to participate in the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) entitled "Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse", attached hereto as "Exhibit A". Section 2. The Englewood City Council hereby authorizes the Chief of Police to sign the agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood, attached as Exhibit A. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. 1 Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of • October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days . Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • • • SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT DAT AW AREHOUSE This Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse (this "Agreement," including all attachments hereto) is entered into as of June 13, 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by and among the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium, a Colorado local government entity (the "CISC"), Numerica Corporation, a Colorado corporation ("Numerica"), and the Member Agencies who have joined this Agreement pursuant to Section 3. The CISC, Numerica, and the Member Agencies who have joined this Agreement may be referred to herein as a "Party" or the "Parties". Capitalized tenns used in this Agreement are defined throughout this Agreement. RECITALS A. The purpose of the CISC is to facilitate the sharing of law enforcement and criminal justice data and information by and among the Member Agencies and with other law enforcement agencies. B. The CISC desires to implement and offer a scalable data warehouse hosting law enforcement and criminal justice data from Member Agencies. The CISC desires: ( i) that the data warehouse allow the data contained therein to be shared between the Member Agencies and, at the option of the CISC and Member Agencies, with other law enforcement agencies; and (ii) that any third-party provider of analytical or other data services be able to access and use the data in the data warehouse for the purpose of providing services to the Member Agencies . C. CISC and Numerica entered into an agreement dated April 13, 2015 (the ••Lumen Agreement"), which provides access to the Lumen Client Software Service to Member Agencies who joined the Lumen Agreement. The Lumen Client Software Service is a data analytic software service that enables the searching, analyzing, and sharing of law enforcement and criminal justice data. As part of the Lumen Client Software Service offered under the Lumen Agreement, Member Agencies who joined the Lwnen Agreement had their law enforcement and criminal justice data imported into a data warehouse maintained and operated by Numerica. D. Numerica proposes to expand its existing law enforcement and criminal justice data warehouse and to use the same to provide the data warehouse that the CISC desires. E. SOW 03 and this Agreement have terms and conditions which are substantially similar to those in the Lumen Agreement. The CISC and Numerica desire that this Agreement eventually supersede the Lumen Agreement, but the Lumen Agreement cannot be terminated until there are no law enforcement agencies receiving services thereunder. F. Numerica has the expertise and skill to perform the Services described in this Agreement and has the knowledge and capability to comply with the CJIS Security Policy. Numerica has enrolled in, is current with, and complies with the CJIS Vendor Management Program operated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation ("CBI"). G. The CISC and Member Agencies desire to engage Numerica to implement, expand, maintain, operate, and provide the data warehouse, to provide the Lumen Client Software Service, and to provide additional services in accordance with this Agreement. 001 E x H I B I T A Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse AGREEMENT Now, THEREFORE, in consideration for the recitals, the mutual promises herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Services Concerning a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse. a. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Numerica may perform programming, consulting, application training, creation of deliverables, integration, implementation, maintenance, operation, provision, analytical, and other professional services or may provide software, software services, hardware, or other deliverables (collectively, the "Services") for the CISC and the Member Agencies as described in one or more statements of work (each, a "Statement of Work" or "SOW''). b. SOW 01, SOW 02, and SOW 03 are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, respectively, and incorporated by reference. The Services set forth in SOW 01 are generally in the nature of integrating data from Member Agencies into a data warehouse. The Services set forth in SOW 02 are generally in the nature of maintaining and operating the data warehouse and providing the same as a service to Member Agencies. The Services set forth in SOW 03 are generally in the nature of providing the Lumen Client Software Service to Member Agencies who elect to be provided with the same. c. Other than SOW 0 l, SOW 02, and SOW 03, any additional Statements of Work shall only be binding on the Parties if executed by the Parties. Changes to the scope of the Services set forth in a Statement of Work may only be made in a writing executed by the Parties to whom the Statement of Work applies. 2. Compensation and Payment Terms. a. Each Statement of Work shall contain payment terms and conditions applicable to that Statement of Work and shall contain all fees and other compensation (the "Project Fee") payable to Numerica for the Services to be perfonned under that Statement of Work. The CISC or a Member Agency may withhold from payment any amounts that it disputes in good faith pending resolution of such dispute, provided that any amounts which are not in dispute shall be paid timely. Upon the resolution of the dispute, the CISC or the Member Agency, as appropriate, shall pay the amount set forth in the resolution of the dispute, if applicable. b. Unless otherwise stated in a Statement of Work, the CISC shall pay the Project Fee to Numerica pursuant to the terms and conditions stated in the Statements of Work. A Statement of Work may indicate that the ClSC is passing the Project Fee on to the Member Agencies. lfthe Project Fees are being passed on to the Member Agencies, the CISC shall take reasonable actions to collect the Project Fee from the Member Agencies and remit the amounts collected to Numerica. In such a situation, the CISC's obligation to pay Numerica is contingent upon the ClSC collecting such amounts from the Member Agencies. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Numerica is not obligated to provide Services to a Member Agency that is not current with its payment obligations hereunder (except for amounts withheld by a Member Agency pending the resolution of a good faith dispute concerning the same). 2 • • • 002 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse • c. Each Member Agency shall pay to the CISC its portion of a Project Fee as • • indicated on a Statement of Work. Neither Numerica nor the CISC has the authority to create any obligation on behalf of any Member Agency to pay all or any portion of a Project Fee. 3. Joining this Agreement. a. Definition of Member Agency. "Member Agency" means a law enforcement agency who has executed the CISC's founding intergovernmental agreement (the "CISC's IGA") and has joined this Agreement. A law enforcement agency that has joined this Agreement but has not executed the CISC's founding intergovernmental agreement may be considered a Member Agency, subject to the limitations specified herein. b. The CISC's executive director is authorized to sign the Joinder Agreement on behalf of the CISC. c. Joinder by Member Agencies. A law enforcement agency (or its parent government) that executed the CISC's IGA may join this Agreement at any time by executing a joinder agreement substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D (a "Joinder Agreement") and delivering the same to the CISC and to Numerica. If a Joinder Agreement does not modify or add to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, then the CISC and Numerica shall execute the Joinder Agreement. d. Joinder by Non-Member Agencies. With the written consent of the CISC, a law enforcement agency (or its parent government) that has not executed the CISC's IGA may join this Agreement by executing a Joinder Agreement and delivering the same to the CISC and to Numerica. If the CISC gave written consent and if the Joinder Agreement does not modify or add to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,·then the CISC and Numerica shall execute the Joinder Agreement. Numerica may only provi4e the Services set forth on SOW 0 l to a law enforcement agency that joins this Agreement but has not signed the CISC's IGA until that agency has executed the CISC's IGA (unless the CISC gives its written approval otherwise). e. Joinder Agreement with Modified or Additional Terms. If a Joinder Agreement modifies or adds to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, then the CISC and Numerica are not obligated to execute the Joinder Agreement. A Joinder Agreement which modifies or adds to the terms and conditions of this Agreement will only be binding on the Parties who have executed it. 4. CISC Project Manager. The CISC shall identify a primary point of contact (a "Project Manager") concerning this Agreement and all Services to be provided hereunder. In matters concerning the day-to-day implementation and maintenance of the Services, Nurnerica may communicate directly with Member Agencies as needed. Project Manager shall diligently work to promote the efficient perfonnance of the Parties' obligations under this Agreement. Numerica will seek the timely involvement of the Project Manager when events, problems, concerns, or requests affecting Services or this Agreement cannot effectively be addressed with the Member Agencies. Numerica shall permit the Project Manager to access Member Agencies search query histo1y and records of the Member Agency's use of and transactions in the Services. 5. Independent Contractor Status. This Agreement shall not render Numerica or any of Numerica's agents an employee, partner, agent of, or joint venturer with the CISC or any 3 003 Sen1ices Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Member Agency for any purpose. Numerica is and will remain an independent contractor in its relationship to the CISC and each Member Agency and Numerica's agents are not and will not become the CISC's or any Member Agency's employees. a. TAXES. i. NEITIIER THE CISC NOR ANY MEMBER AGENCY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WIIBHOLDING TAXES WITII RESPECT TO NUMERICA'S COMPENSATION HEREUNDER. IF REQUIRED BY LAW, THE CISC SHALL REPORT ALL PAYMENTS MADE TO NUMERJCA ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS USING IRS FORM 1099. NEITHER THE CISC NOR ANY MEMBER AGENCY HAS ANY OBLIGATION TO ( 1) WITHHOLD FICA (SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAXES) FROM NUMERJCA 's PAYMENTS OR MAKE FICA PAYMENTS ON NUMERICA 's BEHALF, (2) MAKE STATE OR FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CONTRJBUTIONS OR PAYMENTS ONNUMERJCA'S BEHALF, OR (3) WITHHOLD STATE OR FEDERAL INCOME TAX FROM NUMERJCA'S PAYMENTS. NEITHER THE CISC NOR ANY MEMBER AGENCY WILL PAY TAXES ON NUMERJCA'S INCOME DERIVED FROM THIS AGREEMENT. ii. THE PROJECT FEES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT DO NOT INCLUDE ANY CHARGE FOR TAXES AND THE CISC AND THE MEMBER AGENCIES ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PA YING ANY AND ALL FEDERAL, STA TE, AND LOCAL SALES, USE, AND lMPORT/EXPORT TAXES AND CUSTOMS DUTIES ATTRJBUTABLE TO nns AGREEMENT. b. INSURANCE. NEITIIER THE CISC NOR ANY MEMBER AGENCY SHALL HA VE ANY OBLIGATION TO, AND SHALL NOT, OBTAIN WORKERS' COMP EN SA TION OR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR ANY OTHER INSURANCE COVERAGE OF ANY KlND ON BEHALF OF NU MERICA. c. Method of Performing Services; Results. In accordance with this Agreement, Numerica will determine the method, details, and means of performing the Services. Neither the CISC nor any Member Agency shall control the manner or determine the method of performing the Services. d. Workplace, Hours, and Instrumentalities. Numerica may perform the Services at any place or location and at such times as Numerica shall determine. With the exception of any tools or instrumentalities explicitly identified elsewhere in this Agreement as being supplied by the CISC, Member Agencies, or other third parties, Numerica agrees to provide all tools and instrumentalities, if any, required to perform the Services. e. Limitations on Authority. No Party shall have the right, power, or authority to bind any other Party to the fulfillment of any condition, contract, or obligation or to create any liability binding on any other Party. f. Nonexclusive Services. In its sole discretion, Numerica may render services on its own account or for any other person during the term of this Agreement. g. Requisite Skills. Numerica has the requisite knowledge, expertise, experience, and training to perform the Services, and neither the CISC nor any Member Agency will provide Numerica with any training concerning the manner or methods of performance of the Services. 4 • • • 004 • • • Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 6. Representations and Warranties. a. Numerica's Representations and Warranties. Numerica represents and warrants that the following are true as of the Effective Date and will be true throughout the term or period in which Numerica provides Services hereunder. i. Numerica and its subcontractors, if any, have the capacity and the professional experience and skill to perform the Services. The Services will be performed in accordance with this Agreement and standards of care, skill, and diligence provided by competent professionals who perform services of a similar nature to those specified in this Agreement. The Services shall be provided in a good and workman like manner. ii. To Numerica's knowledge, the information supplied by Numerica in the performance of the Services is truthful and accurate in all material respects. m. The Services provided under this Agreement shall be adequate and sufficient for their intended purposes. iv. Numerica has complied and will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and/or similar directives regarding business permits, certificates, and licenses that are required to provide the Services. v. During the period or term that Services in the nature of software or software services are provided, such Services will conform to Numerica's applicable documentation. vi. . Any software Services that Numerica installs on the Member Agency's computers, network systems, and Data Sources (collectively, the "Member Agency's Systems") will not have a material adverse effect on that Member Agency's Systems. b. Numerica's Disclaimers. i. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN IBIS AGREEMENT: (1) THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY NUMERICA "AS-IS" AND NUMERICA MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED W ARRANlY WlIB RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMlTA TION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT , TITLE, QUALilY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; (2) NUMERICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL SUCH WARRANTIES; AND (3) NUMERICA DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ALL ERRORS CAN OR WlLL BE CORRECTED OR THAT THE SER VICES WLLL BE WITHOUT ERROR OR INTERRUPTfON. ii. IN ADDITlON TO ANY 01HER WARRANlY DISCLAIMERS IN THIS AGREEMENT, NUMERIC A DOES NOT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE RES UL TS OR OUTPUT THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE MEMBER AGENCY'S USE OF THE SERVICES. m. The representations and warranties set forth in Section 6 .a do not apply to errors, interruptions, problems, defects , or issues (collectively, "Errors") that result from (I) factors outside ofNumerica's reasonable control, including without limitation any actions or inactions by third parties other than Nwnerica's subcontractors; (2) failure by the CISC or a Member Agency to comply with this Agreement; (3) failure by the CISC or a Member Agency to use the Services in accordance with the documentation or other 5 005 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse appropriate instructions ofNumerica; (4) the improper use or misuse by the CISC or a Member Agency of the Services; (5) Errors in a Member Agency's data not caused by Numerica; and ( 6) the fault or negligence of the CISC or a Member Agency. iv. Exclusive Remedy. In the event of a breach ofNumerica's representations and warranties set forth in Section 6 .a as they apply to any Services in the nature of software or software services, and as the CISC's and as each Member Agency's sole and exclusive remedy, Numerica will repair or replace the applicable software Services, or any portion thereof, with conforming Services. Repair or replacement may include the following: ( 1) corrected items; (2) corrected documentation; or (3) instructions or procedures to bypass the problem until a more permanent correction can be implemented. c. Representations and Warranties of the CISC and Member Agencies. Each Member Agency represents and warrants to Numerica and the CISC (i) that it has the lawful right and authority to provide any and all data that it furnishes under this Agreement or which it otherwise places into the data warehouse and (ii) that Numerica's use of such data in accordance with this Agreement will not violate or infringe the rights of any third party or any law or agreement. d. Other Terms. i. If performance of the Services by Numerica is delayed due to factors beyond Numerica's reasonable control, or if conditions of the scope or type of Services are expected to change, Numerica shall give timely notice to the CISC and the affected Member Agencies of such delay or change unless, under the circumstances, the CISC or the Member Agency are already aware _or should reasonably be aware of the foregoing. ii. Review, acceptance, or approval by the CISC or any Member Agency of the Services performed or delivered will not relieve Numerica of any responsibility for deficiencies, omissions, or Errors in said Services or deliverables, nor shall it be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out ofNumerica's performance under this Agreement. 7. Security of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Records. a. Standard of Care. Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards, but not less than due care, to ensure the security and confidentiality of any law enforcement or criminal justice records held, stored, or maintained by Numerica. All law enforcement or criminal justice records of the Member Agencies are Confidential Information. b. CJIS Security Policy. Numerica represents and warrants (i) that it has the knowledge, expertise, experience, and training to comply with the Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy, including the Security Addendum thereto (the "CllS Security Policy") and (ii) that all Services will be performed in compliance with the CJIS Security Policy (as applicable). Numerica shall execute the certification to the Security Addendum of the CJIS Security Policy, which is incorporated by reference, before performaing of any Services. Numerica shall comply with the terms and conditions of the CJIS Security Policy to the extent applicable at all times. 6 • • • 006 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse • c. CBI I CJIS Vendor Management Program. Numerica shall maintain its • • enrollment and participation in the ens Vendor Management Program operated by CBI. d. CJIS Audit. At the request of the CISC, Numerica shall submit to an audit by CBI or the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ofNumerica's compliance with the CJIS Security Policy. The CISC may request up to one audit every two years, which may be in addition to any other audits ofNumerica's compliance with the CJIS Security Policy required by law. e. Security Notification. Numerica shall notify the CISC in writing and in a timely manner in the event of any security incidents related to the Services, regardless of whether the incident violated or potentially involved the CJIS Security Policy. Numerica's notice of a security incident shall include, at minimum, (i) a description of the incident, (ii) the harm or potential harm resulting therefrom, and, (iii) if the incident involved any data, the name of the Member Agency (or other person) that owned or was responsible for that data. f. State Law Requirements. The Parties shall comply with C.R.S. §§ 24-72-301, et seq., concerning the treatment of criminal justice records. Numerica shall not be considered a "custodian" of any criminal justice records as defined in C.R.S. § 24-72-302(5). g. Changes in Law. If there are changes or updates to law or best practices involving the storage, transmission, transcription, or use oflaw enforcement or criminal justice information or data, then the Parties shall comply with the changed or updated law or best practices; provided, however, that if the changed or updated law or best practices would have a material adverse effect on the legitimate expectations of a Party, on the reasonable performance of a Party's obligations hereunder, or on the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties will negotiate in good faith to address the situation in a manner that is acceptable to all Parties. 8. Insurance. Numerica must purchase and maintain insurance of the kind and in the minimum amounts specified below. a. Mandatory Insurance. Numerica agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, the following policies of insurance before performing any Services: i. Workers Compensation Insurance. Worker's compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employer engaged in the performance of Services under this Agreement: Worker's Compensation Insurance Each Accident Statutory Each Employee for Disease Statutory Numerica shall comply with the requirements of the Worker's Compensation Act of Colorado and shall provide worker's compensation insurance to protect Numerica from and against any and all worker's compensation claims arising from the performance of services under this Agreement. ii. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial general liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of two miHion dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence and three million dollars ($3,000,000) aggregate. The policy shall be 7 007 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractor and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. Coverage must be on an "occurrence" basis as opposed to a "claims made" basis. This insurance must pay on behalf of Numerica all sums which Numerica shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence up to the specified limits of liability for each occurrence. m. Data Breach Insurance. Data Breach insurance with first party coverage of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) and third party coverage of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Coverage shall insure against information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, negligent release of private information by Numerica or its subcontractors, and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties. This insurance must pay on behalf ofNumerica sums which Numerica shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence up to the specified limits of liability for each occurrence. iv. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial automobile liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damages of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence with respect to • each ofNumerica's owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in • performance of the Services. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. Commercial automobile liability insurance must cover Numerica for all sums which Numerica shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by the occurrence up to the specified limits of liability for each occurrence. v. Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions or professional liability insurance with a minimum coverage amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence or claim and two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate and for two years beyond the completion of all Services. b. Other Insurance Terms. i. The above-mentioned coverages shall be procured and maintained with insurers with an A-or better rating, as determined by Best's Key Rating Guide. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by Numerica. ii. The policies required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the CISC or any Member Agency, their officers, or their employees shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Numerica. No additional insured endorsement to the policies required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. Numerica shall be solely responsible for any deductible Losses under any policy required herein. 8 • 008 • • • Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse m. The required commercial general liability, data breach, and commercial automobile liability policies shall be endorsed to name the CISC as certificate holder and name the CISC, each Member Agency, and their elected officials, officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds. The required worker's compensation and errors and omissions or professional liability policies shall be endorsed to include the CISC as a certificate holder. The policies shall provide that the CISC will receive notice no less than 30 days prior to cancellation, termination, or a material change to the policies. iv. Numerica shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to this Agreement by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, durations, or types. v. Failure on the part ofNumerica to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which the CISC may immediately terminate this Agreement, or, at the CISC's discretion, the CISC may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the CISC shall be repaid by Contractor to the CISC upon demand, or the CISC may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Numerica from the CISC. vi. The CISC has the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto . c. Insurance Certificates. If requested by the CISC, Numerica shall deliver to the CISC certificates of insurance as evidence that policies providing any and all required coverages and limits are in full force and effect. These certificates will serve as an indication to the CISC that Numerica has acquired all necessary insurance~ however, the CISC may require that certified copies of the insurance policies be submitted and may withhold payment for Services until the applicable insurance policies are received and found to be in accordance with the Agreement. Insurance limits must be indicated on each certificate of insurance. 9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. a. Numerica shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the CISC, each Member Agency, and all of their respective officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with any third-party claim, action, suit, or proceeding (a "Claim") proximately caused by Numerica's acts or omissions, except to the extent that such Claims were caused by the breach, negligence, error, violation of law or willful or other act or misconduct of the CISC or a Member Agency. b. Each Party shall be liable for all liability, loss, damage, expense, and costs proximately caused by its own acts or omissions. 10. Intellectual Property Indemnification. a. Definition. "Intellectual Property" means copyrights, trademarks, trademark applications (including intent-to-use applications), trade names, moral rights, trade secrets, 9 009 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse patents, patent applications, inventions, invention disclosures, know-how, designs, and other items commonly recognized as intellectual property under the laws of the United States or any other country. b. Indemnification. In the event of a Claim against the CISC or any Member Agency asserting or involving an allegation that the Services infringe upon or violate any Intellectual Property right of any person or entity, Numerica shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the CISC, each Member Agency, and all of their respective officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation attorneys fees, costs, and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with such Claim, whether or not such Claim is successful. c. Remedies for an Infringement Claim. i. Notwithstanding and in addition to Numerica's indemnification obligation set forth in Section 1 O.b, in the event of a Claim against the CISC or any Member Agency asserting or involving an allegation that the Services infringe upon or violate any Intellectual Property right of any person or entity, or if in Numerica' s reasonable opinion the Services are likely to become the subject of such a Claim of infringement, Numerica will (I) procure for the CISC and each Member Agency the right to continue using the Services; (2) replace or modify the Services so that they become non-infringing (such a modification or replacement shall be materially similar to the original); or, (3) if neither (I) nor (2) is achieved despite Numerica's reasonable efforts, terminate a particular Statement of Work or this Agreement. Numerica's indemnification obligation set forth in Section 10.b will survive termination pursuant to this Section 10.c. ii. IfNumerica terminates a Statement of Work or this Agreement pursuant to this Section l O.c: ( l) within six months after the Effective Date hereof, then Numerica shall refund to the CISC and to each Member Agency all fees paid under the terminated Statement of Work or under this Agreement; (2) between six and 12 months after the Effective Date hereot~ then Numerica shall refund to the CISC and to each Member Agency one half of all fees paid under the terminated Statement of Work or under this Agreement; and (3) 12 months or after the Effective Date hereof, then Numerica shall refund to the CISC and to each Member Agency a pro-rated portion of the fees paid that reflect the remaining portion of the applicable period or term that Services are to be provided at the time oftennination. d. Exclusive Remedy. This Section 10 sets forth the CISC's and each Member Agency's sole and exclusive remedy for any Claim oflntellectual Property infringement. 11. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILilY. a. IN NO EVENT WILL ANY PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, SPECrAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY {INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), EVEN IF IllE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF TIIE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. b. LIMITATION OF NUMERICA'S LIABILllY. THE CUMULATIVE LIABILITY OF NUMERICA IN CONNECTION wrrn, ARISING UNDER, OR IN RELATION TO nns AGREEMENT, HOWEVER CAUSED, AND REGARDLESS OF TI-IE THEORY OF LIABILITY (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), IS 10 • • • 010 • • • Sen1ices Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF (I) THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE COVERAGE REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 8 APPLICABLE TO THE EVENT(S) GIVING RISE TO NUMERICA'S LIABILITY (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER NUMERICA ACTUALLY PURCHASED CONFORMING INSURANCE) AND (II) THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES ACTUALLY PAID TO NUMERICA UNDER IBIS AGREEMENT IN THE SIX MO NIB PERIOD PRIOR TO THE EVENT(S) GIVING RISE TO NUMERICA'S LIABILITY. THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WILL NOT APPLY TO NUMERICA 'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 10. c. LIMITATION OF THE CISC'S AND MEMBER AGENCIES' LIABILITY. i. THE AGGREGATE CUMULATIVE LIABILITY OF THE CISC AND THE MEMBER AGENCIES IN CONNECTION WTIH, ARISING UNDER, OR IN RELATION TO IBIS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER CAUSED, AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), IS LIMITED TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES ACTIJALLY PAID TO NUMERICA UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IN THE SIX MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO THE EVENT(S) GIVING RISE TO THE CISC'S OR THE MEMBER AGENCY'S LIABILITY. ii. EACH MEMBER AGENCY'S LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH, ARISING UNDER, OR IN RELATlON TO IBIS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER CAUSED, AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY {INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), IS FURTHER LIMITED TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES ACTUALLY PAID BY THE MEMBER AGENCY UNDER TIIlS AGREEMENT IN THE srx MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO THE EVENT(S) GIVING RISE TO THE MEMBER AGENCY'S LIABILITY . 111. THESE LlMITA TIONS OF LIABILITY DO NOT LlMIT THE CISC'S AND THE MEMBER AGENCIES' OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY PROJECT FEES TO NUMERICA WHEN DUE. d. NOTHING IN IBIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE CISC's OR ANY MEMBER AGENCY 's PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES PURSUANT TO THE COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT, C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, ET SEQ. 12. Termination. a. Termination for Breach. Either Numerica or the CISC may terminate this Agreement if the other commits a material breach of this Agreement, including a breach of a representation or warranty, by giving the breaching Party written notice of termination for breach. The notice of termination for breach must specify the nature of the breach in reasonable detail. This Agreement will automatically tenninate if the breach described in the notice is not cured within 14 days after the notice is given. A termination for breach will be without prejudice to the rights any Party may have against another, whether arising in connection with the breach or otherwise. b. Termination of Joinder. Any Party may terminate a particular Joinder Agreement and the applicable Member Agency's participation in this Agreement ifNumerica or the Member Agency commits a material breach of this Agreement, including a breach of a representation or warranty, by giving the breaching Party written notice of termination for breach. The notice of termination for breach must specify the nature of the breach in reasonable detail. The Joinder Agreement will automatically terminate if the breach described in the notice is not cured within 14 days after the notice is given. A termination for breach will be without 11 011 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse prejudice to the rights any Party may have against another, whether arising in connection with the breach or otherwise. c. Effect of Termination. Numerica shall provide no further Services in connection with this Agreement (or a terminated Joinder Agreement) after the effective date of termination. The CISC and each Member Agency shall have no liability for any Services performed after the effective date of termination. Numerica shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with this Agreement for any Services completed in accordance with this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, no Party shall be relieved of liability for damages sustained by virtue of any breach of this Agreement or any other liability obligation that survives the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided, upon termination of this Agreement, the CISC and the Member Agencies shall cease use of the Services. 13. Confidentiality. a. Definition of Confidential Information. As used in this Section 13, the word "information" refers to data or information in any form or medium. i. Definition. "Confidential Information" means all information that a Party (a "Disclosing Party") discloses to another Party (a "Receiving Party") that falls within one or more of the following categories: (1) any information marked or identified as Confidential Information; (2) any information which the Receiving Party knows or reasonably should know that the Disclosing Party is required to keep confidential under a • binding obligation with a third party; and (3) all information provided to a Receiving • Party which the Receiving Party knows or reasonably should know could be detrimental to the interests of the Disclosing Party if disclosed or used without authorization, whether or not such information is identified as confidential. ii. Exceptions. Information that falls into any one or more of the following categories will not constitute Confidential Information: (1) infonnation that is or becomes part of the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; (2) information that the Receiving Party can show was known by it prior to its receipt from the Disclosing Party; (3) information that the Receiving Party can show was independently developed by or for it without relying on any Confidential Information; (4) information that the Receiving Party can show was rightfully received from a third party who is not under any obligation to maintain the confidentiality of such information, under circumstances not involving a violation of the rights of the Disclosing Party. m. Court Order. The Receiving Party will not be in breach of the obligations hereunder to the extent that, based upon the advice of counsel, it provides Confidential Information under a court order or discloses Confidential Information as required by Jaw. Before the Receiving Party discloses Confidential Information under this Section 13 .a.iii, it must immediately notify the Disclosing Party of the court order or legal requirement, must give the Disclosing Party a reasonable opportunity to contest or limit the required disclosure, and must provide reasonable assistance at the Disclosing Party's expense, except to the extent it is illegal to do any of the foregoing. 12 • 012 • • • Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse b. Protection of Confidential Information. Except as otherwise provided or permitted in this Agreement, the Receiving Party will not do any of the following, directly or indirectly, without the written consent of the Disclosing Party: (i) disclose, transfer, or otherwise communicate to any third party any Confidential Information; or (ii) use Confidential Information for any purpose. The Receiving Party will not permit any of its respective agents or employees to take any action prohibited by this Section 13.b. c. Availability of Injunctive Relief. The unauthorized use or disclosure of Confidential Information would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the Disclosing Party and would materially damage the Disclosing Party. Therefore, the Disclosing Party will be presumed entitled to injunctive relief to protect its Confidential Information against unauthorized disclosure or use in violation of this Agreement. d. Return of Confidential Information. Upon termination of this Agreement: (i) the Receiving Party will at its option, immediately destroy or deliver to the Disclosing Party the originals and all copies of any and all materials and writings received from, created for, or belonging to the Disclosing Party which relate to or contain any Confidential Information; and (ii) the Receiving Party will permanently delete any and all Confidential Information from all computers and other electronic data storage devices in the Receiving Party's or its agent's or employee's control. If the Receiving Party opts to destroy the Confidential Information, it will provide a written certification of the destruction of the Confidential Information to the Disclosing Party . 14. Member Agencies' Data. Each Member Agency grants to Numerica a limited right and license to use that Data (definied in SOW 01) originated by that Member Agency solely for the purposes set forth herein. The foregoing license shall terminate if the Member Agency terminates its Joinder Agreement. All the Data in the Data Warehouse is and shall remain the sole property of the originating Member Agency. Other than the rights granted herein, the Member Agencies reserve all rights in and to the Data. All Data shall be considered Confidential Information. No ownership rights are being conveyed to Numerica hereunder. 15. Ownership of Numerica's Proprietary Rights. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement and to the extent applicable, all Services are licensed or provided as a service to the CISC and the Member Agencies and not sold (notwithstanding the use of the term "purchase", if used herein). Except as otherwise expressly stated, all Intellectual Property rights associated with the Services are the exclusive property of Numerica or its licensors. All rights in and to the Services and Numerica's other Intellectual Property not expressly granted to the CISC or the Member Agencies are reserved by Numerica. No ownership rights are being conveyed to the CISC or to a Member Agency hereunder. 16. Restrictions. a. Except to the extent expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the CISC and each Member Agency will not (and will not allow any third party to): (i) reverse engineer or attempt to discover any source code or underlying ideas or algorithms of any part of the Services; (ii) provide, lease, lend, or otherwise use or allow person not a Party to this Agreement to access or use the Lumen Client Software Service; (iii) list or otherwise display or copy any object code of any part of the Services; (iv) develop any improvement, modification, or derivative work to 13 013 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse any Services or include a portion thereof in any other equipment or item; (v) allow the transfer, transmission, export, or re-export of any Services (or any portion thereof) or ofNumerica's technical data; or (vi) perform benchmark tests without the prior written consent of Numerica (any results of such permitted benchmark testing shall be deemed Numerica' s Confidential Information). Notwithstanding these restrictions, nothing herein shall prevent a Member Agency or any third party from developing software that interfaces with the API or Numerica's public application programming interfaces, if any. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any statement to the contrary in this Agreement, nothing herein alters any provision of an open source software license that applies to those portions of the Services that constitutes or incorporates open source software. Except to the extent it constitutes open source software or as otherwise expressly provided for herein, all source code and algorithms associated with the Services is considered Numerica's Confidential Information. 17. Export Control. The Services may be subject to export controls under U.S. and foreign laws and regulations. The CISC and Member Agencies are solely responsible for ensuring compliance with U.S. and foreign export control laws and regulations. Neither the CISC nor any Member Agency shall transfer, export, or re-export, directly or indirectly, any Services to any country outside the United States or to any prohibited person, entity, or end-user as specified by U.S. export controls including, but not limited to, anyone on the United States Treasury Department's list of Specifically Designated Nationals, the U.S. Commerce Department's Denied Persons List, or the U.S. State Department's List of Statutorily Debarred Parties. 18. Lumen Agreement I SOW 03. a. The CISC and Numerica shall not permit any Member Agencies who have not joined the Lumen Agreement as of the Effective Date hereof to join the Lumen Agreement. Going forward, all Member Agencies who have not joined the Lumen Agreement and who desire to use the Lumen Client Software Services may do so through SOW 03 to this Agreement. b. When the term or subscription period applicable to a Member Agency who joined the Lumen Agreement expires, Numerica and the CISC shall not pennit the Member Agency to renew for continued Lumen Client Software Service under the Lumen Agreement. c. A Member Agency may terminate its joinder to the Lumen Agreement if it elects to receive the Lumen Client Software Services pursuant to SOW 03. When all the joinders for the parties who joined Lumen Agreement have terminated or expired and Lumen is not obligated to provide services under the Lumen Agreement, the Lumen Agreement shall terminate without any further action required. 