Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-07 (Regular) Meeting Agenda Packet 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. 1000 Englewood Pkwy - Council Chambers Englewood, CO 80110 AGENDA City Council Regular Meeting Monday, October 7, 2024 ♦ 6:00 PM Council Dinner will be available at 5:30 p.m. To view the meeting, please follow this link to our YouTube live stream link: YouTube 1. Study Session Topic a. City Attorney Tamara Niles will be present to discuss licensing and potential City regulations for Natural Medicine businesses. 6:00 p.m. to 6:35 p.m. Information and Direction Presentation: 15 minutes Discussion: 20 minutes 1a documents 2. Call to Order 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Roll Call 5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session a. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 16, 2024. 5a documents 6. Recognitions a. Recognition of Englewood Municipal Court Restorative Justice Program Volunteers 7. Appointments, Communications and Proclamations 8. Recognition of Public Comment Public Comment will begin shortly after 7:00 p.m., this is an opportunity 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. Englewood residents must provide your address or cross streets. Non-Englewood residents must provide the name of your city. If you have addressed Council in the last 90 days you will be moved to the bottom of the list. Written materials may be submitted to the City Clerk in advance or at the meeting. Audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk by 5pm on the Thursday prior to the meeting. Public Comment will be limited to 90 minutes total. If you would like to sign-up to speak virtually, please visit: Zoom to register using your own email address. Page 1 of 273 Englewood City Council Regular Agenda October 7, 2024 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. You will receive an invitation by email to join the meeting. Citizens may also submit written public comments to the City Clerk's Office until 12 p.m. the day after the meeting. If you have any questions please reach out to the City Clerk's Office at CityClerk@englewoodco.gov or call 303-762-2430. Council Response to Public Comment. a. Allison Crowley will address Council. 9. Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading i. CB-41 Intergovernmental Agreement for the installation of a rain gauge at Duncan Park 9ai documents Staff: Deputy Director of Engineering Tim Hoos ii. CB-48 Charge Ahead Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement 9aii documents Staff: Sustainability Program Manager Melissa Englund, and Deputy Director of Operations and Maintenance Ron Thornton b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. i. CB-37 Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County for the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone 9bi documents Staff: Economic Development Manager Darren Hollingsworth ii. CB-39 Amending Municipal Code adopting 2023 Bob's Rules of Order 9bii documents Staff: City Attorney Tamara Niles c. Resolutions and Motions i. Annual Resolution setting City Attorney, City Manager 2025 compensation 9ci documents Staff: City Attorney Niles 10. Public Hearing Items There are no Public hearings 11. Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading i. CB-43 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Budget) 11ai documents Staff: Director of Finance Kevin Engels, and Budget Manager Jennifer Nolan Page 2 of 273 Englewood City Council Regular Agenda October 7, 2024 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. CB-44 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Appropriation) 11aii documents Staff: Director of Finance Kevin Engels, and Budget Manager Jennifer Nolan iii. CB-47 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Property Tax Mill Levies) 11aiii documents Staff: Director of Finance Kevin Engels, and Budget Manager Jennifer Nolan iv. CB-45 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (South Platte Renew 2025 Budget) 11aiv documents Staff: Director of Finance Kevin Engels, and Budget Manager Jennifer Nolan v. CB-46 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (South Platte Renew 2025 Appropriation) 11av documents Staff: Director of Finance Kevin Engels, and Budget Manager Jennifer Nolan b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading i. CB-17 Amendment to Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law 11bi documents Submission from Court Staff: City Attorney Tamara Niles ii. CB-23 Creation of a Hookah business license 11bii Staff: City Attorney Tamara Niles c. Resolutions and Motions i. Resolution Setting 2025 City Council holiday, meeting schedule 11ci documents Staff: City Attorney Tamara Niles ii. Motion - Englewood Downtown Development Authority 2025 Budget 11cii documents Staff: Executive Director of Englewood Downtown Development Authority Hilarie Portell 12. General Discussion a. Mayor's Choice Page 3 of 273 Englewood City Council Regular Agenda October 7, 2024 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. i. Ranked Choice Voting Discussion b. Council Members' Choice 13. City Manager’s Report a. Approval of letter of intent to participate with Arapahoe County as part of a multi- jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 13a documents 14. Adjournment Page 4 of 273 STUDY SESSION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Natural Medicine businesses: City regulation for January 1 implementation DESCRIPTION: The State of Colorado will start licensing for Natural Medicines, or psychedelic mushrooms, as of January 1. While City Council will separately consider land use code regulations, this study session provides background and information on potential City regulations on businesses providing such natural medicines. RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation and provide direction to staff as to needed regulation of these businesses within the City of Englewood SUMMARY: In November 2022, the people of Colorado approved the citizen initiative known as “Proposition 122,” which together with Senate Bill 23-290 decriminalized the personal possession, growing, sharing, and use of psychedelic mushrooms and related substances (the “Substances”), by persons aged 21 or over (collectively referred to as the “Initiative”). The subsequent statute refers to the Substances as “natural medicine.” The Initiative allows: (1) the supervised use of natural medicine at licensed facilities called natural healing centers; and (2) the operation of businesses involved in the cultivation, manufacture, and testing of the natural medicine called “natural medicine businesses.” The Initiative prohibits local governments from prohibiting natural healing centers and natural medicine businesses. However, the Initiative authorizes local governments to enact ordinances to govern the time, place, and manner of the operation of these businesses, as well as the location of these businesses. This presentation describes Colorado law on this topic, regulations adopted and proposed by surrounding cities, and requests City Council guidance for appropriate City regulations by future ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Receive presentation, and provide direction to staff FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None anticipated Page 5 of 273 OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: Discussion with Community Development staff regarding land use regulations ATTACHMENTS: Powerpoint Page 6 of 273 Natural Medicine Businesses: Psychedelic Mushrooms Presented By Tamara Niles, City Attorney Pa g e 7 o f 2 7 3 Background: STATE OF COLORADO •November 2022 –"Proposition 122: Access to Natural Psychedelic Substances" •Colorado voters approved the Natural Medicine Health Act, intended to decriminalize the use of certain plants or fungi for people 21 years of age and older •Colo. Rev. Stat. §§12-170-101 through 115 •The Act decriminalizes “Natural Medicine”, or the personal possession, growing, sharing, and use, but not the sale, of five (5) natural psychedelic mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocin) and three (3) plant- based psychedelic substances (dimethyltryptamine, ibogaine, and mescaline) Pa g e 8 o f 2 7 3 Natural Medicine Regulation, Legalization •May 2023 –Senate Bill 23-290 •“Natural Medicine Regulation and Legalization” act -clarifies and sets the regulatory framework for a regulated natural medicine program in Colorado •Unlike retail and medical marijuana, the State Code does not give the option of “saying no” to “natural medicine” businesses. Local jurisdiction may regulate specific items. •Created Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-18-434 to make the unlawful cultivation of natural medicine a petty drug offense •Establishes penalties for individuals aged 21 and over who allow underaged individuals access to Natural Medicine that is being cultivated •Summer 2024: State issues regulations; City guidance Pa g e 9 o f 2 7 3 NATURAL MEDICINE REGULATION BILL •The State Code allows municipalities to enact ordinances which: (i)Regulate the time, place and manner of the operation of natural medicine business licenses issued by the State; (ii)Limit the areas where the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, storage, distribution, transfer and dispensation of natural medicine and natural medicine product may be permitted; and (iii)Establish the distance restrictions for buildings where natural medicine services are provided within the vicinity of a child care center, preschool, elementary, middle, junior or high school, residential child care facility, or residential dwelling. CRS Section 44-50-104(5)(a) Pa g e 1 0 o f 2 7 3 NATURAL MEDICINE REGULATION BILL •Natural medicine business: state-licensed entities including a natural medicine healing center, a natural medicine cultivation facility, a natural medicine products manufacturer, or a natural medicine testing facility, or another licensed entity created by the state licensing authority. •Natural medicine healing center: a facility where state-licensed entity where a facilitator provides and supervises natural medicine services, including consuming and experiencing the effects of regulated natural medicine or regulated natural medicine product under supervision Pa g e 1 1 o f 2 7 3 Englewood Regulation •City Council will hold public hearing on October 21, to consider P&Z recommendations for land use code •Will consider regulations in Title 16 as to WHERE in the City natural medicine businesses may be located •Specifically what zones and whether home-based occupation •City Council also can—but is not required to—regulate business operations of Natural Medicine businesses under Title 4 •Separate ordinance required to amend Municipal Code •CANNOT require separate licensing: licenses issued by state Pa g e 1 2 o f 2 7 3 Parker Regulations •Natural Healing Centers in B-Business District and the C- Commercial District •Treated like medical offices •Natural Medicine businesses for cultivation, manufacturing, and testing in LI-Light Industrial District •1,000 feet between these businesses and schools, childcare centers, and residential areas •Addresses screening, lighting, odors, storage, disposal of by- products, security, use of hazardous materials Pa g e 1 3 o f 2 7 3 Parker Regulations (cont’d) •Established penalties for Individuals aged 21 and over who: •Maintain personal cultivation areas of more than 12 feet by 12 feet; •Fail to enclose and lock personal cultivation areas; or •Allow underaged individuals access to natural medicine that is being cultivated Pa g e 1 4 o f 2 7 3 Proposed in Castle Rock (cont’d) • 1,000 feet from the property line of a child care center; preschool; elementary, middle, junior or high school; or a residential child care facility (schools) • 1,000 feet from the property line of single-family dwellings, duplexes, or multi-family dwellings (residential) • Unless land owned by the Town or State, or to licensed facilities that exist BEFORE a school or residence is built • Restrict hours of operation between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Pa g e 1 5 o f 2 7 3 Proposed in Castle Rock (cont’d) • Limit public view into businesses • Require storage of materials within permanent building • Require clearly illuminated facilities with downward facing security lighting • Confine odors to the premises • Require secure disposal of product remnants or by-product • Prohibit processing of medicine with hazardous materials Pa g e 1 6 o f 2 7 3 Proposed in Castle Rock (cont’d) Allows existing businesses interested in seeking a natural medicine business license to apply for an exemption from: • Location requirements, provided that the business is in a B- Business/ Commercial District or comparable use area in a PD District; and • Distance restrictions applicable to residences and schools • An exempt business will operate as a legal nonconforming use: • Cannot be enlarged upon, increased, or extended • Cannot be reestablished if abandoned, discontinued, or ceases operation for more than 180 days Pa g e 1 7 o f 2 7 3 Proposed in Arapahoe County •NON‐COMMERCIAL CULTIVATION •No more than 12’X12’ •Non-primary use in an agricultural (A-1, AE), rural residential (RR-A, RR-B, RR-C), or residential (R-1- A, R-1-B, R -1-C, R1-D, R -2-A, R-2-B, or R -M), obsolete residential (R-2, R-3, R-3S, R-4, R-5), or the residential portion of a PUD zone district (including those originally zoned in a R-P, R -PSF, R -PM, R-PH, MU, or SH) •Within a dwelling unit or enclosed and locked •Accessory structure and not be visible to the public •No odors, smoke, heat, glare or light beyond property line Pa g e 1 8 o f 2 7 3 Proposed in Arapahoe County (cont’d) •NATURAL MEDICINE BUSINESSES •B, I zones; PUD if similar to B or I •No home occupation •1000 feet from child care center; preschool; elementary, middle, junior or high school; and/or a residential child care facility. •No odors, smoke, heat, glare or light beyond property line Pa g e 1 9 o f 2 7 3 Englewood Business Regulations •Zones where allowed will be discussed at October 21 public hearing •Outside scope of this presentation/feedback requested •Business regulations from Parker and proposed in Castle Rock and Arapahoe County are similar •Recommend a similar regulatory structure that mirrors those: •1000 feet distance from schools, childcare, residential •No odors, smoke, heat, glare or light beyond property line •Screening required, secured •Business hours of 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. •Security, use of hazardous materials Pa g e 2 0 o f 2 7 3 Questions? Pa g e 2 1 o f 2 7 3 MINUTES City Council Regular Meeting Monday, September 16, 2024 1000 Englewood Parkway - 2nd Floor Council Chambers 6:00 PM 1 Study Session Topic There were no Study Session items. 