19. Notices. Notices to be provided under this Agreement shall be given in writing and delivered in person, by email, or by U.S. Mail. The notice information set forth below may be changed by giving notice to the other Party. Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC) Attn: Mr. David Shipley, Executive Director 15001 East Alameda Parkway 14 With a copy to (CISC): Fairfield and Woods, P.C. Attn: Mr. Ryan Tharp • • • 014 • • Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Aurora, CO 80012 1801 California St. Ste. 2600 dshipley@adcogov.org Denver, CO 80202 rtharp@fwlaw.com Numerica Corporation Attn: Mr. Jeff Poore 5042 Technology Parkway, Ste. 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 jeff.poore@numerica.us 20. General Terms. a. Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute all further documents and take all further acts reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out this Agreement. b. Amendments. Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by all affected Parties. An amendment which alters the rights of a Member Agency shall only be binding on that Member Agency if it is signed by that Member Agency. c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of all agreements between the Parties, and this Agreement supersedes all prior proposals and understandings, oral and written, relating to the subject matter hereof d. Assignment. Numerica may not assign this Agreement nor delegate any obligation, in whole or in part, to any third party without the CISC's prior written consent; provided, however, that Numerica may assign this Agreement and all of its rights and obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the CISC, in connection with the sale, transfer, or other disposition by Numerica of all or substantially all of its assets or a controlling interest in Numerica. Any assignment or attempted assignment of this Agreement not pennitted by this Section 20.d will be void. e. Goveming Law and Forum. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Colorado, without reference to conflict of laws principals. Venue for any civil action relating to this Agreement shall be in state or federal court located in Denver, Colorado. f. JURY TRIAL WAIVER. EACH PARTY ANDEACHMEMBERAGENCYHEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT HAS OR MAY HA VE TO A JURY TRIAL IN ANY ACTION, SUlT, OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. g. Dispute Resolution. If any claim, disagreement, issue, or dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (a "Dispute") between any combination of Parties cannot be resolved by those Parties, one or more of the Parties to the Dispute shall notify the CISC of the Dispute by delivering a written statement to the CISC's Project Manager specifying the nature of the Dispute (each Party to the Dispute may, if desired, submit a written statement). Each of the Parties to the Dispute shall appoint a senior level representative. The CISC's Project Manager shall schedule a time for the authorized representatives to meet in-person. Beginning on the date of the meeting and ending no less than 10 days thereafter (the "Resolution Period"), the Parties to the Dispute shall attempt in good faith to resolve the Dispute. The CISC's Project • Manager may be the CISC's authorized representative. No PARTY MAY INITrATEANY COURT OR 15 015 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse ADMINISlRATIVE ACTION, SUIT, OR PROCEEDING AGAINST ANY OTHER PARTY UNDER lHIS AGREEMENT UNTIL THE END OF THE RESOLUTION PERIOD. h. Authority; Non-Contravention. Each Party has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder. Numerica represents and warrants that neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the performance or delivery of the Services will conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any agreement, contract, or other arrangement to which Numerica is a party or by which it is bound. i. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Nothing in this Agreement confers any rights or remedies on any persons other than the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. j. Audit. Each Party or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have reasonable access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the other which are pertinent to such Party's performance under this Agreement for the purpose of making an audit, examination, or excerpts. Each Party shall provide any documentation necessary to prepare all reporting reasonably required by another Party, and shall keep all books, documents, papers, and records which are pertinent to its performance for a minimum period of two years. k. Severability. If any term or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, then the term or condition may be modified or amended by the court to render it enforceable to the maximum extent permitted. If modification or amendment is not practicable, then the term or condition shall be severed from this Agreement with no effect upon the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement. I. Force Majeure. No Party shall be liable for any delay in or failure of performance of any obligation, nor shall any delay or failure constitute default or give rise to any liability, if and only to the extent that such delay or failure is caused by a "force majeure" event. "Force majeure" means acts of God, acts of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantines, strikes, labor disputes and freight embargoes, or other causes that are not within such Party's control, to the extent such events were not the result of, or were not aggravated by, the acts or omissions of the non-performing or delayed Party. m. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES. NUMERICA SHALL NOT HA VE ANY RIGHT OR INTEREST IN ANY OF TIIE CISC'S OR ANY MEMBER AGENCY'S ASSETS, NOR ANY CLAIM OR LIEN WITH RESPECT THERETO, ARISING OUT OF IBIS AGREEMENT OR 1HE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES. n. Waiver. No covenant or term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be waived by any Party except in a writing signed by a person authorized by such Party, and any waiver of a right shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other right or to be a continuing waiver. o. Non-Appropriation. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-110, as amended, the financial obligations of the CISC and each Member Agency beyond the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgetedt and otherwise available. This Agreement is automatically terminated on January 1 of the first fiscal year for which funds are not appropriated. 16 • • • 016 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse • p. Public Trust. Numerica shall not offer or provide anything of benefit to any • • Authority official or employee that would place the official or employee in a position of violating the public trust in violation of C.R.S. § 24-18-109, as amended. q. Equal Employment Opportunity. While performing this Agreement, Numerica shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or age. r. Illegal Aliens. Numerica certifies, represents, and warrantes that it does not knowingly and will not knowingly (i) employ or contract with any illegal aliens to perform work or (ii) contract with a subcontractor who knowingly employs or contracts with any illegal aliens to perform work. Numerica shall use the E-Verify program to confirm the employment eligibility for all employees who are newly hired to perform Services. The provisions of C.R.S. § 8-17.5-102(2) are incorporated by reference. s. Open Records. The Parties understand that certain material provided or produced under this Agreement may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24- 72-202, et seq. t. Pecuniary Gain. In accordance with C.R.S. § 24-72-305.5, Numerica represents, warrants, and affirms that it will not use any records of official actions, any criminal justice records, or any information contained therein for the purpose of soliciting business for pecuniary gam . u. Survival of Terms and Conditions. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Parties understand and agree that all terms and conditions of the Agreement that require continued performance, compliance, or effect beyond the termination date of the Agreement shall survive such termination date and shall be enforceable in the event of a failure to perform or comply. v. Headings. Descriptive headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any provisions of this Agreement. w. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in counterparts (including by means of electronic signatures), all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. [signature page follows] 17 017 Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse [signature page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are executing this Agreement to signify their acceptance of all the terms and conditions stated above, to be effective as of the Effective Date, regardless of the date of actual signature. COLORADO INFORMATION SHARING CONSORTIUM NUMERICA CORPORATION (1.t.? /JmA. V•nce Lme (Jul 25. 2016) tf W By: .................................................................. By: ................................................................. . Name: Vince Line Title: Board Chair Name: Jeff Poore Title: President Jul25,2016 Jul23,2016 Date: . . . . . . . .. .... ... . .. ...... .. .. .. . ... .. . . .. ... . . . .. . . .. . .. . .... .. Date: .............................................................. . 18 018 •· I • • • • • EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF WORK 01: INTEGRATION OF A DATA WAREHOUSE 1. Definitions. In addition to the capitalized terms defined in this Section 1, other capitalized terms are defined throughout this Agreement. a. "Data" means Records which Numerica integrated into the Data Warehouse. b. "Data Source" means a Member Agency's System that contains Records to be integrated into the Data Warehouse. Records management systems ("RMS"), jail management systems ("JMS"), and computer aided dispatch systems ("CAD") are all Data Sources. A single instance of a Member Agency's System containing Records originated by one Member Agency constitutes a single Data Source, whereas a single instance of a Member Agency's System containing Records originated by two or more Member Agencies may, depending on the configuration and in Numerica's reasonable determination. constitute more than one Data Source. c. "Records" means law enforcement and criminal justice records contained in a Member Agency's Data Source. d. "SOW 01 Member Agency" means a Member Agency that does not currently receive the Lumen Client Software Services from Numerica (either under the Lumen Agreement or otherwise), as further identified on Attachment A-I. 2. Basic Overview. Subject to this SOW 01 and this Agreement, Numerica shall: (a) use its existing law enforcement and criminal justice database to provide the CISC and Member Agencies with a scalable data warehouse hosting Member Agencies' Data (the "Data Warehouse"); and (b) integrate Records from the Member Agency's Data Sources into the Data Warehouse. 3. Integration of Records. a. Initial Data Sources. Numerica shall integrate into the Data Warehouse the Records contained in one RMS, one JMS, and one CAD Data Source for each Member Agency who joins this Agreement before October 1, 2016. Any Member Agency may elect to have additional Records from additional Data Sources integrated into the Data Warehouse pursuant to the terms of Section 4 of this SOW Ol. b. 10 Years of Data. For each Data Source, Numerica shall only integrate the Records made available by the Member Agency and which were created on or after January 1, 2007. Because it may be technically infeasible or impractical to require that no records may be integrated before a certain date, Numerica may, at its discretion, integrate additional Records created before such date. c. Information Numerica Needs. Nwnerica will use commercially reasonable eftbrts to identify the resources and information Numerica expects to use in integrating a 019 Exhibit A I SOW 011 Integration ofa Data Warehouse Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Member Agency's Records and will provide an initial itemized list of the same to the Member Agency. d. Member Agency Right to Limit Records. Each Member Agency may withhold certain Records, individually or as a class or type, from integration into the Data Warehouse. e. Timeline; Delays. Numerica shall complete the integration of the Records, as delineated by the submission of the Completion Checklist, before December 31, 2016 (the "Deadline"). IfNumerica is unable to meet the Deadline due to delays on the part of the CISC or a Member Agency, then the Deadline shall be reasonably extended to reflect the impact of the delay on Numerica's performance. IfNumerica is unable to meet the Deadline due to any other reason, then the CISC may extend the Deadline at its discretion. f. Incorporation of Member Agencies' Existing Lumen Data. Member Agencies that receive the Lumen Client Software Service under the Lumen Agreement or otherwise as of the · Effective Date of this Agreement have already had their Records integrated into a database run by Numerica. Upon such a Member Agency joining this Agreement, those Records shall be considered Data in the Data Warehouse. 4. Additional Data Sources. a. Types of Data Sources. A Member Agency may elect to have Numerica integrate Records from additional Data Sources into the Data Warehouse at additional cost. Additional Data Sources fall into one of the following two categories: i. Standard. A "Standard Data Source" is a Data Source which either: (1) has a set of Records stored in a single commercial off-the-shelf database accessible via ODBC, where such Records are generated by a single commercial oft:the-shelf product, and the data dictionary and entity relationship diagrams for such records can be provided to Numerica or (2) has a set of Records available on a network-accessible file server owned by the agency and stored in standard, commercial-off-the-shelf formats. ii. Non-Standard. A ''Non-Standard Data Source" is any Data Source that does not meet the definition of a Standard Data Source. b. Costs. The cost to integrate Records from additional Data Sources is as follows: Each additional Standard Data Source (containing up to two million $1,900.00 each Records to be integrated or equivalent as determined by Numerica) Each additional two million Records to be integrated (or equivalent as $950.00 each determined by Numerica) per Standard Data Source Each additional Non-Standard Data Source To be negotiated on a case by case basis c. Process for Adding Data Sources. Any election to have Numerica integrate Records from additional Data Sources shall be in writing and signed by Numerica and the 2 • • • 020 • • • Exhibit A I SOW OJ I Integration ofa Data Warehouse Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Member Agency. Numerica shall confirm the Project Fee associated with such Services before beginning any integration Services. i. Before Oct. 1, 2016. If a Member Agency and elects to integrate Records from additional Data Sources before October 1, 2016, the integration shall be completed by the Deadline and subject to acceptance with the other Data Sources. Numerica shall add the additional cost to the Project Fee and the Member Agency shall remit the additional cost to the CISC for payment to Numerica. ii. After Oct. 1, 2016. If a Member Agency elects after October 1, 2016, to integrate Records from additional Data Sources, integration may not be completed before the Deadline. Numerica shall submit an invoice for the fees associated with these integration Services directly to the Member Agency and the Member Agency shall pay the same within45 days of the Member Agency's receipt of the invoice, unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. 5. Member's Responsibilities. Each Member Agency shall complete the following in order for Numerica to integrate the Records into the Data Warehouse: a. Determine whether: (i) to utilize a push mechanism whereby the Member Agency shall be responsible for providing Records to Numerica over the internet in a manner compliant with the CTIS Security Policy for integration into the Data Warehouse (the .. Push Mechanism") or (ii) to utilize a pull mechanism whereby the Member Agency shall make available the relevant Member Agency's Systems, including the Data Sources containing Records to be integrated, to allow Numerica to extract copies of Records for integration into the Data Warehouse, including making the Member Agency's Systems available to Numerica via remote access (the .. Pull Mechanism"). b. Make available to Numerica documentation concerning the Data Sources containing Records to be integrated, including data dictionaries and entity relationship diagrams (Numerica shall sign reasonable non-disclosure agreements if required). c. Provide all necessary infrastructure and software information, including without limitation TCP/IP addresses, node names, and network configuration, which is necessary for Numerica to provide the Services. d. Configure its Data Sources to restrict Records that the Member Agency does not wish to be integrated into the Data Warehouse from being made available to Numerica. e. Provide Numerica with any desired Data Access Rules (defined in Section 7 of this SOW 01). f. Indentify to Numerica any Records which constitute Criminal Intelligence (defined in Section 7.b of this SOW 01). g. Provide to Numerica the assistance, participation, review, and approvals necessary for Numerica to perform its obligations under this Agreement, including without limitation participation in acceptance testing of the integration services . 3 021 Exhibit A I SOW OJ I Integration ofa Data Warehouse Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse h. Notify Numerica in a timely manner of any network, machine, or Data Source maintenance that may impact the performance of the Data Warehouse. i. Provide to Numerica timely, accurate, complete, and up-to-date documentation and information reasonably required by Numerica to perform the integration services and ensure the reasonable availability by phone or email of knowledgeable staff, personnel, system administrators, and operators to provide the foregoing. 6. Authorization of and Assistance with Push/Pull Mechanisms. a. For Member Agencies utilizing the Push Mechanism, Numerica shall provide reasonable technical support in connection with the Push Mechanism. b. For Member Agencies utilizing the Pull Mechanism, (i) the Member Agency authorizes Numerica to access the Member Agency's Systems solely for the purpose of Numerica's performance under this Agreement, (ii) Numerica shall coordinate with the Member Agencies to install all necessary software to effectuate the Pull Mechanism, and (iii) the Member Agency shall provide any proprietary software drivers that are necessary for Numerica to connect to the Data Sources. 7. Data Access Rules. Numerica shall implement the following Data access rules (each, a "Data Access Rule"). a. CJIS Policy Assumed to Apply. Data that constitutes law enforcement or criminal justice records shall only be made available to and shared with qualifying law enforcement agencies in compliance with the CJIS Security Policy. If a question arises about whether Data constitutes law enforcement or criminal justice records, the presumption is and shall be that the Data constitutes law enforcement or criminal justice records and that the CJIS Security Policy applies. b. Criminal Intelligence. i. The term "Criminal Intelligence" means Data identified by the originating Member Agency as meeting the definition of criminal intelligence under 28 C. F. R. Part 23. Each Member Agency shall accurately identify to Numerica its Data which qualifies as Criminal Intelligence. ii. A Member Agency shall only have access to Criminal Intelligence originated by that Member Agency. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Data Warehouse will not have the capability to perform inter-jurisdictional sharing of Criminal Intelligence in compliance with 28 C.F.R. Part 23, and therefore the sharing of Criminal Intelligence outside of the originating Member Agency by and through the Data Warehouse is forbidden. c. Sharing with Member Agencies. All Data (with the exception of Data identified as Criminal Intelligence) shall be made available to and shared with the Member Agencies through the API (for clarity, Data shared through the API will be available to Member Agencies though the Lumen Client Software Service and potentially through Authorized Third Parties). 4 • • • 022 • • • Exhibit A I SOW OJ I Integration of a Data Warehouse Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Member Agencies may not restrict this Data Access Rule. Each Member Agency shall treat the Data in compliance with the ens Security Policy, to the extent applicable, and in compliance with applicable law. d. Sharing with Non-Member Agencies. i. Through Lumen. All Data (with the exception of Data identified as Criminal Intelligence) shall by default be made available to and shared with other law enforcement agencies who are not Member Agencies of the CISC (each, a "Non-Member Agency") by and through the Lumen Client Software Service. Numerica shall ensure that each Non-Member Agency who accesses Data through the Lumen Client Software Service is contractually obligated to treat such Data in compliance with the CilS Security Policy, to the extent applicable, and in compliance with applicable law. ii. Through Other Providers. The CISC may authorize Numerica to, and if so requested Numerica shall, make available and share Data with Non-Member Agencies by and through an Authorized Third Party (defined in Section 6.a of SOW 02). The CISC shall ensure that each Non-Member Agency who accesses Data though an Authorized Third Party is contractually obligated to treat such Data in compliance with the CJIS Security Policy, to the extent applicable, and in compliance with applicable law. m. General. Non-Member Agencies may be located within or outside of Colorado. The CISC may restrict all or any portion of the Data from being shared with all or any Non-Member Agencies. Each Member Agency may restrict all or any portion of the Data it originates from being shared with all or any Non-Member Agencies. e. Sharing with Certain Non-Law Enforcement Entities. No Data shared with non-law enforcement entities may contain any law enforcement or criminal justice records. The CISC may grant access to Data to non-law enforcement entities to the extent not restricted by a Member Agency. A Member Agency may grant access to Data it originated to non-law enforcement entities. Each Member Agency may restrict all or any portion of the Data it originated from being shared with all or any non-law enforcement entities. f. Other Data Access Rules. Numerica shall implement any other Data Access Rules requested by a Member Agency for the Data originated by that Member Agency, provided that the request complies with this Agreement. Numerica shall implement any other Data Access Rules requested by the CISC that complies with this Agreement. If the CISC or a Member Agency requests a Data Access Rule that is technically infeasible or reasonably technically impractical to implement, Numerica shall inform the CISC and the Member Agency in a timely manner and Numerica shall have no obligation regarding same. 8. Documentation. Numerica shall provide to the CISC and to each Member Agency all documentation necessary to enable the CISC and each Member Agency to use the Data Warehouse for the purposes set forth in this Agreement . 5 023 Exhibit A I SOW 011 Integration ofa Data Warehouse Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 9. Acceptance. a. Acceptance of Integration Services. Numerica and the CISC will work to establish a mutually agreed-upon checklist for the testing and acceptance of the integration of a Member Agency's Records into the Data Warehouse (the "Integration Checklist"). Upon completion of the integration services for an individual Member Agency, Numerica will present the Member Agency w ith the Integration Checklist. For I 0 days after the date on which the Member Agency received the Integration Checklist, the Member Agency may reject such integration services by notifying Numerica in writing of the reasons why the integration services did not conform to the Integration Checklist or this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Member Agency can only reject the foregoing services if they do not materially conform to the Integration Checklist or this Agreement. Numerica shall address the issues set forth in a properly issued rejection notice and thereafter will resubmit the Integration Checklist to the Member Agency and the process will be repeated, with the Member Agency having another l 0 days to issue a rejection notice based solely on whether the non-conformance raised in the original rejection notice has been remedied. If a Member Agency notifies Numerica in writing that it accepts the integration services or does not respond to an Integration Checklist within 10 days of receiving the same, then the Member Agency shall be deemed to have accepted such integration services. b. Acceptance of Services Subject to the Deadline. Numerica and the CISC will • work to establish a mutually agreed-upon checklist for the testing and acceptance of the Services subject to the Deadline (the "Completion Checklist"). When Numerica believes that the Services • are complete, Numerica will present the CISC with the Completion Checklist. For IO days after the date on which the Member Agency received the Completion Checklist, the CISC may reject the Services by notifying Numerica in writing of the reasons why the Services did not materially conform to the Completion Checklist or this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the CISC can only reject the foregoing services if they do not materially conform to the Completion Checklist or this Agreement. Numerica shall address the issues set forth in a properly issued rejection notice and thereafter will resubmit the Completion Checklist to the CISC and the process will be repeated, with the CISC having another l 0 days to issue a rejection notice based solely on whether the non-conformance raised in the original rejection notice has been remedied. If the CISC notifies Numeric a in writing that it accepts the Services or does not respond to a the Completion Checklist within I 0 days of receiving the same, then the CISC shall be deemed to have accepted the Services . 10. Project Fee. The Project Fee for the Services subject to the Deadline is $193,088, which may be increased or decreased as provided for herein. a. Reduction in Fee for Member Agency Non-Participation. The Project Fee shall be reduced ifa SOW 01 Member Agency does not join this Agreement by October 1, 2016. [n such case, the Project Fee shall be reduced by an amount equal to $27 .50 multiplied by the number of full time equivalent ("FTE") certified peace officers employed by that Member Agency as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Project Fee shall not be reduced below $120,000. 6 • 024 • • • Exhibit A I SOW OJ I Integration ofa Data Warehouse Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse b. Additional Fees for Additional Participation. The Project Fee shall be increased if a law enforcement entity that is not a SOW 0 l Member Agency joins this Agreement on or before October 1, 2016. In such case, the Project Fee shall be increased by an amount equal to $27.50 multiplied by the number ofFTE certified peace officers employed by the newly-joined Member Agency as of the effective date its joinder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such an entity's Records have already been integrated by Numerica (for example, if it receives the Lumen Client Software Service), then the Project Fee shall not be increased and those integrated Records shall be considered Data in the Data Warehouse. 11. Payment Terms. a. Numerica shall submit two invoices to the CISC. The first invoice shall be for $154,000 and the second invoice shall be for the remainder of the Project Fee (if the payment made under the first invoice is greater than the Project Fee, then Numerica shall refund the excess amount to the CISC). Numerica may submit the first invoice upon execution of this Agreement. Numerica may submit the second invoice upon the CISC's acceptance of the Services pursuant to Section 9.b. In the event acceptance has not been completed due to CISC or Member-caused delays, the Parties will work together in good faith to determine an interim payment representative of the completed Services. The CISC shall pay proper invoices for the Project Fee no later than 45 days after the CISC's receipt of an invoice. These fees are not being passed on to the Member Agencies. b. If invoiced to the CISC, the CISC will pass all fees under Section 4, Section I O.b, and Section 13 to the appropriate Member Agencies. 12. Effective Date; Cross Termination. This SOW 01 shal1 become effective on the Effective Date. If SOW 02 becomes effective, then SOW 01 and SOW 02 are required to both be in effect. If either of SOW 01 or SOW 02 terminates, then the other shall also terminate. 13. Adding Additional Member Agencies after October 1, 2016. After October 1, 2016 and during the period that Numerica is perfonning Services under SOW 02, additional law enforcement agencies may join this Agreement. Upon suchjoinder, Numerica shall integrate the Records of the new Party consistent with Section 4 of this SOW 01 and otherwise consistent with this Agreement (meaning, for clarity, that each of the new Party's Data Sources will be treated as additional Data Sources). The Project Fee shall be determined based on the number of Data Sources and Records integrated pursuant to Section 4.b of this SOW 01. Numerica shall invoice the Project Fee for these Services directly to the new Party and the new Party shall pay the same within 45 days of its receipt of the invoice, unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. The integration of these Records will not be subject to the Deadline. Notwithstanding the foregoing, .if such new Party's Records have already been integrated by Numerica (for example, if it receives the Lumen Client Software Service), then there shall be no Project Fee associated with those Records and those integrated Records shall be considered Data in the Data Warehouse. [end] 7 025 Exhibit A I SOW OJ I Integration of a Data Warehouse Services Agreement.for a Law Eeforcement Data Warehouse ATTACHMENT A-1 • LIST OF SOW 01 MEMBER AGENCIES 1. Adams County Sheriffs Office 22. Erie Police Department 2. Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office 23. Federal Heights Police Department 3. Aspen Police Department 24. Fountain Police Department 4. Aurora Police Department 25. Garfield County Sheriffs Office 5. Avon Police Department 26. Glendale Police Department 6. Brighton Police Department 27. Golden Police Department 7. Carbondale Police Department 28. Grand Junction Police Department 8. Castle Rock Police Department 29. Greenwood Village Police 9. Cherry Hills Village Police Department Department 30. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 10. Colorado Department of Public 31. Littleton Police Department Safety 32. Lone Tree Police Department 11. Colorado Springs Police Department 33. Mesa County Sheriffs Office • 12. Columbine Valley Police Department 34. Moffat County Sheriffs Office 13. Craig Police Department 35. New Castle Police Department 14. Denver Police Department 36. Northglenn Police Department 15. Denver Sheriffs Department 37. Parker Police Department 16. Douglas County Sheriffs Office 38. Rifle Police Department 17. Durango Police Department 39. Sheridan Police Department 18. Eagle County Sheriffs Office 40. Silt Po lice Department 19. Eagle Police Department 41. Thornton Police Department 20. Edgewater Police Department 42. University of Colorado at Denver Police Department 21. Englewood Police Department 43. Vail Police Department [end} • 8 026 • • • EXIDBIT B STATEMENT OF WORK 02: PROVISION OF A DATA WAREHOUSE SERVICE 1. Basic Overview. Subject to this SOW 02 and this Agreement, Numerica shall: (a) provide the Data Warehouse as a service and provide the API, any other related software or software services as a service, and all related documentation necessary to use the Data Warehouse as a service (collectively, the "Data Warehouse Service") to the CISC and to the Member Agencies; (b) maintain and operate the Data Warehouse Service; (c) update and refresh the Data in the Data Warehouse via a Data Source refresh process; and (d) provide reasonable technical support services for the Data Warehouse Service. 2. Provision of Data Warehouse as a Service. a. Subject to this SOW 02 and this Agreement, Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards to provide the Data Warehouse Service during the Term (and as required thereafter) as a service to each Member Agency. b. Subject to this SOW 02 and this Agreement, Numerica hereby grants a non- transferable, non-exclusive, limited right and license during the Term (and as required thereafter) to use the Data Warehouse Service to each Member Agency. 3. Application Programming Interface • a. API. Numerica shall provide to the CISC and to each Member Agency an application programming interface and any related documentation (the "API") for the Data Warehouse that permits the search of and access to the Data in the Data Warehouse. b. License to API. Subject to the limitations and restrictions herein, Numerica grants to the CISC and to each Member Agency a fully-paid up, royalty free, non-exclusive, non- transferrable, sublicenseable, worldwide right and license to use and make calls to and to pennit others to use and make calls to the API to search and access the Data in the Data Warehouse on behalf of the Member Agencies (the "API License"). Nothing in this Agreement shall limit Numerica's right to use or to pennit third parties to use the API, provided that no access to the Data is allowed by such use. The API License shall terminate 30 days after this SOW 02 tenninates . c. API Support. Numerica shall provide general technical support and documentation to the CISC, Member Agencies, and Authorized Third Parties to enable the use of the API and the Data Warehouse Service. Numerica's support under this SOW 02 is not intended to provide software engineering or software design services. d. Limitation on API Usage. If an entity's use of the API is unreasonably excessive or causes a significant degradation in performance of the Data Warehouse Service, Numerica may temporarily limit the use of the API by that entity. IfNumerica temporarily limits API use, Numerica shall notify the entity's whose use was limited and the CISC. Numerica , the CISC, and the impacted entities shall work with Numerica to resolve the issue . 027 Exhibit B I SOW 02 I Provision ofa Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 4. Data Refresh. a. Under SOW 01, Numerica integrated Records from certain Data Sources controlled by the Member Agencies. Numerica shall ensure that the Records integrated into the Data Warehouse are updated and refreshed on a regular basis, but not less than once every other day. Numerica shall monitor the Data Source refresh cycle and notify the CISC and the affected Member Agencies of any significant delays or interruptions in the Data Source refresh process . b. For Member Agencies utilizing the Pull Mechanism, Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards to ensure the uninterrupted, continuous operation of the Pull Mechanism. If a Member Agency elected to use the Pull Mechanism, the Member Agency authorizes Numerica to access the Member Agency's Systems solely for the purpose of performing the services described herein. c. For Member Agencies utilizing the Push Mechanism, Numerica shall provide commercially reasonable technical support to ensure that the Push Mechanism is operating properly. d. Only Data not more than 10 years old shall be stored in the Data Warehouse, although Numerica, in its discretion, may incorporate more Data. As Numerica refreshes the Data, Numerica will delete Data in the Data Warehouse that is older than 10 years and will replace it with current Data. A Member Agency may elect to have Data more than 10 years old stored in the Data Warehouse at additional cost to that Member Agency. 5. Update Data Access Rules. Numerica shall in a timely manner implement new Data Access Rules and changes to existing Data Access Rules requested by a Member Agency for the Data that the requesting Member Agency originated, provided that the request complies with this Agreement. Numerica shall in a timely manner implement any new Data Access Rules or changes to existing Data Access Rules requested by the CISC that complies with this Agreement. 6. Third Parties Access to Data and the API. a. Authorization of Third Parties. The CISC and each Member may authorize third parties (each, an "Authorized Third Party") to access the Data and use of the API; provided, however, that before a Member Agency grants any such authorization, the Member Agency shall first obtain the written approval of the CISC (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld). Numerica may not unilaterally permit any third party to access the Data without the written approval of the CISC (except as otherwise authorized in this Agreement). b. CJIS Security Policy. Before accessing the Data or using the API, an Authorized Third Party shall: (i) agree to comply with the CJIS Security Policy; (ii) execute and deliver to the CISC a copy of the Security Addendum to the CJIS Security Policy; (iii) enroll in and maintain its participation in the CJIS Vendor Management Program operated by the CBI (and provide documentation verifying such enrollment and participation to the CISC when requested); and, (iv) upon the CISC's request, submit to an audit by CBI concerning the Authorized Third Party's compliance with the CJIS Security Policy. 2 • • • 028 • • • Exhibit B I SOW 02 I Provision of a Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse c. Notice to Numerica. Prior to an Authorized Third Party accessing any Data or using the API, the CISC shall provide written notification to Numerica specifying: (i) the legal name and contact information of the Authorized Third Party; (ii) any restrictions on the Authorized Third Party's access to certain Data; (iii) any restrictions on the Authorized Third Party's use of the API; and (iv) any other restrictions on or relevant information concerning the Authorized Third Party. d. Revocation of Third Party Authorization. Notwithstanding authorization granted by any Member Agency or the CISC, the CISC may revoke an Authorized Third Party's access to the Data or use the API for any reason or no reason, including non-compliance with this Agreement. e. Support. Numerica will provide technical support of the Data Warehouse Services to Member Agencies, the CISC , and Authorized Third Parties via both telephone and email on weekdays during normal business hours, with the exclusion of federal holidays . 7. Installation and Acceptance. The Parties expect that Numerica will not need to install or configure the Data Warehouse Services under this SOW 02 because the Services performed under SOW 01 should enable Numerica to provide the Data Warehouse Services . 8. Maintenance of Data Warehouse Service. During the Term, Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards: (a) to maintain the Data Warehouse Service in a manner which minimizes Errors ; (b) to ensure the continuous availability of the Data Warehouse Service to Member Agencies and to Authorized Third Parties, including without limitation maintaining, upgrading, updating, and repairing all Numerica- owned or licensed hardware and software; and (c) to provide upgrades and updates to the Data Warehouse Service over the internet as applicable. All or any portion of the Data Warehouse Service may be temporarily unavailable for scheduled maintenance or for unscheduled emergency maintenance. Numerica shall use reasonable efforts to provide advance notice to the CISC and affected Member Agencies of any scheduled Data Warehouse Service disruptions. 9. Software Error Reporting and Resolution. a. Reporting Errors to Numerica. If the CISC, a Member Agency, or any third party experiences an Error with the Data Warehouse Service, such entity may report the Error to Numerica using the support email address, support telephone number, or electronic support system provided by Numerica. The report should contain a description of the Error encountered and, where possible, a descript ion of how to repeat the condition that gave rise to the Error and other diagnostic information as available. b. Error Severity Levels. Numerica shall assign each reported Error with a "Severity Level" for tracking and response purposes. Severity Levels are described on Attachment B-1 . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, planned downtime pursuant to Section 8 of this SOW 02 will not constitute an Error . 3 029 Exhibit BI SOW 02 I Provision ofa Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse c. Error Resolution. Numerica shall work to resolve the Error according to Attachment B-2. Successful resolution of an Error, particularly of a Level 1 or Level 2 Error, may require the input and participation of the CISC and the Member Agencies. d. List of Errors. On a monthly basis, Numerica shall provide to the CISC (i) a list of each Error reported during that month or reported in a prior month and still unresolved, (ii) the specific Data Warehouse Service to which the Error applied, (iii) the Severity Level of the Error, and (iv) the resolution status of the Error. 10. Remedy for Excessive Errors. a. First Six Months. In six-month period beginning on the later of (i) the effectiveness of this SOW 02 and (ii) the acceptance of the Services under SOW 01 (pursuant to the Completion Checklist), ifthere are four or more Level 1 Errors in any 60 day period, then the CISC will be entitled to terminate this Agreement and, upon such termination, Numerica shall refund to the CISC and to each Member Agency all Project Fees paid under SOW 01 and SOW02. b. Second Six Months. In the six month period beginning at the end of the six month period set forth in Section 10.a, if there are four or more Level l Errors in any 60 day period, then the CISC will be entitled to terminate this Agreement and, upon such termination, Numerica shall refund to the CISC and to each Member Agency 50% of all Project Fees paid under SOW 01 and SOW 02. 11. Lumen Entitlement. A Member Agency who receives the Data Warehouse Service under this SOW 02 is entitled to a limited number of Subscription Licenses to the Lumen Client Software Service as specified in SOW 03. 12. Term. This SOW 02 shall become effective on January 1, 2017, and shall expire on December 31, 2017 (along with any renewal terms, the "Term"). The Term shall automatically renew an unlimited number of times, with each renewal period lasting for one additional year, unless the CISC provides written notification that the then-current Term shall not renew on or before December l of the then-current Term Beginning on April I, 2019, and annually thereafter, Numerica may provide written notice to the CISC that the then-current Term will not renew, provided that Numerica gives the written notice on or before Aprill of the then-current Term. 13. Effect of Termination. a. Recovery of Data. Notwithstanding the termination of the API License, the CISC is entitled download and recover the Data in the Data Warehouse, including by using the API solely for this purpose. Numerica shall provide reasonable help and assistance to the CISC to accomplish this download. Alternatively or additionally, the CISC may require Numerica to provide the Data on one or more physical storage drives. The CISC shall pay to Numerica the actual and reasonable cost of such physical storage drives and reasonable compensation to Numerica, at Numerica's then standard hourly rate, for Numerica's services in transferring the Data from the Data Warehouse onto physical storage drives. After the CISC has recovered the 4 • • • 030 • • • Exhibit B I SOW 02 I Provision of a Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Data, Numerica shall delete the Data from the Data Warehouse and certify in writing to the CISC of the Data's deletion. b. Cross Termination. If this SOW 02 is terminated, then SOW 01 and SOW 03 shall also terminate unless the Parties (or some subset of Parties) otherwise agree in writing. 14. Project Fee. a. The Project Fee for the Services to be provided under this SOW 02, on a per- Term basis , shall be calculated by multiplying $20 by the number ofFTE certified peace officers employed by the Member Agencies. The method for determining the Project Fee may not be modified until the Term beginning on January l, 2020. Beginning on January I, 2020, the Project Fee may be modified in a manner agreed to by the Parties. b. The CISC shall use reasonable efforts to annually determine the number ofFTE certified peace officers employed by the Member Agencies and the CISC shall notify Numerica in writing of the same before December 1 prior to each Term. 15. Payment Terms. a. Numerica shall submit two invoices for the Project Fee to the CISC in each Term. Each invoice shall be for one half of the annual Project Fee. Numerica may submit the first invoice after January 1 of each Term. Numerica may submit the second invoice after July 1 of each Term . b. As discussed in Section 2.b of this Agreement, the CISC will pass this Project Fee on to the Member Agencies proportionally based on the number ofFTE certified peace officers employed by each Member Agency. The CISC shall remit the fees collected from the Member Agencies toward each invoice within 45 days after the CISC's receipt a proper invoice. (end] 5 031 Exhibit B I SOW 02 I Provision of a Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Severity Name Level Level 1 Critical Level 2 Major Level 3 Minor Level 4 Trivial ATTACHMENT B-1 ERROR SEVERITY LEVEL Description (i) For a period of at least 24 continuous hours, the Data Warehouse Service is completely down or there is a major malfunction resulting in an inoperative condition; or (ii) A majority of Member Agency's Systems on which Numerica software is installed crashes or otherwise ceases to function in a reliable manner, in a situation caused by software installed by or on behalfofNumerica. The Data Warehouse Service is substantially impaired and a substantial number of users are unable to perform their normal functions for sustained periods. Examples include major feature failure, major product failure, inconvenient or unavailable workaround, the Data Warehouse Service being usable but severely limited, and any Error which could threaten the use of the Data Warehouse Service. Errors in the Data Warehouse Service to which there may be a workaround and which do not currently threaten the use of the Data Warehouse Service. Use of the Data Warehouse Service is impaired, but not critically so and users can generally fully use the Data Warehouse Service for its intended function. Typographical errors, inappropriate error messages, and other miscellaneous problems which have minimal impact on the use of the Data Warehouse Service . [end] 6 • • • 032 • • • Exhibit B I SOW 02 I Provision of a Data Warehouse Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse ATTACHMENT 8-2 ERROR RESOLUTION Severity Resolution Name Level Temporary Permanent After the Error is temporarily Numerica shall work continuously, resolved, Numerica shall work devote significant resources, and around diligently and devote significant Level 1 Critical the clock (if necessary) until a resources to permanently temporary resolution is implemented. resolving the Error. Target for temporary resolution: Target for permanent resolution: 24 hours from Error report five days from temporary resolution Numerica shall work diligently and After the Error is temporarily devote significant resources until a resolved, Numerica shall work diligently and devote significant temporary resolution is implemented, resources to permanently Level2 Major but Numerica usually will not work on resolving the Error. an around-the-clock basis. Target for temporary resolution: five Target for permanent resolution: days from Error report 30 days from temporary resolution Numerica shall devote reasonable efforts to implement a temporary Level 3 Minor resolution. The temporary resolution The next regularly-scheduled may not be available until the next software update cycle. regularly-scheduled software update cycle. Leve14 Trivial n/a The next regularly-scheduled software update cycle. [end] 7 033 EXlllBIT C STATEMENT OF WORK 03 LUMEN CLIENT SOFTWARE SERVICE 1. Definitions. In addition to the capitalized tenns defined in this Section 1, other capitalized terms are defined. throughout this Agreement. a. "Lumen Client Software Service" means the hardware, software, applications, and associated documentation that is maintained or installed by Numerica ·and used by Member Agencies pursuant to this SOW 03 to access, review, search, and analyze Member Agencies' Data, Law Enforcement Data from Non-Member Agencies which is accessible though the Lumen Client Software, and certain other data and information which does not constitute Law Enforcement Data. b. "Law Enforcement Data" includes the following types of data: (i) criminal justice information, as defined in the ens Security Policy; (ii) criminal justice records, as defined in C.R.S. § 24-72-302(4); (iii) information relating to calls for service; (iv) incident data, including original narrative reports; (v) arrest data; (vi) license plate reader data; and (vii) personally identifiable information, as defmed in the CJIS Security Policy. The vast majority of the Data in the Data Warehouse constitutes Law Enforcement Data. c. "Lumen Subscription Guide" means the document attached hereto as Attachment C-1 which states the available Subscription Periods, Subscription Licenses, and associated pricing for the Lumen Client Software Service. d. "Subscription License" means the v;irious types of subscriptions to the Lumen Client Software Service offered by Numerica, as further described herein. e. "Subscription Notice" is defined in Section 4.a. f. "Subscription Period" means either (i) the period during which an Eligible Member Agency is entitled to a limited number of Subscription Licenses under Section 3 of this SOW 03 or (ii) the period specified in a proper Subscription Notice. 2. Provision of Lumen Client Software Services. a. Subject to this SOW 03 and this Agreement, Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards to provide the Lumen Client Software Service during the Subscription Period and consistent with the applicable Subscription Licenses to each Member Agency (a) that is entitled to receive the Lumen Client Software Service under Section 3 of this SOW 03 or (b) that submits a proper Subscription Notice. b. Subject to this SOW 03 and this Agreement, Numerica hereby grants a non- transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicenseable, limited right and license to use the Lumen Client Software Service during the Subscription Period and consistent with the applicable Subscription Licenses to each Member Agency (a) that is entitled to receive the Lumen Client Software Service under Section 3 of this SOW 03 or (b) that submits a proper Subscription Notice. • • • 034 • • • Exhibit C I SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse c. A Member Agency may only use the Lumen Client Software Service (i) for its own law enforcement and investigative purposes, (ii) in accordance with the applicable documentation, and (iii) in accordance with the number and type of Subscription Licenses specified. 3. Entitlement to Lumen Client Software Service with Data Warehouse Service. Upon joining this Agreement, any Member Agency who receives the Data Warehouse Service pursuant to SOW 02 and is current with any Project Fees due thereunder (an "Eligible Member Agency") is entitled to a limited number of Subscription Licenses to the Lumen Client Software Service as described in this Section 3 and consistent with this SOW 03. Except for the fact that there is no cost to the Member Agency for use of the Lumen Client Software under this Section 3, a Member Agency's use of the Lumen Client Software shall otherwise conform to this SOW 03. a. Fewer than 58 FTE Officers. If the Member Agency employs fewer than 58 FTE certified peace officers, the Member Agency is entitled to one Analyst Subscription License. b. More than 58 FTE Officers. If the Member Agency employs 58 or more FTE certified peace officers, the Member Agency is entitled to any combination of Subscription Licenses that has an aggregate annual cost equal to or less than $20 multiplied by the number of FTE certified peace officers employed by the Member Agency, provided that at least one of the Subscription Licenses must be an Analyst Subscription License . 4. Election to Receive Additional Lumen Client Software Service. In addition to the Subscription License entitlements under Section 3, an Eligible Member Agency may elect to receive additional Subscription Licenses consistent with this Section 4. Any Subscription Licenses under this Section 4 shall be in addition to the Subscription License entitlement under Section 3. All Subscription Licenses under this Section 4 shall begin when the Lumen Client Software Service is accepted by the Member Agency. a. Member Agencies Not Currently Using Lumen. An Eligible Member Agency who has not joined the Lumen Agreement may elect to receive additional Lumen Client Software Service from Numerica consistent with this SOW 03 by submitting to Numerica a signed written notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Attachment C-2 indicating the number and type of Subscription Licenses desired (a "Subscription Notice"). b. Member Agencies Currently Using Lumen. An Eligible Member Agency who has joined the Lumen Agreement may terminate its joinder to the Lumen Agreement and receive the Lumen Client Software Service under this SOW 03 by submitting a Subscription Notice to Numerica. If the number and type of Subscription Licenses are unchanged from what the Member Agency received under the Lumen Agreement, the Project Fee shall be the lower of (i) the fees due under the Lumen Agreement and (ii) the fees due under this SOW 03. This Section 4.b shall also apply to Eligible Member Agencies who are using the Lumen Client Software Service pursuant to an agreement directly with Numerica . 2 035 Exhibit CI SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 5. Installation and Acceptance. a. Within a reasonable amount of time after the Data Warehouse Service is provided to the Member Agencies under SOW 02 or a Member Agency submits a proper Subscription Notice, Numerica shall, as appropriate, install, configure, and grant access to all software and applications provided by Numerica which are necessary to provide the Member Agencies with the Lumen Client Software Service consistent with the applicable Subscription Licenses. b. Numerica shall provide a checklist consistent with the documentation available for the Lumen Client Software Service for the testing and acceptance of the Lumen Client Software Service (the "Lumen Checklist"). Once the Member Agency has access to the Lumen Client Software Service, Numerica will present the Member Agency with the Lumen Checklist. For 10 days after the date on which the Member Agency received the Lumen Checklist, the Member Agency may reject the Lumen Client Software Service by notifying Numerica in writing of the reasons why the Lumen Client Software Service did not conform to the Lumen Checklist or this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Member Agency can only reject the foregoing services if they do not materially conform to the Lumen Checklist or this Agreement. Numerica shall address the issues set forth in a properly issued rejection notice and thereafter will resubmit the Lumen Checklist to the Member Agency and the process will be repeated, with the Member Agency having another 10 days to issue a rejection notice based solely on whether the non-conformance raised in the original rejection notice has been remedied. If a Member Agency notifies Numerica in writing that it accepts the Lumen Client Software • Service or does not respond to an Integration Checklist within 10 days of receiving the same, • then the Member Agency shall be deemed to have accepted the Lumen Client Software Service. 6. Reciprocal Data Sharing with Non"'.'Member Agencies. a. The Data Access Rules specified in Section 7 of SOW 01 permits Numerica to share each Member Agency's Data through the Lumen Client Software Service with other Member Agencies and, by default and with some restrictions, with Non-Member Agencies. A Member Agency may restrict the sharing of Data with Non-Member Agencies by implementing additional Data Access Rules. Section 7 of SOW 01 also requires Numerica to ensure that each Non-Member Agency who accesses Data comply with the CilSC Security Policy and applicable law. b. If a Member Agency elects to use the Lumen Client Software Service under this SOW 03, then that Member Agency will have access to Law Enforcement Data from Non- Member Agencies only to the extent that the Member Agency elects to share its Data with Non- Mernber Agencies through the Lumen Client Software Service. This reciprocal sharing principle applies to Non-Member Agencies who use the Lumen Client Software Service: Numerica shall limit a Non-Member Agency's access to the Member Agencies' Data to the extent that the Non- Member Agency shares its Law Enforcement Data with other users of the Lumen Client Software Service (including the Member Agencies who use the Lumen Client Software Service). Numerica may use its reasonable discretion to restrict types of Data and Law Enforcement Data from being shared if a Member Agency or Non-Member Agency violates this reciprocal sharing principle. 3 • 036 • • • Exhibit C I SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 7. Treatment of Law Enforcement Data from Non .. Member Agencies. Each Member Agency who receives Law Enforcement Data from Non-Member Agencies through the Lumen Client Software Service shall treat all shared Law Enforcement Data in compliance with the ens Security Policy, to the extent applicable, and in compliance with applicable law. 8. Maintenance of Lumen Client Software Service. Numerica shall use reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards: (a) to maintain the Lumen Client Software Service in a manner which minimizes Errors; (b) to ensure the continuous availability of the Lumen Client Software Service to Member Agencies, including without limitation maintaining, upgrading, updating, and repairing all Numerica-owned or licensed hardware and software; and ( c) to provide upgrades and updates to the Lumen Client Software Service over the internet as applicable. All or any portion of the Lumen Client Software Service may be temporarily unavailable for scheduled maintenance or for unscheduled emergency maintenance. Numerica shall use reasonable efforts to provide advance notice to the CISC and affected Member Agencies of any scheduled Lumen Client Software Service disruptions. 9. Software Error Reporting and Resolution. a. Reporting Errors to Numerica. If a Member Agency experiences an Error with the Lumen Client Software Service, the Member Agency may report the Error to Numerica using the support email address, support telephone number, or electronic support system provided by Numerica. The report should contain a description of the Error encountered and, where possible, a description of how to repeat the condition that gave rise to the Error and other diagnostic information as available. b. Error Severity Levels. Numerica shall assign each Error with a "Severity Level" for tracking and response purposes. Severity Levels are described on Attachment C-3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, planned downtime pursuant to Section 8 will not constitute an Error. c. Error Resolution. Numerica shall work to resolve the Error according Attachment C-4. Successful resolution of an Error, particularly of a Level 1 or Level 2 Error, may require the input and participation of the CISC and the Member Agencies. d. List of Error. On a monthly basis, Numerica shall provide to the CISC (i) a list of each Error reported during that month or reported in a prior month and still unresolved, (ii) the specific Data Warehouse Service to which the Error applied, (iii) the Severity Level of the Error, and (iv) the resolution status of the Error. 10. Effective Date; Termination. This SOW 03 shall become effective when SOW 02 becomes effective. Unless terminated sooner or otherwise agreed to by the Parties, this SOW 03 shall terminate if SOW 02 terminates. SOW 02 may remain in effect after this SOW 03 is terminated. If a Member Agency no longer receives Data Warehouse Service pursuant to SOW 02, the Member Agency will not be considered an Eligible Member Agency and may not receive Lumen Client Software Service under this SOW 3 . 4 037 Exhibit CI SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse 11. Use of Data and Law Enforcement Data by Numerica. Numerica may use Data shared through the Lumen Client Software Service (including when mixed with Law Enforcement Data from Non-Member Agencies) to develop new, additional, or improved services or features. Such use shall be solely at Numerica's expense and shall comply with the CJIS Security Policy, applicable law, and all ofNumerica's contractual obligations. Any new, additional; or improved services or features, including all Intellectual Property rights therein, shall belong to Numerica. 12. Project Fee. a. The Project Fee for each Member Agency's addition Subscription Licenses pursuant to Section 4 shall be calculated pursuant to the pricing set forth on the Lumen Subscription Guide and the number and type of Subscription Licenses identified in the Subscription Notice. The pricing set forth on the Lumen Subscription Guide may not be changed until January 1, 2020, and thereafter only by the written agreement of the Parties. b. If a Member Agency selects the Enterprise Subscription License, (i) then the number ofFTE certified peace officers indicated in the Subscription notice shall be updated annually based on the information provided to Numerica under Section 14.b of SOW 02 and (ii) the Project Fee shall be decreased by an amount equal to $20 multiplied by the number of FTE certified peace officers employed by the Member Agency. c. There are no Project Fees for installation or setup of the Lumen Client Software Service because those fees are covered by the Project Fees due for the Data Warehouse and the Data Warehouse Service under SOW 01 and SOW 02. 13. Payment Terms. a. Unless the Subscription Notice contains different payments terms (which are only binding on the CISC and Numerica if they both sign the Subscription Notice), Numerica shall submit invoices for the Project Fees to the CISC. b. As discussed in Section 2.b of this Agreement, the CISC will pass this Project Fee on to the Member Agencies. The CISC shall remit the fees collected from the Member Agencies toward each invoice. The CISC shall pay proper invoices within 60 days of the CISC's receipt of the same. c. Timing of Invoices. i. Project Fees for the portion of the Subscription Period between Installation and December 31 of the year of Installation shall be invoiced after the Lumen Client Software Service is accepted pursuant to this SOW 03. ii. For each additional calendar year, or portion of a calendar year, Numerica may submit an invoice on or after January 1. [end] 5 • • • 038 • • • Exhibit CI SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse ATTACHMENT C-1 LUMEN SUBSCRIPTION GUIDE · , Dashboard Investigative Analyst : Admin · create standard queries (1.e;t no free ' form text, limited to own agency). • Save queries t~ dashboard Create star)dard query-based a~atytlcs. Save analytics to dashboard C:teate deep ··text .. -.C+ileries (Le~t unstructured text) . ~ .-.. Share saved queries to other · Investigator and analyst dashboards . Mutt~agency querl~s Create link charts Share . link cha1'.t'.5 to ott'!er users' .. dashboards ' Share saved queries to alt users' dashboards • Share· saved analytic:S to other users' dashboards · . . . • Export results to file Multi·agency analyties · Manage user accounts (no cost) 6 .. ., .j . .... ./ .· ./ . 039 Exhibit C I SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Annual Recun-ing Subscription Costs $1200 qty 1-2 $1170qty 1-2 Analyst License $1000 qty 3-5 $975 qty 3-5 $900qty 6+ $878 qty 6+ $600 qty 1-6 $585 qty 1-6 Investigative License $480 qty 7-20 $468 qty 7-20 $360 qty 21+ $351qty21+ $60 qty 10-20 $59 qty 10-20 Dashboard License $48 qty 21-50 $46 qty 21-50 $36 qty 51+ $35 qty 51 + $180 $115 Enterprise License per sworn officer per sworn offi.cer Training On-site training $1500 $1400 (4 hours) Online train the trainers session I hour included 2 hours included [end} 7 • $1140 qty 1-2 $lll0qtyl-2 $950 qty 3-5 $925 qty 3-5 $855 qty6+ $832 qty6+ $570qty1-6 $555 qty 1-6 $456 qty 7-20 $444 qty 7-20 $342 qty 21+ $333 qty21+ $57 qty 10-20 $56 qty 10-20 $44 qty 21-50 $42 qty 21-50 $33 qty 51+ $32qty51+ • $ll0 $105 per sworn officer per s·worn officer $1350 $1275 2 hours included 2 hours included each year each year • 040 • • • Exhibit C I SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Date: ............................................... . ATTACHMENT C-2 SUBSCRIPTION NOTICE Name of Member Agency: .................................................................................... . Member Agency Contact Information: Name of Contact: ............................................................... . Phone: ............................................................................... . Email: ................................................................................ . Mailing Address: ............................................................... . Indicate here ifrequesting an Enterprise Subscription License (with Analyst functionality): ......... . If requesting the Enterprise Subscription License, indicate the number ofFTE certified peace officers employed: .................. . If not requesting an Enterprise Subscription License, indicate the number and type of Subscription Licenses requested: Analyst Subscription Licenses: .................. . Investigative Subscription Licenses: ................. . Dashboard Subscription Licenses: .............. . Indicate the Subscription Period requested (one, two, or three years): .................... . Total Annual Recurring Subscription Costs: .............................................. . Additional Paid Training Requested (if any): ............................................. . Cost of Additional Paid Training (if any): ................................................. . Signature: ................................................................ Name: ........................................................ . [end] 8 041 Exhibit C I SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse Severity Name Level Level 1 Critical Level2 Major Level3 Minor Level4 Trivial ATTACHMENT C-3 ERROR SEVERITY LEVELS Description For a period of at least 24 continuous hours, the Lumen Client Software Service is completely down or there is a major malfunction resulting in an inoperative condition. The Lumen Client Software Service is substantially impaired and a substantial number of users are unable to perform their normal functions for sustained periods. Examples include major feature failure, major product failure, inconvenient or unavailable workaround, the Lumen Client Software Service being usable but severely limited, and any Error which could threaten the use of the Lumen Client Software Service. Errors in the Lumen Client Software Service to which there may be a workaround and which do not currently threaten the use of the Lumen Client Software Service. Use of the Lumen Client Software Service is impaired, but not critically so and users can generally fully use the Lumen Client Software Service for its intended function. Typographical errors, inappropriate error messages, and other miscellaneous problems which have minimal impact on the use of the Lumen Client Software Service. [end] 9 • • • 042 • • • Exhibit CI SOW 03 I Lumen Client Software Service Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse ATIACHMENT C-4 ERROR RESOLUTION Severity Resolution Level Name Temporary Permanent After the Error is temporarily Numerica shall work continuously, resolved, Numerica shall work devote significant resources, and around diligently and devote significant Level 1 Critical the clock (if necessary) until a resources to permanently temporary resolution is implemented. resolving the Error. Target for temporary resolution: Target for permanent resolution: 24 hours from Error report five days from temporary resolution Numerica shall work diligently and After the Error is temporarily resolved, Numerica shall work devote significant resources until a diligently and devote significant temporary resolution is implemented, Level 2 Major but Numerica usually will not work on resources to permanently resolving the Error. an around-the-clock basis. Target for temporary resolution: five Target for permanent resolution: days from Error report 30 days from temporary resolution Numerica shall devote reasonable efforts to implement a temporary Level 3 Minor resolution. The temporary resolution The next regularly-scheduled may not be available until the next software update cycle. regularly-scheduled software update cycle. Level4 Trivial n/a The next regularly-scheduled software update cycle. [end] 10 043 EXHIBITD MEMBER AGENCY JOINDER AGREEMENT TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA WAREHOUSE This Member Agency Joinder Agreement to the Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse (this "Joinder Agreement") is entered into as of__ , 20_ (the "Effective Date"), by and among the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium, a Colorado local government entity (the "CISC"), Numerica Corporation, a Colorado corporation ("Numerica"), and a Colorado local government entity (the "Joining ~'). Capitalized terms used in this Joinder Agreement and not otherwise defined are defined in the Services Agreement (including its attachments). RECITALS A. The CISC and Numerica entered into that certain Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse dated June 13, 2016 (the "Services Agreement") for the integration the Data Warehouse, the maintenance and provision of a Data Warehouse Service, and for the provision of the Lumen Client Software Service. The Services Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment D-1 and is incorporated by reference. B. The Joining Party desires to become a party to the Services Agreement. As a party to the • Services Agreement, the Joining Party will be considered a Member Agency and will have • certain of its Records integrated into the Data Warehouse, will be provided with the Data Warehouse Service, and, at the election of the Member Agency, will be provided with the Lumen Client Software Service subject to the terms and conditions of the Services Agreement and this Joinder Agreement. C. The Joining Party has either executed or is committed to executing the CISC's IGA. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, Numerica will provide the Services set forth on SOW 01 to a Joining Party that has not signed the CISC's IGA, but will not provide the Services set forth on other Statements of Work until the Joining Party has executed the CISC's IGA. D. The Services Agreement requires that, in certain circumstances, each Member Agency shall pay its portion of a Project Fee to the CISC, who in tum shall remit the same to Numerica. The non-appropriations clause in the Services Agreement applies to this payment obligation. Neither Numerica nor the CISC can create any obligation on behalf of any Member Agency to pay all or any portion of a Project Fee. E. This Joinder Agreement may contain terms and conditions that modify or add to the terms and conditions in the Services Agreement; if so, the modifying or additional terms and conditions stated herein shall control over the terms and conditions stated in the Services Agreement solely between the Parties hereto. • 044 • • • Exhibit D J Joinder Agreement Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse AGREEMENT Now, THEREFORE, in consideration for the recitals, the mutual promises herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: · 1. Joinder. The Joining Party joins in, becomes a party to, and agrees to be bound in all respects by the terms and conditions of the Services Agreement. The J~imng Party is a "Member Agency" under the Services Agreement. 2. CISC's IGA. If the Joining Party has not executed the CISC's IGA, the Joining Party acknowledges that it will only be entitled to Services from Numerica under SOW 01 until the Joining Party has executed the CISC's IGA (unless the CISC agrees otherwise). The Joining Party agrees to work in good faith toward executing the CISC's IGA. 3. Lumen Entitlement. Pursuant to Section 3 of SOW 03, a Member Agency is entitled to a limited number of Subscription Licenses to the Lumen Client Software Services. Please refer to SOW 03 for further details . a. Indicate the number of FTE certified peace officers here: .............. .. b. If the number of FTE certified peace officers is less than 58, a Member Agency is entitled to one Analyst Subscription License. c. If the number of FTE certified peace officers is equal to or greater than 58, indicate the number and type of Subscription Licenses requested. The total calculated cost of the requested Subscription Licenses cannot exceed $20 multiplied by the number of FTE certified peace officers; see SOW 03 for details and limitations. Analyst Subscription Licenses: .................. . Investigative Subscription Licenses: ................. . Dashboard Subscription Licenses: .............. . 4. Notice Information. Contact Person: ............................................................................. . Phone Number: .............................................. ,. .............................. . Email: ........................................................................................... .. Mailing Address: .................................. : ...... · .................................. . 5. Additional Terms. If agreed to by Numerica and the CISC, additional terms may be entered here. [signature page follows] 2 045 Exhibit D I Joinder Agreement Services Agreement for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse [signature page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are executing this Joiilder Agreement to signify their acceptance of all the terms and conditions stated above, to be effective as of the Effective Date, regardless of the date of actual signature. COLORADO INFORMATION SHARING CONSORTIUM NUMERICA CORPORATION By: ............................•..................................... By: ................................................................. . Name: David Shipley Name: Jeff Poore Title: Executive Director Title: President Date: . ... ... .. .... .. ...... .. .... ..... ... .... .... .. ........ ... ... .... Date: .............................................................. . (JOINING PARTY) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD By: ................................................................. . Name: John Collins Titk: Chief of Police Date: .............................................................. . 3 • • • 046 Exhibit D I Joinder Agreement Services Agreement.for a Law Enforcement Data Warehouse • ATIACHMENT D-1 SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA WAREHOUSE • • 4 047 _, .. __,,, __ , .... __, ... ~·-· s-:=·:E.;..~a~¥ Numerica Agreement -FINAL _,,__._ ... _ ..... _\ tw1.c----;---... ,,_-.. _~-·4 ........ , __ _. .. --... --... - ... ..,. __ .... ac ... .._ .. __ ~-- _, ___ .,,.._ .. _____ .... ....__ . -----.. ----·-------------Tiii~-.. -- ____________ ._ ...... _ .. _ .... tw. .. ____ lmo __ _ ::::::=.="' .. ".=::.::.-::::::..~-- ~~£==~=~::z ...._. __ ,.,_., .. ,_,_w ____ .,,_ =----===·'=".:::::::.!::::'.!"'..::.:-.. -==--. __ .. ,,...._._ ____ .... --·-·---.. ---·---L ___ ... _____ _. __ _,, Adobe Sign Document History Created:· By: Status: 0712312916 . Kelli Crano (kcranO@fw~w.com) · SIGNED 07/25/2016 ___ ..__ ,,. ....... _____ _ -.. ~._-l_,._ _____ _ __ ......._ ___ _ f -Mo---·..----·--Trans~ction ID:. . CBJCHBCMBAAZoHHPfljZGz_hl87H<;09g4jTkHf_FkDV ....... _.,. _____ ... ...__, ---·------·(m"-.._...,..__ .... , ....... __ r'QI"') '""---------·--··----.. --... -· ...... ~-·w- __ ... ___ ,, __ .. .._ "Numerica Agreement -FINAL" History f ! Document created by Kelli Grano (kcrano@fwlaw.com) 07/23/2016-1 :31 :19 MDT-IP address: 38.88.52 .170 ~ Document emailed to vline@co.arapahoe.co .us for signature 07/23/2016-1 :34:11 MDT ~ Document emailed to Jeff Poore (jeff.poore@numerica.us) for signature 07/23/2016-1 :34:11 MDT ;..:.! Document viewed by Jeff Poore (jeff.poore@numerica.us) 07/23/2016-2:16:56 MDT -IP address : 208.184.162.191 -" Document e-signed by Jeff Poore (jeff.poore@numerica.us) Signature Date : 07/23/2016 -2:37:08 MDT -Time Source: server -IP address: 97.118.5.239 ti-Document shared with Ryan Tharp (rtharp@fwlaw.com) 07124/2016-12:10:01 MDT -IP address : 38.88.52.170 ~ Kelli Grano (kcrano@fwlaw.com) replaced signer vline@co.arapahoe.co.us with Vince Line (Vline@arapahoegov.com) 07/25/2016 -9:35:38 MDT -IP address : 38.88.52.170 ~ Document emailed to Vince Line (Vline@arapahoegov.com) for signature 07/25/2016 -9:35:38 MDT )~! Document viewed by Vince Line (Vline@arapahoegov.com) 07/25/2016 -9:37:19 MDT -IP address: 65.113.226.130 ~ Document e-signed by Vince Line (Vline@arapahoegov.com) Signature Date : 07/25/2016 -11 :49:37 MDT -Time Source : server -IP address: 65.113.226 .1 30 fl Adobe Sign ·~ Signed document emailed to vline@co.arapahoe.co.us, Vince line (Vline@arapahoegov.com), Kelli Crano (kcrano@fwlaw.com), Jeff Poore Oeff.poore@numerica.us) and Ryan Tharp (rtharp@fwlaw.com) 07/25/2016 -11 :49:37 MDT • AdobeSign Colorado Community Media 9137 Ridgeline Blvd., Suite 210 Highlands Ranch, Co 80129 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Colorado County of Arapahoe )ss This Affidavit of Publication for the ENGLEWOOD HERALD , a weekly newspaper, printed and published for the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado ., hereby certifies that the attached legal notice was published in said newspaper once in each week, for 1 successive week(s), the last of wlij ch publication was ,11b ~:!1:1•1 ' • I ''•. made the 29th day of September A.D., 2016 , and that cqp1~~.',~.f each nµmber of said paper in which said Public Notice was published were d ~H~~r..ed by carriers • . • • ,,,,,,,11111il!ill!ili11.l!il1111,. • ''' • or transmitted by mall to each of the subscnbers of said pa er, ac ~ • mg to their accustomed mode of business in this office . ! _J-;JW~-- For the Englewood Herald State of Colorado '':;111:1· 1 .rl'ii {·'",. ,, ,, '"' '~'~" County of Douglas :, !i' • ~~: ' 111111:, li\ri The above Affidavit a d~ Certl fic Af',~~blication was subscribed and sworn ·!M1 1 r11f;11: l!liil,I to before by the above :~~med Gerafd Healey, publisher of said newspaper, who is personally kno '1:,, to me to be the identical person in the above certificate on the 29th da~,11:,,9 f September A.D., 2016. Gerard Healey has verified to me that he has 11 1arlopted an electronic signature to function as his sig~iure on t~is docu~~nt. ~H£~ki!V i , Hea'th'.er L. Crompton Notary Public My commi ssion ends December 18, 2019 HEATHER L. CROMPTON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20154048391 Commission explra~on date: December 18, 2019 Public Notice CITY OF ENGLEWOOD NOTICE OF PUBLIC ttEARING OCJOBER 3, 2018 Notice Is hereby given that the Cit)' Council of tht City of Englewood, Colorado; has scheduled a Public · Hearing a.ta Regular City Councll Meeting on OCTOBER 3, 2016, at 7:30 p .m. I n the.City Councli Chambers of Englewood Civic Canter, 1000 Englewood P•rkway, regarding the proposed ReaoluUon of the Iron Works Metro District-Service Plan. Interested parties may express opinions in person at the Public Hearing, a sign...,p sheet will be available at tha door, or in writing to be received by the City Clerk by 5:00 p .m . on OCTOBER 3, 2016. Byorde_r,of the Englewood City Councli Loucrishl a A. Eills, MMC City Clark,,Clty of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway _ Englewood, Colorado 80110 Legal Notice No.: 58046 First Publication : September 29, 2016 last Publication: S~ptember 29, '2016 Publisher. The Englewood Herakt · and the Littleton lnd.ependent · . I I ·1 I • • • PROOF OF PUBLICATION $ Enyglewood City of Englewood , Colorado Official Website www.englewoodgov.org I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk, for the City of Englewood, do solemnly swear that the attached legal notice (Notice of Public Hearing on October 3 , 2016 regarding the proposed Resolution of the Iron Works Metro District -Service Plan.) was published on the Official City of Englewood Website from September 21, 2016 t hrough October 3 , 2016 . State of Colorado SS County of Arapahoe Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 3rd day of October, 2016. My Commission Expires ::k ~ £3 2ozo / SEAL JACQUELINE McKINNON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORAOo NOTARY 10 20184025ee7 MY COMMISSION ~.U.Yl a • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 3, 2016 Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, has scheduled a Public Hearing at a Regular City Council Meeting on OCTOBER 3, 2016, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway, regarding the proposed Resolution of the Iron Works Metro District-Service Plan. Interested parties may express opinions in person at the Public Hearing, a sign-up sheet will be available at the door, or in writing to be received by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on OCTOBER 3, 2016. By order of the Englewood City Council Loucrishia A. Ellis, MMC City Clerk, City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PUBLISHED: September 21, 2016 Official Website of the City of Englewood, Colorado • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: October 3 , 2016 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: Resolution Conditionally approving the Iron Works Village 10a Metropolitan District Service Plan INITIATED BY: STAFF SOURCE : Audra L. Kirk , Planner II Community Development REVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION 1ue to the cancellation of the September 26 , 2016 Study Session owing to the lack of a quorum of City ouncil, the presentation of this item with staff, representatives from BLVD Builders, and White , Bear nd Ankele will take place at the October 3, 2016 City Council meeting . . ECOMMENDED ACTION taff recommends that Council approve the attached Service Plan for the Iron Works Village letropolitan District. ACKGROUND ity Council has encouraged the development of the General Iron Works site . A component of the evelopment is financing and constructing capital improvements on the property . The Metropolitan istrict is formed to provide planning, design , financing, acquisition, construction , installation , relocation nd the redevelopment of public improvements . These improvements will be financed by debt issued y the District. This debt is not a debt of the City of Englewood and is repaid solely from revenues vailable to the District, including ad valorem property taxes. he proposed Metropolitan District is an independent unit of local government separate and distinct om the City of Englewood. City Council must approve, conditionally approve or deny the Iron Works illage Service Plan by Resolution . ity staff has reviewed the Service Plan , and has made no changes to the plan. City Council must etermine if the following requirements of C .R.S.32 -1-202(2) are fulfilled and acceptable : (a) A description of the proposed services ; (b) A financial plan showing how the proposed services are to be financed , including the proposed operating revenue from property taxes for the first budget year; (c) All proposed indebtedness for the district shall be displayed in a schedule showing the years in which the debt will be issued . (d) Preliminary engineering or architectural survey (if applicable); (e) A map of the district's boundaries ; (f) An estimate of population and valuation for assessment ; (g) Description of facilities to be constructed; (h) The standards of construction and services and their compatibility with such standards of nearby local governments; (i) An estimate of costs (land acquisition, engineering and legal services, administrative services, proposed debt and interest rates and other organizational and operational expenses); U) Any proposed intergovernmental agreements for services; and (k) Information showing that the criteria set out in C.R.S. 32-1-203, are met, or such additional information as the City of Englewood City Council may require so as to meet those criteria. INANCIAL IMPACT his action should not have any financial impact on the City of Englewood. IST OF ATTACHMENTS :esolution ervice Plan 2 • • • • • • RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2016 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE SERVICE PLAN FOR IRON WORKS VILLAGE METRO POLIT AN DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Section 32-1-204.5, C.R.S., provides that no special district shall be organized within a municipality except upon adoption of a resolution approving or conditionally approving the service plan of the proposed special district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Article 1 of Title 32, Colorado Revised Statutes, the Englewood City Council held a public hearing on October 3, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. regarding the approval of the Service Plan for Iron Works Village Metropolitan District; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council has considered the Service Plan for the proposed Districts and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council has encouraged the development of General Iron Works site; and WHEREAS, a component of the development is financing and constructing capital improvements on the property; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan District is formed to provide planning, design, financing, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and the redevelopment of public improvements; and WHEREAS, these improvements will be financed by debt issued by the District; and WHEREAS, this debt is not a debt of the City of Englewood and is repaid solely from revenues available to the District, including ad valorem property taxes; and WHEREAS, the proposed Metropolitan District is an independent unit of local government separate and distinct from the City of Englewood; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council must approve, conditionally approve or deny the Iron Works Village Service Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The above and foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference and, in addition to the materials formally submitted in connection with the public hearing and testimony presented at such public hearing, are adopted as findings and determinations of the City Council. Section 2. The City Council finds and determines that all of the requirements of C.R.S. 32-1- 202(2), relating to the Service Plan for Iron Works Village Metropolitan District, attached as Exhibit A, have been fulfilled and found to be acceptable . The service plan shall contain the following: 1 (a) A description of the proposed services; (b) A financial plan showing how the proposed services are to be financed, including the proposed operating revenue derived from property taxes for the first budget year, of the district, which shall not be materially exceeded except as authorized pursuant to section 32-1-207 or 29-1-301, C.R.S. All proposed indebtedness for the district shall be displayed together with a schedule indicating the year or years in which the debt is scheduled to be issued. The board of directors of the district shall notify the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality of any alteration or revision of the proposed schedule of debt issuance set forth in the financial plan. ( c) A preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided; ( d) A map of the proposed special district boundaries and an estimate of the population and valuation for assessment of the proposed special district; ( e) A general description of the facilities to be constructed and standards of such construction, including a statement of how the facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with facility and service standards of any county within which all or any portion of the proposed special dl.strict is to be located, and of municipalities and special districts which are interested parties pursuant to section 32-1-204 (1); ( f) A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services, administrative services, initial proposed indebtedness and estimated proposed maximum interest rates and discounts, and other major expenses related to the organization and initial operation of the district; (g) A description of any arrangement or proposed agreement with any political subdivision for the performance of any services between the proposed special district and such other political subdivision, and, if the form contract to be used is available, it shall be attached to the service plan; (h) Information, along with other evidence presented at the hearing, satisfactory to establish that each of the criteria set forth in section 32-1-203, if applicable, is met; (i) Such additional information as the Board of County Commissioners may require by resolution on which to base its finding pursuant to section 32-1-203; (j) For a mental health care service district, any additional information required by section 32-17-107 (2) that is not otherwise required by paragraphs (a) to (i) ofthis subsection (2). Section 3 . The City Council further finds and determines as follows: (a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2 • • • • • • (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. ( c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. ( d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis . Section 4. The Service Plan is hereby conditionally approved and the Districts shall be expressly permitted to proceed to an organizational election and to record the orders organizing the Districts, but shall be prohibited from entering into any agreement, issuing any bonds, entering into any other financial obligations or constructing any facilities . Notwithstanding such authorization, it shall be an express condition to this Resolution that prior to the point at which the District may enter into any agreement, issue any bonds, enter into any other financial obligation or construct any facilities; the following conditions must be met: 1. The Districts and the City shall have entered into an intergovernmental agreement acceptable to all parties. 