2 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Englewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Sierra at 7:00 p.m. 3 Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Sierra. 4 Roll Call COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Othoniel Sierra Mayor Pro Tem Joe Anderson Council Member Steve Ward Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp Council Member Rita Russell Council Member Tena Prange Council Member Kim Wright COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Lewis City Attorney Niles City Clerk Carlile Deputy City Clerk Harkness Deputy City Manager Dodd Director of Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf Underhill Director of Community Development Power Director of Utilities and South Platte Renew Van Ry Director of Finance Engels Director of Public Works Rachael Deputy Director of Business Solutions and Engineering Stone, Page 1 of 11 Draft Page 22 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Utilities Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Anderson Deputy Police Chief Fender Budget Manager Nolan, Finance Environmental Compliance Manager Edelstein, Utilities Open Space Manager Torres, Parks and Recreation Economic Development Manager Hollingsworth, Community Development Marketing and Communications Project Manager Arnce, Communications Audio Visual Engineer Hessling, Information Technology System Administrator Munnell, Information Technology Police Officer Raddell 5 Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session a) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 3, 2024. Moved by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp Seconded by Council Member Tena Prange APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2024. For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Moved By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange (Seconded By) x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED. 6 Appointments, Communications, Proclamations, and Recognition a) Chief of Police Sam Watson was recognized for his contributions to the City of Englewood. 7 Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment a) Jenn Lambert, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. 8 Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment a) Paul Genty, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. b) Ivan Erwin, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. Page 2 of 11 Draft Page 23 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 c) Peter Eckel, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. d) Amy Beck, a Denver resident, addressed Council. e) Rebecca Kramer, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. f) Jan Weipert, an Englewood resident, addressed Council. g) Chris Cordova, a Denver resident, addressed Council. Council Member Ward responded to Public Comment. 9 Consent Agenda Items Council Member Russell removed Agenda Item 9(c)(ii) from Consent Agenda. Moved by Council Member Anderson seconded by Council Member Nunnenkamp to approve Consent Agenda Item 9(a)(i), 9(b)(i-iv) and 9(c)(i)(iii). a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading i) CB-37 Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County for the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone COUNCIL BILL NO. 37, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY FOR THE SOUTH METRO ENTERPRISE ZONE SUBZONE. b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. i) CB-31 Intergovernmental Agreement with Arapahoe County accepting a grant for Phase 3 at Bates Logan Park. ORDINANCE NO. 35 SERIES OF 2024 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 31 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO FOR AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING 2024 GRANT OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NAME: BATES LOGAN PARK RENOVATION PHASE 3. ii) CB-32 Intergovernmental Agreement between the Arapahoe County Page 3 of 11 Draft Page 24 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 E911 Authority and the City of Englewood for the use of the 911 Authority backup communications center. ORDINANCE NO. 36 SERIES OF 2024 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 32 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY 911 AUTHORITY FOR USE OF THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY 911 AUTHORITY BACKUP COMMUNICATIONS CENTER. iii) CB-38 Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Englewood and Englewood Downtown Development Authority for a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Shared Digital Accessibility Resources ORDINANCE NO. 37 SERIES OF 2024 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 38 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SHARED DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY RESOURCES. iv) CB-40 Amendment to the Intergovernmental Joint Cooperation Agreement and HOME Consortium Agreement between Arapahoe County and various cities related to Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program for Fiscal Years 2025-2027. ORDINANCE NO. 38 SERIES OF 2024 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 40 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NUNNENKAMP) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES OF 2024, AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO, SEVERAL CITIES WITHIN ARAPAHOE COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS. c) Resolutions and Motions i) Motion to approve settlement agreement with American Striping, Harvey Construction, Inc. Page 4 of 11 Draft Page 25 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Approval of the settlement agreement with American Striping, Harvey Construction, Inc. ii) Motion- On-Call Contract for Services (CFS) renewal with Insituform Technologies, LLC dba C & L Water Solutions (C&L) for as-needed repairs and/or replacements on the City of Englewood’s (City) water pipelines. [Clerks Note: This agenda item was removed from the Consent Agenda motion and considered independently.] Moved by Council Member Joe Anderson Seconded by Council Member Tena Prange Approval of the On-Call Contract for Services (CFS) renewal with Insituform Technologies, LLC dba C & L Water Solutions (C&L) for as- needed repairs and/or replacements on the City of Englewood’s (City) water pipelines. For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson (Moved By) x Tena Prange (Seconded By) x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 6 1 0 Motion CARRIED iii) Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls (EI&C) contract renewals. Approval of the Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls (EI&C) contract renewals. Moved by Council Member Joe Anderson Seconded by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp Motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 9(a)(i), 9(b)(i-iv), and 9(c)(i)(iii). For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Seconded By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson (Moved By) x Page 5 of 11 Draft Page 26 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Tena Prange x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED 10 Public Hearing Items a) Public Hearing on the 2025 Budget Moved by Council Member Steven Ward Seconded by Council Member Kim Wright MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED 2025 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange x Kim Wright (Seconded By) x Steven Ward (Moved By) x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED. All testimony was given under oath. Budget Administrator Nolan presented information regarding the proposed 2025 budget. 1 citizen spoke neither in favor nor opposed to the 2025 budget. 0 citizens spoke in favor of the proposed 2025 budget. 0 citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed 2025 budget. Moved by Council Member Joe Anderson Seconded by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED 2025 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING For Against Abstained Page 6 of 11 Draft Page 27 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Seconded By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson (Moved By) x Tena Prange x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED. 11 Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading i) CB-17 Amendment to Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law Moved by Council Member Kim Wright Seconded by Council Member Rita Russell MOTION TO TABLE TO OCTOBER 7, 2024 For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell (Seconded By) x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange x Kim Wright (Moved By) x Steven Ward x 2 5 0 Motion DEFEATED. Moved by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp Seconded by Council Member Joe Anderson COUNCIL BILL NO. 17 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NUNNENKAMP A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 1-4-1, MAXIMUM PENALTIES. For Against Abstained Page 7 of 11 Draft Page 28 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Moved By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson (Seconded By) x Tena Prange x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 5 2 0 Motion CARRIED. ii) CB-23 Creation of a Hookah business license Moved by Council Member Kim Wright Seconded by Council Member Rita Russell MOTION TO TABLE TO DATE UNCERTAIN For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell (Seconded By) x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange x Kim Wright (Moved By) x Steven Ward x 3 4 0 Motion DEFEATED. Moved by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp Seconded by Council Member Tena Prange COUNCIL BILL NO. 23 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NUNNENKAMP A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, CREATING A HOOKAH TOBACCO RETAILER BUSINESS LICENSE. For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Moved By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Page 8 of 11 Draft Page 29 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Joe Anderson x Tena Prange (Seconded By) x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 4 3 0 Motion CARRIED. iii) CB-39 Amending Municipal Code adopting 2023 Bob's Rules of Order Moved by Council Member Tena Prange Seconded by Council Member Rita Russell MOTION TO AMEND TO ALLOW THE INLCUSION OF RULE 1.5, MOTION BEFORE DISCUSSION For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell (Seconded By) x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange (Moved By) x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 5 2 0 Motion CARRIED. Moved by Council Member Steven Ward Seconded by Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp COUNCIL BILL NO. 39 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE 2023 BOB’S RULES OF ORDER AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AS AMENDED. For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp (Seconded By) x Rita Russell x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson x Tena Prange x Page 9 of 11 Draft Page 30 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 Kim Wright x Steven Ward (Moved By) x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED. b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading There were no additional Ordinances on Second Reading. See agenda items 9(b)(i-iv) c) Resolutions and Motions i) Resolution- Utilities staff is seeking City Council approval to join class action settlements against Tyco Fire Products LP et al. (Tyco) and BASF Corporation (BASF) regarding Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Moved by Council Member Joe Anderson Seconded by Council Member Rita Russell RESOLUTION NO. 26 SERIES OF 2024 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO TO OPT INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH 3 BASF CORPORATION AND TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2873 (MULTI-DISTRICT CLASS ACTION PFAS LITIGATION). For Against Abstained Chelsea Nunnenkamp x Rita Russell (Seconded By) x Othoniel Sierra x Joe Anderson (Moved By) x Tena Prange x Kim Wright x Steven Ward x 7 0 0 Motion CARRIED. 12 General Discussion a) Mayor's Choice Page 10 of 11 Draft Page 31 of 273 City Council Regular September 16, 2024 b) Council Members' Choice 13 City Manager’s Report 14 Adjournment MAYOR SIERRA MOVED TO ADJOURN. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. City Clerk Page 11 of 11 Draft Page 32 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tim Hoos DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: IGA with the Mile High Flood District to install a Rain Gauge at Duncan Park DESCRIPTION: Joint funding for the installation of a rain gauge at the headwaters of the South Englewood Drainage Basin. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) to install a rain gauge in Duncan Park which lies in the upper end of the South Englewood Drainage Basin. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A SUMMARY: A rain gauge is needed in Duncan Park at the upper end of the South Englewood Drainage Basin to gather more accurate and localized rainfall data. While there is already a gauge at Rotolo Park, it primarily reflects conditions in the middle of the basin. Having precise rainfall measurements is beneficial for better-informed designs of future capital improvement projects. The new gauge, proposed to be mounted on the maintenance building in Duncan Park, will ensure more comprehensive monitoring of rainfall conditions across the basin. ANALYSIS: The new rain gauge at Duncan Park will provide real-time data and alerts accessible through the Mile High Flood District's website. During significant storm events, staff can receive alerts to proactively mobilize to known flood-prone areas, ensuring that inlets remain free of debris, thus reducing the risk of flooding. Residents in the basin, particularly those with a history of flooding issues, can also sign up for these alerts, allowing them to take preemptive actions to safeguard their property. In addition to its immediate benefits, the data collected will enable the City to analyze rainfall events, comparing system performance to specific rain year events, enhancing future flood risk management and infrastructure planning. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends the approval of the IGA with the Mile High Flood District to install a rain gauge in Duncan Park which lies in the upper end of the South Englewood Drainage Basin. Page 33 of 273 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on total PROJECT costs, the maximum percent and dollar contribution by each party shall be: Percentage Share Maximum Contribution MHFD 50% $5,870 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD 50% $5,870 TOTAL 100% $11,740 The City of Englewood portion of the cost is to be funded from the Stormwater Enterprise Fund G/L account number 42-1607-61201 Other Improvements which has sufficient budget to pay for the City's share of the cost. . CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Outcome: Infrastructure and Transportation A city that proactively and in a cost-effective manner invests in, maintains, improves and plans to protect its infrastructure. OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: CB #41 - IGA Duncan Park Rain Gage Contract Approval Summary Page 34 of 273 1 ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL NO. 41 NO. _____________ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL SERIES OF 2024 MEMBER _________________ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT D/B/A MILE HIGH FLOOD DISTRICT FOR AN AGREEMENT REGARDING ENGLEWOOD RAIN GAUGE WHEREAS, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District D/B/A Mile High Flood District (“District”) is a special district created by the State of Colorado to protect against the impacts of flooding; and WHEREAS, the District expressed an intent to assist public bodies which have heretofore enacted floodplain zoning measures in Resolution No. 14, Series of 1970, and Resolution 11, Series 1973; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to install a rain gauge at Duncan Park to support the Flood Warning System; and WHEREAS, the District’s Board of Directors reviewed and authorized expenditures for the 2024 Work Program Resolution No. 89, Series of 2023; and WHEREAS, the cost of the rain gauge is not to exceed $11,740 dollars with each Parties share being $5,870 dollars; and WHEREAS, Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and Part 2, Article 1, Title 29, C.R.S. encourages and authorizes intergovernmental agreements; and WHEREAS, Sections 29-1-203 and 29-1-203.5, C.R.S. authorize governments to cooperate and contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each. 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 execution by the City of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District D/B/A Mile High Flood District for an Agreement Regarding Englewood Rain Gauge, Agreement No. 24-08.29, Project No. 110278, in the form substantially the same as that attached hereto. Page 35 of 273 2 Section 2. General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be by reference or in full in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. Manuals, Municipal Code, contracts, and other documents approved by reference in any Council Bill may be published by reference or in full on the City’s official website; such documents shall be available at the City Clerk’s office and in the City Council meeting agenda packet when the legislation was adopted. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City Page 36 of 273 3 of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within EMC § 1-4-1. Page 37 of 273 Contract Number City Contact Information: Staff Contact Person Phone Title Email Summary of Terms: Original Contract Amount Start Date 11/1/2024 Amendment Amount End Date 5/1/2025 Amended Contract Amount Total Term in Years 0.50 Vendor Contact Information: Name Contact Address Phone Email Lakewood CO City State Zip Code Contract Type: Please select from the drop down list Descripiton of Contract Work/Services Procurement Justification of Contract Work/Services Bruce Rindahl The City will pay Vendor for the work in accordance with the following payment schedule. This schedule will include monthly payments. Monthly payments will be made upon work completed and the approval of the invoice. $ - $ - This IGA between the City and the Mile-High Flood District serves to fund the final design and construction of a proposed rain gauge at Duncan Park. N/A 80228 Payment or Revenue terms (please describe terms or attached schedule if based on deliverables) 303-455-6277 brindahl@mhfd.org 303-913-8696Devin Keener dkeener@englewoodco.govCapital Projects Engineer Renewal options available NA CONTRACT APPROVAL SUMMARY Mile High Flood District (MHFD) 12575 W Bayaud Ave IGA-Intergovernmental Agreement IGA Agreement $ 11,740.00 Page 38 of 273 CONTRACT APPROVAL SUMMARY Source of Funds: Revenue CAPITAL ONLY A B C 1=A-B-C Capital Tyler New World Spent To Contract Budget Operating Year Project # / Task #Fund Division Account Line Item Description Contract Title Budget Date Amount Remaining C 2024 42 2020 0602-002 Storm Drainage Fund - Other Improvements 42 1607 61201 S Englewood Basin IGA 24,932,794.98$ 8,531,162.02$ 5,870.00$ 16,395,762.96$ Total Current Year Total 24,932,794.98$ 8,531,162.02$ 5,870.00$ 16,395,762.96$ C -$ -$ -$ -$ O -$ -$ -$ -$ Total - Year Two -$ -$ -$ -$ GRAND TOTAL 24,932,794.98$ 8,531,162.02$ 5,870.00$ 16,395,762.96$ Process for Choosing Contractor: Solicitation Name and Number Attachment (For Capital Items Only / Expense Line Item Detail is Located in OpenGov): All Other Attachments: Storm Drainage Fund - Other Improvements General Ledger Account String NOTES/COMMENTS (if needed): The 2024 42 2020 0602-002 Storm Drainage Fund - Other Improvements has committed $7,483,520.09 out of the $24,932,794.98 2024 budget for the South Englewood Flood Reduction Project. For Operating Line Item Detail, please review information provided in Tyler New World For Capital Items, please review Prior Month's Project Status and Fund Balance Report Solicitation:Evaluation Summary/Bid Tabulation Attached Proposal/Bid Attached Prior Month-End Project Status and Fund Balance Report Evaluation Summary/Bid Tabulation AttachedEvaluation Summary/Bid Tabulation AttachedEvaluation Summary/Bid Tabulation AttachedContract Copy of Original Contract if this is an Amendment Copies of Related Contracts/Conveyances/Documents Addendum(s) Exhibit(s) Certificate of Insurance Page 39 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Melissa Englund, Ron Thornton DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office, Public Works DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Approval of Charge Ahead Colorado IGA DESCRIPTION: City of Englewood was awarded $179,000 through the State of Colorado's Charge Ahead Colorado grant. Staff is seeking City Council approval to join into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Energy Office to accept the award. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends City Council approve by motion the ordinance to accept the Charge Ahead Colorado grant funds from the State of Colorado. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  April 17, 2023: Council approved, by motion, the City's first ever Electric Vehicle Action Plan.  February 5, 2024: Council consented to City staff's application for a Charge Ahead Colorado grant funds. SUMMARY: Staff applied for, and received, $179,000 of grant funding from the State of Colorado's Department of Energy to install public electric vehicle charging stations at five different locations throughout the city (Broken Tee, Pirates Cove, Centennial Park, Malley Recreation Center, and Englewood Recreation Center). Installing these charging stations fulfills the city's goal listed in the 2023 adopted Electric Vehicle (EV) Action Plan to install public charging stations at five different city facilities. ANALYSIS: In the 2023 State of Colorado Electric Vehicle Plan, the state lists a goal of transitioning 100% of vehicles to EVs by 2050. Currently, Englewood has a noticeable gap in publicly available electric vehicle (EV) chargers to prepare for the influx in EVs coming, which is why the city set a goal in the 2023 adopted EV Action Plan to install five public EV charging stations on city property. The city is aiming to install public charging at the following locations: Englewood Recreation Center (one Level 3 aka “Fast” charger), Malley Senior Center (one Level 3), Pirates Cove Water Park (two Level 2), Centennial Park (three Level 2), and Broken Tee Golf Course (three Level 2). Page 40 of 273 Residents, employees, and the public are all anticipated to use the proposed chargers. With a population of 33,516, the city is currently lacking adequate amount of EV chargers, with only the King Soopers on 101 Englewood Pkwy, Englewood, CO 80110 offering up DC Fast charging and one public level two charging station at 435 W Hampden Ave, Englewood, CO 80110 at the time of this writing. The five locations proposed are situated near where Englewood residents live, work, and play. As of January 2024, the City of Englewood has 638 part and full-time employees, 102 of which work at the Englewood Recreation Center, 27 who work at the Malley Recreation Center, 4 full-time employees at Pirates Cove year-round with over 200 employed during the summer months, and 45 at Broken Tee Golf Course. All other employees work within an Englewood building no more than 1 mile from one of the locations proposed to receive electric vehicle charging stations. The City of Englewood amenities provide recreation for more than just residents and employees, but the public as well. Total combined visitors for both recreation centers, Pirates Cove, and Broken Tee Golf Course reached nearly half a million (446,089) in 2023 (Recreation Center: 221,908; Malley Senior Center: 79,463; Pirates Cove: 76,575; and Broken Tee: 68,143). Placing charging stations at these locations allows the city to meet people where they are at while addressing increasing resident and employee demand for accessibility to EV chargers. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To significantly reduce the electric vehicle charging accessibility gap seen within the City of Englewood, city staff recommends Council accept, by motion, the Charge Ahead Colorado funds from the State of Colorado to go towards installing public electric vehicle chargers at five different city locations. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The entire cost of the chargers themselves plus labor comes to a total of $226,216. This means after the $179,000 Charge Ahead grant the city will owe $47,216. The cost breakdown per site is as follows:  1155 W Oxford Avenue- $69,069  3380 S Lincoln Street- $69,069  1225 W Belleview Ave: $14,844.50  4360 S Decatur St: $36,616.75  2101 W Oxford Ave: $36,616.75 Additional costs come from the electrical work needed to install the chargers. This work costs anywhere from $25,000 - $40,000 per site; however, Xcel Energy provides rebates to help cover these costs. Through consultation from Xcel, the city was advised approximate amount of rebate per location:  1155 W Oxford Ave Rebate: $180,000  3380 S Lincoln St Rebate: $180,000  11225 W Belleview Ave Rebate: $28,340  4360 S Decatur StRebate: $21,255 Page 41 of 273  2101 W Oxford AveRebate: $42,510 This means that of the $125,000 to $200,000 of electrical work needed for the entire project, the city will cover at most about $30,405. In closing, the total project cost is between $351,216 to $426,216, of which the cost to the city is conservatively estimated at $77,621. On the operating of the chargers, the city will charge a fee per use just to cover the electrical cost of running the chargers, not to produce a revenue. Fee amount to be determined through consultation with Xcel Energy. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: This project helps advance multiple goal areas found under the Transportation priority area within the strategicplan such as: I) Multi-Modal Transportation: Ensure access and increased opportunitiesfor multi-modal transportation; II) Connected and Clean Transportation: Increased access to multimodal transportation options, and ensuring most needs are met within a travel distance of 15 minutes. This additionally advances the city’s Sustainability priority area listed in the Strategic Plan, especially the Climate Action goal of being, “A community that addresses current and future environmental, economic, and social climate vulnerabilities through implementing climate adaptation and mitigation projects and practices.” OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: The five locations chosen were scoped out by the then Deputy Director of Operations and Maintenance back in 2023 and agreed upon by the planning team for the Electric Vehicle Action Plan. Locations have also been consulted with and approved by those departments impacted, namely Parks, Recreation, Library, and Golf. ATTACHMENTS: CB #48 - Grant_ Charge Ahead Colorado Exhibit A SOW City of Englewood SDGA T and C, 6.26.24 Page 42 of 273 1 ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL NO. 48 NO. _____________ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL SERIES OF 2024 MEMBER _________________ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ENERGY OFFICE FOR THE CHARGE AHEAD COLORADO GRANT WHEREAS, on April 17, 2023 City Council approved the City’s Electric Vehicle Action Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2024 City Council authorized City staff to apply for a grant from Charge Ahead Colorado for electric vehicle charging stations; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Energy Office in partnership with the Community Access Enterprise administers the Charge Ahead Colorado Grant; and WHEREAS, Charge Ahead Colorado supports electric vehicle adoption in Colorado by providing grants for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Energy Office awarded the City a $179,000.00 Charge Ahead Colorado Grant for the installation of charging stations in the City; and WHEREAS, to receive the Charge Ahead Colorado Grant the City must agree to the terms of grant award; and WHEREAS, Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and Part 2, Article 1, Title 29, C.R.S. encourages and authorizes intergovernmental agreements; and WHEREAS, Sections 29-1-203 and 29-1-203.5, C.R.S. authorize governments to cooperate and contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each. 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 execution by the City of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Energy Office for Charge Ahead Colorado Grant, in the form substantially the same as that attached hereto. The City shall be authorized to execute any document or agreement necessary to effectuate this grant without additional specific authorizing legislation by City Council. Page 43 of 273 2 Section 2. General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be by reference or in full in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. Manuals, Municipal Code, contracts, and other documents approved by reference in any Council Bill may be published by reference or in full on the City’s official website; such documents shall be available at the City Clerk’s office and in the City Council meeting agenda packet when the legislation was adopted. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is Page 44 of 273 3 further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within EMC § 1-4-1. Page 45 of 273 Exhibit A Statement of Work Page 1 of 4 I. Project Title: Charge Ahead Colorado II. Background/Objective The Grantee was awarded grant funding as a result of the competitive Charge Ahead Colorado Program’s Request for Applications (RFA). The Community Access Enterprise (hereinafter called “CAE” or the “State”) agrees to provide funding to City of Englewood (hereinafter called “Grantee”) towards the costs associated with the charging station project. III. Project Description Charge Ahead Colorado is a program administered by the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) in partnership with the Community Access Enterprise (CAE) to encourage use of electric vehicles because they reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy security through reliance on domestic electricity, and drive an innovative market for new technology. The general purpose of this project is to encourage the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations throughout the state of Colorado. Installing charging stations enables electric vehicles to proliferate. Grantee is installing: ● 6 Level 2 (L2) charging ports at 4630 Decatur St, Englewood, CO 80110 ● 4 Level 2 (L2) charging ports at 1225 W Belleview Ave, Englewood, CO 80110 ● 6 Level 2 (L2) charging ports at 2101 W Oxford Ave, Englewood, CO 80110 ● 2 50 kW+ DCFC ports at 1155 W Oxford Ave, Englewood, CO 80110 ● 2 50 kW+ DCFC ports at 3380 S Lincoln, Englewood, CO 80110 IV. Work Tasks, Deliverables and Timeline Grantee shall be responsible for the following work tasks and deliverables upon the final approval and discretion of the CAE/CEO: i. Purchase charging station(s) from vendors. Grantees are strongly encouraged to complete a competitive procurement process. The charging station(s) must have networked data reporting capabilities that are active, collecting data, and accessible to administrators of the Charge Ahead Colorado program via cloud networking at all times. See additional requirements in Section V. Reporting. ii. Install the charging station(s). Grantee may either contract with personnel who have expertise in electrical installations or pay Grantee labor staff with expertise in electrical installations for the installation of the unit(s) and associated labor costs. iii. Construct foundation, if necessary. iv. Dedicate one (1) parking space for EV charging per funded charging port. 1. Accessible design standards must be incorporated, where feasible, as detailed by the U.S. Access Board and the Charge Ahead Colorado Application Guide. a. Accessible design standards require that 5%, but no fewer than one (1) stall at each awarded address must be accessible and that Grantee must incorporate the accessible design standards into the parking stall(s) serving the highest power output charging port(s) at each awarded address. b. Failure to incorporate accessible design standards, where feasible, may result in a delay of reimbursement until the project incorporates such design standards or forfeiture of a portion of the grant award (10% of the total grant award) if Grantee fails to complete this aspect of the Agreement. c. If accessible design standards are determined not to be feasible, written documentation from the CAE/CEO reflecting such is required. d. Determination of feasibility of the incorporation of accessible design standards is solely at the discretion of the CAE/CEO. v. Provide CAE/CEO with invoices by the Agreement end date for work completed. The costs must be directly associated with the purchase and installation of the awarded EV charging station(s). Page 46 of 273 Exhibit A Statement of Work Page 2 of 4 vi. Submit final documentation required as outlined below with documentation of charging station installation(s) by the Agreement end date. The following documentation is required for CAE/CEO to reimburse eligible costs on the project: 1. Final Reporting Form 2. Summary Invoice / Reimbursement Request Form 3. Legible copies of all sales / invoices showing the purchase price and amount paid by the Grantee for the EV charging stations and the number of units purchased (demonstrating that purchases / work to be reimbursed occurred within the Agreement term). 4. Legible copies of all invoices / receipts showing the installation costs and number of labor hours spent by the installers and any subcontractors on the project (demonstrating that work to be reimbursed occurred within the Agreement term). 5. Date(s) of installation, installation completion, and when the unit(s) is operational and available for use. 6. Digital photograph(s) of the completed and operational unit(s) and dedicated EV charging space(s). a. Photographs must demonstrate proof of incorporation of accessible design standards (unless otherwise waived by the CAE/CEO) as detailed in Section IV. (iv)(1). Photographs should be from a perspective that clearly shows adherence to the accessibility standards, including wider spacing and a path of travel to the charging station(s), where feasible. Additional photographs may be requested prior to reimbursement being finalized if this is not clearly demonstrated. 7. Confirmation that the charger(s) is registered with the Alternative Fuels Data Center. 8. Read-only and downloadable data access granted to CAE/CEO for five (5) years, per Section VII. Charging Station Utilization Reporting outlined herein. vii. All deliverables shall be adjusted to the final approval and discretion of the CAE/CEO. V. Reporting Grantee shall be responsible for the following reporting requirements: Written analysis shall be in accordance with the procedures developed and prescribed by the State. Required reports shall be submitted to the CAE/CEO upon completion of all work tasks, or at such time as otherwise specified. The preparation of reports in a timely manner shall be the responsibility of Grantee and failure to comply may result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination of this Agreement. Grantee must provide written communication to CAE/CEO if the project experiences significant changes or delays in the schedule via email. VI. Final Report & Invoice Documentation The Grantee shall submit a final report by the Agreement end date. This report will demonstrate the completion of the project and installation of the charging station(s). To be acceptable, the final report must explain the Grantee’s procurement and installation process, lessons learned from procurement and installation, and the data reporting capabilities of the charging station(s), and it must identify the location(s) of the charging station(s) accompanied with pictures of the installed unit(s). The Grantee shall provide an invoice to CAE/CEO for the purchase of the unit(s) and associated equipment, permitting costs, and the labor costs associated with the installation(s). To be acceptable, the invoice must be supported by receipts or invoices for all equipment, permits, and labor. The invoice must include an itemized list of all project costs being considered under the grant, including a breakdown of those covered under Charge Ahead Colorado and by the project match 90% project cost match per unit). VII. Charging Station Utilization Reporting Upon the installation of the charging station(s), the CAE/CEO requires information on the charging station(s) usage, including at a minimum, the time of use, duration of use, # of customers / unique users, and kWh used. By accepting funding through the Charge Ahead Colorado program, Grantee agrees to provide all information requested within this Agreement. Furthermore, by accepting funding for the charging station(s) through the Charge Ahead Colorado program, Grantee is required to provide read-only and downloadable data access to the charger(s) network dashboard to CAE/CEO. The Grantee shall report data to CAE/CEO for a minimum of five (5) years on all charging station(s) metrics as required by CAE/CEO. CAE/CEO may share this information Page 47 of 273 Exhibit A Statement of Work Page 3 of 4 at an anonymized and/or aggregated County level on the EValuateCO dashboard or other platform at the discretion of CAE/CEO or with anyone requesting such data. VIII. Budget CAE will pay the Grantee the lesser of $179,000.00 (not to exceed $4,500.00 per new Level 2 charging port and not to exceed $50,000.00 per 50kW+ dual port DCFC station) or up to 90% of allowable project costs for the charging station installation(s). Grantee is responsible for any cost overruns. Grantee is entitled to payment only after successfully completing the charging station installation(s) and submitting an acceptable invoice and an acceptable final report to CAE/CEO. IX. Payment Terms – Billing Procedures The State shall pay the Grantee the reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs for work performed based on satisfactory progress of the work defined in this Agreement. Grantee shall be compensated only for work and services performed by Grantee and accepted by CAE/CEO pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Payment shall also be contingent upon CAE/CEO’s timely receipt and acceptance of required reports described herein. Grantee shall be reimbursed based on the submission of Grantee’s invoice(s) and final documentation required as outlined in Section IV. (vi). To be considered for payment, billings for payment pursuant to this Agreement must be received by the State by the end of the Agreement Term. Payment will be made upon final completion of the project. CAE shall make no payment until the Grantee successfully completes the charging station installation(s) and submits an invoice and final report to CAE/CEO, including verification that the station(s) is operational and available for use. CAE shall make payment within 45 days of receiving the acceptable final report and invoice. If installation is not completed by October 31, 2025, CAE is under no obligation to pay the Grantee. X. Testing and Acceptance Criteria The charging station(s) will be acceptable to the CAE/CEO if they are installed, operational, and available for use by October 31, 2025. The Grantee’s invoice to CAE will be acceptable if it is properly supported by invoices or receipts and the costs are associated with procurement of the charging station(s), construction materials, permitting, construction labor costs, and installation costs. The final report will be acceptable to CAE/CEO if it explains the Grantee’s procurement and installation process, lessons learned from procurement and installation, the data reporting capabilities of the charging station(s), and it identifies the