2. A market study supporting the financial plan has been provided to the City Manager. 3. In the event that the City and the Districts have not satisfied the requirements and prior to October 3, 2017, then this Service Plan and any conditional approval granted by the City Council shall be null and void, and of no further force or effect. Section 5. A certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed in the records of the City and submitted to the petitioners for the purpose of filing with the District Court of Arapahoe County to obtain an order authorizing an organizational election. Section 6. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision ofthis Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Section 7. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of October, 2016 . ATTEST: Joe Jefferson, Mayor Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk 3 I, Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certify the above is a true copy of Resolution No. __ , Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk • • • • • • SERVICE PLAN FOR IRON WORKS VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 1454 .0003 778838 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Prepared By WHITE BEAR ANKELE TANAKA & WALDRON 2154 E. Commons Ave., Suite 2000 Centennial, Colorado August 12, 2016 • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose and Intent. .................................................................................................. 1 B. Needs Analysis/Basis for Statutory Findings ......................................................... I C. Districl Functions Generally ................................................................................... 2 II. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 2 III . BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................................... 4 IV. PROPOSED LAND USE/POPULATION PROJECTIONS/ASSESSED VALUATION 4 v. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES ....... 5 A. Powers of the District. ............................................................................................. 5 B. Limitations of the District's Powers and Service Plan Amendment.. ..................... 5 1. Operations and Maintenance Limitation ..................................................... 5 2. Total Debt Issuance Limitation ................................................................. 5 3. Construction Standards Limitation ............................................................. 5 4. Consolidation Limitation ............................................................................ 5 5. Bankruptcy Limitation ................................................................................ 5 6. Service Plan Amendment Requirement.. .................................................... 6 7. Sales and Use Tax ................................................................... 6 C. Preliminary Engineering Survey ............................................................................. 6 • VI. FINANCIAL PLAN ......................................................................................... , ................... 7 A. General. ................................................................................................................... 7 B. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Maximum Underwriting Discount ................. 7 C. Maximum Debt Mill Levy/Imposition Term .......................................................... 8 D. Debt Repayment Sources ........................................................................................ 9 E. Debt Instrument Disclosure Requirement... ............................................................ 9 F. Security for Debt. .................................................................................................... 9 G. TABOR Compliance ................................................................................................ 9 H. District's Operating Costs ................................. ; ................................................... 10 VII. ANNUAL REPORT ......................................................................................................... 10 A. GeneraJ. ................................................................................................................. 10 B. Reporting of Significant Events ......................................................................... ~ .. 10 VIII. CONSOLIDATION/DISSOLUTION .............................................................................. 11 DC. DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS ................................................................................. 11 X. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT .................................................................... 11 XI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11 • • • • EXHIBIT A EXHIBITB EXHIBITC EXHIBITD EXHIBITE EXHIBITF EXHIBITG LIST OF EXHIBITS Legal Description Englewood Vicinity Map District Boundary Map Summary of Public Improvements Preliminary Engineering Survey and Cost Estimates Preliminary Financing Plan Intergovernmental Agreement between the District and Englewood I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent Iron Works Village Metropolitan District (the "District") is an independent unit of local government, separate and distinct from the City of Englewood (the "City"), and, except as may otherwise be provided for by State or iocal law or this Service Plan, its activities are subjecl to review by the Cily only insofar as they may deviate in a material matter from the requirements of the Service Plan. It is intended that the District will provide a part or all of the Public Improvements necessary and appropriate for the use and benefit of all anticipated property owners within the District and the general public. The primary purpose of the District will be to finance the construction of these Public Improvements and operate those improvements that are not dedicated to the City. B. Needs Analysis/Basis for Statutory Findings. In order to establish compliance with the standards for Service Plan approval set forth in Section 32-1-204.5, C.R.S., the following needs analysis is provided: 1. There is Sufficient Existing and Projected Need for Organized Service. Approximately 136 residential units will be constructed within the Service Area which require Public Improvement installation and ongoing public services to the Project Therefore, demand for the Public Improvements to be provided by the District to support the development is demonstrable. 2. The Existing Service in the Arca to be Served is Inadequate for Present and Projected Needs/Adequate Service Through Other Governmental Entities Will Not Be Available Within a Reasonable Time and on a Comparable Basis. The facilities and services to be provided by the District are not currently and will not be provided by any county, municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts. The District's boundaries do not overlap the legal boundaries of any existing special district with the power or willingness to provide the same services that the District proposes to provide. Neither the City, nor any existing special district, plans to provide the facilities required for the development of the Project. Therefore, provision of facilities will not be available through other govenunental entities . 3. The District is Capable of Providing Economical and Sufficient Servicerrhe District Will Have the Financial Ability to Discharge Proposed Indebtedness on a Reasonable Basis. The District is necessary in order to provide the most economical and efficient means of undertaking District Activities to serve the residents and Project. The Financial Plan attached as Exhibit F demonstrates the feasibility of providing the District Activities proposed herein on an economical basis. Fonnation of the District is therefore necessary in order for the Public Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic manner possible, as well as the District will have access to tax-exempt financing that is not available to private entities. nsua . I . • • • • • • 4. The Creation of the District is in the Best Interests of the Area to be Served. The matters described in items 1 through 3 of this Section establish that the creation of the District is in the best interests of the area to be served, in that they demonstrate a demand for public improvements that will otherwise be unmet by other governmental entities and offer the advantage of obtaining public financing to fund these improvements. C. District Functions Generally The District is authorized to provide for the planning, design, acqu1s1hon, construction, installation, relocation and redevelopment of the Public Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District and other available revenues . All Debt that is payable from a pledge of property taxes is subject to the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. Debt that is issued within this, and other parameters set forth in this Service Plan, will insulate property owners from excessive tax burdens to support the servicing of the Debt and will result in a timely and reasonable discharge of the Debt. It is expected that certain Public Improvements will be dedicated to either the City or to other governmental entities according to the applicable procedures for the specific entity (including but not limited to standards relating to construction). The District is authorized to own, operate and maintain Public Improvements that are not dedicated to the City or other governmental entities. Detennination of specific Public Improvements to be dedicated to the City and/or other governmental entities, or to be retained by the District, will be the subject of separate actions and agreements among interested parties, including the Approved Development Plan. The City shall have and will exercise sole and exclusive jurisdiction over land use and building, e.g ., zoning, subdivision, building permit, and decisions affecting development of property within the boundaries of the District. Construction of all Public Improvements shall be subject to applicable ordinances, codes and regulations of the City. Unless the District has operational responsibilities for any of the Public Improvements , it is the intent of the District to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt incurred or upon a court determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all Debt, or upon the occurrence of an event specified in Section 32-1-701(2) or (3), C.R.S. Development within the District is necessary to provide the District with the ability to undertake the District Activities. The grant of authority contained in this Service Plan does not constitute an agreement or binding commitment of the District enforceable by third parties to undertake the activities described, or to undertake such activities exactly as described. II. DEFINITIONS In this Service Plan, the following tenns shall have the meanings indicated below, unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise : 7i8Sl8 Approved Development Plan: means the Development Agreement for the Project which specifies the Public Improvements necessary for development of property within the Service Area as approved by the City pursuant to the City's ordinances and codes, the Planned Unit Development Plan, the Final Subdivision Plat, and as well as any site or construction plans approved by City staff from time to time and water and sewer plans, as approved by appropriate utility providers and/or the City, as appropriate. Board: means the board of directors of the District. City: means the City of Englewood, Colorado. City Council: means the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado. Debt: means bonds or other financial obligations not subject to annual appropriation for the payment of which the District has promised to impose, collect and pledge an ad valorem property tax mill levy, Fees, and/or any other legally available revenues of the District. District: means the Iron Works Village Metropolitan District. District Activities: means any and all functions undertaken by the District in accordance with this Service Plan and as permitted under applicable law in order to effectuate the purposes for which the District is organized. District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area described in the Oistrict Boundary Map. District Boundarv Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit C, describing the District's initial boundaries. Fees: means any rate, fee, toll, penalty or other charge imposed by the District and pennitted by applicable law for services, programs or facilities provided by the District. Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan attached hereto as Exhibit F and described in Section VI which describes (i) how the Public Improvements are to be financed; (ii) how the Debt is expected to be incurred; and (iii) the estimated operating revenue derived from property taxes for the first budget year. Maximwn Debt Mill Levy: means the maximum mill levy the District is permitted to impose for payment of Debt as set forth in Section VI.C below. • • • • • • III. Project: means the development or property commonly referred to as Iron Works Village. Public Improvements: means a part or all of the improvements authorized to be planned, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed as generally described in the Special District Act, except as specifically limited in Section V below, to serve the taxpayers and inhabitants of the Service Area as detennined by the Board of the District. Service Area: means the property within the District Boundary Map. Service Plan: means this service plan for the District approved by City Council. Service Plan Amendment: means an amendment to the Service Plan approved by City Council in accordance with the City's ordinances and applicable state law. Special District Act: means Section 32-1-101, et gg., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended from time to time. State: means the State of Colorado. Taxable Property: means real or personal property within the Service Area subject to ad valorem taxes imposed by the District. BOUNDARIES The initial area of the District Boundaries includes approximately 8.47 acres. A legal description of the District Boundaries is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A vicinity map is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A map of the District Boundaries is attached hereto as Exhibit C . It is anticipated that the District's boundaries may change from time to time as they undergo inclusions and exclusions pursuant to Section 32-1-401, ~ gg., C.R.S., and Section 32-1-50 I,~ ru.,C.R.S. IV. PROPOSED LAND VALUATION USE/POPULATION PROJECTIONS/ ASSESSED The Service Area consists of approximately 8.47 acres of residential development with approximately 136 residential units. The current assessed valuation of the Service Area is approximately $0 for purposes of this Service Plan and, at build out, is expected to be sufficient to reasonably discharge the Debt under the Financial Plan . The population of the District at build-out is estimated to be approximately three hundred fifty (350) people . 778838 .4. Approval of this Service Plan by the City docs not imply approval of the development of a specific area within the District, nor does it imply approval of the number of residential units identified in this Service Plan or any of the exhibits attached thereto. V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES A. Powers of the District The District shall have the power and authority to provide the Public Improvements and undertake related operations and maintenance services within and without the boundaries of the District, as such power and authority is described in the Special District Act, and other applicable statutes, the common law and the Constitution, subject to the limitations set forth in this Service Plan. The specific types of Public Improvements shall be detennined in the discretion of the Board of Directors of the District. B. Limitations of the District's Powers and Service Plan Amendment l. Operations and Maintenance Limitation The District shall dedicate certain Public Improvements to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the Approved Development Plan, rules and regulations of the City and applicable provisions of the City's ordinances. The District is authorized to own, operate and maintain any part or all of the Public Improvements not dedicated to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction. Determination of specific Public Improvements to be dedicated to the City and/or other governmental entities, or to be retained by the District, will be the subject of separate actions and agreements among interested parties . A summary of the improvements anticipated to be owned and operated by the District is attached as Exhibit D. 2. Total Debt Issuance Limitation The District shall not issue Debt in an aggregate principal amount in excess of $4,500,000 absent a pennitted increase in such amount as may be authorized pursuant to a future intergovernmental agreement with the City. Further, a refunding, re-issuance or restructuring of outstanding debt and accrued interest shall not be deemed new Debt that would count against the Total Debt Issuance Limitation. 3 . Construction Standards Limitation The District shall ensure that the Public Improvements to be dedicated to the City or other appropriate jurisdiction are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City and of other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction. City approval of civil engineering plans and issuance of applicable pennits are required prior to construction and installation of Public Improvements. 4. Consolidation Limitation The District shall not file a request with any Court to consolidate with another Title 32 district without the prior written consent of the City. 5. Bankruptcy Limitation All of the limitations contained in this Service Plan, including , but not limited to, those pertaining to the Maximum Debt Mill Levy and the 778838 ·S · • • • • • • Fees have been established under the authority of the City to approve a Service Plan with conditions pursuant to Section 32-1-204.5, C .R .S. It is expressly intended that such limitations: (a) Shall not be subject to set-aside for any reason or by any court of competent jurisdiction, absent a Service Plan Amendment; and (b) Are, together with all other requirements of Colorado law, included in the "political or governmental powers" reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C .) Section 903, and are also included in the "regulatory or electoral approval necessary under applicable nonbankruptcy law" as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6). Any Debt, issued with a pledge or which results in a pledge, that exceeds the Maximum Debt Mill Levy, shall be deemed a material modification of this Service Plan pursuant to Section 32-1-207, C.R.S ., and the Town shall be entitled to all remedies available under State and local law to enjoin such actions of the District. 6. Service Plan Amendment Requirement This Service Plan has been designed with sufficient . flexibility to enable the District to provide required services and facilities under evolving circumstances without the need for numerous amendments . No modification shall be required for an action of the District which does not materially depart from the provisions of this Service Plan . While the assumptions upon which this Service Plan are generally based are reflective of an Approved Development Plan for the property within the District, the cost estimates and Financing Plan are sufficiently flexible to enable the District to provide necessary services and facilities without the need to amend this Service Plan as development and financing plans change. Modification of the general types of services and facilities , and changes in proposed financing, timing, configurations, locations, or dimensions of various facilities and improvements shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with then-current Approved Development Plan for the property. Material modifications to this Service Plan may be made only in accordance with Section 32-1-207, C.R.S . Nothing herein is intended to modify or prevent the use of the provisions of Section 32- l-207(3)(b), C .R.S . 7. Sales and Use True. The District shall not exercise its sales and use tax exemption in a manner that would reduce or cause a loss of sales or use tax revenues due lo the City from the construction of the Public Improvements . or from the provision of District Activities. C. Preliminary Engineering Survey The District shall have the authority to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, maintenance, and financing of the Public Improvements within and without the boundaries of the District, to be more specifically defined in an Approved Development Plan . An estimate of the costs of the Public Improvements which may be planned for, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped, maintained or financed was prepared based upon a preliminary engineering survey, attached hereto as Exhibit E, and estimates derived from the zoning on the property in the Service Area. All of the Public Improvements described herein will be designed in such a way as to assure that the Public Improvements standards will be compatible with those of the City and shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Approved Development Plan. All descriptions of the Public Improvements to be constructed, and their related costs, are estimates only and are subject to modification as engineering, development plans, economics, the City's requirements, and construction scheduling may require. Upon approval of this Service Plan, the District will continue to develop and refine cost estimates contained herein and prepare for issuance of Debt. All cost estimates will be inflated to then-current dollars at the time of the issuance of Debt and construction. All construction cost estimates assume construction to applicable local, State or Federal requirements. VJ. FINANCIAL PLAN A. General The District shall be authorized to provide for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and/or redevelopment of the Public Improvements from its revenues and by and through the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District. The Financial Plan is to issue such Debt as the District can reasonably pay from revenues derived from the Maximum Debt Mill Levy, Fees and other legally available revenues. A Preliminary Financing Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit F and depicts the anticipated revenue forecast and debt issuance based upon current projections of development within the Project. The actual Debt issuance of the District shall be based upon actual development within the Project. The Financing Plan demonstrates one method that might be used by the District to finance the cost of infrastructure. In any event, the total Debt that the District shall be pennitted to issue shall not exceed the Total Debt Issuance Limitation and shall be permitted to be issued on a schedule and in such year or years as the District determines shall meet the needs of the Financial Plan referenced above and phased to serve development as it occurs. As long the District's Debt otherwise complies with the restriction in the Service Plan, it will be deemed to be in material compliance with the Service Plan for purposes of§ 32-1-1101(2) regardless of whether the structure, dates and amount of Debt differ from the projections in the Financial Plan. All bonds and other Debt issued by the District may be payable from any and all legally available revenues of the District, including general ad valorem taxes and Fees to be imposed upon all Taxable Property within the District. The District will also rely upon various other revenue sources authorized by law. These will include the power to assess Fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges as provided in Section 32-1-1001(1), C .R.S., as amended from time to time. B. Maximum Voted Interest Rate and Maximum Underwriting Discount 77ltlt38 • 7. • • • • • • The interest rate on any Debt is expected to be the market rate al the time the Debt is issued. In the event of a default, the proposed maximum interest rate on any Debt is not expected to exceed fifteen percent (15%). The proposed maximum underwriting discount will be five percent (5%). Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Service Plan, and State law and Federal law as then applicable to the issuance of public securities. C. Maximum Debt Mill Leyy/Imposition Term The "Maximum Debt Mill Levy" shall be the maximum mill levy the District is permitted to impose upon the Taxable Property within the District for payment of Debt, and shall be determined as follows: 1. For the portion of any aggregate District's Debt which exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the District's assessed valuation, the Maximum Debt Mill Levy for such portion of Debt shall be fifty (50) mills less the number of mills necessary to pay unlimited mill levy Debt described in Section VI.C.2 below; provided that if, after approval of this Service Plan, there arc changes in the method of calculating assessed valuation or any constitutionally mandated tax credit, cut or abatement; the mill levy limitation applicable to such Debt may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or decreases to be determined by the Board in good faith (such determination to be binding and final) so that to the extent possible, the actual ta.x revenues generated by the mill levy, as adjusted for changes, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of such changes. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation shall be deemed to be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. 2. For the portion of any aggregate District's Debt which is equal to or less than fifty percent (50%) of the District's assessed valuation, either on the date of issuance or at any time thereafter, the mill levy to be imposed to repay such portion of Debt shall not be subject to the Maximum Debt Mill Levy and, as a result, the mill levy may be such amount as is necessary to pay the Debt service on such Debt, without limitation of rate. 3 . For purposes of the foregoing, once Debt has been detcnnincd to be within Section Vl.C.2 above, so that the District is entitled to pledge to its payment an Wllimited ad valorem mill levy, the District may provide that such Debt shall remain secured by such unlimited mill levy, notwithstanding any subsequent change in the District's Debt to a5sessed ratio . All Debt issued by the District must be issued in compliance with the requirements of Section 32-1-1101, C.R.S. and all other requirements of State law. To the extent that the District is composed of or subsequently organized into one or more subdistricts as permitted under Section 32-1-1101, C.R.S., the term "District" as used herein shall be deemed to refer to the District and to each such subdistrict separately, so that each of the subdistricts shall be treated as a separate, independent district for purposes of the application of this definition . The District shall not impose a Debt service mill levy for more than forty ( 40) years after the year of the initial imposition of such Debt service mill levy unless: (l) a majority 778838 .g. of the Board of Directors of the District imposing the mill levy are residents of such District, and (2) such Board has voted in favor of issuing Debt with a term which requires or contemplates the imposition of a Debt service mill levy for a longer period of time than the limitation contained herein. D. Debt Repayment Sources The District may impose a mill levy on Taxable Property within its boundaries as a primary source of revenue for repayment of debt service and for operations and maintenance. The District may also rely upon various other revenue sources authorized by law. At the District's discretion, these may include the power to assess Fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges as provided in Section 32-1-1001, C.R.S., as amended from time to time. In no event shall the debt service mill levy exceed the Maximum Debt Mill Levy. E. Debt Instrument Disclosure Requirement In the text of each Bond and any other instrument representing and constituting Debt, the District shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form: By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Bond agrees and consents to all of the limitations in respect of the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond contained herein, in the resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Bond and in the Service Plan for creation of the District. Similar language describing the limitations in respect of the payment of the principal of and interest on Debt set forth in this Service Plan shall be included in any document used for the offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a developer of property within the boundaries of the District. F. Security for Debt The District shall not pledge any revenue or property of the City as security for the indebtedness set forth in this Service Plan, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City. Approval of this Service Plan shall not be construed as a guarantee by the City of payment of any of the District's obligations; nor shall anything in the Service Plan be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in the event of default by the District in the payment of any such obligation. G. TABOR Compliance The District will comply with the provisions of TABOR. In the discretion of the Board, the District may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by the District will remain under the control of the applicable District's Board. • 9. • • • • • • H. District's Operating Costs The estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services and administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the District's organization and initial operations, are anticipated to be at least $100,000, which will be eligible for reimbursement from Debt proceeds. In addition to the capital costs of the Public Improvements, the District will require operating funds for administration and to plan and cause the Public Improvements to be constructed and maintained. The first year's operating budget is estimated to be $100,000 which is anticipated to be derived from property taxes and other revenues. The Maximum Debt Mill Levy for the repayment of Debt shall not apply to any District's ability to impose and increase its mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance services. VII. ANNUAL REPORT A. General The District shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Manager's Office no later than August 151 of each year following the year in which the Order and Decree creating the District has been recorded. B. Reporting of Significant Events The annual report shall include infonnation as to any of the following: I. Boundary changes made or proposed to the District's boundaries as of December 31 of the prior year. 2. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities, either entered into or proposed, as of December 31 of the prior year. 3. Copies of the District's rules and regulations, if any, as of December 31 of the prior year. 4. A summary of any litigation which involves the District's Public Improvements as of December 31 of the prior year. 5. Status of the District's construction of the Public Improvements as of December 31 of the prior year. 6. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the District that have been dedicated to and accepted by the City as of December 31 of the prior year. 7. The assessed valuation of the District for the current year . 778838 • 10· 8. Current year budget. 9. Audit of the District's financial statements, for the year ending December 31 of the previous year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or audit exemption, if applicable. 10. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continues beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument. 11. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due, in accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period. VIII. CONSOLIDATION/DISSOLUTION The consolidation of the District with any other special district shall be subject to the approval of the City. The District will take all action necessary to dissolve pursuant to Section 32-1-70 I, et. seq., C.R.S., as amended from time to time, at such time as it does not need to remain in existence to discharge its financial obligations or perfonn its services. In no event shall dissolution occur until the District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of its outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to State statutes. IX. DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS The District will use its best efforts to assure that all developers of the property located within the District provide written notice to all purchasers of property in the District regarding the Maximum Debt Mill Levy, as well as a general description of the District's authority to impose and collect rates, Fees, tolls and charges. X. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT The form of the intergovernmental agreement relating to the limitations imposed on the District's activities is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The District shall approve the intergovernmental agreement in the form attached as Exhibit G at its first Board meeting after its organizational election. The City Council shall approve the intergovernmental agreement in the form attached as Exhibit G at the public hearing approving the Service Plan . XI. CONCLUSION [t is submitted that this Service Plan for the District, as required by Section 32-1-203(2), C.R.S., and Section 32-1-204 .5, C.R.S., establishes that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the District; 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the District is inadequate for present and projected needs; nsm • • • • • • 3. The District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries; and 4. The area to be included in the District does have, and will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis . Therefore, it is hereby respectfully requested that the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, which has jurisdiction to approve this Service Plan by virtue of Section 32-1-204.5, C.R.S., et seq., as amended, adopt a resolution approving this "Service Plan for Iron Works Village Metropolitan District" as submitted . 778Sl8 EXHIBIT A Legal Description IRON WORKS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, GENERAL IRON WORKS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 2, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 28, 2016 AT RECEPTION NO. 06030247, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO APPROXIMATELY 8.47 ACRES • 13. • • • • • • 778S38 EXHIBITB Englewood Vicinity Map • !11 0 0 al Y1 l"1 :::i:: > ~ l'T1 z ~ :;o z ~ 0 0 0 " n s::: ::a l'1 ;I\ > r"'1 "1 • VI (/) VI VI ::-t ;-t ::-t ::-t • BATES AVE YICINITY JIU ( NOT TO SCALE ) • • • • 778838 EXHIBITC District Boundary Map .. , l ' -~~4 ·. ~ . :· j 1: • :: i ,. I : ,. ; l l! . .J· ' iD ·"1: I I. ., ' 1.. i I : r :1 .. I -·--j ! i t -~-..J ---1 I ' ' l1 s lf ~ fl g ' ! i----a-EN_Ee;_a~_'"_:_:._:_:_Avt_:;;_a_E __ --1~ t1st~1't~ ~!I I I -··--. = • • Ii • • • • EXHIBITD Summary of Public Improvements Eligible to Owned and Maintained by the District The District may own, operate and maintain, including contracting for the operation and maintenance thereof, those public purpose improvements not conveyed lo the City of Englewood, including, but not limited to, the following public purpose improvements benefiting the Iron Works Village Project: I. Entry signage and monumentation 2. Common area landscaping, irrigation, lighting, bicycle parking, mailbox kiosks 3 . Retaining walls, sound barrier walls, fencing 4. Streets, alleys, sidewalks and public parking 5 . Storm water detention 6. Environmental remediation and containment 778838 -l 6- • EXHIBITE Preliminary Engineering Survey and Cost Estimates • 77&838 • 11 • • • • • IRON WORKS VILLAGE METRO DISTRICT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE In addition to the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost ($2,406,978)*, the following are estimates of additional eligible public Improvement hard costs: 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Improvement Electric Lines 2,600 In.ft. x $100 = Sound Fencing 1,200 In.ft. x $105.83 = Landscaplng Entrance Signage/Monumentation *$2,406,978 + $852,952 = $3,259,930 $260,000 $127,000 $439,952 $26.000 $852,952* Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost FOR SAND CREEK PUD AMENDMENT IRON WORKS VILLAGE 8/11/2016 GRADING AND EARTHWORK TOTAL:$ STREETS AND PARKING LOTS ·DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL: $ WATER SYSTEM· PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL: $ SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ·PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL: $ STORM SEWER SYSTEM • DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL: $ 375,625.00 1,137,398.50 278,869.00 224,154.00 390,932.00 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $ 2,406,978.50 Note: This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost does not Include the following items: landscape/irrigation Improvements, dry utility installation, contaminated soll cleanup, permit fees, survey staking fees, construction management fees, and any other Items not specifically Included in the estimate. Refer to the following sheets for a detailed list of items included within this estimate. • • • • • • Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for SAND CREEK PUO AMENDMENT -IRON WORKS VILLAGE 8111/2016 Description I Unit I Quantity Unit Cost Amount 1G &Eh rk radlng art WO Earthwork -Cut to Fill CY 5050 $2 .50 $ 12 ,625.00 Earthwork -Impart CY 16500 $22.00 $ 363,000 .00 Total Gradlna & Earthwork $ 375,625.00 Notes: 1. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Is based on Preliminary Engineering Plans for Sand Creek PUD Amendment-Iron Works Village prepared by Manhard Consulting, dated June 13 , 2016. At the time this estimate was prepared, Final Construction Plans had not yet been prepared and therefore the Items Included In this estimate are subject to change. 2. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost does not Include the following items : landscapellrrlgation improvements, dry utility installation, contaminated soil cleanup, permli fees, survey staking fees, construction management fees, and any other Items not specificaUy included in the estimate . 3. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications using estimated quantities and represents Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally familiar with the construction Industry. However, since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, or over quantities of work actually performed, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from the Opinions or Probable Construction Cost prepared by the Engineer. This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is limited to those items stated herein . Prellmlnary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for SAND CREEK PUD AMENDMENT -IRON WORKS VILLAGE 811112016 Description Unit I Quantity! Unit Cost Amount 2. Streets and Parking Areas Street Pavement (assumes 6" full depth asphalt} SY 3506 $ 32 .90 $ 115,347 .40 Allev Pavement (assumes 6" full deoth asphalt) SY 4932 $ 49 .30 $ 243,147 .60 6-inch Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 2775 $ 31 .25 $ 86,718 .75 4-foot Concrete Sidewalk (6 -inch LF 1136 $ 24 .00 $ 27.264.00 5-foot Concrete Sidewalk (6-lnch LF 3407 $ 30 .00 $ 102,210.00 3-fool Concrete Sidewalk (6-lnch LF 2024 $ 18 .00 s 36,432 .00 ADA Ramps EA 9 s 2,49500 $ 22,455.00 Crossoans EA 2 $ 4,370 .00 $ 8,740 00 Street Lfahts STORM 36 $ 3,500 .00 s 126,000 .00 Alley Access Driveway Aprons EA 11 $ 2,250 .00 $ 24,750 .00 3-foot Concrete Valley Pan LF 2029 $ 28.75 s 58,333 .75 Retalnina Wall SF 8000 $ 20.00 $ 160,000 .00 6' Hiah Sound Wall LF 1200 $ 105 .00 $ 126,000 .00 Total S.treets and Parking Lots $ 1,137,398.50 Notes : 1. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is based on Preliminary Engineering Plans for Sand Creek PUO Amendment· Iron Works Village prepared by Manhard Consulling, dated June 13, 2016 . At lhe lime this estimate was prepared, Final Construction Plans had not yet been prepared and therefore the items included in this estimate are subject to change. 2. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost does not Include the following items: landscape/irrigaUon Jmprovemenls, dry utility inslallatlon, contaminated soil cleanup, permit fees, survey staking fees, construction management fees, and any other items not specifically included in the estimate . 3. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualificalions using estimated quantities and represenls Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally famillar with the construction industry. However, since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by olhers, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or markel conditions, or over quantities of work actually performed, the Engineer cannol and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construclion Cost will not vary from lhe Opinions of Probable Construction Cost prepared by lhe Engineer. This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is limited to those items staled herein . • , • • • • • Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for SAND CREEK PUD AMENDMENT -IRON WORKS VILLAGE 8/11/2016 Description Unit lauantttyl Unit Cost Amount 3. Water System 8-inch PVC LF 2722 $ 47.00 $ 127,934.00 8-inch Gale Valve EA 20 $ 1,880 .00 $ 37,600.00 8-lnch -Horizontal Bends w/restralnl EA 12 $ 565 .00 $ 6,780.00 8-lnch bv 6-lnch Tee w/restralnt EA 11 $ 600.00 $ 6,600.00 8-lnch bv 8-lnch Tee w/restralnt EA 9 $ 820.00 $ 7,380.00 8-inch bv 8-inch Cross EA 1 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 8-lnch Plua w/B.O. EA 4 $ 2,950.00 $ 11 ,800.00 Fire Hydrant Assemblv EA 11 $ 7,275.00 $ 80,025.00 Total Water system $ 278,869.00 Notes: 1. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Is based on Preliminary Engineering Plans for Sand Creek PUD Amendment· Iron Works Village prepared by Manhard Consulting, dated June 13, 2016. At the time this estimate was prepared, Final Construction Plans had not yet been prepared and therefore the items included in this estimate are subject to change . 2. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost does not Include the following Items: landscape/irrigation improvements, dry utility Installation, contaminated soll cleanup, permit fees, survey slaking fees, construction management fees, and any other items not specifically Included in the estimate. 3. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and quallflcatlons using estimated quantities and represents Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally familiar with the construction industry. However, since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competiUve bidding or market conditions, or over quantlUes of work actually performed, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost wlll not vary from the Opinions of Probable Construction Cost prepared by the Engineer. This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Is limited to those Items stated herein . Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for SAND CREEK PUO AMENDMENT· IRON WORKS VILLAGE B/11/2016 Description Unit lauantltvl Unit Cost Amount 4. Sanlta Sewer S stem 8-inch PVC LF 2628 $ 53.00 $ 139.284 .00 4-root l.D. Manhole EA 23 $ 3.690.00 $ 84,870.00 lTotal Sanitary Sewer 224, 154.oo I ~ 1. This Engineer's Opinion or Probable Construction Cost is based on Preliminary Engineering Plans ror Sand Creek PUC Amendment· Iron Works Village prepared by Manhard Consulting , dated June 13, 2016. Al the time this eslimale was prepared, Final Construction Plans had not yet been prepared and therefore the Items included In this estimate are subject to change . 2. This Engineer's Opinion or Probable Construction Cost does not Include the following Items: landscape/irrigation Improvements, dry utility installallon, contaminated soil cleanup, permit fees. survey staking fees, construction management rees, and any other items not specifically included in the estimate. 3. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualificalions using estimated quantities and represents Engineer's best Judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally familiar with the construction Industry. However, since Engineer has no control over the cost or labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, or over quantities of work actually performed, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from the Opinions of Probable Construction Cost prepared by the Engineer. This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is limited to those items stated herein. • • • • • • Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for SANO CREEK PUD AMENDMENT • IRON WORKS VILLAGE 8/11/2016 Description Unit Quantity I Unit Cost Amount 5. Storm Sewer Svstem Storm Sewer In Streets (Assume RCP, 24· LF 1494 $ 88 .00 $ 131,472 .00 inch averaqe size) Storm Sewer in Landscape Areas (Assume LF 787 $ 30.00 $ 23,610.00 HOPE, 12-inch averaoe size\ Flared End Section EA 3 $ 3 710 .00 $ 11,130 .00 4-foot ID Manhole EA 15 $ 3,935.00 $ 59,025.00 Tvoe R Inlet EA 8 $ 4,940 .00 $ 39,520.00 No 16 Vallev Inlet EA 3 $ 6,940 .00 $ 20,820.00 Tvoe C Inlet EA 1 $ 5,605 .00 $ 5,605.00 Landscape Inlets EA 13 $ 750.00 $ 9,750 .00 Pond Pumo Vault EA 1 $ 50,000 .00 $ 50,000.00 Detention Pond Outlet Structure EA 2 $ 20 .000 .00 $ 40,000 .00 lrotal Storm Sewer 390,932.00 I Notes: 1. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ls based on Preliminary Engineering Plans for Sand Creek PUO Amendment -Iron Works Village prepared by Manhard Consulting, dated June 13, 2016 . At the time this estimate was prepared, Final Construction Plans had not yet been prepared and therefore the Items Included in this estimate are subject to change. 2. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost does not include the following Items: landscape/Irrigation improvements, dry utility installation, contaminated soil cleanup, permit fees, survey staking fees, construction management fees, and any other items not specifically included in the estimate. 3. This Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications using estimated quantities and represents Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer generally familiar with lhe construction industry. However, since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials , equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods or determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, or over quantities of work actually performed , the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from the Opinions or Probable Construction Cost prepared by the Engineer . This Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is limited lo those items staled herein . • 1 .. --J . ~,..,.,r...,.. :i ~; ii ' 1/i II: • I I: ( i ,t<!l • SAND CREEK PUD AMENDMENT -IRON WORKS VILI.AGE LOCATID • THE llCMITllWl!IT OUAllTlll OP 1'9 llOllTlfWRST OUAllTDt OP ll!CTIOll M, TO ..... C 80UTH, llAllCI& H WEST OF TIE llXTll PlllNCIPAL lll!IUDWf, COlllTY °': ~IW'AHOE, 8TA11! OP COLOllADO u- ·• • -1 I r ""A 'Cf! ~ ----............. ----Ill ... , .... _ .... _..... __ llUCI ........ ---........... ._........ --- --:4 l,: ~, ... • ... -r;-1 --' ,., . ~ r-1 .:=., ~--1, \ '-r-fll.-\ ~ : l•ri::-Cll"ltt~•f"ll"I ,..,,,.,._.~ ~11 ..._, C-•O""Oll~.w» l: ~~PRIVATEROADCllOSSSECTION ··;1 1MMMKdhUll,WUiliiRB~,~WWtWWUtWWWmr~ l1 I i . I . I ' II ii H i ! H i .. . I t:j i l .,, • ! t.i i I ~·· • -u #~-Q- '<t:-. -.....,._ _.,.. TfPICAl 2Z' PIWATE AUEY CllOSS S£CTION ---~ w I -~=-.ft w ~--==--1 l.!-J ii"'<:.. <'\:-.... "'-U9-....._ ..... TYPICAi. 20' PlllVA Tt AUEY CROSS 5£CT10N -~1 -~-,·~- -::_ ""<:.._ ---l'lllt TYPICAL 26' PlllVATt AlUY CROSS SECTION i'""~ =: I ~ _ ~ _ = " ---__ 1L --,_: ~..:;_ '-·-_,/ '-· ---,._ .... .... 'lYPICAl E'XISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION DDOTNUAliStilii NOllAdt JilblWUI lWritil Mt N.T.J =-1 iJ.--... -I J :.. I~ L -~· .-,; "'\._='~----~-, = :.:..~-Y~: '-n.c} •GM&.,....... ......., .... .. 'ti ..... --....... •-TfPICAl DISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION I~ H i /!'-·-.;:Yb !11 I I' 111--... !"I w I ~'13 EP" s<:iRF'::;:rrE;I~ iL _______ J L_ ____ _ _ 2 7 < <\'_I ! -· :::;;;: .. ~~---_:--=~.,...:-::'.'~------··-··-··-·· = fWUlu.tllXV'iUOl&SWIRiliiliilUl=tOO'NiWWUiXMMllSIAVlt K.U MnPLMIWOIMAnote --.... "-· i. ~=----------Aft.. ., -c:> / =·--··--~:rt.fr~~.:=-~=-:.:, .... : : aoot• : -r··----··: r~---· aoc:., a. • I I I I ==--: ._ .. il ~ .... --..... _......-.ti •Wl'G P":f!W?"*"''"'"'·:=... ..:a ~-------_...,_, lmPL&JftcnU: ..at'f-.oitf!ffS.iilil1-MWHm--• id;::;a· L ___ .........__....... ••• _...._ __ ........... .., ......... ~. • II~ ue~ iui Ii~~ ~~"~J_ ~ . - 4-9 • .. .. _~.~~!'·' --... ....._ ... "-'-" .. , --··-..... ..__ .... ~ ... _ • ~\ I • II -4 ~1 1 i l _':' • ..J 1:r. r: lli;~ ~U. Ii· Im . Ii Ii = . ' . . . a . . ~ ~ . • • . ;. : . I a· . ii ' f II J l A~ • • ••• J . -., ••• II • • • • 778838 EXHIBITF Preliminary Financing Plan • Iron Works Village Metropolitan District (In the City of Enclewood, Colorado) llmltetl Tb, -General ObllptlailliOIWls lstiniated DisttlQ t.alli "-.. -d eon.ace rors.YDPbn """"'""'"" $ l,000.0CO DEBT SEll\1CE MlOran· TA." llE\"L>;L."E SUM:\IJll.\" • 10 II 12 I) " .. 16 IT 11 19 lO .\l:lftted\•.au.r ~ ... P"'P"'fTU 50Tu Collrc-. , ... r...cillirman\'car-·--ns,,arr-Tul Fen' l016 1017 ,., .. .., . ,., .. M.111 .., 11,111' m (19lj 2020 l,'60,COI .,, ... -4,91111 (1.1171) 2011 •.JU.l .. .,, 11•.•10 U."'6 (l,116) :ion •.Kl.J .. .,, 174>10 U,O?ll (2.116) lO?l •.l<iU .. ... 11<,6., n,.,.. (2.116) ;nm 4)61,l-M .. !70,61~ 13,006 (2.116) 2'IU •)6;) .. .., 174,610 n,.,... (2.116) ;iim 4)61.2 .. .., 114,610 ll.ll'J6 (2,•l'l :ion 4,.3'i,u4 ... t7••1a ...... (l.1111) lll28 •)61,UO ... ll4,610 ll,09' (l.116) 101' •.x.;.2'4 40 ll•,610 ll,(191) (2.llG) lOJO •.361.2 .. 40 17C,MO IJ,096 (2,116) lOJI 4,J6j).4• 40 17<,610 JJ,"" (2.116) 20ll 4)6;,z,u .. 114,6111 tl,096 (2,ll16) 211>> 4)UJ·H .. 04/aH) 13,0W. (2,116) lGl4 •X>.2 .. '° n4:"o Jl,,,,. (2,816) Mil 4)6;.l .. ... IT<,610 ll,O'J6 (2.116) lQJ6 4,ltoj.2 .. .... u ..... o n,mo (2,416) lDl7 4,J6>,lU .., 174,610 ll,D!IO (2.116) 21138 4 ·u .-s-. .. ... ., ...... ,,_ CZIJ1D Tobi l.211.flOI , .. ;..,., -Q..ir.1 ~ ·-nl.WC"-a.mr.•~ (1).,,._50Tu . 'UO'/a (1) E-.-1 Colon-. "'"" I~< Pl DSllf-....,._ m,ooo ~ .... ~ 131r.. AIL Pll0JECl10NS AND \'_\WE E.o;TTU\"JU l'llOVIDED B\' D£VE1.0PEJI lNinu'ft'tt: net ..tQbltC a~ asrbunlwa cunn11 mulct ~Ju'ld.,..J1e cdu. 1ht n.nn· • .owl Rdrl,,.,. diffn, ... Sn.(rl fhtb.t no c.onwnttmaat 10 URdcnnilc .. •hat: kftlt. IYJfllOI' Kn a ........ l!,Jlt TQ,)10 1&4,MIO ... ...., IM,ltO 114,'90 IM,l90 IM,ll90 IM,na '"'·"° 114.'90 1&4,IOO 114,1911 ,..._ 114,1911 JM,llO l"-990 IM,DQ 114,llO IM ... ~·~."I: • • St.-iltl!S 2Dlf ~:~-~~\~~'i.~- ~\.'~t:f.~~l! f~~~{~~~i!~ :~~t~~ tt;,;o.i~ CAI'! w=-~:_I =. (·.·.~., N<tl\nl Dd>! I 0-htta c-.. . ....... """' .. ._;.. '·'···-.":.'' ·-;: .. '' .,. ;; l,IJIJO,IDl Zl,OOlt .a1JOIJ%· ,.,IJOO •>.oao (UU) 102,675 J.11• ·;::.,.j (tO,lllj) 0.12 U'1'>p:JO 14..W..• •>.cm ... tm"4 ~.000 61,000 (2.1151 121,•n ,.,. "'·.,CSU&$/, a.st l,9lll,ll00 11• .uv. 15,000 ..000".I. 77,200 (l.l2S) 14t,ns E ~~l l.l! l,&Sl,IXll! .. ,~ ~000 4Ql0",4" 1-l;lllO (2,l1S) ISUU 1.%2 r_ns.ouo «Jfita'A 111,00Q -'JD?.• . Tl,OOlt (U25) 141,671 U4 1,1on,ono JI ti]~·. "-ODO ....,.,, .,..,., (J,ll51 U0.4TS Lll 1,610,000 l6 .. ,. ,..000 .a .oc.m.• "'·-(1.W) IUJllS ·~ 1,;Jll,000 J.41Z"k tO,OOlt ... GUA 6ll,IDI (UlS) 14'415 UGO I ··'•""'415 ' ··~ l,'4l0,.000 )l1•~ fl,000 UJ'lr.• Sl,lllll (2.lZll 1•9,ITS •)DO :~>)'6.llli ! 1.n 1.ns.uoo J.O'ir.t 100,000 4.000% )l,400 (2.llS) Ul,OU ~:L~:~, l.ll 1,lll,000 21m• IDS-,000 ...... 4 "·""' (UlS) IU,OTS 1.:U !,l)0,000 n.,.,. 110,000 .t.O'XrA •l.lOll (2.lZS) 152.J!TS •).OD r>::-., S2ptl { 1.21 1.020.000 lJ )7~· IJD,tm ... ow.~ ....... (2.l2S) l<a,<TS l,<.IJO \\\;;'Jl,111 . l.2S tin.UDO ~~~ .. <''.'.'•..(JS'-fl15 lll,000 .. .cncr.. 3',400 (2,)25} 149,G'tS ~-: ,._ '™'s · l.l• n\o ,ooo II ?t~• 1.211,000 •IDl'A ll.llOO (l.S2S) 14'.m 4.IOO i~/;.°Jl,41S' 1.24 •n.ooo 1; i6Yt 12),000 4000'.\ %1,000 (2,l1S) 149,615 4,<00 F; .;:.3U1S : 1.2• iJ.Q_GOO ll.'84 llQ.000 .IJJOO'"A ll,000 (2..1») ''"·'']$ 4400 .,::.:··~'..U.:IS 1.14 U0,000 '·'·~· l)S,OOD t.IDJ'.i 1 .. llOO !Zl2S) 149,<TS ~600 > '?35,415 ! 1.24 llJS,000 ... l~· 1.ao.000 -IDJlr/• 11.IOO {2.l.tS) •49,UU 5,000 ' .<' 35#1as : 1.24 14!i,OOO )~ 2'• ,,., ... , ... ~en.. .. ~ • .. .?,Jllr..?:ftJ .. ._.. llOO t• 47S ~.u:o ? ,· . ··~ 1.l.S a i«Y.'- l _ooo.o:n 971 ,tlW'I 11\11.f@) """'~·· 2.921.1<>'· '77.Jll :aa\Ci7 STIFEL!~. hceJ 8/8/2016 STIFEL! P1.1blt' fi n~~lU!· P~t<!2 • • • • Iron Works Village Metropolitan District (In the City of Englewood, Colorado) Limired Tax, General Oblitl'l'tion Bonds Rcs.idtntial Buildout Summaoy For Service Plan Uniu si: llomc Cnnilo-3 bJ Th Cond-2bJ Dunlcx Ave SF 11175 1490 nn n20 1875 EOY 2016 Staning Median Price S4'Jl,250 5395,00!1 Sl<o7 ,UJ. 5350,000 $463,750 Aascsacd Value 539 ,104 531,442 $29,224 527,860 S36,91S 40 Mills Annua\Pmt $1,SM Sl,258 Sl,169 $1,114 $1,477 2016 $ $ s s s $ . s Rcsidcnual Assc:urd Value S • S hssc:ssmcnt !Ute: 7 .%~• ,\nnUJI Rase AV S S TotalAV $ -$ AIL l'ROJEcnONS AND VALUE ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER Th• interest ntc and nbng assumpbons an: based on curtcnt nwkct cunditions and similu cn:diis. The Dastnct'• ~ctual raults ITl2f d1fT.r, md Stifel rrW<cs no comrnumcnt to undawntc ~t these 1..-cls . • Homes Sales Revenues 2017 989,8?0 s . s 1,11 10 ,925 s . s 913,078 s l ,7:B.893 s 3,733,893 s 7 .96°< 2''7,218 s 297,218 s 2018 1,524 ,150 s . s 12.757 638 s -s 2.838,70) 5 17,120,491 $ 17, 120,491 s 7.96". 1,362,791 s 1,660,009 s 8/8/2016 STIFEL I Put:n, rmJ~'!' 2019 4.0'J4 ,4tl8 7.367.647 11 .2"1 ,8!9 <.,527.1144 4,794,439 :H,985,367 33,985,367 7.96°'· 2,705,235 4,365,244 Product Type .. Sl-'llotm Condn-3bd Th Cond· 2bd Duplex To12l • Tn1~1 s 6,6011.448 s 7,l<o7,"47 s 25,770,J.92 $ 6 ,527,044 $ R,5fo6,220 s 5(839,751 P~ge3 Iron Works Village Metropolitan District ~In the Ci!,t ofEns_lewood, Colorado! Limiu:d Tax, General O~rion Bo~ For Service Plan DSSchcdulc Serl Dote Prinarat Coupon lnleral Total l 12/1/2019 s 25,000 s 2,000,000 0.04 s 80,000 $ 105,000 2 12/1/2020 s 45,000 s 1,975,000 0.04 s 79,000 s 124,000 l 12/1/2021 s 75,000 s li)30,000 O.IH $ n,200 s 152,200 4 12/l/211U S 80,000 s 1,855,000 0.04 s 74,200 $ 154,200 s 12/1/2023 s K0,000 s 1,n5,ooo O.IH $ 71,000 s 151 ,000 6 12/1/2024 s 85,000 s 1,695,000 0.04 $ 67,800 $ 152,800 7 12/1/2025 s 90,000 s l,<il0,000 0 .04 s 64,400 s 154,400 8 12/1/2026 s 90,000 $ 1,520,000 0.04 $ liO,ROO $ 150,800 9 12/1/2027 s 95,000 s 1,430,000 0.IM $ 57,200 · 5 152,200 10 12/1/2028 s 100,000 s 1,335,000 0.04 s Sl,400 S 151,400 11 12/ 1 /202') s 105,000 s 1,235,000 0.04 s 49,400 s 154,400 12 12/1/21130 s 110,000 s 1,ll0,000 0 .04 s 45,200 s 155,200 13 12/1/2011 s 110,000 s 1,020,000 0 .0<4 s 40,800 s 150,ROO 14 12/1/2012 s 115,000 $ 910,0110 0 .04 s 36,400 s 151,400 15 12/l/20ll s 120,000 s 795,000 0.04 s ll.800 s 151,800 16 12/1/20)4 s 125,000 s 67S,OOO 0.04 s 27,000 s 1S2,000 17 12/1/2035 s no.ooo s 550,000 0.04 s 22,000 $ 152.,000 18 12/l/'1JJJ6 s 135,000 $ 4'1JJ,OOO 0 .04 s 16,800 s ISl,800 19 12fl/20l7 s H0,000 S 285,000 0 .04 s 11,400 s 151,400 20 12/l/21B8 s 145.000 $ 145.000 004 s 5.800 s 150,800 s 2,000,000 s BrmJToul s 2,000,000 COi c>t s 100,000 Fcccsl s 40,000 C.p,. s lei0,000 DSIW• s 155,000 Bond Ptocccds s 1,545,000 • Can be uscJ foe bst you bond paymc:nt 8/8/2016 STIFEL I l'~t1 lir f:":r,,;i--,o~ hge4 • • • • • DISCLOSURE Sbfcl, Nicolaus &. Company, lncotporated (S11fd) lw prepuW lhc atbcmd matcruk. Such nulcnal cnnmrs of f~ or i:cncnl 'snfonmlion (as defsncd in !he SEC's MURKipal Advssor Rule). Safe) is not hereby pnmding a muruopal cnllly or obligated pcnon wsth any ad\-.c.e or nuking any rccommcnda11on as to Kbon concmung the •!JUCtWe, llmin1t or terms of :any isswncc of mllnlap:al nruntics or muniapol fsnanaal products. To the clncnt that S11fcl proY1dcs :my :ol1cm1tivcs, options, alculations or examples in the atta~ information, 1uch rnfornuuon is not intended to express :iny ·new that the rrtlllUClf'al entity 01 obligated pcnon could achK\·c panicubr l'CSUlts in any mwuopal secunllcs tnnsacllan, and those alternatives, opaons, olcu!aaons or CDmplcs do not c:onstJNtc a rccommatd2tion th3t any muruap:al tSSuet or obbgated person should effect any muniapal sccuritJcs tnnuctlon. Stifd is acting in iu 0\1/n interests, IS not actsng as Jour murucrpal ach'lsor and docs nor owe a f.duci.ry Jul}' punwnt 10 Section 15B of the Sccunllcs Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to the~ mlllJ or obligated puty with respect to the infomuaon and matcrUls con12aicd in this curnmunscation. Stifel is pmnding infonmoon :&nd 'is dcc!arini: to the proposed munrapal issuer and any obligated pcnon that rt h:as Jone: so within the rq:ubtory framework or MSllB Rule G-23 as an undcrwntei (by dcfinibOn also mduding the rok of pbo:mtnt agmt) and no< u a fmanaal acmsor, as defm«I therein, wsth respect to the tefcrcnccd proposed JSsumcc of muniapal H:cun11es. The pnmuy role of Snfc~ as an underwriter, is 10 purchase securities for rualc to •n•CStors in 211 :um's-lmgth conuncra:aJ lnnSKbOI\. Scn'lllg II\ the role or undorwntcr, Stifd has limncul and other intcrcsa !hot differ from those of the issuer. The wucr should consulr With its own flrWlcial and/or mw11ClJ121, ltg:il. accaunbng. taX and olhcr •misor1, as :applicable, 10 the extent •t deems appropnate. These matcnal• have been prcpated by Sbfcl for the client or potcnll&I client to whom such rmtcmls arc dncctly arldra•cd :and dcli.-ctcd for J.scumon pwposcs only. All tcnrJS and conditJnn• an: sub1cct to further d..cwncm and ncgollalJOIL Sufd docs no< cxt>JeS• any •"icw .. 10 whether fmancing opnons p<CScntc:d in these materials ate achicwblc 01,.;11 be av:ail>blc at the time of any contemplated lr.ltlS:ltbon. These matrnals do not consblUtc :an offer or soliatallon to sell or purchase any •tturilin and uc not a commitment by Sufd to pm\-idc or arnngc :any linartcing for any tnns:icllon or to purchase any sccunty in connccbon therewith and may nor relied upon as an indocillon that such an offer will be providrd in the foNlc. Where indicated, this prc:smbtion may conwn infurnuuon Jcn~cd from sowccs other th:&n Stifel Wlulc we bdic\•c such snfomullon to be accuntc and complete. Snfd docs not guarantee doc •<curacy of this infonmbOIL 11us mitcri:ol is based on infonnaoon cum:ntly •\"lilablc to S11fd or its sources and as subject to change wrthout noUcc. Sbfcl docs not prr>Vldc accountsng. tax nr lcg:al ad.-Kc; howrtcr, you should be awuc that any proposed indtanwc tnnsacuon could han accounung. as, lcg:al or other imp~ca11ons thai should be discussed with your advuors :ind /or counsel as you ~ml appropnare. 8/8/2016 STIFEL I l'l1M1t Hn~n!•: • Pages • EXHIBITG Intergovernmental Agreement between the District and Englewood • • 778838 • 19. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO AND IRON WORKS VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this _ day of , --~ by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a home-rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (the "City"), and IRON WORKS VILLAGE METRO POLIT AN DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the "District"). The City and the District are collectively referred to as the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, the District was organized to provide those services and to exercise powers as are more specifically set forth in the District's Service Plan approved by the City on October 3, 2016 ("Service Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City and the District have determined it to be in the best interests of their respective taxpayers, residents and property owners to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual agreements herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: COVENANTS AND AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation by Reference. The Service Plan is hereby incorporated in this agreement by this reference. The District agrees to comply with all provisions of the Service Plan. 2. Enforcement. The parties agree that this agreement may be enforced in law, or in equity for specific performance, injunctive, or other appropriate relief. The parties also agree that this agreement may be enforced pursuant to Section 32-1-207, C.R.S. and other provisions of Title 32, Article 1, C.R.S., granting rights to municipalities or counties approving a service plan of a special district. 3. Entire Agreement of the Parties. This written agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements, negotiations, or representations and understandings of the parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein. 4. Amendment. This agreement may be amended, modified, changed, or tenninated in whole or in part only by a written agreement duly authorized and executed by the parties hereto. . I . • • • • • • 5. Governing Law: Venue. The internal laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this agreement, without giving effect to choice of law or conflict of law principles. The parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of and venue in the district court in Arapahoe County. Colorado. In any proceeding brought to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the prevaiJing party therein shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, actual court costs and other expenses incurred. 6. Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise stated herein, this agreement is intended to describe the rights and responsibilities of and between the named parties and is not intended to, and shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon any persons or entities not named as parties. 7. Effect of Invalidity. If any portion of this agreement is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both parties, such portion shall be deemed severable and its invalidity or its unenforceability shall not cause the entire agreement to be tcnninated. 8. Assignability. Neither the City nor the District shall assign their rights or delegate their duties hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. 9. Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when given by hand delivery, overnight delivery, mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, delivered electronically (if confirmed promptly telephonically) or dispatched by telegram or tclecopy (if confinned promptly telephonically), addressed to the following address or at such other address or addresses as any party hereto shall designate in writing to the other party hereto: City of Englewood Attn: City Attorney Englewood Civic Center 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood. CO 80110 Iron Works Village Metropolitan District c/o White Bear Ankclc Tanaka & Waldron Attn: Sean Allen, Esq. 2154 E. Commons Ave .. Suite 2000 Centennial, CO 80122 10. Successors and Assigns. This agreement and the rights and obligations created hereby shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the City have caused this Agreement to be duly executed to be effective as of the day first above written. Attest: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: IRON WORKS VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado By: _____________ _ President WHITE BEAR ANKELE TAN AKA & WALDRON Attorneys At Law General Counsel to the District CITY OF ENGLEWOOD By: ____________ _ Attest: By: ________ _ I~: ~~~~~~~~~~- APPROVED AS TO FORM:---------- • • • Date October 3, 2016 Initiated By COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 11ai De artment Of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Establishing The 2016 Mill Lev Collected in 2017 Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool , General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22, Study Session . The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session. On September 12, 2016, the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations. A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016 . Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26, 2016 Study Session was not held . RECOMMENDED ACTION .ff recommends Council approve this bill for an ordinance establishing the 2016 mill levy to be collected in 2017. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood assesses property tax for the general government operations and for the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund. TABOR restricts the City from raising the mill levy without a vote of the citizens. The City's general mill levy has been unchanged since 1992. This year's General Fund mill levy remains unchanged at 5.880 mills ; however, the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service mill levy is 1.919. The 2016 mill levy total of 7. 799 for collection in 2017 is certified to Arapahoe County by December 15 , 2016 . • FINANCIAL IMPACT Based on the assessed valuation for the City of Englewood as certified by the Arapahoe County Assessor, the estimated net assessed value of all properties in Englewood for 2016 is $575,373,717 compared to $595,636,070 for 2015. The 2016 mill for General Fund operations is 5.880 mills and 1.919 mills for the • General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund . The total mill levy is 7.799 for 2016 collected in 2017. The total amount budgeted for the General Fund is $3,356,000 (net of uncollectibles, abatements, etc.). The amount budgeted for the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund is $1, 102,000 (net of uncollectibles, abatements, etc .). For example, a homeowner with a $200,000 dollar home in Englewood would pay the following to the City of Englewood: Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value General Operations Mill Levy Taxes Paid For General Fund Operations Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value Community Center Bond Fund Mill Levy Taxes Paid For General Obligation Bonds Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value Total Mill Levy Total Taxes Paid To City Of Englewood LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for an ordinance $200,000 7.96% $15,920 5.88 $93.61 $200,000 7.96% $15,920 1.919 $30.55 $200,000 7.96% $15,920 7.799 $124.16 • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 31 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE FIXING THE TAX LEVY IN MILLS UPON EACH DOLLAR OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, it is the duty of the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, under the Englewood Home Rule Charter and Colorado Revised Statutes, to make the annual property levy for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the estimated valuation of all the taxable property within the City and the needs of the City and of each of said levies and has determined that the levies as hereinafter set forth, are proper and wise; and WHEREAS, the following levies are permitted under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution without a vote by the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That there be and hereby is levied for the year of 2016, due and payable as required by statute in the year 2017 , a tax of 5 .880 mills on the dollar for the General Fund of the City of Englewood, Colorado, and 1.919 mills on the dollar for the General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund of the City of Englewood, Colorado. That the levy hereinabove set forth shall be levied upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the corporate limits of the City of Englewood, Colorado, and the said levy shall be certified by law. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016 . 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date October 3, 2016 Initiated By Agenda Item 11 aii De artment of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Adopting The Budget For The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant For Fiscal Year2017 Staff Source Kath Rinkel, Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool, General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion. The Proposed Budget was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their August 18, 2016 meeting. The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22, Study Session. The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session. On September 12, 2016, the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . • ublic hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016. Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26, 2016 Study Session was not held. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget for fiscal year 2017. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City Council of the City of Englewood acts as administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, a part of the duties include adopting bills for ordinances for the 2017 Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2017 Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget indicates a beginning funds available balance of $115 ,674, total sources of funds of $19 , 155,242 and total uses of funds of at $19, 155,242 leaving the ending funds available balance at $115,674 . The total appropriation (use of funds) for 2017 is $19, 155,242. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for ordinance • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 32 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council within three weeks after its submission on September 12, 2016. The hearing was held at the meeting of City Council on September 19, 2016, regular notice of the time and place of said hearing having been published within seven days after the submission of the budget in the manner provided in the Charter for the publication of an ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of an agreement between the City of Littleton, Colorado, and the City of Englewood, Colorado, a budget for fiscal year 2017 was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their meeting; held on August 18, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, as the administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, has studied the budget on numerous occasions; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to adopt the 2017 budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant as now submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the budget of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for fiscal year 201 7, as submitted by the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee and duly considered by the City Council after public hearing, is hereby adopted as the budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for the fiscal year 2017, as follows: Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund Balance -January 1, 2017 Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance -December 31, 2017 1 $ $ $ $ 115,674 19,155,242 19,155,242 115,674 Section 2. That the said budget as accepted shall be a public record in the Office of the City Clerk and shall be open to public inspection. Sufficient copies thereof shall be made available for the use of the City Council and the public, the number of copies to be determined by the City Manager. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date October 3, 2016 Agenda Item 11aiii Initiated By Department of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Appropriating Funds For The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant For Fiscal Year 2017 Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting 's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool , General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion. The Proposed Budget was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their August 18, 2016 meeting . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22 , Study Session . The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12, 2016 , the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19 , 2016 . .. to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriating funds for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for fiscal year 2017 . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City Council of the City of Englewood acts as administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, a part of the duties include adopting bills for ordinances for the 2017 Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than th irty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2017 Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget indicates a beginning funds available balance of $115 ,67 4 , total sources of funds of $19 , 155 ,242 and total uses of funds of at $19 , 155,242 leaving the ending funds available balance at $115 ,674 . The total appropriation (use of funds) for 2017 is $19 , 155 ,242 . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for ordinance • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 33 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PURPOSES IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2017, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, the Cities of Englewood and Littleton entered into a contract to build, maintain, and operate a joint Wastewater Treatment Plant facility; and WHEREAS, the operations, including budget matters, of this joint facility are overseen by the Supervisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood operates the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant under the control of the Supervisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant has its own fund for operations and maintenance; and WHEREAS, the Supervisory Committee was provided the following as the 2017 appropriations at their meeting held on August 18, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That pursuant to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant agreement, there be and hereby is appropriated from the revenue derived from operation of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Englewood, Colorado, and from all other sources of revenue in the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund including available fund balance during the year beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2017, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified as follows: Total Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund $ 19,155,242 Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date October 3, 2016 Initiated By Agenda Item 11aiv De artment Of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Adopting the Budget For Fiscal Year 2017 Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool, General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22, Study Session. The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12, 2016, the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations. A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016. Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held. RECOMMENDED ACTION iJJlff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the 2017 Budget. TAcKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to insure there is legal authority to expend funds . Due to limited growth in the revenue sources available to the City, the 2017 Budget limited expenditures increases as much as possible while limiting the impact on the citizens . City staff and Council worked together to hold expenditure increases in check as much as possible but some expenditures , mainly personnel-related, will continue to grow outside of the control of staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Englewood 2016 Budget for all funds provides for total sources of funds of $91,601,698 and total uses of funds of $98, 718,882 . The below chart depicts at a fund level the Estimated Beginning Balance , Sources of Funds , Uses of Funds and Estimated Ending Balance for 2017 . • :<i~Y.!?lim~~-~t:t.t .~-fi ~:~IYP i§lj_ - Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unappropriated • Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance General Fund 8 ,851 ,902 45,186,231 44,983, 109 9 ,055 ,024 4,773,099 4,281,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 188,552 310,000 440,000 58 ,552 ,. 58,552 Community De-.elopment Fund 330,000 330 ,000 ,. Donors Fund 505,231 107 ,560 490,060 122,731 ,. 122,731 Malley Center Trust Fund 237,328 7 ,000 20 ,000 224 ,328 ,. 224 ,328 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 459 ,278 15,000 320,000 154,278 ,. 154 ,278 Open Space Fund 234,367 811,427 912 ,000 133,794 ,. 133 ,794 Total Special Revenue Funds ,. 1,624 ,756 ,. 1,580,987 ,. 2,512,060 ,. 693,683 ,. ,. 693,683 Debt Service Fund General Obligation Bond Fund 64 , 135 1, 102,000 1, 110,713 55,422 ,. 55,422 Total Debt Service Fund ,. 64 ,135 ,. 1, 102,000 ,. 1,110,713,. 55,422 ,. ,. 55 ,422 Capital Projects Funds Public lmpro-.ement Fund 1,693,001 2 ,998 ,356 4 ,104 ,043 587 ,314 ,. 587,314 Capital Projects Fund 155 ,560 1,400,000 1,463,490 92 ,070 ,. 92,070 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,848,561 4 ,398,356 5 ,567,533 679 ,384 679 ,384 Total Governmental Funds 12,389,354 52 ,267,574 54 , 173 ,415 10 ,483 ,513 4 ,773,099 5 ,710,414 efopri~Jcl_fy~,.~~J1d ;Types -. --- Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unreserved Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance Enterprise Funds Water Fund 10 ,900, 168 8 ,507,927 8,907,461 10 ,500,634 ,. 10,500,634 • Sewer Fund 3 ,467 ,126 16 ,225,259 17,854, 174 1,838 ,211 ,. 1,838 ,211 Stormwater Drainage Fund 1,222,343 332 ,514 379 ,085 1,175,772 ,. 1, 175,772 Golf Course Fund 551 , 168 2 ,115 ,300 2 ,078 ,625 587 ,843 587,843 Concrete Utility Fund 663 ,704 884 ,200 836,905 710 ,999 710 ,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 811 ,201 261 ,299 1,024,500 48 ,000 48,000 Total Enterprise Funds "'17,615,710 ,. 28,326 ,499 ,. 31,080,750,. 14,861,459,. ,. 14 ,861 ,459 Internal Service Funds Central Ser\Aces Fund 31,546 306 ,815 290 ,214 48,147 48 ,147 Ser\ACenter Fund 1,540,324 2 ,263 , 151 3,635,504 167 ,971 167 ,971 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,303,684 1,042 ,489 2 ,170,804 1 ,175 ,369 1,175 ,369 Risk Management Fund 437,476 1,476, 156 1,433,645 479 ,987 479,987 Employee Benefits Fund 200 ,671 5 ,919,014 5 ,934,550 185 ,135 185,135 Total Internal Service Funds ,. 4 ,513 ,701 ,. 11 , 007 ' 625 ,. 13,464,717 ,. 2 ,056,609 ,. ,. 2 ,056 ,609 Total Proprietary Funds 22, 129,411 39 ,334, 124 44 ,545,467 16 ,918 ,068 16 ,918 ,068 Total All Funds 34,518,765 91,601,698 98,718,882 27,401,581 4,773,099 22,628,482 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Proposed bill for an ordinance • • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 COUNCIL BILL NO. 34 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Part I, Article X, of the Charter of the City of Englewood, Colorado, a budget for fiscal year 2017 was duly submitted by the City Manager to the City Council on September 12 , 2016; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council within three weeks after its submission at the meeting of the City Council on September 19, 2016. Regular notice of the time and place of said hearing was published within seven days after submission of the budget in the manner provided in the Charter for the publication of an ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood has studied and discussed the budget on numerous occasions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the budget of the City of Englewood, Colorado, for fiscal year 2017, as submitted by the City Manager, duly considered by the City Council and with changes made by the City Manager to reflect Council discussion after public hearing, is adopted as the budget for the City of Englewood for the fiscal year 2017. Section 2. GENERAL FUND Total Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 Sales/Use Tax Property and Specific Ownership Tax Franchise/Occupation/Cigarette Tax/Hotel License/Permits Intergovernmental Revenue Charges for Services Cultural & Recreation Fines & Forfeitures Interest Contribution from Component Units 1 2017BUDGET $ 8,851 ,902 Revenues 27,135,452 3,656,000 3,415,550 1,387,998 1,374,706 2,592,400 2,750,090 893,450 55,446 1,400,000 Other 408 106 Total Revenues $ 45,069,198 • Other Financing Sources 117,033 Total Sources of Funds $ 45,186,231 Ex12enditures Legislation 406,616 City Manager's Office 6,391,949 Municipal Court 1,100,207 City Attorney's Office 858 ,949 Finance and Administrative Services 2,582,592 Information Technology 1,759,062 Community Development 2,302,797 Public Works 6,325,495 Police Services 13,665,968 Parks, Recreation and Library Services 7,417,441 Communications 410,554 Contingencies 200,000 Debt Service 1,561,929 Total Expenditures $44,983,109 Other Financing Uses -0- Total Uses of Funds $44,983,109 Total Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 9,055,024 Section 3 . SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS • Conservation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 188 ,552 Revenues $ 310,000 Expenditures $ 440,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 58,552 Community Develo12ment Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ -0- Revenues $ 330,000 Expenditures $ 330,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ -0- Donors Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 505 ,231 Revenues $ 107,560 Expenditures $ 490,060 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 122,731 • 2 • Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 459,278 Revenues $ 15,000 Expenditures $ 320,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 154,278 Malley Center Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 237,328 Revenues $ 7,000 Expenditures $ 20,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ 224,328 Open Space Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 234,367 Revenues $ 811,427 Expenditures $ 912,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 133,794 Section 4. DEBT SERVICE FUND General Obligation Bond Fund • Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 64,135 Revenues $ 1,102,000 Expenditures $ 1,110,713 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 55,422 Section 5. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Public Improvement Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 1,693,001 Revenues $ 2,998 ,356 Expenditures and Transfers $ 4,104,043 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 587,314 Capital Projects Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 155,560 Revenues and Transfers In $ 1,400,000 Expenditures $ 1,463,490 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 92,070 • 3 Section 6. ENTERPRISE FUNDS • Water Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 10,900,168 Revenues $ 8,507,927 Expenditures $ 8,907,461 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 10,500,634 Sewer Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 3,467,126 Revenues $ 16,225,259 Expenditures $ 17,854,174 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 1,838,211 Storm Drainage Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 1,222,343 Revenues $ 332,514 Expenditures $ 379,085 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 1,175,772 Golf Course Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 551,168 • Revenues $ 2,115,300 Expenditures $ 2,078,625 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 587,843 Concrete Utility Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 663,704 Revenues $ 884,200 Expenditures $ 836,905 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 710,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 811,201 Revenues $ 261,299 Expenditures $ 1,024,500 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 48,000 Section 7 . INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Central Services Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 31,546 Revenues $ 306,815 • 4 • • • Expenditures $ 290,214 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 48,147 Servicenter Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 1,540,324 Revenues $ 2,263,151 Expenditures $ 3,635,504 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 167,971 Canital Eguinment Rsmlacement Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 2,303,684 Revenues $ 1,042,489 Expenditures $ 2,170,804 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ 1,175 ,369 Risk Management Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 437,476 Revenues $ 1,476,156 Expenditures $ 1,433,645 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 479,987 Emnloyee Benefits Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 200,671 Revenues $ 5,919,014 Expenditures $ 5,934 ,550 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ 185 ,135 Section 8. That the said budget shall be a public record in the office of the City Clerk and shall be open to public inspection. Sufficient copies thereof shall be made available for the use of the City Council and the public, the number of copies to be determined by the City Manager. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016 . 