location(s) of the charging station(s) accompanied with pictures of the installed units. If the units, invoice, and report are acceptable, the CAE/CEO Program Manager will submit the invoice to the accounting department for payment. If the units, invoice, and report are unacceptable, the CAE/CEO Program Manager will work with the Grantee to correct, modify, or replace as needed. If Grantee fails to perform, the CAE/CEO Program Manager will submit a report to CEO’s Director of Transportation Fuels and Technology and Director of Accounting and Budget explaining why funding should be denied or reduced. The two Directors and the CAE/CEO Program Manager will determine whether funding should be denied or reduced, and the CAE/CEO Program Manager will inform the Grantee of their decision. XI. Small Dollar Grant Award Amount The maximum amount payable under this Agreement to Grantee by the CAE shall be $179,000.00, as determined by the State from available funds. Satisfactory performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be a condition precedent to the CAE’s obligation to compensate the Grantee. The CAE shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee for any performance hereunder prior to the Service From Date as shown on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award. XII. Small Dollar Grant Award Term The Grantee shall begin work upon the later of the Service From Date as shown on the face of this Small Page 48 of 273 Exhibit A Statement of Work Page 4 of 4 Dollar Grant Award or upon Grantee’s acceptance of this Agreement. This Small Dollar Grant Award shall terminate on October 31, 2025, unless sooner terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein. Page 49 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 1 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 1. Offer/Acceptance. This Small Dollar Grant Award, together with these terms and conditions (including, if applicable, Addendum 1: Additional Terms and Conditions for Information Technology, and Addendum 2: Additional Terms and Conditions for Federal Provisions, below), and any other attachments, exhibits, specifications, or appendices, whether attached or incorporated by reference (collectively the “Agreement”) shall represent the entire and exclusive agreement between the State of Colorado, by and through the agency identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award (“State”) and the Subrecipient identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award (“Grantee”). If this Agreement refers to Grantee’s bid or proposal, this Agreement is an ACCEPTANCE of Grantee’s OFFER TO PERFORM in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If a bid or proposal is not referenced, this Agreement is an OFFER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT, subject to Grantee’s acceptance, demonstrated by Grantee’s beginning performance or written acceptance of this Agreement. Any COUNTER- OFFER automatically CANCELS this Agreement, unless a change order is issued by the State accepting a counter-offer. Except as provided herein, the State shall not be responsible or liable for any Work performed prior to issuance of this Agreement. The State’s financial obligations to the Grantee are limited by the amount of Grant Funds awarded as reflected on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award. 2. Order of Precedence. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency within this Agreement, such conflict or inconsistency shall be resolved by giving preference to the documents in the following order of priority: (1) If applicable, Addendum 2: Additional Terms and Conditions for Federal Provisions, below; (2) the Small dollar Grant Award document; (3) these terms and conditions (including, if applicable, Addendum 1 below); and (4) any attachments, exhibits, specifications, or appendices, whether attached or incorporated by reference. Notwithstanding the above, if this Agreement has been funded, in whole or in part, with a Federal Award, in the event of a conflict between the Federal Grant and this Agreement, the provisions of the Federal Grant shall control. Grantee shall comply with all applicable Federal provisions at all times during the term of this Agreement. Any terms and conditions included on Grantee’s forms or invoices not included in this Agreement are void. 3. Changes. Once accepted in accordance with §1, this Agreement shall not be modified, superseded or otherwise altered, except in writing by the State and accepted by Grantee. 4. Definitions. The following terms shall be construed and interpreted as follows: (a) “Award” means an award by a Recipient to a Subrecipient; (b) “Budget” means the budget for the Work described in this Agreement; (c) “Business Day” means any day in which the State is open and conducting business, but shall not include Saturday, Sunday or any day on which the State observes one of the holidays listed in CRS §24-11-101(1); (d) “UCC” means the Uniform Commercial Code in CRS Title 4; (e) “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement is issued as shown on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award; (f) “Federal Award” means an award of federal financial assistance or a cost-reimbursement contract, , by a Federal Awarding Agency to the Recipient. “Federal Award” also means an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of the Federal Award, which terms and conditions shall flow down to the Award unless such terms and conditions specifically indicate otherwise. The term does not include payments to a vendor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program; (g) “Federal Awarding Agency” means a Federal agency providing a Federal Award to a Recipient; (h) “Grant Funds” means the funds that have been appropriated, designated, encumbered, or otherwise made available for payment by the State under this Agreement; (i) “Matching Funds” mean the funds provided by the Grantee to meet cost sharing requirements Page 50 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 2 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 described in this Agreement; (j) “Recipient” means the State agency identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award; (k) “Subcontractor” means third parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of the Work; (l) “Subrecipient” means a non-Federal entity that receives a sub-award from a Recipient to carry out part of a program, but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program; (m) “Uniform Guidance” means the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, identified as the 2 C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 200, commonly known as the “Super Circular,” which supersedes requirements from OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-110, A-122, A-89, A-102, and A-133, and the guidance in Circular a-50 on Single Audit Act follow-up; and (n) “Work” means the goods delivered or services, or both, performed pursuant to this Agreement and identified as Line Items on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award. 5. Delivery. Grantee shall furnish the Work in strict accordance with the specifications and price set forth in this Agreement. The State shall have no liability to compensate Grantee for the performance of any Work not specifically set forth in the Agreement. 6. Rights to Materials. [Not Applicable to Agreements issued either in whole in part for Information Technology, as defined in CRS § 24-37.5-102(2); in which case Addendum 1 §2 applies in lieu of this section.] Unless specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement, all materials, including without limitation supplies, equipment, documents, content, information, or other material of any type, whether tangible or intangible (collectively “Materials”), furnished by the State to Grantee or delivered by Grantee to the State in performance of its obligations under this Agreement shall be the exclusive property the State. Grantee shall return or deliver all Materials to the State upon completion or termination of this Agreement. 7. Grantee Records. Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete file of all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media files, and communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work (including, but not limited to the operation of programs) performed under this Agreement (collectively “Grantee Records”). Unless otherwise specified by the State, the Grantee shall retain Grantee Records for a period (the “Record Retention Period”) of three years following the date of submission to the State of the final expenditure report, or if this Award is renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of each quarterly or annual report, respectively. If any litigation, claim, or audit related to this Award starts before expiration of the Record Retention Period, the Record Retention Period shall extend until all litigation, claims or audit finding have been resolved and final action taken by the State or Federal Awarding Agency. The Federal Awarding Agency, a cognizant agency for audit, oversight, or indirect costs, and the State, may notify Grantee in writing that the Record Retention Period shall be extended. For records for real property and equipment, the Record Retention Period shall extend three years following final disposition of such property. Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government, and any other duly authorized agent of a governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and transcribe Grantee Records during the Record Retention Period. Grantee shall make Grantee Records available during normal business hours at Grantee’s office or place of business, or at other mutually agreed upon times or locations, upon no fewer than two Business Days’ notice from the State, unless the State determines that a shorter period of notice, or no notice, is necessary to protect the interests of the State. The State, in its discretion, may monitor Grantee’s performance of its obligations Page 51 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 3 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 under this Agreement using procedures as determined by the State. The federal government and any other duly authorized agent of a governmental agency, in its discretion, Grantee shall allow the State to perform all monitoring required by the Uniform Guidance, based on the State’s risk analysis of Grantee and this Agreement, and the State shall have the right, in its discretion, to change its monitoring procedures and requirements at any time during the term of this Agreement. The State will monitor Grantee’s performance in a manner that does not unduly interfere with Grantee’s performance of the Work. Grantee shall promptly submit to the State a copy of any final audit report of an audit performed on Grantee Records that relates to or affects this Agreement or the Work, whether the audit is conducted by Grantee, a State agency or the State’s authorized representative, or a third party. If applicable, the Grantee may be required to perform a single audit under 2 CFR 200.501, et seq. Grantee shall submit a copy of the results of that audit to the State within the same timelines as the submission to the federal government. 8. Reporting. If Grantee is served with a pleading or other document in connection with an action before a court or other administrative decision making body, and such pleading or document relates to this Agreement or may affect Grantee’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement, Grantee shall, within 10 days after being served, notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleading or document to the State. Grantee shall disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the State and the Federal Awarding Agency, all violations of federal or State criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Award. The State or the Federal Awarding Agency may impose any penalties for noncompliance allowed under 2 CFR Part 180 and 31 U.S.C. 3321, which may include, without limitation, suspension or debarment. 9. Conflicts of Interest. Grantee acknowledges that with respect to this Agreement, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the State’s interests. Absent the State’s prior written approval, Grantee shall refrain from any practices, activities, or relationships that reasonably may appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations to the State under this Agreement. If a conflict or appearance of a conflict of interest exists, or if Grantee is uncertain as to such, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure statement setting forth the relevant details for the State’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow the State’s direction in regard to the actual or apparent conflict constitutes a breach of this Agreement. Grantee certifies that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Agreement. Grantee has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of Grantee’s Services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known interests. Grantee acknowledges that all State employees are subject to the ethical principles described in §24- 18-105, C.R.S. Grantee further acknowledges that State employees may be subject to the requirements of §24-18-105, C.R.S. with regard to this Grant. 10. Taxes. The State is exempt from federal excise taxes and from State and local sales and use taxes. The State shall not be liable for the payment of any excise, sales, of use taxes imposed on Grantee. A tax exemption certificate will be made available upon Grantee’s request. Grantee shall be solely responsible for any exemptions from the collection of excise, sales or use taxes that Grantee may wish to have in place in connection with this Agreement. Page 52 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 4 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 11. Payment. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid, obligated balance of the Grant Funds. The State shall not pay Grantee any amount under this Agreement that exceeds the Document Total shown on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award. The State shall pay Grantee in the amounts and in accordance with the schedule and other conditions set forth in this Agreement. Grantee shall initiate payment requests by invoice to the State, in a form and manner approved by the State. The State shall pay Grantee for all amounts due within 45 days after receipt of an Awarding Agency’s approved invoicing request, or in instances of reimbursement grant programs a request for reimbursement, compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and, if applicable Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) of amount requested. Amounts not paid by the State within 45 days of the State’s acceptance of the invoice shall bear interest on the unpaid balance beginning on the 45th day at the rate set forth in CRS §24-30-202(24) until paid in full. Interest shall not accrue if a good faith dispute exists as to the State’s obligation to pay all or a portion of the amount due. Grantee shall invoice the State separately for interest on delinquent amounts due, referencing the delinquent payment, number of day’s interest to be paid, and applicable interest rate. The acceptance of an invoice shall not constitute acceptance of any Work performed under this Agreement. Except as specifically agreed in this Agreement, Grantee shall be solely responsible for all costs, expenses, and other charges it incurs in connection with its performance under this Grantee. 12. Term. The parties’ respective performances under this Agreement shall commence on the “Service From” date identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award, unless otherwise specified, and shall terminate on the “Service To” date identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 13. Payment Disputes. If Grantee disputes any calculation, determination or amount of any payment, Grantee shall notify the State in writing of its dispute within 30 days following the earlier to occur of Grantee’s receipt of the payment or notification of the determination or calculation of the payment by the State. The State will review the information presented by Grantee and may make changes to its determination based on this review. The calculation, determination or payment amount that results from the State’s review shall not be subject to additional dispute under this subsection. No payment subject to a dispute under this subsection shall be due until after the State has concluded its review, and the State shall not pay any interest on any amount during the period it is subject to dispute under this subsection. 14. Matching Funds. Grantee shall provide Matching Funds, if required by this Agreement. If permitted under the terms of the grant and per this Agreement, Grantee may be permitted to provide Matching Funds prior to or during the course of the project or the match will be an in- kind match. Grantee shall report to the State regarding the status of such funds upon request. Grantee’s obligation to pay all or any part of any Matching Funds, whether direct or contingent, only extend to funds duly and lawfully appropriated for the purposes of this Agreement by the authorized representatives of Grantee and paid into Grantee’s treasury or bank account. Grantee represents to the State that the amount designated “Grantee’s Matching Funds” pursuant to this Agreement, has been legally appropriated for the purposes of this Agreement by its authorized representatives and paid into its treasury or bank account. Grantee does not by this Agreement irrevocably pledge present cash reserves for payments in future fiscal years, and this Agreement is not intended to create a multiple-fiscal year debt of Grantee. Grantee shall not pay or be liable for any claimed interest, late charges, fees, taxes or penalties of any nature, except as required by Grantee’s laws or policies. Page 53 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 5 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 15. Reimbursement of Grantee Costs. If applicable, the State shall reimburse Grantee’s allowable costs, not exceeding the maximum total amount described in this Agreement for all allowable costs described in the grant except that Grantee may adjust the amounts between each line item of the Budget without formal modification to this Agreement as long as the Grantee provides notice to, and received approval from the State of the change, the change does not modify the total maximum amount of this Agreement, and the change does not modify any requirements of the Work. If applicable, the State shall reimburse Grantee for the properly documented allowable costs related to the Work after review and approval thereof, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. However, any costs incurred by Grantee prior to the Effective Date shall not be reimbursed absent specific allowance of pre-award costs. Grantee’s costs for Work performed after the “Service To” date identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award, or after any phase performance period end date for a respective phase of the Work, shall not be reimbursable. The State shall only reimburse allowable costs described in this Agreement and shown in the Budget if those costs are (a) reasonable and necessary to accomplish the Work, and (b) equal to the actual net cost to Grantee (i.e. the price paid minus any items of value received by Grantee that reduce the costs actually incurred). 16. Close-Out. Grantee shall close out this Award within 45 days after the “Service To” date identified on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award, including any modifications. To complete close-out, Grantee shall submit to the State all deliverables (including documentation) as defined in this Agreement and Grantee’s final reimbursement request or invoice. In accordance with the Agreement, the State may withhold a percentage of allowable costs until all final documentation has been submitted and accepted by the State as substantially complete. 17. Assignment. Grantee’s rights and obligations under this Agreement may not be transferred or assigned without the prior, written consent of the State and execution of a new agreement. Any attempt at assignment or transfer without such consent and new agreement shall be void. Any assignment or transfer of Grantee’s rights and obligations approved by the State shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 18. Subcontracts. Grantee shall not enter into any subcontract in connection with its obligations under this Agreement without the prior, written approval of the State. Grantee shall submit to the State a copy of each subcontract upon request by the State. All subcontracts entered into by Grantee in connection with this Agreement shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, shall provide that they are governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and shall be subject to all provisions of this Agreement. 19. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect, provided that the Parties can continue to perform their obligations in accordance with the intent of the Agreement. 20. Survival of Certain Agreement Terms. Any provision of this Agreement that imposes an obligation on a party after termination or expiration of the Agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement and shall be enforceable by the other party. 21. Third Party Beneficiaries. Except for the parties’ respective successors and assigns, this Agreement does not and is not intended to confer any rights or remedies upon any person or entity other than the Parties. Enforcement of this Agreement and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the parties. Any services or benefits which third parties Page 54 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 6 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 receive as a result of this Agreement are incidental to the Agreement, and do not create any rights for such third parties. 22. Waiver. A party’s failure or delay in exercising any right, power, or privilege under this Agreement, whether explicit or by lack of enforcement, shall not operate as a waiver, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power, or privilege preclude any other or further exercise of such right, power, or privilege. 23. Indemnification. [Not Applicable to Inter-governmental agreements] Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees, agents and assignees (the “Indemnified Parties”), against any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, liabilities, court awards and other amounts (including attorneys’ fees and related costs) incurred by any of the Indemnified Parties in relation to any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subcontractors, or assignees in connection with this Agreement. This shall include, without limitation, any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, liabilities, court awards and other amounts incurred by the Indemnified Parties in relation to any claim that any work infringes a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or any other intellectual property right or any claim for loss or improper disclosure of any confidential information or personally identifiable information. If Grantee is a public agency prohibited by applicable law from indemnifying any party, then this section shall not apply. 24. Notice. All notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be delivered to the contacts for each party listed on the face of the Small Dollar Grant Award. Either party may change its contact or contact information by notice submitted in accordance with this section without a formal modification to this Agreement. 25. Insurance. Except as otherwise specifically stated in this Agreement or any attachment or exhibit to this Agreement, Grantee shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times during the term of the Agreement: (a) workers’ compensation insurance as required by state statute, and employers’ liability insurance covering all Grantee employees acting within the course and scope of their employment, (b) Commercial general liability insurance written on an Insurance Services Office occurrence form, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent vendors, products and completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with minimum limits as follows: $1,000,000 each occurrence; $1,000,000 general aggregate; $1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and $50,000 any one fire, and (c) Automobile liability insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned autos) with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit. If Grantee will or may have access to any protected information, then Grantee shall also obtain and maintain insurance covering loss and disclosure of protected information and claims based on alleged violations of privacy right through improper use and disclosure of protected information with limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000 general aggregate at all times during the term of the Small Dollar Grant Award. Additional insurance may be required as provided elsewhere in this Agreement or any attachment or exhibit to this Agreement. All insurance policies required by this Agreement shall be issued by insurance companies with an AM Best rating of A-VIII or better. If Grantee is a public agency within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, then this section shall not apply and Grantee shall instead comply with the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. The State shall be named as additional insured on all commercial general liability policies required of Grantee. All insurance policies secured or Page 55 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 7 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 maintained by Grantee in relation to this Small Dollar Grant Award shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall waive all rights of recovery under subrogation or otherwise against Grantee or the State, its agencies, institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. 26. Termination Prior to Grantee Acceptance. If Grantee has not begun performance under this Agreement, the State may cancel this Agreement by providing written notice to the Grantee. 27. Termination for Cause. If Grantee refuses or fails to timely and properly perform any of its obligations under this Agreement with such diligence as will ensure its completion within the time specified in this Agreement, the State may notify Grantee in writing of non-performance and, if not corrected by Grantee within the time specified in the notice, terminate Grantee’s right to proceed with the Agreement or such part thereof as to which there has been delay or a failure. Grantee shall continue performance of this Agreement to the extent not terminated. Grantee shall be liable for excess costs incurred by the State in procuring similar Work and the State may withhold such amounts, as the State deems necessary. If after rejection, revocation, or other termination of Grantee’s right to proceed under the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code (CUCC) or this clause, the State determines for any reason that Grantee was not in default or the delay was excusable, the rights and obligations of the State and Grantee shall be the same as if the notice of termination had been issued pursuant to termination under §28. 28. Termination in Public Interest. The State is entering into this Agreement for the purpose of carrying out the public interest of the State, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, Courts, or Federal Awarding Agency. If this Agreement ceases to further the public interest of the State as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, Courts, or Federal Awarding Agency, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part and such termination shall not be deemed to be a breach of the State’s obligations hereunder. This section shall not apply to a termination for cause, which shall be governed by §27. A determination that this Small Dollar Grant Award should be terminated in the public interest shall not be equivalent to a State right to terminate for convenience. The State shall give written notice of termination to Grantee specifying the part of the Agreement terminated and when termination becomes effective. Upon receipt of notice of termination, Grantee shall not incur further obligations except as necessary to mitigate costs of performance. The State shall pay the Agreement price or rate for Work performed and accepted by State prior to the effective date of the notice of termination. The State’s termination liability under this section shall not exceed the total Agreement price. 29. Termination for Funds Availability. The State is prohibited by law from making commitments beyond the term of the current State Fiscal Year. Payment to Grantee beyond the current State Fiscal Year is contingent on the appropriation and continuing availability of Grant Funds in any subsequent year (as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions). If federal funds or funds from any other non-State funds constitute all or some of the Grant Funds, the State’s obligation to pay Grantee shall be contingent upon such non-State funding continuing to be made available for payment. Payments to be made pursuant to this Agreement shall be made only from Grant Funds, and the State’s liability for such payments shall be limited to the amount remaining of such Grant Funds. If State, federal or other funds are not appropriated, or otherwise become unavailable to fund this Agreement, the State may, upon written notice, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, without incurring further liability. The State shall, Page 56 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 8 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 however, remain obligated to pay for Work performed and accepted prior to the effective date of notice of termination, and this termination shall otherwise be treated as if this Agreement were terminated in the public interest as described in §28. 30. Grantee’s Termination Under Federal Requirements. If the Grant Funds include any federal funds, then Grantee may request termination of this Grant by sending notice to the State, or to the Federal Awarding Agency with a copy to the State, which includes the reasons for the termination and the effective date of the termination. If this Grant is terminated in this manner, then Grantee shall return any advanced payments made for Work that will not be performed prior to the effective date of the termination. 31. Governmental Immunity. Liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State, its departments, boards, commissions committees, bureaus, offices, employees and officials shall be controlled and limited by the provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101, et seq., the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Pt. VI, Ch. 171 and 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), and the State’s risk management statutes, CRS §§24-30-1501, et seq. No term or condition of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, contained in these statutes. 32. Grant Recipient. Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as a grant recipient and not as an employee. Neither Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind the State to any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Grantee or any of its agents or employees. Grantee shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Agreement. Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents. 33. Compliance with Law. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices. 34. Choice of Law, Jurisdiction and Venue. [Not Applicable to Inter-governmental agreements] Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this Agreement. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. All suits or actions related to this Agreement shall be filed and proceedings held in the State of Colorado and exclusive venue shall be in the City and County of Denver. Any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other provision in this Agreement in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision or for any other reason shall not invalidate the remainder of this Agreement, to the extent capable of execution. Grantee shall exhaust administrative remedies in CRS §24-109-106, prior to commencing any judicial Page 57 of 273 State of Colorado Small Dollar Grant Award Terms and Conditions Page 9 of 9 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 6/26/2024 action against the State regardless of whether the Colorado Procurement Code applies to this Agreement. 35. Prohibited Terms. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any provision of CRS §24-106-109. Any term included in this Agreement that requires the State to indemnify or hold Grantee harmless; requires the State to agree to binding arbitration; limits Grantee’s liability for damages resulting from death, bodily injury, or damage to tangible property; or that conflicts with that statute in any way shall be void ab initio. Page 58 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 1 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 IF ANY PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT IS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, AS DEFINED IN CRS § 24-37.5-102 (2), THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS ALSO APPLY TO THIS AGREEMENT. A. Definitions. The following terms shall be construed and interpreted as follows: (a) “CJI” means criminal justice information collected by criminal justice agencies needed for the performance of their authorized functions, including, without limitation, all information defined as criminal justice information by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy, as amended, and all Criminal Justice Records as defined under CRS §24-72-302; (b) “Incident” means any accidental or deliberate event that results in or constitutes an imminent threat of the unauthorized access, loss, disclosure, modification, disruption, or destruction of any communications or information resources of the State, pursuant to CRS §§24-37.5-401 et seq.; (c) “PCI” means payment card information including any data related to credit card holders’ names, credit card numbers, or the other credit card information as may be protected by state or federal law; (d) “PHI” means any protected health information, including, without limitation any information whether oral or recorded in any form or medium that relates to the past, present or future physical or mental condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and that identifies the individual or with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual including, without limitation, any information defined as Individually Identifiable Health Information by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; (e) “PII” means personally identifiable information including, without limitation, any information maintained by the State about an individual that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual‘s identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, or biometric records, including, without limitation, all information defined as personally identifiable information in CRS §24-72- 501. . “PII” shall also mean “personal identifying information” as set forth at § 24-74-102, et. seq., C.R.S. ; (f) “State Confidential Information” means any and all State Records not subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act and includes, without limitation, PII, PHI, PCI, Tax Information, CJI, and State personnel records not subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act, (g) “State Fiscal Rules” means those fiscal rules promulgated by the Colorado State Controller pursuant to CRS §24-30-202(13)(a); (h) “State Fiscal Year” means a 12 month period beginning on July 1 of each calendar year and ending on June 30 of the following calendar year; (i) “State Records” means any and all State data, information, and records, regardless of physical form; (j) “Tax Information” means federal and State of Colorado tax information including, without limitation, federal and State tax returns, return information, and such other tax-related information as may be protected by federal and State law and regulation, including, without limitation all information defined as federal tax information in Internal Revenue Service Publication 1075; and (k) “Work Product” means the tangible and intangible results of the delivery of goods and performance of services, whether finished or unfinished, including drafts. Work Product includes, but is not limited to, documents, text, software (including source code), research, reports, proposals, specifications, plans, notes, studies, data, images, photographs, negatives, pictures, drawings, designs, models, surveys, maps, materials, ideas, concepts, know-how, information, and any other results of the Work, but does not include any Page 59 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 2 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 material that was developed prior to the Effective Date that is used, without modification, in the performance of the Work. B. Intellectual Property. Except to the extent specifically provided elsewhere in this Agreement, any State information, including without limitation pre-existing State software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models, materials; or Work Product prepared by Grantee in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of the State (collectively, “State Materials”). All State Materials shall be delivered to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination of this Agreement. The State’s exclusive rights in any Work Product prepared by Grantee shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and prepare derivative works. Grantee shall not use, willingly allow, cause or permit any State Materials to be used for any purpose other than the performance of Grantee’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the State. The State shall maintain complete and accurate records relating to (a) its use of all Grantee and third party software licenses and rights to use any Grantee or third party software granted under this Agreement and its attachments to which the State is a party and (b) all amounts payable to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement and its attachments and the State’s obligations under this Agreement or any amounts payable to Grantee in relation to this Agreement, which records shall contain sufficient information to permit Grantee to confirm the State’s compliance with the use restrictions and payment obligations under this Agreement or to any third party use restrictions to which the State is a party. Grantee retains the exclusive rights, title and ownership to any and all pre-existing materials owned or licensed to Grantee including, but not limited to all pre-existing software, licensed products, associated source code, machine code, text images, audio, video, and third party materials, delivered by Grantee under the Agreement, whether incorporated in a deliverable or necessary to use a deliverable (collectively, “Grantee Property”). Grantee Property shall be licensed to the State as set forth in a State-approved license agreement (a) entered into as exhibits or attachments to this Agreement, (b) obtained by the State from the applicable third party Grantee, or (c) in the case of open source software, the license terms set forth in the applicable open source license agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the State shall not be subject to any provision incorporated in any exhibit or attachment attached hereto, any provision incorporated in any terms and conditions appearing on any website, any provision incorporated into any click through or online agreements, or any provision incorporated into any other document or agreement between the parties that (a) requires the State or the State to indemnify Grantee or any other party, (b) is in violation of State laws, regulations, rules, State Fiscal Rules, policies, or other State requirements as deemed solely by the State, or (c) is contrary to this Agreement. C. Information Confidentiality. Grantee shall keep confidential, and cause all Subcontractors to keep confidential, all State Records, unless those State Records are publicly available. Grantee shall not, without prior written approval of the State, use, publish, copy, disclose to any third party, or permit the use by any third party of any State Records, except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, permitted by law, or approved in writing by the State. If Grantee will or may have access to any State Confidential Information or any other protected information, Grantee shall provide for the security of all State Confidential Information in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, policies, publications, and guidelines. Grantee shall comply