5 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016 . Loucrishia A. Ellis 6 '· • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date October 3, 2016 Initiated By Agenda Item 11av Department of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Appropriating Funds For Fiscal Year 2017 Staff Source Kath Ri nkel, Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18 , 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City 's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting 's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool , General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22 , Study Session . The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12 , 2016 , the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016 . Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget wo r kshop " scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . RECOMMENDED ACTION iJJ:.ff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriating funds for 2017 . 1lcKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to insure there is legal authority to expend funds . Due to limited growth in the revenue sources available to the City, the 2017 Budget limited expenditures increases as much as possible while limiting the impact on the citizens. City staff and Council worked together to hold expenditure increases in check as much as possible but some expenditures, mainly personnel-related , will continue to grow outside of the control of staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Englewood 2016 Budget for all funds provides for total sources of funds of $91,601,698 and total uses of funds of $98, 718,882. The below chart depicts at a fund level the Estimated Beginning Balance , .urces of Funds , Uses of Funds and Estimated Ending Balance for 2017 . ~~¥,!tii'a1~:'5~J!]:~~ijI''IY1i~§l::~·~~j~{~_:fr·~ .. Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unappropriated • Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance General Fund 8,851,902 45,186,231 44 ,983, 109 9,055,024 4,773 ,099 4 ,281,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 188,552 310,000 440 ,000 58,552 ,. 58,552 Community Development Fund 330,000 330 ,000 ,. Donors Fund 505 ,231 107,560 490 ,060 122,731 ,. 122,731 Malley Center Trust Fund 237 ,328 7 ,000 20,000 224,328 ,. 224,328 Parks & Recreat ion Trust Fund 459,278 15 ,000 320,000 154,278 ,. 154,278 Open Space Fund 234,367 811,427 912 ,000 133,794 ,. 133,794 Total Special Revenue Funds ,. 1,624,756 ,. 1,580,987 ,. 2,512 ,060 ,. 693 ,683 ,. ,. 693 ,683 Debt Service Fund General Obligation Bond Fund 64, 135 1, 102 ,000 1, 110,713 55,422 ,. 55,422 Total Debt Service Fund ,. 64 ,135,. 1,102,000,. 1,110,713,. 55,422 ,. ,. 55,422 Capital Projects Funds Public Improvement Fund 1,693,001 2,998,356 4, 104 ,043 587 ,314 ,. 587,314 Capital Projects Fund 155,560 1,400,000 1,463 ,490 92,070 ,. 92,070 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,848,561 4,398,356 5 ,567,533 679 ,384 679 ,384 Total Governmental Funds 12,389,354 52,267,574 54, 173,415 10,483,513 4,773,099 5 ,710,414 P 'to ·~rJ~i@ry If ~11~Typ~_s ~. ',:;_, ~.-.. a : ,. '"' -~-r'-'/,.• ·;-~ Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unreserved Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance Enterprise Funds Water Fund 10,900,168 8,507,927 8,907,461 10,500,634 ,. 10,500,634 • Sewer Fund 3,467, 126 16 ,225 ,259 17,854,174 1 ,838,211 ,. 1,838,211 Stormwater Drainage Fund 1,222 ,343 332,514 379,085 1,175,772,. 1,175,772 Golf Course Fund 551, 168 2 ,115,300 2,078,625 587,843 587 ,843 Concrete Utility Fund 663 ,7 04 884,200 836,905 710 ,999 710,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 811 ,201 261,299 1,024,500 48,000 48,000 Total Enterprise Funds "17,615,710 ,. 28,326,499 ,. 31,080 ,750"14 ,861,459 ,. ,. 14,861,459 Internal Service Funds Central Services Fund 31,546 306,815 290,214 48 , 147 48,147 ServiCenter Fund 1,540,324 2 ,263, 151 3,635,504 167,971 167,971 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,303,684 1,042,489 2, 170,804 1, 175,369 1, 175,369 Risk Management Fund 437,476 1,476,156 1,433,645 479,987 479,987 Employee Benefits Fund 200,671 5,919,014 5,934 ,550 185,135 185,135 Total Internal Service Funds ,. 4,513 ,701 "11,007,625,. 13,464 , 717 ,. 2,056,609 ,. ,. 2 ,056,609 Total Proprietary Funds 22, 129,411 39 ,334 ,124 44 ,545,467 16,918,068 16 ,918 ,068 Total All Funds 34,518,765 91,601,698 98,718,882 27,401,581 4,773,099 22,628,482 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Proposed bill for an ordinance • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 35 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR ALL MUNICIPAL PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2017, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Proposed 2017 Budget was held September 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, the operating budgets and Multiple Year Capital Plan for all City departments and funds were reviewed at a budget workshop held on August 29; and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt bills for ordinances adopting the Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That there be and there hereby is appropriated from the revenue derived from taxation in the City of Englewood, Colorado, from collection of license fees and from all other sources of revenue including available fund balances during the year beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2017, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified and set opposite thereto, specifically as follows: Legislation City Manager's Office City Attorney's Office Municipal Court Finance and Administrative Services Information Technology Community Development Public Works Police Parks, Recreation and Library Services Communications Contingencies Debt Service -Civic Center GENERAL FUND $ 1 406,616 6,391,499 858,949 1,100,207 2,582,592 1,759,062 2,302,797 6,325,495 13,665,968 7,417,441 410,554 200,000 1,444,896 Debt Service -Other 117,033 • Other Financing Uses -0- Total General Fund $ 44,983,109 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND Total Conservation Trust Fund $ 440,000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Total Community Development Fund $ 330,000 DONORS FUND Total Donors Fund $ 490,060 PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND Total Parks and Recreation Trust Fund $ 320,000 MALLEY CENTER TRUST FUND • Total Malley Center Trust Fund $ 20,000 OPEN SPACE FUND Total Open Space Fund $ 912,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND Total General Obligation Bond Fund $ 1,110,713 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND Total Public Improvement Fund $ 4,104,043 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Total Capital Projects Fund $ 1,463,490 • 2 • • • Total Water Fund Total Sewer Fund Total Storm Drainage Fund Total Golf Course Fund Total Concrete Utility Fund WATER FUND $ SEWER FUND $ STORM DRAINAGE FUND $ GOLF COURSE FUND $ CONCRETE UTILITY FUND $ HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND Total Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ Total Central Services Fund Total ServiCenter Fund CENTRAL SERVICES FUND $ SERVICENTER FUND $ CAP IT AL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 8,907,461 17,854,174 379,085 2,078,625 836,905 1,024,500 290,214 3,635,504 Total Capital Equipment Replacement Fund $ 2,170,804 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Total Risk Management Fund $ 1,433,645 3 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND Total Employee Benefits Fund $ 5,934,550 Section 2. The foregoing appropriations shall be considered to be appropriations to groups within a program or department within the fund indicated but shall not be construed to be appropriated to line items within any groups, even though such line items may be set forth as the adopted budget for the fiscal year 2017. Section 3. All monies in the hands of the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, or to come into the Director's hands for the fiscal year 2017, may be applied on the outstanding claims now due or to become due in the said fiscal year of 2017. Section 4 . All unappropriated monies that may come into the hands of the Director of Finance and Administrative Services during the year 2017, may be so distributed among the respective funds herein as the City Council may deem best under such control as is provided by law. Section 5. During or at the close of the fiscal year of 2016, any surplus money in any of the respective funds, after all claims for 2016 against the same have been paid, may be distributed to any other fund or funds at the discretion of the City Council. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016 . Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 4 • •• • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: 10/03/2016 11avi Consolidation of the Department of Parks & Recreation with the Department of Library Services and the creation of a new Communications Department Initiated By: Staff Source: Council Action Murphy Robinson, Assistant City Manager PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Communications Department: Council reached consensus on the Communications Strategy and the creation of a Communications Department at the August 15, 2016, Study Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION Since both changes require an ordinance, staff recommends adopting both actions in the same ordinance . In accordance with Charter Article VII; Section 52(g); the consolidation of city departments and the creation of a new department must be codified into ordinance by the City Council. The recommended action is to adopt the consolidation of Parks, Recreation and Library Services and the creation of the Department of Communications. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Since 2015, Parks , Recreation, and Library Services have operated as one department. As this methodology has been tested and has proven successful, an official consolidation into one department for Parks, Recreation, and Library is being recommended. After a thorough analysis conducted by Cahoots Communications , Inc., several areas of improvement and opportunity were identified and presented to Council in the areas of communication, marketing, and brand strategy. The Council approved the direction of creating a new communications department and consolidating and coordinating communication activities through the new department. Communications activities were historically managed through staff in the City Manager's Office. This new department allows for better collaboration across the organization , assisting departments to meet their communication and marketing goals . The new management of the department will allow the City to improve internal communications, increase brand reach and efficacy, and provide a high level of proactivity in marketing and public communication. This will deliver a high quality product while stretching limited public resources further. Furthermore, consolidation of city departmental resources through the new department will maximize reach, effectiveness, and long- term sustainability of the Communications Strategy. FINANCIAL IMPACT Parks, Recreation, and Library Services No fiscal impact. Communications Department The departmental activities, staffing, and other costs are currently budgeted as reflected in the 2017 Budget. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance • • • • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 A BILL FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 36 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 2 -DEPARTMENT AL ORGANIZATION BY COMBINING THE DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SERVICES; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION INTO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND LIBRARY SERVICES; AND THE CREATION OF A NEW COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000. WHEREAS, prior to 2015 the City of Englewood Parks and Recreation Department and Library Services have been separate departments; and WHEREAS, since 2015 the administration has operated the Park, Recreation and Library Services as one department; and WHEREAS, since the consolidation the combined Park, Recreation and Library Services Department has been a proven success; and WHEREAS, in order to streamline collaboration across the organization and assisting departments to meet their communication and marketing goals, a Communications Department is to be created; and WHEREAS, in order to consolidate Departments and establish a new administrative department the City Manager must have prior approval of the City Council by ordinance, as set forth under Article VII, Section 52(g) of the Englewood Home Rule Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 1, Chapter 6, Section 2 -Departmental Organization of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows: 1-6-2: Departmental Organization. A. The departmental organization of the City shall be divided under the City Manager into the following departments: Community Development Finance and Administrative Services Fire Department 1 Human Resources Information Technology Lierary Serviees Parks. Recreation and Library Services Parl<:s and Reereation Communications Police Department Public Works Utilities B. Reference to a department director in this Code by any title other than set forth in this Section shall be construed to refer to the department director as set forth herein. C. The City Manager may, on a temporary basis, reassign duties and responsibilities to departments in the best interests of the City. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 1, Chapter 6, Section G -Department of Library Services of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows: Article G. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS. RECREATION AND LIBRARY SERVICES. 1-6G-1: General Responsibilities. The Department of Parks. Recreation and Library Services shall provide recreation programs and services utilizing the various recreation facilities in the community and shall operate and maintain the golf course. ball fields. shelter houses. playgrounds. beach. or any other open area owned and used by the City devoted to or designated for active or passive recreation: and shall operate the City's libraries and administer the same in the interest of the entire community. Section 3 . The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 1, Chapter 6, Section H -Department of Parks and Recreation of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 shall be repealed in its entirety and combined in Article G -Library Services. ARTICLE H. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ,-\...1\ID RECRE,4·,.TION 1 9H 1: General ReSflonsieilities . The Department of Parks and Reereation shall provide reereation programs <md serviees atilizing the varioas reereation faeilities in the eomrn:wlity and shall operate <ma maintain the golf eol:lfse, ball fielEls, shelter hoases, pl<i7'gFOl:l:BSS, eeaeh, or a:Rj' other open area ovmea and ased ey the City devoted to or designates for aetive or passive reereation. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 1, Chapter 6, by the addition of a new Section H -Department of Communications of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows: 2 • • • • • • ARTICLE B. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS . l-6H-1: General Responsibilities . The Department of Communications shall movide collaboration across the organization assisting departments to meet their communication and marketing goals . Section 5. Safety Clauses . The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 6. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part ofthis Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances . Section 7 Inconsistent Ordinances . All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 8. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture , or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions , suits , proceedings , or prosecutions . Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days . Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk 3 I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 4 • • • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: October 3, 2016 11avii Change Regular City Council meeting time to 7:00 p.m . Initiated By: Staff Source: CMO Eric Keck, City Manager PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve a bill for an ordinance amending the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 and the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Englewood City Council, to change the start time of regular Council meetings to 7:00 p.m., effective November 7, 2016. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 2, Subsection 1 of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 reads that the "Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in the City Hall on the first and third Mondays of each month at seven thirty o'clock (7:30) P.M., or at such other time and day as Council may, from time to time, designate; provided, however that when the day fixed for any regular meeting falls upon a day designated by City Council as a City holiday, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day not a holiday." Starting in November, Council will discontinue Study Sessions before the regular Council meetings on the first and third Mondays. Study Sessions will only occur on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Since there will no longer be a Study Session at 6 :00 p.m. before the regular meeting, the regular meeting can start earlier. It was decided that a 7:00 p.m . start time for regular meetings would be the most accommodating for the majority of citizens . FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for an ordinance • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 38 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TITLE 1, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 1, ENTITLED REGULAR MEETINGS, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1, SECTION A OF THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO THE TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS . WHEREAS, the Englewood Home Rule Charted, Article III, Section 27, provides that City Council shall meet regularly at the City Hall, at least twice each month at a day and hour to be fixed from time to time; and WHEREAS, the City Council Rules of Order and Procedure, Section A -Regular Meeting provides a starting time of 7:30 P.M.; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council has discussed changing the starting time of Regular City Council Meetings to 7:00 P.M .; and WHEREAS, the new starting time will provide additional time to consider the Council Agenda's, allow for public comment, and provide for a streamlined process; and WHEREAS, the new starting time shall be effective on November 7, 2016, the first regularly scheduled Council Meeting in November, and shall continue thereafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 2, Subsection 1 -Regular Meetings of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows: 1-5-2-1: Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in the City Hall on the first and third Mondays of each month at seven tffiffy o'clock(~ 7:00) P.M., or at such other time and day as Council may, from time to time, designate; provided, however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting falls upon a day designated by City Council as a City holiday, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day not a holiday . 1 Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado authorizes amending Chapter 1 -City Council Meetings, Section A -Regular Meeting of the Rules of Order and procedure for the Englewood City Council to read as follows: 1. City Council Meetings A. Regular Meeting Regular meeting of the City Council shall be held in the City Hall on the first Mondays of each month at~ 7:00 P.M. or at such other time and day as City Council may, from time to time, designate; provided, however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting falls upon a day designated by law as a legal or national holiday, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day not a holiday. Section 3. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 6. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions . Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. 2 • • • • • • Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 3 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: October 3, 2016 11aviii South Platte River Run Park -Bike Trail Extension from W. Union Ave . to W . Oxford Ave. Initiated By: Staff Source: Utilities Department Staff Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. 87, Series of 2015, authorizing the City's Arapahoe County Open Space grant application for the construction of the River Run Trailhead Phase II. Council Bill No. 25, Ordinance No . 27, Series of 2015, authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arapahoe County for the acceptance and use of Open Space grant funding in the amount of $300,000 for the construction of the River Run Trailhead Phase I. Resolution No. 6, Series of 2015, authorizing the City's Arapahoe County Open Space grant application for the construction of the River Run Trailhead Phase I. Council Bill No . 56, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2014, authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the construction of drainage and flood control improvements for the South Platte River at Oxford Avenue between the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Arapahoe County by adding the City of Englewood, the City of Sheridan and the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District as participants. Resolution No . 38 , Series of 2014, authorizing $100,000 funding for River Run Project support from the Arapahoe County Open Space Fund. Council Bill No. 41, Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2011, authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement accepting the 2010 Riverside Park Planning Grant between Arapahoe County and the City of Englewood, Colorado. Resolution No . 89, Series of 2010, in support of the City's Arapahoe County Open Space (ACOS) grant application for the Riverside Park Planning Grant. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and South Suburban Parks and Recreation District for the construction of a bike trail on the east side of the S . Platte River at W. Union Avenue and W. Oxford Avenue. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED South Suburban Parks and Recreations District submitted an Intergovernmental • Agreement between South Suburban Parks and Recreation District and the City of Englewood, a License Agreement detailing ownership and responsibilities and a Temporary Construction Easement to allow access for the construction of the improvements, along with exhibits and legal descriptions for the proposed trail along the east side of the S . Platte River. The project is for a one-mile regional trail connection along the east bank of the S. Platte River from W. Union Ave. to W. Oxford Ave. The proposed portion of the trail will connect the Mary Carter Greenway Trail System to the existing trail at Broken Tee Golf Course . The project necessitated modifications to the Union Avenue Water Intake Facility and a 92" storm sewer outfall at W. Oxford Ave. These modifications will improve the flow intake at the Union Avenue Water Intake Facility and provide safety improvements to the 92 " storm sewer outfall at W . Oxford Ave . FINANCIAL IMPACT None LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Intergovernmental Agreement between the South Suburban Park and Recreation District and the City of Englewood License Agreement Temporary Construction Easement UnionAvePlatteRiverRunParkTrail • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 39 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, AND SOUTH SUBURBAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BIKE TRAIL ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER SOUTH OF THE UNION AVENUE BRIDGE AND NEAR OXFORD AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of Englewood is cooperating with South Suburban Park and Recreation District (SSPRD) in the development, by South Suburban Park and Recreation District of a Bike Trail within the City of Englewood to connect existing sections of a regional Bike Trail; and WHEREAS, the South Suburban Park and Recreation District submitted a plan to the City of Englewood for constructing a part of that Bike Trail located on the East side of the South Platte River beginning South of Union Avenue Bridge near the City's Water Intake and at the Oxford Avenue Right-of-Way; and WHEREAS, intergovernmental agreements are authorized by Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution and C .R.S . §29-1-203; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood's Park and Recreation Commission and Community Development Department have agreed that the trails complement the current City Bicycle Plan and would be of a benefit to our residents; and WHEREAS, the Englewood Park and Recreation Department reviewed South Suburban Park and Recreation District's proposal at their meeting on September 11, 2014 and recommended approval of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement outlines the implementation strategy for the South Platte River at Union and Oxford Avenues improvement project with the goal of promoting a healthy river in an attractive setting which creates a quality recreational experience; and WHEREAS, improvements necessary for the construction of the Bike Trail along the East Side of the South Platte River Bike Trail beginning South of the Union Avenue Bridge and at Oxford A venue are outlined in the Agreement and Exhibits; and WHEREAS, construction of the Bike Trail requires a redesign and construction of the City's water intake and Storm Drainage Outfall; and WHEREAS, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement between South Suburban Park and Recreation District for the construction of a Bike Trail along the East side of the South Platte River South of the Union Avenue Bridge and near Oxford Avenue at their May 10, 2016 meeting; 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the Intergovernmental Agreement between the South Suburban Park and Recreation District and the City of Englewood, Colorado pertaining to a certain section of the proposed East side of the South Platte River beginning South of Union Avenue Bridge and running North under the bridge to just beyond the City of Englewood's Water Intake, and at Oxford Avenue, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Section 2 . The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign and attest said Intergovernmental Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood, Colorado. Section. 3. The License Agreement attached to the Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby approved by the Englewood City Council. Section 4 . The Director of Utilities is hereby authorized to execute the License Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood, Colorado Section 5. The Temporary Construction Easement, attached to the Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby approved by the Englewood City Council. Section 6 . The Director of Utilities is herby authorized to sign the Temporary Construction Easement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood, Colorado. Introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • • • • EXHIBIT 1 to the Ordinance . INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST SIDE BlKE TRAIL AT UNION AND OXFORD AVENUES . THIS AGREEMENT is made this __ day of , 2016, between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, (hereinafter referred to as "the City"); and SOUTH SUBURBAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as "District"). WHEREAS, the City of Englewood and South Suburban Park and Recreation District are cooperating in the development and operations of a pedestrian and Bike Trail; and WHEREAS, construction of the Bike Trail requires a redesign and construction of the Englewood 's water intake at Union Avenue and Drainage Outfall as Oxford Avenue in Englewood, Colorado; and construction over the City's property and Rights-of-Way; and NOW THEREFORE, the City and the District agree as follows: A. Bike Trail Improvement Plans: 1. The proposed Improvements necessary for the Bike Trail, but excluding the Trail itself (the "Improvements") are detailed on the plans (the "Plan") in Exhibit A. The City hereby grants to the District the right to access and construct the Bike Trail and Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the license agreement concerning the City's water intake and drainage outfall and the plans and specifications approved by the City, attached as Attachments 1 and 2. B. Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Bike Trail : The District will, at its own cost, construct the Bike Trail (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "East Side Bike Trail") at Union and Oxford Avenues , as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto . The District will be responsible for construction of the Bike Trail and Improvements. The District shall endeavor to begin construction upon execution of this Agreement by all Parties and conclude construction within 5 years of the date of this Agreement provided; however, the District shall not be in default hereunder for failure to either begin or end construction by the above-recited dates. The District agrees to construct this Bike Trail in a manner consistent with the design plans, specifications, and license agreement concerning the City's water intake and drainage outfall, and the building permit approved by the City. 1. Should the Bike Trail and Improvements cause an unforeseen change in the operation of the City's raw water intake facility, at the request of the City, the District and the City will work together to devise a solution that returns the City's raw water intake facility to a condition substantially similar to its condition before construction of the Bike Trail and Improvements, which condition is acceptable to the City in the reasonable exercise of its discretion and at the sole cost of the District. ' 2. At all times during the construction, operation and maintenance of the Bike Trail and Improvements, the District shall be responsible for taking reasonable measures to maintain the security of the Englewood raw water intake facility, (gates locked when unattended). Additionally, the District shall maintain access to the facility for City staff during the construction, operation and maintenance of the Bike Trail and Improvements . 3. The City is not liable for any accidents which may occur on the Bike Trail not caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the City. 4. The District shall own the Bike Trail and Improvements and be responsible for their operation, maintenance repair and replacement. The City shall remain in possession of its raw water intake facility and Oxford Drainage Outfall with the exception of the trail and associated retaining walls and hand railings. The City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and operations of the facilities in their possession. C. Rights of the City: 1. The City reserves the right to close the Bike Trail for any reason related to the safe and secure operations of the City facilities. 2. The District is hereby acknowledging that the Bike Trail is incidental to the priority use of the City and drainage facilities and agrees that should there be a conflict between the priority use of the City Water Works System and the District's recreational use, the safety and continuation of the City's use shall control. D . Miscellaneous Provisions: 1. Should any one or more provisions of this Agreement be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, all other provisions nevertheless shall remain effective; provided, however, the Parties shall forthwith enter into good faith negotiations and proceed with due diligence to draft a provision that will achieve the original intent of the Parties hereunder. 2. This Agreement may be amended, modified, or changed, in whole or in part, only by written agreement duly authorized and executed by the Parties and the authorized signatories for the Parties. 3. All notices, demands, requests and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered when actually received or, if earlier, and regardless whether actually received or not, three days after deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, registered or certified addressed as follows: Englewood: City of Englewood City Manager 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 2 • • • • • • With a copy to: City of Englewood City Attorney 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 District: South Suburban Park and Recreation District Executive Director 6631 South University Blvd. Centennial, Co . 80121-2913 With a copy to: Timothy J. Flynn Collins Cockrel & Cole PC 390 Union Boulevard-Suite 400 Denver, CO 80228 4. This Agreement shall be governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado . Venue for the trial of any action arising out of any dispute hereunder shall be in Arapahoe County District Court, pursuant to the appropriate rules of civil procedure. 5. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties hereto. The parties agree that there have been on representations made regarding the subject matter hereof other than those, if any, contained herein. That this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and further agree that the various promises and covenants contained herein are mutually agreed upon and are in consideration of one another. 6. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and upon full execution thereof, such copies taken together shall be deemed to be a full and complete Agreement between the parties . 7. If litigation is commenced by any of the Parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs form the other Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Englewood and South Suburban Park and Recreation District have executed this Agreement. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk 3 SOUTH SUBURBAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTYOFARAPAHOE) ~t.A K. SHEPHA"° NOTARY PVBUC STATE OF CO.LORADO NOTARY ID 1998401045I MY CQmlSION EXPtAit APRIL 15, 2018 . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-:::2~ay of 5A:p C-.., , 2016, by John Ostermiller, President of South Suburban Park and Recreation District. ~SS my hand and seal. fY~:<.,L4L Notary Public ~ My Commission expires: k0 1-s: -1_6 / 3 4 • • • wx:t-m-1-<l. •• .. ·, r_:;.t -;:. 0 ·-' -s (\) /., .;./ f ~ I -ll ---- / ~· . ,/ ' g I Ji; I ;; /,.. ---/·1~ . "' • VJ .' ii; 8 Ii i. iE I ~ I I " I :.. I 0 N / I I I ' • ';\ 1 / " . "-..... l - \ \I •' 1\ \~ \ ~ \ \ ·, • c go ~CD "' I -~ () 0 "' (II "' . l ~ 0 N • • • Number ReViS:oo--'.'.l-eSCi-lPtion By Dote ~ ··... L ---------.-.. -I -·· tjl i '-f ', _,,/' ; ..•. /',.,., l+-±C:::,ri-:1::':~;:::,:i::;:+::;=rt-'-i'"f-,.-f;>c"-:cc.:C~P-I--_J+OO _4 :::""~-==~:c ;-:,~'--:-~ ~:-:r~y , ---,, ·" I ' :L ' .. --! \ ::/,,. ------~ ·~#~! \·?' 30 10 '~~J:rr4 __,iWJ:'.JI -Tirk ~~--2.(¥-r ,,~~¢tM~fV2"' ===--------~-::.. . --. , ..... ~--~;::::.---0-,,.,.~. _o o -.:/' t I I .----IJIFTl-!·6-U~-~RCP--J:---~~--J·--10 N ORTH 0 10 20 UDFCD SHERIDAN , COLORADO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER RUN PAR K FINAL DESIGN 5 'x .3' C45 T IN Pl.ACE CONCRETE CROP eox '.;.,, ~ IJl/TJ..I 57EEL GRA TINCt _,, Sir. ~ C-56 fi:<R .. ~o\%...,,,. "" ~-- "liH.FOF-~-1!-~o-' ,,:.=.:_ --~~-::_:,-:----~==-'_::oxCi!-_~~~.U;_-=·~.:._ --i LEGEND t .·.·:·:""J ~ .., ... y I j__ ' : i I ! I .20 · T;;?t.!L ~ ' I h EASEME N7 '..,,, -~-r.~. -' '' I I _____;___ a_, __ , : I ' I.. ; I -.... _...... .._......\, ::-tr,JPROYC!:V. EXPANSION.ONT. : 1 · . I y1 ,; leETIJEEN rRAL ' -• • I, j A'.PEJOXa.L~T i \1 , .. . __ m= ~, ]' ~'-fse.=c.--49~~£1IT""~---. . -.. --... -_-->---·~-,I -·--: I ···~,;<::·:·--i i ! ' • ' I . ' '1 I ------' . y I : j ---t------oo,o·-I i I :< ' < I : I .-! l , I I : k ! ; ~ ~w~-:-L~---.,1--,,----1--w--11 --· -! ~ i ~ --.:~; __ _ :, PROTECT EXISTINCt Cl' ///ATER LINE ! i 'J ! 1' ! ! l : 1 REl'(10VE CONCRETE !-EADlll4i.1. AND ,--f-"--r · . : I : I /45~L!=OF92".01P. RE!(OVECONCRETE ,;' l i ',~___.__j ' t:j a I , i--------~~oyf'RNtH.IE---7' " ~pi -., REl'fARANT'D~fO~/ ,_,....,._..," ''-"'-'··;:-.1f :-'_:_-{, EN:::.4SE!"ENT°"f92 C1'1P1· TORE!"'v411-f." Li.11..-;~n~··-'--s.::-1r ---·-' -~ .-.1··---,· /, :·.:~:· \ ~-' . .30JLFdf.fH."x!J:f" ./ ~ I . y· j ' . \ . REINFORCED COflCRETE eox /'· I F'' ~~~-;)''\ ' . \; ~~!-~= C-EC6. i , j~/ , i '"-l~il-' ' 'fl '/CONl'EC nEx/ST. 92"Cl"F r~/EWEJOXQ/LVERT /I t __, / "' ' ·. I ' /' . I ·. i 4 ' i ~ ~ ·. /' ,,_,.-~: t I /.\J ' ;· c; _/ I // ·2:><~--L//- ~ /~ "'~~,· I f t ·--:~: / _/ : ·.~-~s'~:" j -/J> j, ~ •• -~-! I I ,,~:::>·t 1 I ,J- , "'---"-~·.......w;:--· V ' . I ' // ! I -' . '~~-;:'°; ~~f,. ~ i I _._. '' I -r -2::....l.~---f'#E.n/.i:i lc~~Aµ __ , ,--J;-,r_:-_, ---:-,--~ +---d --REl'10VEEXISTING2f"RCFF£5. ----•-I · ---1---i ' ' AN:> EXTEN:/ 24" RCP ro-F'Aa/OF Niw tAl4LL , I I ' • HATOI EX !24 " ~...P, NVERT (r 76.2U ! I ; I -.---~ --Sf:Et:iJR!, c+:ifl=c~1f'l"EC:ONNEcrew.ra> iiiAlc -~ ----:----, --fl • I • --1 -------+-I hr~ fQLSQF1 b---,,,l ~:· -". -:=:: -.• • -' ; ,l _)( ,: I . I :, -, · · = -l f5\7'<'\K~ r\ ·~_v.: ....... '" \ \ .. X '/ ----<I I>----<I 'oO)~ x '(/ 'Q"x1 )E----<I I ln::h • 10 f eet IF 51-EET SIZE IS t-.OT ANSI D <22'X:;41 TI-EN GRAA-'IC SCALE MJST BE LEED EXIS TIN:i IJETl...ANO Al<lS4 EXISTIN:i RFRAP EXISTING Sl.ISS<RFACE RPRAP EXISTIN:; RFRAF' -LARGE E!O.LDERS F'ROF'06ED CONCRETE F'ROF'06ED GROUTED /30IJU:JERS F'ROF'06ED llf'ORT coea.E llY NATIVE SANDS Hl:><fO F'ROl"'05ED ~Tl/RE .ea.u::£R F'ROF'06ED SOL RPRAP PROPOSED cceeLE COYER/ED SOL RRPAP F'ROl"'05ED S/.BSl.RFACE SOL RF'RAP PR0A:::eED CR'.s.ER !=NES rRAL F'ROl"'05ED SCl.LPTED CON:::RETE aaJ/>DARr OF AT-6RAOE GRaffED ea.LDER5 ~ACE SLOPE LIE (GRaf!ED BOC./LDERIF?F'RAP) Sl/f3SURFACE R.AT SLOPE LINE (RF'RAP) TOP CR TCE OF BANK EXISTINCi Si.IB5lRFACE ELEVATION Sl/f3SURFACE SLOPE LNE (GRa/TED EJa./l..DER/RF'RAP) TCE EL"'VA TION. TR4NSfflON TCE ELEVA TONS Ll'EARL r eETUEEN SPOT ELEVATIONS '-cd.c:RErE ~I ~ )'PROTECT EXIS TNG .;o" I I SEE= C-49 FOR /PETA L S , < IJJ47ER LllE I I I REHOVE~uLn=r~---,--:_;,,J_ . ---~--r ~ @) AN:>EXTE!v'D4S"RCPlrO---;'"' '----I i' I • FACE OF. NEIJI IUA/..L I • I I I ---• HATQ./ EX 48 " Rc:P . T rmJ5i . . i I I . · • SEE= C-49 F'f' pv c:.oMEC'rioN TO WALL__ ; 1 , I! v .. I .· . . . •• I .... ,, -: 1; ~x :f1.aLF4a "~ ---, 11 Know what's below. ~!JASLOF'E · 1 · ~ 1 /' Callb f d' . , , ;: ' . . , , _ J. , f 1 1 e ore you 19. ~FF<OP06ED .CO\C 1 l '"""'f--... I 1 ~4A~ ~ : ~, ,, FOR C O NSTRUCTION SEE SPECIFICATIONS STORMW ATER OUTFALL PLAN AT OXFORD AVE NU E I mo Aleen 5< I XSIGNo B AN, MRG Laughfin Whiie w ate r ""'"· "'""'" )ETAIL• OT d c .. 1 g " 0 ' 0 u p I ~~3 .954.3..."l.3:.l CHECK: AKA iA O IVl~tO N ,,~ 1.~:Rq ;;:.: .. ((l~?AI(~. ~303 .364.3355 GATE: MAY, 2016 I Drawing '-'u mber: PROJ ECT NUMBER C-55 5511741908 ~- •.. · • • • ATTACHMENT 1 TOTHEIGA LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR A BIKE TRAIL OVER AND BESIDE THE "CITY'S WATER INT AKE PROPERTY" AT UNION AVENUE AND THE DRAINAGE OUTFALL AT OXFORD A VENUE . THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the __ day of __________ , 2016, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of Colorado, whose address is 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO. 80110 hereinafter referred to as "City", and SOUTH SUBURBAN PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT, whose address is 6631 South University Boulevard, Centennial, CO. 80121, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee." WITNESS ETH The City, without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby authorizes Licensee, its successor or assigns , to install a crossing for a Bike Trail over the City's property near the Water Intake at Union A venue and the Drainage Outfall at Oxford Avenue, in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, described as two parcels of land situated in the: A. South East 'i4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M., City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (Union), and Exhibit B (Oxford). Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Bike Trail near the City Water Intake at Union and the Drainage Outfall Oxford A venues: 1. Licensee will, at its own cost, construct a bike and pedestrian trail ("Bike Trail") next to and across a portion of the City's property near the City's Water Intake at Union A venue and the Drainage Outfall at Oxford A venue, as shown on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto . 2 . Licensee will also be responsible for any related Improvements necessary for the Bike Trail. Licensee shall endeavor to begin construction of the Bike Trail and related Improvements upon execution of this Agreement and conclude construction within five years. Provided however, Licensee shall not be in default hereunder for failure to either begin or end construction by the above- recited dates . 3. Licensee agrees to construct the Bike Trail and Improvements to the City's property in a manner consistent with the design plans, specifications and the building permit approved by the City and in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement approved by separate ordinance . 4 . The design and construction of the Bike Trail and Improvements shall be the responsibility of Licensee. 1 5. Any construction contemplated or performed under this License shall comply with and conform to reasonable standards formulated by the Director of Utilities of the City; and such construction shall be performed and completed in substantial conformance with the approved plans, a copy of which is attached to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Parties and made a part hereof. 6 . Licensee shall notify the City's Director of Utilities at least three (3) days prior to the time of commencement of the construction of, or any repairs made to, Licensee's Bike Trail and Improvements and/or City's Water Intake at Union Avenue and the Drainage Outfall at Oxford Avenue so that the City may, in its discretion, inspect such operations. 7. At all times during the term of this License Agreement, Licensee shall be responsible for taking reasonable measures to maintain the security of the Englewood raw Water Intake facilities. Additionally, Licensee shall allow and ensure access to the facility by City staff at all times during the term of this License Agreement. 8. 9 . Within one (1) year from the date of the commencement of construction of any Improvements, especially the Improvements to the City's Water Intake and Drainage Outfall, the Licensee shall complete such construction, and shall clear the area of all construction debris and restore the area to its previous condition as nearly as may be reasonable . In the event the clearing and restoration of the area is not completed within the time specified, City may complete the work at the sole expense of Licensee. Upon acceptance of the Improvements to the City's Water Intake, in writing, by the Englewood Director of Utilities, the City agrees that the Improvements to the City's Water Intake at Union Avenue and Drainage Outfall at Oxford has been constructed in accordance with the design plans and specifications that Englewood has reviewed and approved; and all rights and title to the Improvements at Water Intake and Drainage Outfall will be conveyed to the City of Englewood. 10. From and after the date of conveyance Licensee shall have no further obligation for operations, maintenance or replacement of any portion of the City's Water Intake at Union Avenue and Drainage Outfall at Oxford which is the subject of this Agreement. 11. Licensee shall provide a one ( 1) year warranty for construction and design. 12. The City is not liable for any accidents which may occur on the trail. 13. City shall have the right to maintain, install, repair, remove or relocate the City's Water Intake at Union A venue and Drainage Outfall at Oxford or any other of its facilities or installations within City's property or right-of-way at any time and in such manner as City deems necessary or convenient. City reserves the exclusive right to control all easements, licenses, and installations. In the event the Bike Trail and/or Improvements should unreasonably interfere with any future use of the City's Water Intake or Drainage Outfall, the Licensee shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange, or remove its installations so as not to interfere with any such use. 2 • • • • • • 14 . Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of the City's Director of Utilities because of the construction of the Bike Trail or Improvements shall be made at the sole expense of the Licensee. 15. The stipulations and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract documents with any third party contractors . 16. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements, licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be Licensee's sole responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or installations. 17. Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate with City's personnel, and the construction shall be completed without interference with any lawful, usual or ordinary flow of water through the City's Water Intake at Union and Drainage Outfall at Oxford. Licensee shall assume all risks incident to the possible presence of such waters, or of storm waters, or of surface waters in the City's Water Intake at Union Avenue and Drainage Outfall at Oxford. 18. As between the City and Licensee, Licensee by acceptance of this License, expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by water leaking though at the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by this Licensee. The Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the Bike Trail . 19. It is expressly agreed that in case of Licensee's breach of any of the within promises, City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting from such breach. 20. Insurance. South Suburban Park and Recreation District is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10- 101, et seq., as amended (the "CGIA"), and shall maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self- insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the CGIA. The South Suburban Park and Recreation District shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the City, if requested by the City. The South Suburban Park and Recreation District shall require each Agreement with their Consultant and Contractor that are providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet Consultant or Contractor liabilities under the CGIA. 21. As consideration for this License, Licensee shall pay for all costs for construction the Bike Trail and Improvements, including any modifications to the City's Water Intake at Union A venue and Drainage Outfall at Oxford consistent with the drawings attached as Exhibits A and B. 22. Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the Bike Trail in accordance with the standards and practices of South Suburban Parks and Recreation District and consistent with other South Suburban Parks and Recreation District facilities including: 3 a. Removal of litter and debris from the Bike Trail; b. Managing vegetation along the Bike Trail, including mowing of Bike Trail shoulders, trimming of hazardous limbs from trees, maintenance of irrigation systems and removal of noxious weeds along the Bike Trail using a method approved for use near a drinking water source; c. Maintaining Bike Trail surfaces, signage, rest areas , furnishings, and trash receptacles; d. Removal or painting over graffiti; e. Repairing structural damage to Bike Trail surfaces, retaining walls, and fences ; and f. Use reasonable measures to control vandalism and dumping along the Bike Trail. 23 . Licensee hereby acknowledges that the Bike Trail is incidental to the priority use of the City's Water Intake and agrees that should there be a conflict between the priority use of the City's Water Intake and Licensee 's recreational use, the safety and continuation of the City 's use shall control. 24 . In granting the above authorization, City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under control of City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities , Chairman 4 • • • • • • The undersigned officer of Licensee has read the foregoing License and agrees for on behalf of said Licensee that it will accept and will abide by all the terms and conditions thereof. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) LICENSEE: SOUTH SUBURBAN PARKS & RECREATION TRICT John Ostermiller, President ess: 6631 South University Blvd. Centennial, CO 80121-2913 303 798-5131 The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this:2,f~ay of ~~e V, 20/ l by John Ostermiller, President of South Suburban Park and Recreation District. Wi/j my hand and official seal. ~ ;r d~L---IJ Notary Public My Commission expired-& / ~ 2£) / f3 5 ,_ __________ . ~-&AK. SHEPHA~ • NOTARY Pl)BLIC STATE OF CO.LORADO NOTARY ID 19984010456 m.~'810N~APRIL 11, 2011 • • • E x H I B I T ···• A I I i \ \ \ ·, \ ~ ; \ STA 1166,.3 TO STA ::?•"43 ~I\. 2<'!1.?-TO STl\ '2:-'>7 $!A 2•1.i7 TO ~Th. :\•!">!\.9 ~Tl\. 0•00 TOSTI\ 1 ·~~ · OXl"CRO f:MH Qf~T. WALL OY.r'OOO EA!j T ::Ei WN.l O!<rCQOF..AS T Q€:T . Wt>t .•. O'(F()(J{) EAST Ql;I. WALi. ' . r . S TA l•72 TO 51~ ;.36.~ .._: • f,TA 2•Y.l.91'1,) Sit>. 3•07!-I •STA '.,'t•02.~ H) $1 /, ~·60.-IS fol l• ~·~'8 '" ro STA A,.54r, (.iV'()''D f;"f.~'! PF!. W•~\J "-EES1 ~c 1o~r uw~ci1 c. I -=h;:; ·' . -~.. . ~~f~lT;Jt i ! ; I :=.;.~-:.. . -~Y'~··, .·. l _-....~.:;-. ca.=-.k~M'"'""/:) _, --') ',' l · / 1 L, ~ ; '' [ W · ·· I ~:;r~~,~~ #J{ --~ ~-···' I ,' ,: :,:I :;' ~ ~ ~ ;1 ~ ~:P.F~"'~XlM ~ I ·. ~ It ~~ -.. ·····---·-··· --·--·---·-I -.__ 8& J1~(cP :·, '··:' ~I;, cl 1 ~ •"""""""""''A"O'' I; 't Po \) -~«•C."'AL~ "•! · -""~ '·-........ INJ P"i-'' 1 I · • ..;, 1 it' _, t;-; t e.:.waL~t:Rr 1\ ~~ It'. ·:.J it! ·• 4.\ C1Jr!jt7f' ·'II • SEELAr.:ut.i.!J · -•-., -. , ' .!>'P-";>C/ • ''' • • l)U 1 :' ~ ''""'CW>C'9Fo.,,,,C.-TA'-' \ · ~ ~ '-"" (~ ,,_;,,(<.~ ' ·~~U -" -----··,~. ~ ,~.:.!;.;-~., ~ /? /. ' i G,~,.~13h ~ .1 1 ;;t""":~:z.7.,.;; ·. ~ ~i ~ I ~;~~ ~]~ \ ,.;x,,,,,, "'' I ~~~ ~" \ ·-... '•,,'...,-:/$ &~''ii\,\"e' I , ~~'t a{J;:'.\i~t~~E>4"1!JJON¥,Wr/Yr:-<>Al .~II'.'' l ~:;:;~:~ ~ '¥Q]~'4~ -.._ ---/'· ... -£·..,.a ... _ '}1."'J('i .... ___ ,.' t , , ~\~11,;,i\'11 l I. '4c.::A'CJAIWxESJ :r~u ,_ i i ';:;•\l·t1 : ii.3••m1t -.. ·-------····-----. ---------... -! r.~0~1,):.-~' ··:.:: · "/{~~:::=~:.~ -'{~~~Hm~~. ~~. ! ~1 il~~E~, 1~~ I. ii~(1 ~~ ~· •1 -;;; ,,k ~ I_-'--··---=~~! '• ' 1 ~. '>.J <] r I 1.I ,?._ :r Iii l • I~. <. , ll 1., -... __ _ :·-..., Cl '"' ~ ' !'""'""'" C~•f<,,Ci!WJ ,, l . I ' I \ 1.;~:1 ,~~) 'I . \ I " """' ' ~~-. -, , ---n'illf :::..·-·--, •._f __ (P.f.J~,--.-.....: .... ~*-1 '}<-,.,, \~ .. ~i. ; it'.ii!r, ~i.) ,' "'\ .----L~ \ .G. J .. -.. -•,t''.~ _)...----·· -·7 -··---I-· --~ J · ·-..____ : rP.~l«~&:~-;.,.:'..: _ --1 1:.;:~;J .. '"°"<! __ J ~~--.... Jl'Jj:)' '" /!; _,--<;·-· ~1C:" 'l\ . __ .. --·~· .. , --"---· ... ~·--- r:::tt -----F ------.:. .·. \ ---.--:------~--=---=·-;;""'~::...~--,__~-, . ·1 i) .·, 1··1~1. " _; .. ,.. -.. I _ >( . \I . '"i(~~-'"-._ ~~~,1.\r-1~ \ . >:;\\ ----·:::.:-.::::--:.f"--_ '-....._'·,·r --~l1 .-n-r1 ---;-r-'"0 ·--~i~•-;1 ~~ g~~~~ · .. 1 \ ~\w\";;;,';:·~ -,\'·r\\~1 '. ; ,...._ .• .:H r~ j ' .. -~~1~~ .~·:r . i· ••••• \1)1~-.~1'i\~ l'd •f'),,_.. .. :...=---,;\'' .. '1"'1'~-I ,~,,/)"·11 il r!J ·I--~<m~~ ~~~.dii ~· "·-)---. .~· ') V,,/~~'41 ~_J_. >-__. \ : \' I ', \ I '-1 ·-. : . ·--~~~ ':i~· ---~~I i!~\~ • .. , ... _______ r;;, ~l '~ O· ) \,) : , i , "-.. / , , ~-· ~ ~ W o! ~ w ,,, ... / . -.. , .. u <Ji ": " ' 111 /,1//)'ij • \. 1 1 m'..i ~ . -'·\;u · I I (-I t_i-' .; . ) ~-"rn '"'"°"""' ~~ , 1 1 ' V :r ~ ~ ~ W ~-<11• · > '·-. A ,... • I t 1 / ~ M:• L4 c.w.~ A'V i 1 ~ ~ ·• ~ • • l , '; · ·-..... I ~ (. · ;.,,!'-.£:~ :"'-·~ 0 ~) 1./4,•C~ML .. 1TTACl.t'ENf I !',I ~J ·I ::' V' ' . '\ I( I ! . ' ' ""'"'L.'CUl:>C'" ' ::: ' ~. ·I ~ I --+--':::··: ·"'~· >:+ . . ,,,,... I . .. --·~-'-.. ___ :.:.. ~--~-----, : ) I J~1~:.:-0~~~-:f-;i-:: : .. --···-~-+---=--·--. -.. ··--.. ·-I· -·. -sf ;· c·•C::.:: 3~-1-··~ -'..'.:'!~~ -__'.' .~ -I -~ -~ -~-\i;\LL ''~i'"" . / "I ) '")'ff ,,. ' .... "'' I ·I"'· A J I ' I I I I ,· ~~J · -----1;.:M ---·-· -·-····-'-·-·-· ----'.:!' l>H llfoQ \ ll~I Hlr • \ ll :"i:P'i:' <;r'> i .'';'.'ffe11 .. r~~v~ ~~i~J'.," ·--·-t· ·-·· . %/ / /. ,i; J ,I 'r 1·, t.r ~1 ·! ··~··· -r.:· :~ ........ /; '~ :'. ' I', ' / ,b ,, I )" I ( (' ..-1 "• <' ,,::Z.:.1v / '-f"'· ("J\·FR~llL f""!'l<'C.tF.,;:T A/_1:;.~ ll;r-,11 .... , I J l I I •.) ,) . . I -,., ''-....._ /"11 'I '.:n-(, '\ ' . .I ;, I'' p-~= ~:::~t, 9f;::,\ ~ -,_ ... :._ .J '. ''1' ---_, . : , } y I ,.. . .. ~;. .. (J'~~-~08.~ \\I\~,~/\! ---~1~~;~~,i·v · 1ii-%YW · · · f'l•cr:'!J ~--' 11nc:t-~Y.Jr-t 'F 5'-lf:ET !)1LE t"; ...O~ A~!,; C t~7")• 3.I ') nir:N C1F2.Af'"~ir:: OC<\l...H ~l!Jf P.ti lJH:(.' <:l'.ll>IH.1'.V l ~l f:~'V/,1, -r LLGEND .~ a.i..-r.:oi<o 11'~ll-Lt:.lJCR RllT. la<ILL liflelable Ahgn11ll!OIS Liu 'J .:•n9!~ I Dl<uflo~ -~~:~:~~ ~.~~:~~:~~~~~1-~:~:ll.H, [. 31314111.60 ----------- 0 $14° OZ'?~ [N .1$~'67' U , r :mHet.,.~ tH.1EiS91'79.ll.[.:mr•e1!llll -------------·- [H .165H7S.l'l•, £. 3 1l/l.H .S71 '" ~~=u;;·.11:~;.-::~~.::: ~~~-~-~~-!~:~:~·:~~~~ CH. 16'9~4 D.t7, E. 3 13141'1 1481 f')'it"~l..~~EASTR!;"l. UI~ u• ± IO.Z" !10' CZ" u;_,,... IH.lli!tl't!ll.Ofl7. r . 1131411. .. I {N. lli5!!U0.11. [ lU/4111.481 ~~-·-· !~~ sr 0 4' 35.Ul'E fNlf;S94l606, E. llll"9Ull1 -~~~~~~:...~~~ 114.01 -··---.... ,...... ··-··'---1---1 lJLlFUJ SI IU \11.>AN, 1 ·0L/JH1\DO ····-··------- ·/----+-----··--·-··· ---···---·------ .. -·-····---------{N .11)!)!1:141.U, f .. :'11314104') SOlllll PLAT ! l IU YLH Hllri !'A l li\ 1·1N,\L IX :S l l.N Curve Tt101 1!·Nigmnen1~ IN. ITT:q~3111,ou2 1 j IH lfl :'i97J.l.!;9. F. )1'74fll.611 ··--·-·-·-··-----···-----·-··-··--------IN. 1611931071, F .. 31lr40l<IOJ !~. 1Gtl'l4efi 8:'1 . f .. ]1.114111.H ) ---·-·--···-·····-·-·-·-·----- I -·-I ... ---I -· -. I "" .u' ~-~J~'.~~~::~:...~:...:'.l_~~-4-~.~-~-~~.l~':.~:'141.1'0 '>. F;. lll/498 M l 1.U.oo z9• zz• (14' f (H.153'H41..l9. E. JIJ7 499.i!4 1 I I N. l&Mt;;\lf;!ll, £ lt;\7410&•1 l±J 1.:ii;.ooB'!!.G~~:_~~~.· rrs .ou 1.:11 4 4° or· n~· -·---. IH.14H.:IJOft,[.Jtl7470.4fll j (N.ll!i .,q4fll 1.1,£.J l3t4J7&&1 (H 1&:'1~4 1l8f1 4 .r. JtH481.9.:I) ------tH.IU9411lZt.[.:'llJ>4f'f.1'1 1') ~ .. ::: .: .·.: ::;,· :' ~:.:,:.-,; ~-,j' N()TEf.• I' c:,..~...,-O'ii'O £.,;,<;r RE!. //u'Jl.1 .£.J.KN"F.NT JS .EM~~n: IF.'A!m f',v:;e er-UJ4U.. ."Jo..w:;;..iq;:. TR.Al la1~ IP.F.T. 1ll4/i. .Ao!l.A:S.~r /3 FRONT /IJEIJ>:' r,.:.c,,£ «-CF /t~J .. .:ti F~X' FC."RTJCN5 OF F.A9T RETAtd-JG U.14U. A/ID l cu.t':R k1:"1.dNH:3 W/..U !¥-«ILL ~,l.h"f ~1 ~:VT ~''"IJ!JU" Fr'R !;..if .tlr-F.Cl'"t.;;.4 TC'H6 t'a.T~f;'f.: 11-E r~ LJC"R~":.J. ® .,()f":,;,_ Know whAt's below . SEE SPEC IFI CATIONS Call bolore you dig, !'BAI L IV ALL !'L AN AT OXFOHD A l'ENliL .... ,.: C-46 1.•· '" Wiltt'f%i.wt#@.TI%W.kB1::~f:M#«:%'~~-:<:~:::;:;.:~~~)':>:-~:.t::;.:(·:-; :-:':,~;·~.·,,,:· · .. ·\.,·· ~.;: ~!, ~/ '·""·'·<• ....... ·, /... ---;.----7 !. '. ," I ;/.'· ih/ / .. ,. ' :/: ,/-;:.--~~~~ ./' .r ,' ';;~~FRAP . ···-··· -·----y-·-.·······-·---·-··· .. ·-·---- 1i¥ ONSITE NAT/YE SOL 1 ~ ~-/ -,_,,.,,, ' . --/c --'----. ;· ·1·'.' 1· -----•F--; ;'.', t9 ·_\~f ~JP.1 ,;j!')i"~W/ ··.:,;-~ :tTu1:~ ~,. < _, " ' ' ------- ~ , / .A r· -_-:,, --,j. --cc---• / ·· /--,~-.,.,,,.., .. ,,,.-= " -' " ,--, --'----->--/;.. : ~~~ ... ·" -\ ,-~--__/ . --~---;;•· ; ' -:; , I ---\ ' ' ------"-""" ~---·1-~ ' ' ' I ' /.-!iOL R ,· \' ' ----.. -------·-; '' ; --="'' '""'-'"' .i i ' ' ' : ~ff!:'::~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' '• " ' -' ' ' .,., "" ' ', -"'""''' --,_ _ _.----"·~ . I, . ~ . • •'»· " "''' . ~· -----r·/ .--.. · -1·.-.~:·-;r· c--··•"·'' ,,__,,,,•.-,-.,,,'; ---"·-'=-· _,,,,_,;~ ----' ---·-----" -.~' ; ,, , ,, , , ., . .,,,. , I~" '-~~--, ·••·, -Jl'\· ·-,,. ,.-_-c::,-~ .-· -----------" -", -" , · , •" '-\ --" • _1 __ ,,,._.,l--l i N·'· ., '~--:.-""'-• t"'?,"' ,,;,Lt,-( -----, " -· --------------"-~ • --· ,,_ ----:.;_" 11 -------=:··•< t.->I ;r-'" ~~--:--' -z __ ,,,::,---~ • --"• , '" -.c _,, -,,,,,_ __ ~----"' -·=E ~ --....... ~.. , . TOEaRED aRa11W ;o1r~ra=-'· .Ba.WERO nP ~ I --------;19~ F'ROTFCT EXISTNJ/; UEnA<v 1 ~:J. ,-.i,~ "l,"6 iJil W· C ~!~ o;~ ' ... _,I •-; '1-· ~:(· f!'ROTEr:TEXl!JTAt;; ~ UF.Tl.AACJ ""' '< I ;; ,"I. "' ;·: .. I I·· ~ ·. ,i-_,: I t I . .)" \ KEY PL A.b) ~:'-.,, "'"''~, I .c, "'-.. U .'II '"' -------------· -· l!n::h•lO f~ F 61-tF.f.T !':ir.:E 6 NOT ANSI D (7J'Y~') TIEN URA'""l-IC SCALE J-1)S'r BE U5EO Ct;'IN TOIPINTEINN. -I" J.EC:l'N IJ N::JfE5: [ =i I~>· 0:21 C~.::.;:J c·--·1 c __ ·J L ,u=:J [ ___ ] c::=~.:...l 13Z:77T;;J E.::0-D [it~~~~~\ f.~J EXtJTH5 UETLAM:> ~ E:XJ5T"'1f::j R l"'R-JP EXt5TH:i ~ACE RFRAP EXl!JTNG li'FRAP -LARGE EJCU..r."Bii'5 """""'""'~ _, aRanED eaLOERS ~l"FORTCCV!!JelE UJIN..:ArtvE~l'1t><EO ~CRU!Jl..ERFllE~TR.AI. ~50LRF'RAP ~!JtB!JUli!FACERF-JlilAP '"""""""'.cuPTED CONO<ETE • '.') \ .. -_X:! ,,_•.,x-1 LIU l 'l:I> ~FEA!l.tti!t!~ ~ACE RPRAI" QI<! GRCUna:J ec.u...c£R!Jlcr=F LHi St.BSLRFACE Rr-'RAF' ~OCF. Ll>E rr-zAT) re¥" OR Ta"~ BANK erNAra::>EXF.'JliRFD RF'RAP rOF. El..EVATC¥.' SUiJS<RFACF. a!.O"F l.N.: fCiRC:UTED ~i..c:F.R.1"iF'RAPJ TCE" EJ...EV.:Jr~ T'RAN!JJrt:JtV ra ELEV.4T/OfvS Ll>ENill.. r E!IETIJ,EF.>." SF"OiEi.EVA T~ S I IT:l llll:\N, t•cllt ll\A I HJ \O llTll 1'1.Al"I 1: IU \IU\ ltlli\ l';\HK FIN:\l. 111'\lt ;N • 1\1\'U\ l'I :IN AT ll N IC >N AVl:l\lll ' :1 .. ·! ! :.: ~ ~-t r:~ NOT FOR CO N STRUCTION '~~l ''.r ·'.''··•····· '"··I· ... Ill 'Ill ••Al :.o-:,-.: f'I '"'·" •'All. u:. r:it.• /,Pl•~. :'i: i•• ALL ~ RF'RAP ro ~ BtRED Al£) F'l..AH1ED. !JEE OETAL 5. CILl:i c•1. fl!CR/1-1 Q' a>.R;.~ Ai.£ NN/'U"1 TOP!JOt. CEFrN l!J P : /8 • N Tl.RF ~ r0"'80L NOT l'<ECVl'¥1:.1 ON ~ACE RFRAF: et.RT' UfflJ N-Jr/VE ON!JfTE SOL. SEE LA CUG5 reR RIVER AE~f1.E1C5 Fl.AN SEE LA~ R:::R RlvER ~EUETATION Pl.ANS r:m ~ Know wh at's below , Call befo re you dig. l'.•I>•• I l1••lF"i''< •i") 11 1~ 1<111 ~ • ,,,,,.,~.,, r:.,.,,t••" C-19 E x H I B I T B City's Water Intake & Outfall ATTACHMENT2TOTHEIGA GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OVER AND BESIDE THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD'S PROPERTY AT THE WATER INTAKE AT UNION AVENUE AND THE DRAINAGE OUTFALL AT OXFORD . THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this __ day of , 20_, between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, acting through its Water and Sewer Board ("Grantor") (hereinafter referred to as "the City"); and SOUTH SUBURBAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, ("Grantee"). WHEREAS, Grantee desires to install a pedestrian and Bike Trail next to the City's Water Intake and Drainage Outfall pursuant to a License between the parties executed --------,20_. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties, more particularly hereinafter set forth, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: 1. Temporary Construction Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors, assigns, contractors, and sub-contractors, a non-exclusive temporary construction easement across City property next to the City's Water Intake at Union Avenue and the Drainage Outfall at Oxford Avenue for the installation of a Bike Trail pursuant to the License Agreement (the "Project") in, to, through, over and across two parcels of land, as more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Term of Easement. The Project will begin no sooner than , 20 and will be completed within 5 years of the authorization of this Agreement. Completion of the Project will be deemed to have occurred upon inspection and approval of the Project by Grantor, and this Temporary Easement will be deemed to have terminated upon such completion. 3. Access. Grantee shall have the temporary non-exclusive right to work on and next to the City's Water Intake for any reasonable purpose necessary or prudent for the construction of the Project subject to the following restrictions: 1) Normal working hours shall be consistent with CDOT construction hours, Monday through Friday; and 2) the operation of the equipment and heavy trucks will be permitted only during normal working hours. 4. Restoration. Upon completion of the Project, Grantee will perform such restoration as is necessary or prudent to restore the surface of the City's property to its original condition as nearly as is reasonably practical. 5. Liability. Grantee hereby acknowledges that it understands that there is continuous water flow at the Water Intake and periodic flow at the Drainage Outfall, and Grantee will assume liability for any damage to adjoining property caused by water flow at the point where the work is to be performed. • • • • • • 6. Insurance. South Suburban Park and Recreation District is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the "CGIA"), and shall maintain at all times during the term ofthis Agreement such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the CGIA. The South Suburban Park and Recreation District shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the City, if requested by the City . The South Suburban Park and Recreation District shall require each Agreement with their Consultant and Contractor, that are providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet Consultant or Contractor liabilities under the CGIA. 7 . Assignment. This Temporary Construction Easement is assignable only with the written permission of the City of Englewood, which permission will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Temporary Construction Easement on the date and day first written above. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD , Chairman 2 ·; ' ' The undersigned officer of Grantee has read the foregoing Temporary Construction Easement and agrees for on behalf of said Grantee that it will accept and will abide by all the terms and conditions thereof. Ostermiller, President 6631 South University Blvd. Centennial, Co. 80121-2913 303 798-5131 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. :rION DISTRICT COUNTYOFARAPAHOE ) T):ie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisdft:y of :/:p~ , 20~ by John Ostermiller, President of South Suburban Park and Recreation District. y Co,mmission expires: I?:' .f!... () /g IXMM K. SHl!PHAM> NOtARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 1$t840104N llY .CO•llSION EXPNI APRIL 15, 2018 3 • • • ! , • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: Collective Bargaining Agreement October 3, 2016 11ci between the City of Englewood and the EPBA for 2017-2018 Initiated By: Staff Source: Murphy Robinson , Assistant Human Resources Department City Manager PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION The previous Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Englewood Police Bargaining Association was approved by Council for 2015-2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff requests Council approval by resolution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the EPBA and the City of Englewood for 2017 through 2018. The contract covers approximately 59 employees . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood and the EPBA entered into negotiations in May of 2016, in accordance with the City of Englewood Charter. The members of the Englewood Police Bargaining Association duly ratified , through their elected representatives the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Significant changes to the contract include the following: 1. Article 9 , Compensation : a. Employees covered by the contract will receive a market adjustment to their 2016 base wage rate effective January 1, 2017 . The adjustment will be based upon the salary surveys conducted by Human Resources . b . Police Officers that are assigned as a Field Training Officer will be compensated at a flat rate of $56 for every shift that they serve in this capacity . This add ition to the contract is in line with current practices. c . Police Officers that are assigned as a Master Police Officer will be compensated at a flat rate of $112 for every day that they serve i n this capacity . A Master Police Officer serves as the supervisor in charge in the absence of a Sergeant. This addition to the contract is in line with current practices . 2. Article 10, Merit Pay: Employees who are eligible to submit an application to the Merit Pay Committee to receive merit pay , may submit and receive up to $1 ,000 .00. This is a $100 .00 increase from the previous contract. Not all employees receive the full amount when the application is submitted 3. Article 12 Call Back: Currently, an Officer who is called to work during an off duty status gets compensated a minimum of 2 hours for the emergency call back status . The minimum will be raised to 2 Y2 hours to compensate for travel time during the emergency call back status . 4 . Article 15 Annual Leave : The hours of annual leave for the 0-4 years of service category have been increased from 96 hours per year to 100 hours per year to account for the 10 hour shifts police officers work. This change brings consistency for leave throughout the department. 5 . Article 16 Holidays : Holiday hours for the Investigative Services Bureau will be increased 4 hours from 96 hours to 100 hours to account for the 10-hour shifts that the detectives work. This change brings consistency for leave throughout the department. 6. Article 19 Personal Leave : Personal leave hours for EPBA Employees will be increased 2 hours from 48 hours to 50 hours to account for the 1 O.,hour shifts that the Police Officers work. This change brings consistency for leave throughout the department. 7 . Article 20 Short Term Disability: Employees , who wish to access STD must apply for such leave using a form provided by the City and they shall attach to such form a doctor's note, evidencing that they are or were ill. Employees must provide the form and the physician 's note within five (5) days of returning to work. Employees, who fail to provide such documentation , shall be charged personal or annual leave time for their entire absence . Previously , Employees could access STD without a doctor's note after the first day of their illness. • 8 . Article 21 Workers Compensation: • If a member of the bargaining unit is killed in the line of duty , the city has agreed to pay the cost of the funeral to a maximum of $10 ,000. This amount shall be offset by any other payments provided by Colorado Workers' Compensation or any other insurance agency or organization. The Englewood Police Department has 101 full-time employees : 73 sworn employees, of which 56 are in EPBA. Twenty-eight of the 101 employees are non-sworn . FINANCIAL IMPACT All identified financial impacts have been budgeted for in the 2017 budget. 2017 2018 Compensation 140125 144329 Merit Pay 1500 1545 Call Back 5294 5453 Annual Leave 2276 2344 Holidays 1534 1580 Personal Leave 4360 4491 Total 157106 161819 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution Proposed Contract • • • • RESOLUTION NO . SERIES OF 2016 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ENGLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE YEARS 2017 -2018 . WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council authorized "The Collective Bargaining Contract Between the Englewood Police Benefit Association and the City of Englewood for the Years 2013 -2014; by the passage of Resolution No. 72, Series of 2012; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council authorized "The Collective Bargaining Contract Between the Englewood Police Benefit Association and the City of Englewood for the Years 2015 -2016"; by the passage of Resolution No. 47, Series of 2014; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood and the Englewood Police Benefit Association entered into negotiations in May of 2016 in accordance with the Englewood City Home Rule Charter; WHEREAS, the members of the Englewood Police Benefit Association duly ratified, by a majority vote, the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the years 2017 and 2018; and WHEREAS, the significant changes to the contract are: 1. Article 9 -Compensation: a. Employees covered by the Contract will receive a market adjustment to their 2016 base wage rate effective January 1, 2017. The adjustments will be based upon the salary surveys conducted by Human Resources. b . Police Officers that are assigned as a Field Training Officer will be compensated at a flat rate of $56 for every shift that they serve in this capacity. This addition to the Contract is in line with current practices . c. Police Officers that are assigned as a Master Police Officer will be compensated at a flat rate of $112 for every day that they serve in this capacity. A Master Police Officer serves as the supervisor in charge in the absence of a Sargent. This addition to the contract is in line with current practices . 2. Article 10 -Merit Pay: Employees who are eligible to submit an application to the Merit Pay Committee to receive merit pay, may submit and receive up to $1,000.00. This is $100.00 increase from the previous contract. Not all employees receive the full amount when the application is submitted. 3. Article 12 -Call Back: Currently, an Officer who is called to work when in off duty status gets compensated a minimum of 2 hours for the emergency call back status. The minimum will be raised to 2 Yi hours to compensate for travel time during the emergency call back status. 1 4. Article 15 -Annual Leave: The hours of annual leave for the 0-4 years of service category have been raised from 96 hours per year to 100 hours per year to account for the 10 hour shifts police officers work. This change brings consistency from leave throughout the Department. 5. Article 16-Holidays: Holiday hours for the Investigative Services Bureau will be increased 4 hours from 96 hours to 100 hours to account for the 10 hours shifts that the detectives work. This change brings consistency for leave throughout the Department. 6. Article 19-Personal Leave: Personal Leave hours for EPBA Employees will be increased 2 hours from 48 hours to 50 hours to account for the 10 hours shifts that the Police Officers work. This change brings consistency for leave throughout the Department. 7. Article 20-Short Term Disability: Employees, who wish to access STD must apply for such leave using a form provided by the City and they shall attach to such form a doctor's note, evidencing that they are or were ill. Employees must provide the form and the physician's note within five (5) days of returning to work. Employees, who fail to provide such documentation, shall be charged personal or annual leave time for their entire absence. Previously, Employees could access STD without a doctor's note after the first day of their illness. 8. Article 21 -Workers Compensation: If a member of the bargaining unit is killed in the line of duty, the City has agreed to pay the cost of the funeral to a maximum of $10 ,000. This amount shall be offset by any other payments provided by Colorado Workers' Compensation or any other insurance agency or organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby approves the Collective Bargaining Contract between the Englewood Police Benefit Association and the City of Englewood for the years 2017 and 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 • • • • Section 2 . The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign and attest the • • Collective Bargaining Contract between the Englewood Police Benefit Association and the City of Englewood, Colorado. Section 3. Tabled at the September 6, 2016 City Council Meeting until October 3rct, 2016 . ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of October, 2016. ATTEST: Joe Jefferson, Mayor Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above is a true copy of Resolution No. __ , Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk 3 • • • CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE ENGLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE YEARS 2017 -2018 This reproduction of the 2015-2016 Contract has been prepared by the Human Resources Department for distribution to all covered Police officers so that everyone will be aware of the rights and benefits contained herein . I!. x H I B I T A > I ARTICLE 1 ARTICLE2 ARTICLE3 ARTICLE4 ARTICLE 5 ARTICLE 6 ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 8 ARTICLE 9 ARTICLE 10 ARTICLE 11 ------A RTICLE 1z- A RTICLE 13 ARTICLE 14 A RTICLE 15 ARTICLE 16 ARTICLE 17 ARTICLE 18 ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE20 A RTICLE21 INDEX • PAGE DURATION OF CONTRACT ............................................................................ 2 RECOGNITION .................................................................................................... 3 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ........................................................................................... 4 SENIORITY ............................................................................................................. 5 HOURS OF WORK ............................................................................................... 6 BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR SHIFT A SSIGNMENT ............................ 8 SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................... 10 LAYOFF ................................................................................................................. 11 COMPENSATION ............................................................................................... 12 MERITPAY ........................................................................................................... 14 • OVERTIMEWORI<. .......................... : ................................................................. 15 -CALL BACK :.:: .... ::.-::.-:.-.. ::-::-.-.-:.:::-::.-.-.-..-.:-.:.:::.-.:.:-.. :-.:-.. ::.-: ..... ::.:::::-:::.::.:::::::::::: ..... ::.:.:.:: 16 ------- STA NDBY ··········································································································-··· 17 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE ............................................................................. 18 ANNUAL LEAVE ................................................................................................ 19 HOLIDAYS ............................................................................................................ 21 ADMINISTRATIVE LEA VE ............................................................................. 22 FUNERAL LEA VE .............................................................................................. 23 PERSONAL LEAVE ............................................................................................ 24 SHORT TERM DISABILITY (STD) ................................................................ 25 WORI<ERS' COMPENSATION ....................................................................... 27 • ii • ARTICLE22 INSURANCE ......................................................................................................... 28 ARTICLE23 RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE ASSISTANCE ...................................... 29 ARTICLE24 PENSION / RETIREMENT PLANS .............................................................. 30 ARTICLE25 RULES AND REGULATIONS ......................................................................... 31 ARTICLE26 DUES DEDUCTION .......................................................................................... 32 ARTICLE27 ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................... 33 ARTICLE28 LETTER OF CORRECTIVE ACTION .......................................................... 34 ARTICLE 29 DISCIPLINARY ACTION ................................................................................. 35 ARTICLE 30 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............................................................................ 36 ARTICLE 31 EXCLUSIVENESS OF CONTRACT. .............................................................. 38 • • iii CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE ENGLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION This Contract entered into by the City of Englewood, Colorado ("City"), and the Englewood Police Benefit Association ("Association") has as its purpose the promotion of harmonious relations between the City of Englewood and its employees, a fair and peaceful procedure for the resolution of differences; the establishment of rates of pay and hours of work, and other conditions of employment mutually agreed upon. Except where limited by express provisions elsewhere in this Contract, nothing in this Contract shall be construed to restrict, limit or impair the rights, powers and authority of the City as granted to it by constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, charter or special act, the exclusive power, duty and rights to; A. Determine the overall mission of the City as a unit of government. B. To maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations. C. To determine the services to be rendered, the operations to be performed, the • technology to be utilized, or the matters to be budgeted. • D . To -determine the overall -methods, processes, means, job classifications or personnel by which City operations are to be conducted. E. To direct, supervise, hire, promote, transfer, assign, schedule, retain or lay-off employees. F. To suspend, discipline, discharge, and demote for cause, all full-time permanent classified employees. G. To relieve employees from duties because of lack of work or funds, or under conditions where the City determines continued work would be inefficient or nonproductive. H. To take whatever other actions may be necessary to carry out the wishes of the public not otherwise specified herein or limited by a collective bargaining contract. I. To take any and all actions to carry out the mission of the City in cases of emergency. J. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the City from conferring with its employees for purposes of developing policies to effectuate or implement any of the above enumerated rights . • 1 • • • ARTICLE 1. DURATION OF CONTRACT A. This Contract shall take effect on January 1, 2015 and shall continue in force to and including December 31, 2016. B. This Contract, or any part of it, may be terminated or renegotiated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. C. If any article or section of this Contract should be held invalid by operation of law or the District Court, or if compliance with or enforcement of any article or section should be restrained by such District Court, the remainder of this Contract shall not be affected thereby and this Contract shall remain in full force and effect, and the parties shall promptly negotiate for the purpose of attempting to arrive at a mutually satisfactory replacement of such article or section. D. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted contrary to present or future statutory or common laws of the State of Colorado. E. The parties acknowledge that during negotiations which resulted in this Contracthad the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or ,_.;.a~tcr appropriate for negotiation discus;:;ion:; and that the unders~u.ridir:..g ;;; and agreements arrivec.l at .by the parties after this exercise of that right and opportunity are set forth in this Contract . 2 ARTICLE 2. RECOGNITION The City recognizes the Englewood Police Benefit Association as the employee organization certified by the City of Englewood as the exclusive representative for sworn Police employees within the following bargaining unit: Included: Excluded: All full-time, classified sworn police officers below the rank of Sergeant of the City Police Department ("Employee" or "Officer"). (See City Charter, Article XV. 137:2 (b), (c)). All others. ··, ·r<~·-' 3 • • • • • • ARTICLE 3. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS 1. A full-time classified employee who is not a confidential employee, a managerial employee, or a supervisor shall have the right: A. To form, join, support or participate in, or to refrain from forming, Joln111g, supporting, or participating in any employee organization or its lawful activities. B. Bargain collectively through their certified employee representative. C. No employee shall be interfered with, restrained, coerced or discriminated against because of the exercise of these rights nor shall the right of an individual employee to discuss employment concerns with the City be infringed upon. 2. The City and the Englewood Police Benefit Association mutually agree that a fair and impartial investigation of officers is deemed appropriate and necessary. A written policy has been developed and included in the operations manual specifically addressing the issue of admin.i:strative and criminal investigations and employee rights. No changes will be made in this policy without prior consultation and review with association representative(s). 3. The City will provide bargaining unit employees a total annual bank, not to exceed two hundred (200) hours for use to attend FOP sponsored training or conferences. All costs shall be borne by the EPBA. All trainings shall be approved by the Chief, provided that sufficient staffing exists to meet the needs of the Department . 4 ARTICLE 4. SENIORITY For the purposes of this Contract, seniority shall be determined by length of continuous full- time service with the City Police Department. In cases where two or more employees have the same hire date, the badge number as issued by the Department shall establish priority of position on the seniority list. Employees shall not continue to accrue seniority while laid off, and seniority will terminate when an employee has been laid off for a period of twelve (12) months. After an employee successfully completes the probationary period, their name shall appear on the seniority list as of the first date of hire. The seniority of an employee shall terminate under any of the following conditions: • When a laid off employee fails to give notice of the employee's intent to return to work within seven (7) calendar days after the City has sent, to the employee's last known address on file with the City, a certified letter requesting the employee's return to work. • · , When the · empioyee gives notice but fails to return to work within seven (7) caien<lar days after the aforesaid letter has been sent to the employee. • When the employee's employment with the City is terminated for any reason. • When an employee is on leave of absence as provided under Article 22, Leaves of Absence (Without Pay). • If an employee is absent for three (3) consecutive regularly scheduled working days without notifying the Police Chief or immediate supervisor prior to such three (3) days' absence without good cause as determined by the Police Chief. • Failure to return to work after expiration of a formal leave of absence. • An employee rehired but whose absence from City employment was less than eighteen (18) months will have their prior accrued seniority with the retirement plan restored. • An employee rehired, but whose absence from City employment was less than twelve (12) months will have their prior accrued seniority restored with regard to all other City benefits. 5 • • • • • • ARTICLE 5. HOURS OF WORK The Police Department shall observe office and working hours necessary for the efficient transaction of their respective services. i . A. Work Period A work period is a regular recurring period of fourteen (14) consecutive twenty- four (24) hour periods as defined by the City's Payroll Schedule. B. Work Schedule The workweek need not be the same as the calendar week. The workweek may begin on any day of the week and any hour of the day and need not be the same for all employees. For Officers assigned to the Investigations Bureau, the work schedule, including roll call and meal periods, shall consist of five (5) eight (8) hour work days. Investigations personnel shall be permitted to "flex" their schedules and work four ( 4) ten (10) hour work days with supervisor apJ?roval. For officers assigned to the Uniform Patrol Bureau, Traffic and the impact ·team, the work .schedule: in.eluding ~oil call arid ~eal p~nods, shall consist of four (4) ten (10) hour work days. Any change in an officer's bid or assigned schedule (starting time, quitting time, scheduled days off) will be made in accordance with paragraph C except schedule changes may be made without notice if the affected officer agrees. The City agrees to review with Association representative's issues and concerns regarding the method and possible compensation associated with schedule changes. C. Changing Work Schedules The Chief of Police may change the work schedule to meet the needs of the Organization. In such circumstances, the Chief shall provide a minimum of five (5) days notice to the Association. Work schedules may be changed without advance notice in the case of emergencies as determined by the Police Chief. When an employee's work schedule is changed for purposes of training, special instruction, etc., the supervisor shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate the employee's interests concerning the scheduled change. D. Staffing E . The need for an appropriate level of staffing is recognized by the City for the purpose of efficiency and safety. The Police Department will address this issue in Department policy. Meal Periods 6 Officers shall be granted a paid meal period of thirty (30) minutes for each eight • (8) hour work shift. Employees working a ten (10) hour work shift shall be allowed a paid forty-five (45) minute meal period. An employee may conduct personal business during the meal period. The meal period shall be authorized and controlled by the employee's supervisor. F. Rest Periods Employees shall be granted a paid rest period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes during approximately the first one-half of the employee's regular work day and an additional fifteen (15) minutes rest break approximately in the second one-half of the work day. Rest periods shall be authorized and controlled by the employee's supervisor . . ~ .: ., . . .. -· . .; :..· ' ~ .: ... . . . , ... : . . . • i ,,· ... ..·.-·• ' 7 • • • • • ARTICLE 6. BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR SHIFT ASSIGNMENT Bidding for Watches and Days Off A. Seniority applicable to the seniority bid process will be determined in accordance with the total length of continuous employment as a Police Officer with the City of Englewood. Prior City employment in other than a Police Officer capacity will not apply toward seniority. Probationary employees will not be included in the bid process. B. The seniority bid system will be applicable to personnel assigned to the Uniform Patrol Bureau only, and will not be authorized in any other bureau or special assignment. C. The Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander will develop and post a schedule prior to each year for a twelve-month period. D. The bid process will begin on September 1st of each year and shall be completed by October 31 st of each year. Employees will have one (1) calendar day to submit their bid request upon being notified that it is their turn to bid. Employees who bid during working hours will submit their bid prior to the end of their shift. The bid request shall consist of the employee's choice of shift assignm<:nt, days off and .any seniority vacation and/ or holiday reque sts as provided under Article 15 and Article 16. Employees' time for participating in the bid process shall not be considered hours worked for purposes of calculating overtime. The Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander shall make reasonable efforts to keep employees apprised of the status of the bid process . E. There will be a total of five (5) non-biddable positions which shall consist of two (2) non- biddable positions on Watch I and three (3) non-biddable positions on Watch II. Non-biddable positions shall not have any combination of Friday, Saturday or Sundays as the positions' regular days off unless agreed to by the Association and the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. The bidding process will begin with the most senior Police Officer bidding the positions of his/her choice. In descending order of seniority, each remaining Police Officer will have choice of the remaining biddable positions. The Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander may open the bid for any or all of the non-biddable positions at his discretion. Employees may request non-biddable positions and an attempt will be made to accommodate them, but such positions will be assigned at the discretion of the division commander. If an employee fails to submit a bid in accordance with the bidding procedure, the employee will relinquish the opportunity to bid by seniority, and will be assigned at the discretion of the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. F. When a vacancy in Patrol occurs during the bid year due to a resignation, term1nation, promotion or a bid of a vacant position in accordance with this section, the Department shall place the vacant position up for bid for three (3) calendar days by posting notice of the vacancy via department email. The notice shall include a description of the vacant position and the deadline for submitting the bid to the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. Once the three (3) da ys expires, the Department shall review the submitted bids and the position shall be awarded to the most senior bidder . There shall be a maximum of two (2) total bids allowed, including the initial bid for the initial vacancy. Additional bids may be authorized at the discretion of the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. 8 G. An employee in another assignment, who is reassigned to the Uniform Patrol Bureau will • occupy the position vacated by the employee they are replacing. If other positions are available, the employee may request assignment to such positions, but may only be assigned at the discretion of the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. The employee will then be allowed to bid at the next bid process. H. Employees, who wish to permanently trade work schedules, shall submit a request, in writing, to the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander, who must approve all shift trades. Prior to such submission, the employees in question shall contact, via department email, any affected employees on the seniority list to determine whether any more senior employees are interested in shifts involved in the trade. All responses from affected employees shall be delivered to the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander for review. The involved employees shall be responsible for accommodating any more senior employee's desire to fill a shift involved in the trade . If the involved employees are unable to accommodate the more senior employees, the trade will not be approved. It is further understood that should a schedule change for unforeseen emergency circumstances arise, employees may be assigned by the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander from one shift to the other to h andle whatever em f.J tgency situation exists du__ri.ng the durntion ·o f the.cm ergeo.cy .. 9 • • • • • ARTICLE 7. SPECIALASSIGNMENT/OPTIONALDU1Y Special Assignment means any assignment, other than Patrol, in which an employee serves in a full time capacity. Special Assignments include, Detective, Professional Standards Bureau Investigator, School Resource Officer, Traffic Officer, Impact Team and any other assignment that falls within the definition of Special Assignment. Optional Duty means any duty that is in addition to an employee's full-time assignment. Optional Duties include, but are not limited to: Armorer, SWAT Officer, Negotiator, Field Training Officer, Crime Scene Investigator, and Skills Instructors such as Firearms, Arrest Contro~ etc. The Department will maintain a written process for selection and service, including performance of employees for special assignments in the Police Operations Manual. A copy of the written process shall be provided to the Association for review at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to it being disseminated to employees of the Department. The Police Chief will consult with the Association regarding any future changes to the selection process . Ernplbyees ;' \\f·ho voh.mtarily·~ccept ·a• special as~i5'1m1ertt :Jr' ·0ptlurtal duty; shall be p'erm.iUe<l' to withdraw from the special assignment or optional duty, upon request provided the officer gives at least ninety (90) days advance notice. Employees who are required to fill a special assignment or optional duty involuntarily shall not be required to do so for more than one (1) calendar year . 10 ARTICLE 8. LAYOFF Whenever there is lack of work, lack of funds, or under conditions where the determines continued work would be inefficient or non-productive the appointing authority designate the positions in which the layoff is to be made. City shall The order of layoff shall be determined by the City Manager on the basis of the quality and length of service provided by the employees in the affected areas. Quality of work will include the employee's total employment record. This record includes annual performance evaluations, commendations, disciplinary actions, education, training, etc. Any employees who have not yet achieved permanent or regular status or who have less than twelve (12) months of full-time employment with the City shall be laid off first, regardless of performance. Permanent employees who are laid off have the right to be reemployed as a police officer, in inverse order of layoff, provided that such recall occurs within eighteen (18) months of layoff and the employee continues to meet the qualifications for that position. Laid off employees will stay on the recall list for eighteen (18) months. In the event the quality and length of service are equal, seniority shall prevail. The recall list shall terminate after eighteen (18) months. If financial conditions warrant and at the discretion of the Police Chief, an employee, recalled from layoff to a classification lower than that held at the time of the layoff, may be moved up to the highest classification previously held at an ., acceierat.eJ pace. .. '.... .~ Employees shall not continue to accrue service credit, including seniority, or be eligible for any City benefits during layoff. In the event of a layoff, affected employees will be given as much advance notice as possible. 11 • • • • ARTICLE 9. COMPENSATION A. 2016 Salary Schedule Regular Straight Time Hourly Rate Police Officer Probationary Police Officer 4th Class Police Officer Yd Class Police Officer 2nd Class Police Officer 1st Class $27.10 $28.86 $31.71 $34.89 $38.36 B. The schedule in "A." above will be adjusted on January 1, 2017 to reflect the 2017 "market median" as determined by the 2016 Salary Survey. The "market median" will be based upon the 2017 median wage of either the top rate for the highest ranking police officer or maximum of the salary range for top ranking police officer (if the jurisdiction uses ranges vs . a flat rate) at: Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Commerce City, Denver, Greenwood Village, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmontand Thornton. The survey will be conducted in the 4th quarter of 2016 by the HumanResources Department, witl1 the concurrence of the EPBA. The City ~nd the EPBA will meet b y November 1, 2016 to approve the survey and finalize the revised salary table for 2017. • C. The schedule in "A." above will be further adjusted on January 1, 2018 to reflect the2018 "market median" as determined by the 2017 Salary Survey. The "market median" will be based upon the 2018 median wage of either the top rate for the highest ranking police officer or maximum of the salary range for top ranking police officer (if the jurisdiction uses ranges vs. a flat rate) at: Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Commerce City, Denver, Greenwood Village, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont and Thornton. The survey will be conducted in the 4th quarter of 2017 by the Human Resources Department, with the concurrence of the EPBA. The City and the EPBA will meet by November 1, 2017 to approve the survey and finalize the revised salary table for 2018. • Class Increase The wage increase provided for Police Officer 4th Class through 1st Class shall not be considered automatic, but rather based upon meritorious service. Said class increase may be granted or denied to any individual Police Officer upon recommendation of the Police Chief and with the approval of the City Manager or designee upon written notice to such individual Police Officer. The date in which the class increase is approved shall determine the new class anniversarydate. Stipends Field Training Officers (FTO)/Master Police Officer Employees, who are assigned as Master Police Officers (MPO), shall be compensated at two (2) hours 12 at their overtime rate for each day that they serve in that capacity. Employees, who are assigned as • Field Training Officers (FTO), shall be compensated at one (1) hour at their overtime rate for each day that they serve in that capacity. • • 13 • • • ARTICLE 10. MERIT PAY A. Each Police Officer I shall be eligible for merit pay in an amount determined by the Police Chief, up to a total of $1,000. B. Such merit pay shall be awarded in the exercise of the Chiefs discretion, based upon specific written objective and subjective performance criteria developed by the Chief. The Chief shall consult with the Association regarding the criteria and the criteria will be made available to employees. C. Eligible employees who believe they meet the criteria for such an award shall submit their application through their immediate supervisor for review by the Merit Pay Review Committee on or before the employee's employment annual evaluation date (date of hire). The Committee shall make a recommendation to the Chief regarding the amount of the merit pay, if any, to be awarded to the employee . The amount recommended shall not exceed the amount set forth in Paragraph A, above. The Chief shall promptly consider and make a determination as to each such recommendation . 14 ARTICLE 11. OVERTIME WORK~ A. Employees covered by this Contract shall be compensated at time and one-half (1 1/2) the employee's regular hourly rate of pay for all assigned hours worked over and above their regular DAILY work schedule. B. Overtime shall not be p yramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. C. The City retains the right to assign overtime work to any employee qualified to perform the work. D. Overtime available during a given watch shall be offered on a voluntary basis to uniformed officers working during the preceding or succeeding watch, as determined by the watch supervisor, in order of seniority. If no officer accepts, the least senior officer may be required to work the overtime, an accommodation may be authorized, or the City may, at its discretion, call any officer in to work the overtime. E . Employees who work overtime, call back, and/ or standby hours may, in lieu of pay, take cotnpensawty · time off .upon mutual · agrcemetlt ·betw een the employee a;:1d the employee's supervisor. If there is no mutual agreement, the employee shall be paid. Members of the bargaining unit may accrue a maximum of eighty (80) hours of compensatory time to be utilized in accordance with City of Englewood Policy #46 (Compensatory Time). Compensatory time is to be compensated at the rate of one and one-halfhours of time off for each one hour of overtime, call back, or standby . worked in excess of the daily scheduled work shift. F. Employees who attend firearms qualification on their off-duty time will be guaranteed two (2) hours overtime pay whether they qualify or not. Employees who have already qualified, shall not be compensated for any additional time spent on the range. 15 • • • • • • ARTICLE 12. CALL BACK A. An employee on off-duty status who is called back to duty for a non- emergency situation shall be credited with a minimum of two(2 ) hours of pay at the rate of one and one-half (1 1/2) the employee's regular hourly wage rate. An employee on off-duty status who is called back to duty for an emergency situation where the employee is contacted and required to immediately report to work shall be credited with a minimum of two and one-half (2 Yz) hours of pay at the rate of one and one-half (1 Yi) the employee's regular hourly wage rate or actual time worked, whichever is greater. B. Should any employee be required to testify before any court or divisional administrative hearing as a result of his/her official duties with the City, the time spent by such employee in providing such testimony shall be considered to be work time. If such appearance for testimony is at a time when the employee would otherwise be off duty, the employee shall be paid as provided under Section A and B above. The employee shall pay to the City all witness fees, and other compensation · :~' .,.,. · ,, _.,.··-paid 'to 'the· ethpl6yee ~i:h corijlihction with so-· festifyitlg exCluding mileage fees. An employee who is called for witness duty shall present to their supervisor the original summons or subpoena from the court or at the conclusion of such duty, shall provide a signed statement from the clerk of the court, or other evidence indicating the amount of time his/her person was required. C. When an employee is subpoenaed as a witness in private litigation to testify, not in his/her official capacity but as an individual, the time absent by reasons thereof shall be taken as any accrued leave or leave without pay, if all accrued leave is exhausted . 16 ARTICLE 13. STANDBY Employees assigned to standby duty shall be credited with two and one-half (2 1/2) hours of pay at the overtime rate of pay for each twenty-four (24) hour period, during which they are on standby. Employees assigned to standby for less than a twenty-four (24) hour continuous period shall be credited with one (1) hour of pay at the overtime rate for each suchassignment . . ~ . . '~,.. :'' ~ .... ·. ,. :'r 17 • • • • • • ARTICLE 14. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE A. The City shall furnish, or reimburse the cost of uniforms, including leather gear, insignias, duty footwear and clothing, required while on duty, and shall pay all costs of maintenance, repair and cleaning thereof, provided that reimbursement of such costs shall not be required if approval of the Police Chief is not obtained in advance of purchase. All employees assigned to non- uniform positions for a period of thirty (30) days or more and not required to be in uniform during work, shall receive a clothing allowance as follows: 1. Upon initial assignment to a non-uniform position, the employee shall receive a lump sum of $1200 to cover the initial cost of purchasing clothing for the first year of the employee's assignment. Employees, who leave non-uniform position voluntarily within the first year of their assignment, shall repay the clothing allowance at $100 per month for every entire month remaining in the first year of their assignment. 2. After the first year of their assignment to a non-uniform position, officers shall receive $100 per month for each month that they remain in the non-uniform assignment. B. The employee shall be responsible for all lost or stolen items identified above, or damage to the same, as a result of the employee's negligence or deliberate act. C. The City will provide on a replacement basis a high quality bullet proof ve st. Any bullet resistant vest issued after January 1, 2015 shall meet the minimum standard of level II (A) on the National Institute of Justice's Standard for Bullet Resistant Vests. At the employee's option, a level III (A) vest will be provided at no additional cost to the employee. Replacement shall be made once every five (5) years, or at such earlier time as the City is notified of any event or condition rendering such a vest unsafe for its intended purpose. In the event of specialized or customized vests, the City will pay the same dollar amount for the City issued and authorized vest with , the employee paying the differences in cost. D. All uniformed employees shall be annually reimbursed the cost of one pair of duty footwear up to a maximum of $200. Officers shall present a receipt for the footwear to the City before receiving the reimbursement. E . Except in the case of the employee's personal negligence, employees shall be fully reimbursed for any department approved firearm, prescription eyewear, or flashlight, purchased by the employee that is damaged or destroyed in the performance of the employee's official duties; or any department approved firearm purchased by the employee that is seized as evidence and not returned to the employee within 30 days of seizure. Employees shall be furnished with or reimbursed for the costs of replacement batteries for flashlights and weapon sights. Employees must seek supervisory approval before purchasing replacement batteries and shall provide proper receipts to be eligible for reimbursement . 18 ARTICLE 15. ANNUAL LEA VE Employees shall earn annual leave at the following rates. Length of Service 0-4 years 5-9 years 10 -19 years 20 and above The earning limits for annual leave shall be as follows: Length of Service 0-4 years 5-9 years 10-19 years 20 and above Hours per Year 100 120 160 170 240 288 '368 428 • A. Annual leave shall not be granted to any employee until after completion of six (6) • months consecutive service with the City. B. The schedule for use of annual leave shall be determined by the needs of the ·------~ctepa.tthiencAnnual leave ·snall be taken -at a rime ecmvenienrtoarnt approved-by-the-Police-Chief.·----------·- (See City of Englewood Administrative Policy 30, "Annual Leave'', for further details.) Annual Leave Pay The rate of annual leave pay shall be the employee's regular straight time hourly rate of pay for the employee's regular job. Annual leave shall be allowed only to the total hourly amount accumulated during the pay period in which the leave is taken. Work During Annual Leave If after the employee has begun their annual leave and the City requires the employee to work during the scheduled annual leave period, the employee shall be compensated as follows: A. The employee shall be paid for all hours worked at the overtime rate. B. The employee shall not be charged with annual leave for the number of hours worked. 19 • • • • If all personal leave has been exhausted and the employee is ill or injured, annual leave may be substituted for personal leave, and will serve as the elimination shift in order to access Short Term Disability. In this instance the employee must notify his/her supervisor one hour prior to the start of his/her shift. The maximum use of annual leave shall be no greater than the amount accumulated by the employee during the pay period in which the leave is taken, and in no event shall the annual leave exceed four (4) consecutive weeks unless otherwise authorized by the PoliceChief. Annual Leave Pay Upon Separation Any employee who is separated from the service of the City, i.e., retirement, termination (if employee has completed six (6) months of continuous service with the City), or layoff, shall be compensated for the unused annual leave time accumulated at the time of separation at the employee's regular hourly wage rate. Annual leave is not to be used to extend an employee's date of separation. Bidding fur Annual Leav e Each officer will bid one annual leave, by seniority, for the year's period, January 1st through December 31 st. Additional annual leave periods will be granted, on a first requested basis, only after all seniority-bid annual leaves have been scheduled. The bidding process for annual leave will begin on September 1 of each year and shall be completed by October 31 of each year as scheduled by the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. Annual leaves are expected to be scheduled in good faith by each employee and shall specify the exact dates desired. All seniority bid for annual leave shall consist of consecutive days up to 120 hours, but in no event shall seniority annual leave exceed 120 hours unless approved by the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. Annual leave will be administered at the discretion of the Police Chief or designee for personnel assigned to any other Bureau( s) . 20 ARTICLE 16. HOLIDAYS A. Officers assigned to the Uniform Patrol Bureau shall be scheduled for one hundred (100) hours of holiday time with pay per calendar year. Scheduling will be made with the approval of the Police Chief or designee. Bidding for holidays will commence during the annual bidding process and will be bid by seniority after the completion of all seniority annual leave bid. Annual leave shall take priority over holidays. Employees may bid a minimum of 10 (ten) hours of holiday time up to a maximum of 40 (forty) hours. Holidays bid do not have to be bid in consecutive days. Any holidays not scheduled by August 1 of that year may be assigned at the discretion of the Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander. B. Officers assigned to the Investigative Services Bureau will be granted one hundred (100) hours of time off on the regularly observed City holidays. If a holiday falls on one of their regularly scheduled days off, these employees will be given an alternate day off. These officers may also be granted a "floating holiday" option. They may be allowed to exchange any of the below listed holidays for any other day in the year he/ she is normally scheduled to work. Scheduling will be made with the approval of the Police Chief or designee. Presidents ' Day Veterans Day Friday after Thanksgiving Martin Luther King Day Labor Day Memorial Day Christmas Eve New Year's Eve Independence Day C. If after the employee has begun their holiday and the City requires the employee to work during the .scheduled holiday period, the employee shall be compensated as follows: 2. The employee shall not be charged w-ith holiday time for the number of hours worked. D. When a new officer is hired, he/ she receives an initial prorated holiday leave balance. When an officer terminates before the end of the year, holiday leave cash out will be prorated. If a current officer does not use all of his/her holiday leave by December 31't of a given year, the unused portion will be forfeited. E. Holiday leave will be administered at the discretion of the Police Chief or designee for personnel assigned to any other Bureau(s). 21 • • • • • • ARTICLE 17. ADMINISTRATIVE LEA VE Administrative leave with pay may be granted an employee at the discretion of the Police Chief or designee. This leave is used when circumstances require in the best interests of the City and/ or employee that the employee should temporarily be relieved from duty . 22 ARTICLE 18. FUNERAL LEAVE The Police Chief shall grant leave with pay to an employee to attend the funeral of a member of the employee's family . The number of days granted shall be governed by the circumstances of the case, but in no event shall they exceed seven (7) calendar days. For the purpose of this section, "employee's family" shall mean the employee's spouse, or the children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters of the employee or of the employee's spouse. • •• ·~ ' • • • ~. • •• •: ••• • ' 'Of 23 • • • • • • ARTICLE 19. PERSONAL LEAVE All employees covered by this Contract shall be granted 5 0 personal leave hours with pay which an employee is entitled to use for the followingpurposes: A. Employee's own illness/injury B. Illness/injury of employee's family C. To attend to personal business Employees shall have until October 3f't-of each year to use their annually allotted personal leave. Any unused personal leave hours shall be converted to annual leave hours at a one hour to one hour ratio. Personal leave shall be scheduled and administered under the direction of the Police Chief. In the event of illness/injury in which personal leave is requested, the employee shall notify their supervisor or other person designated by the supervisor at least one (1) hour prior to their scheduled reporting time. Personal leave shall be prorated for employees beginning employment with the City. No p.rvration or .::onversion to annual leave shall occur upon tcrm.ina:ion of t.:inplu}incnt. 24 ARTICLE 20. SHORT TERM DISABILI1Y (STD) A. Definition Upon completion of 90 days of service, STD leave is granted for non-service connected injuries (except as described below in section D.,2.,b.) or illnesses of an employee which prevents the employee from performing his/her duties as a City employee. B. Provision The City agrees to provide STD leave with pay for employees absent as a result of illness/injury as follows: 91 days-4 years 5-9 years 10+ years 347 hours 520 hours 693 hours C. Accumulation and Restoration STD leave shall not be accumulative · except that on January 1 uf each yea .r, the· City shall restore 100% of the number of hours previously used by an employee as follows: 91 days-4 years 5-9 years 10+years up to a maximum of 17 4 hours up to a maximum of 260 hours up to a maximum of 34 7 hours ----------· -------Such-restoration-shall continue-each-year-until such-time-as-the-emplo-yee-aeerues-the---- maximum number of hours for which he or she is eligible under Article 24 .B. D. Utilization 1. Upon completion of 90 days of service, employees may access STD with pay after they have expended one annual or personal leave day to cover their first shift of the absence. Employees, who wish to access STD must apply for such leave using a form provided by the City and they shall attach to such form a doctor's note, evidencing that they are or were ill. Employees must provide the form and the physician's note within five (5) days of returning to work. Employees, who fail to provide such documentation, shall be charged personal or annual leave time for their entire absence. 2. Authorization for STD shall only be granted for the following reasons: a. Personal illness or injury not service connected, including maternity related disability . b. Service connected injury or illness only after the ninety days described in Article 25, 25 • • • • • • Workers' Compensation, has been exhausted . F. Reporting of STD The employee or a member of the employee's household shall notify the employee's supervisor at least one (1) hour prior to the employee's scheduled reporting time. No STD leave will be granted to an employee who fails to notify their supervisor prior to the beginning of the employee's work schedule unless circumstances beyond the control of the employee would not permit. G. Verification of Disability If absence from work is three (3) days or more, a medical release must be provided to the employee's supervisor, who will forward it to Human Resources for possible Family and Medical Leave qualification. If the Police Chief requires a physician's statement of disability in addition to the one mentioned above, the City shall bear reasonable and necessary costs required to obtain such physician's statement . . H. Abuse of STD An employee who makes a false claim for STD leave shall be subject to disciplinary action . 26 ARTICLE 21. WORKERS' COMPENSATION A. For any on-the-job injury which causes any employee to be absent from work as a result of such injury, the City shall pay to such employee his/her full wages from the first day of his/her absence from work up to and including the 90Wh calendar day of such absence, less whatever sums received by the employee as disability wages under workers' compensation. After exhaustion of the ninety (90) days if the employee is still disabled, he/ she can utilize leave under the provisions of Article 24. The City reserves the right to require any employee on injury or disability leave to submit to an examination(s) by City-appointed physician(s) at the City's expense or under the provision of workers' compensation or the retirement/ pension provisions as provided under State Statute. B. All injuries that occur during working hours shall be reported to the employee's supervisor within 24 hours of the injury or before the employee leaves their department of employment unless circumstances beyond the control of the employee would not permit. C. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall pay one-half (1/2) of the state- mandated contribution for death and disability pursuant to § 31-31-811(4), C.R.S., for officers hired after January i, 199 7. ~-' • D. When a member of the bargaining unit is killed in the line of duty or dies from injuries • sustained in the line of duty, the City shall pay the cost of reasonable funeral expenses incurred by the survivors up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($-10,000). This amount shall be offset by any other payments provided by Colorado Workers' Compensation or any other insurance agency ---· ------o.r-organizatiOfr.-------------------------------·---------------------------------·------------------·------ • 27 • • • ARTICLE 22. INSURANCE A. MEDICAL The City will pay ninety percent (90%) of the premium cost for "employee only" coverage, eighty-five percent (85%) of the premium cost for "employee plus one" coverage and eighty percent (80%) of "family" coverage for the medical insurance plan designated as the basic City plan. Employees will pay 10%, 15% or 20% of the premium cost. If the City offers any optional medical insurance plan(s), the employee will pay the difference between the City's contribution described above and the premium cost of the optional plan chosen. B. DENTAL The City will pay ninety percent (90%) of the premium cost for "employee only" coverage, eighty-five percent (85%) of the premium cost for "employee plus one" coverage and eighty percent (80%) of "family" coverage for dental insurance. Employees will pay 10%, 15% or 20% of the premium cost. ,. \.._,, LIFE ''. Term life insurance will be provided by the City for employees covered by this Contract in an amount equal to one year of the employee's salary as specified in Article 9, Compensation, B. or C., whichever applies . D. Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of benefits provided under the health or dental plans shall be subject to the plan appeal process. It is expressly understood that this article is a non-grievable item under this Contract . 28 ARTICLE 23. RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE ASSISTANCE It is understood and agreed by both parties that any referral to health insurance for retirees or future retirees is not to be construed as a part of this Contract. The City agrees to pay the retiree $75.00 per month for employees who retired on or before December 31, 1994; and $100.00 per month for employees who retire on or after January 1, 199 5. 29 • • • • • • ARTICLE 24. PENSION /RETIREMENT PLANS Officers hired before May 20, 2013 shall contribute 10% of their base wages into the Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado (FPP A) Statewide Defined Benefit Plan and the City shall contribute 10% of each officer's base wages into the FPPA Statewide Defined Benefit Plan. Officers who were hired before May 20, 2013, but remained in either the ICMA-RC Money Purchase Plan or converted to the FPP A Money Purchase portion of the FPP A Hybrid Plan or the FPP A Hybrid Plan shall contribute 10% of their base wages into the plan and the City shall contribute 10% of each officer's base wages into the plan. Officers hired after May 20, 2013 shall be enrolled in FPPA's Statewide Defined Benefit Plan and they shall contribute 8% of their base wages into the plan and the City shall contribute 8% of their base wages into the plan. The plan documents for the City of Englewood ICMA Retirement Corporation 401 (a) Money Purchase Plan and the FPPA Plans will be available for inspection in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. FPPA plan information is available on FPPA's website at: "vww.fppaco.org . 30 ARTICLE 25. RULES AND REGULATIONS A. Except as limited by the express terms of this Contract, the City retains the right to promulgate reasonable rules, regulations, policies, procedures and directives. Said rules, regulations, policies, and procedures and directives which are an alleged violation of this Contract shall be subject to the grievance procedure. B. The City agrees to meet and confer in a timely manner with the Association concerning the formulation of changes of rules and regulations, policies, procedures and directives . 31 • • • • • • ARTICLE 26. DUES DEDUCTION A. The City agrees to deduct the Association dues once each pay period from the pay of those employees who individually request in writing that such deductions be made, subject to the garnishment laws of the State of Colorado. The amounts to be deducted shall be certified to the City Director of Human Resources by the Treasurer of the Association, and the aggregate deductions of all employees shall be remitted together with an itemized statement to the Treasurer by the 15th of the succeeding month, after such deductions are made. The authorization shall be revocable during the term of the Contract, upon a thirty (30) day written notice by the employee to the City Finance and Administrative Services Director. B. If no wages are paid an authorized employee on the last pay period of a given pay period, deduction for that pay period will be made from any wages which may be paid to him/her on the next succeeding final monthly City pay period. It is expressly understood that the City assumes no liability and shall not be liable for the collection or payment to the Association of any dues during any time that an employee is not actually working for the City and actually on the payroll of the City. In the event of error on the check-off list or missed deduction, the City will not be responsible to make adjustments, until notified by the Treasurer of the Association. C. -The Association shall indemnify and lwl<l Lhc Gt.y hannless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provision of this Article . D. Changes in the dues amount to be deducted shall be limited to two (2) changes each year, and provided a thirty (30) day written notice is provided the City Director of Human Resources. E. Should the change in the deduction amount or method require a computer programming change, the Association shall be responsible for 100% of the cost of such change or changes. The City and the EBP A shall discuss and agree upon any necessary programing changes and the associated costs before any such work begins. Payment from the Association shall be made to the City Director of Human Resources within ten (10) days of receipt of billing . 32 ARTICLE 27. ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES The City agrees that during working hours on the City premises and without loss of pay, Association representatives may be allowed to: attend Association-management meetings; attend negotiation sessions; post Association notices on City designated bulletin boards; solicit Association memberships during employee's non-work time; and represent employees on grievances and disciplinary matters provided the work load permits as determined by the Police Chief or designated representative and requires no overtime pay. 33 • • • • • • ARTICLE 28. LETTER OF CORRECTIVE ACTION A. Examples of reasons that may result in an oral or written corrective action are listed under City of Englewood Administrative Policy Manual, Policy #25, "Corrective and Disciplinary Action", and the Englewood Police Department Operation Manual, Sections 3.1, "Code of Conduct" and 3.2, "Discipline". B. The employee shall have the opportunity to submit written comments in response to any written corrective action which is to be included in the employee's official personnel file. C. The employee retains the right to request an administrative review of any written corrective action which is to be included in the employee's official personnel file. The Police Chief shall determine this administrative review procedure. A representative of the EPBA may be included in this administrative review process at the employee's request. Written findings of this administrative review shall be placed in the employee's official personnel file. D. This Article shall not be grievable under this Contract . 34 ARTICLE 29. DISCIPLINARY ACTION Disciplinary actions are those personnel actions administered against an employee for an offensive act or poor job performance, which actions adversely affect the current pay, current status, or tenure of the employee. 1. Disciplinary action penalties include suspension, demotion, and discharge of an employee. 2. Disciplinary action may be administered concurrently with corrective actions. 3. Reasons for disciplinary action are defined under City of Englewood Administrative Policy Manual, Policy #25, "Corrective and Disciplinary Action" and the Police Operations Manual: 3.1, "Code of Conduct" and 3.2, "Discipline". An employee at his/her discretion, shall be entitled to one (1) Association representative of his/her choosing during any proceeding (e.g. hearing, pre-disciplinary, or disciplinary hearing) which the employee reasonably believes could result in disciplinary action. The employee may choose to have an Association attorney serve as his/her representative. In the event the employee's chosen representati.v.:-; is unavailable, the -employee shall use another available representative it:1 his or her place. 35 • • • • • • ARTICLE 30. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE A grievance is defined as an alleged violation concerning the interpretation or application of a specific provision of this Contract. The employee and the Association shall be required to follow the procedure as set out below. If the employee/ Association is unable to settle the grievance or dispute orally and informally through his/her immediate supervisor within seven (7) calendar days of the date of the occurrence of the grievance, or the employee's knowledge of it, the employee may within the succeeding seven (7) calendar days file a written grievance with his/her supervisor. The supervisor shall attempt to resolve the matter and shall respond in writing to the employee within seven (7) calendar days. An Association or general grievance shall be presented directly by the President of EPBA or his designee to the Police Chief. If the grievance still remains unresolved, it shall be presented by the employee to the Police Chi f d ' ' ' ' ' l ' f, (1 A\ 1 · 1 1 r 11 ' ' f th ' I e or · cs1gnee m wntmg wltllill , ourtc::en '+J ca1cuua1 u;;..ys 10110Wl1lg receipt u e supervisors response. The Police Chief shall respond in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days . If the grievance still remains unresolved, it shall be presented by the employee to the City Manager in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days following receipt of the Police Chief response. The City Manager or his/her designated representative shall respond in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days. If the grievance is still unresolved, the employee within fourteen (14) calendar days after the reply of the City Manager or his/her designated representative, may by written notice request the matter be heard by an arbitrator. If within five days of the request for arbitration the Association and the City cannot mutually agree on an impartial arbitrator, a request will be filed with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for a panel of seven arbitrators to be sent to the parties. The arbitrator shall be selected by a method of alternative striking of names from the panel, with the first strike determined by a coin flip. The final name left on the panel shall be the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be requested to issue a decision within thirty (30) days after conclusion of testimony and argument. Each party shall be responsible for compensation to its own representatives and witnesses . The fees of the arbitrator shall be shared equally by the Association and the City. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, provided it pays for the record and makes copies available to the arbitrator. If the other party wishes to have a copy of the transcript, it shall share equally all costs of the transcript. Failure by an employee or the Association to comply with any time limitation shall constitute a settlement of the grievance. Should the employer not respond within the prescribed time, the grievance will automatically proceed to the next step. At the employee's option, the employer may be allowed additional time to respond. Authority of Arbitrator The arbitrator shall have no power to add to or subtract from or change the terms of this Contract. The written decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The arbitrator shall limit his/her decision strictly to the grievance submitted which has been properly processed through the grievance procedure outlined. Processing Grievance During Working Hours Grievances may be investigated and processed by the employee and one (1) on-duty Association representative at the employee's request during working hours within reasonable time limits without loss of pay provided notice is given and the work load permits . . •' ·~ :··~~·::·~:-·· .. ,.. . 37 • • • • • • ARTICLE 31. EXCLUSIVENESS OF CONTRACT The City and the Association agree that the terms and provisions herein contained constitute the entire Contract between the parties and supersede all previous communications, representatives or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. The City and the Association agree that all negotiable items have been discussed during the negotiations leading to this Contract and, therefore, agree that negotiations will not be reopened on any item during the life of this Contract except by mutual agreement of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Contract to be signed by their respective representatives, and their signatures placed thereon, on this day of June, 2016 at Englewood, Colorado. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Joseph Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: CityClerk -Loucrishia A. Ellis City Manager -Eric Keck ENGLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT ASSO ,IATION • • MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Jefferson City Council City Manager's Office From: Date: September 29, 2016 Regarding: Calling the Question. l~ai The following question has been posed as to if "Calling the Question" stops all debate on a motion before City Council. In the current City Council Policy and Procedure manual, it provides that once a call for the question is made, the Mayor would then request a vote. In essence, this could be read as stopping any debate on the motion then in front of Council. However, calling the question does not end the debate 1 • In order for a member to force an end to debate, the member must first obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair/presiding officer/mayor2 , who must then move the previous question, which refers to the original motion which is subject of the debate. It can also be stated as "I move to close the debate" which has the same effect and refers to the original motion. Once the motion is made to close the debate the moving member must have a second, and a vote by at least a two-thirds majority of the council to close the debate3 . Although a member may move to close the debate, it is generally recognized that each member of a city council or board member has the right to speak on each motion. The current Council policy does not contain a time limit on members speaking. Yet, in order for a member to speak they must be recognized by the Mayor, and any statements should be confined to the subject or question under debate. Interruptions are not tolerated , unless it is to call the speaker to order, and if called to order the member is to cease speaking until the question of order is determined . The Council policy requires the Mayor to preserve strict order and decorum at all regular and special meetings. The Mayor decides all questions of order, subject to appeal, and recognizes those members who wish to speak while ensuring that the member confine their remarks to the question under debate. The Mayor, as the presiding officer, has the authority to call a speaker to order, in the event the speaker is going off topic by not confining their statements to the subject or question under debate. Upon the conclusion of all statements, the Mayor then asks for a vote on the motion. • 1 Debate as used is a general term used to describe all discussion in a council or board meeting . 2 ln the present context the presiding officer is the Mayor of the City of Englewood. 3Roberts Rules of Order Revised (11th ed .) p . 202