with all Colorado Office of Information Security (“OIS”) policies and procedures which OIS has issued pursuant to CRS §§24- Page 60 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 3 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 37.5-401 through 406 and 8 CCR §1501-5 and posted at https://oit.colorado.gov/standards- policies-guides/technical-standards-policies, all information security and privacy obligations imposed by any federal, state, or local statute or regulation, or by any industry standards or guidelines, as applicable based on the classification of the data relevant to Grantee’s performance under this Agreement. Such obligations may arise from: Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); IRS Publication 1075; Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS); FBI Criminal Justice Information Service Security Addendum; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges; and Electronic Information Exchange Security Requirements and Procedures for State and Local Agencies Exchanging Electronic Information with The Social Security Administration. Grantee shall immediately forward any request or demand for State Records to the State’s principal representative. D. Other Entity Access and Nondisclosure Agreements. Grantee may provide State Records to its agents, employees, assigns and Subcontractors as necessary to perform the work, but shall restrict access to State Confidential Information to those agents, employees, assigns, and Subcontractors who require access to perform their obligations under this Agreement. Grantee shall ensure all such agents, employees, assigns, and Subcontractors sign agreements containing nondisclosure provisions at least as protective as those in this Agreement, and that the nondisclosure provisions are in force at all times the agent, employee, assign, or Subcontractors has access to any State Confidential Information. Grantee shall provide copies of those signed nondisclosure provisions to the State upon execution of the nondisclosure provisions if requested by the State. E. Use, Security, and Retention. Grantee shall use, hold, and maintain State Confidential Information in compliance with any and all applicable laws and regulations only in facilities located within the United States, and shall maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State Confidential Information. Grantee shall provide the State with access, subject to Grantee’s reasonable security requirements, for purposes of inspecting and monitoring access and use of State Confidential Information and evaluating security control effectiveness. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, Grantee shall return State Records provided to Grantee or destroy such State Records and certify to the State that it has done so, as directed by the State. If Grantee is prevented by law or regulation from returning or destroying State Confidential Information, Grantee warrants it will guarantee the confidentiality of, and cease to use, such State Confidential Information. F. Incident Notice and Remediation. If Grantee becomes aware of any Incident, it shall notify the State immediately and cooperate with the State regarding recovery, remediation, and the necessity to involve law enforcement, as determined by the State. Unless Grantee can establish none of Grantee or any of its agents, employees, assigns or Subcontractors are the cause or source of the Incident, Grantee shall be responsible for the cost of notifying each person who may have been impacted by the Incident. After an Incident, Grantee shall take steps to reduce the risk of incurring a similar type of Incident in the future as directed by the State, which may include, but is not limited to, developing and implementing a remediation plan that is approved by the State at no additional cost to the State. The State may adjust or direct modifications to this plan, in its sole discretion and Grantee shall make all modifications as directed by the State. If Grantee cannot produce its analysis and plan within the allotted time, the State, in its sole discretion, may perform Page 61 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 4 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 such analysis and produce a remediation plan, and Grantee shall reimburse the State for the reasonable actual costs thereof. G. Data Protection and Handling. Grantee shall ensure that all State Records and Work Product in the possession of Grantee or any Subcontractors are protected and handled in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement at all times. Upon request by the State made any time prior to 60 days following the termination of this Agreement for any reason, whether or not this Agreement is expiring or terminating, Grantee shall make available to the State a complete and secure download file of all data that is encrypted and appropriately authenticated. This download file shall be made available to the State within 10 Business Days following the State’s request, and shall contain, without limitation, all State Records, Work Product, and any other information belonging to the State. Upon the termination of Grantee’s services under this Agreement, Grantee shall, as directed by the State, return all State Records provided by the State to Grantee, and the copies thereof, to the State or destroy all such State Records and certify to the State that it has done so. If legal obligations imposed upon Grantee prevent Grantee from returning or destroying all or part of the State Records provided by the State, Grantee shall guarantee the confidentiality of all State Records in Grantee’s possession and will not actively process such data. The State retains the right to use the established operational services to access and retrieve State Records stored on Grantee’s infrastructure at its sole discretion and at any time. H. Compliance. If applicable, Grantee shall review, on a semi-annual basis, all OIS policies and procedures which OIS has promulgated pursuant to CRS §§ 24-37.5-401 through 406 and 8 CCR § 1501-5 and posted at https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/technical-standards- policies, to ensure compliance with the standards and guidelines published therein. Grantee shall cooperate, and shall cause its Subcontractors to cooperate, with the performance of security audit and penetration tests by OIS or its designee. I. Safeguarding PII. If Grantee or any of its Subcontractors will or may receive PII under this Agreement, Grantee shall provide for the security of such PII, in a manner and form acceptable to the State, including, without limitation, all State requirements relating to non-disclosure, use of appropriate technology, security practices, computer access security, data access security, data storage encryption, data transmission encryption, security inspections, and audits. Grantee shall take full responsibility for the security of all PII in its possession or in the possession of its Subcontractors, and shall hold the State harmless for any damages or liabilities resulting from the unauthorized disclosure or loss thereof. Grantee shall be a “Third-Party Service Provider” as defined in CRS §24-73-103(1)(i) and shall maintain security procedures and practices consistent with CRS §§24-73-101 et seq. In addition, as set forth in § 24-74-102, et. seq., C.R.S., Grantee, including, but not limited to, Grantee’s employees, agents and Subcontractors, agrees not to share any PII with any third parties for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting with Federal immigration enforcement. If Grantee is given direct access to any State databases containing PII, Grantee shall execute, on behalf of itself and its employees, the certification PII Individual Certification Form or PII Entity Certification Form [Download form from Hyperlink] on an annual basis and Grantee’s duty shall continue as long as Grantee has direct access to any State databases containing PII. If Grantee uses any Subcontractors to perform services requiring direct access to State databases containing PII, the Grantee shall require such Subcontractors to execute and deliver the certification to the State on an annual basis, so long as the Subcontractor has access to State databases containing PII. Page 62 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 5 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 J. Software Piracy Prohibition. The State or other public funds payable under this Agreement shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Agreement and any extensions, Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Grantee is in violation of this provision, the State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Agreement, including, without limitation, immediate termination of this Agreement and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. K. Information Technology. To the extent that Grantee provides physical or logical storage of State Records; Grantee creates, uses, processes, discloses, transmits, or disposes of State Records; or Grantee is otherwise given physical or logical access to State Records in order to perform Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement, the following terms shall apply. Grantee shall, and shall cause its Subcontractors, to: Provide physical and logical protection for all hardware, software, applications, and data that meets or exceeds industry standards and the requirements of this Agreement; Maintain network, system, and application security, which includes, but is not limited to, network firewalls, intrusion detection (host and network), annual security testing, and improvements or enhancements consistent with evolving industry standards; Comply with State and federal rules and regulations related to overall security, privacy, confidentiality, integrity, availability, and auditing; Provide that security is not compromised by unauthorized access to workspaces, computers, networks, software, databases, or other physical or electronic environments; Promptly report all Incidents, including Incidents that do not result in unauthorized disclosure or loss of data integrity, to a designated representative of the OIS; Comply with all rules, policies, procedures, and standards issued by the Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT), including project lifecycle methodology and governance, technical standards, documentation, and other requirements posted at https://oit.colorado.gov/standards- policies-guides/technical-standards-policies. Grantee shall not allow remote access to State Records from outside the United States, including access by Grantee’s employees or agents, without the prior express written consent of OIS. Grantee shall communicate any request regarding non-U.S. access to State Records to the State. The State, acting by and through OIS, shall have sole discretion to grant or deny any such request. L. Accessibility. Grantee shall comply with and the Work Product provided under this PO shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability, as established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S. Grantee shall also comply with all State of Colorado technology standards related to technology accessibility and with Level AA of the most current version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), incorporated in the State of Colorado technology standards. Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, liabilities, court awards and other amounts (including attorneys’ fees and related costs) incurred by any of the Indemnified Parties in relation to Grantee’s failure to comply with §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., or the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability as established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S. The State may require Grantee’s compliance to the State’s Accessibility Standards to be determined by a third party selected by the State to attest to Grantee’s Work Product and software Page 63 of 273 ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information Technology Addendum 1 - Page 2 of 6 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 Revised Date: 7/1/2024 is in compliance with §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability as established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S. Page 64 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 1 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 IF ANY PART OF THIS PO HAS BEEN FUNDED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITH FEDERAL FUNDS, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THIS PO. 1. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS. 1.1. The Grant to which these Federal Provisions are attached has been funded, in whole or in part, with an Award of Federal funds. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of these Federal Provisions, the Special Provisions, the body of the Grant, or any attachments or exhibits incorporated into and made a part of the Grant, the provisions of these Federal Provisions shall control. 1.2 These Federal Provisions are subject to the Award as defined in §2 of these Federal Provisions, as may be revised pursuant to ongoing guidance from the relevant Federal or State of Colorado agency or institutions of higher education. 2. DEFINITIONS. 2.1. For the purposes of these Federal Provisions, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them below. 2.1.1. “Award” means an award of Federal financial assistance, and the Grant setting forth the terms and conditions of that financial assistance, that a non-Federal Entity receives or administers. 2.1.2. “Entity” means: 2.1.2.1. a Non-Federal Entity; 2.1.2.2. a foreign public entity; 2.1.2.3. a foreign organization; 2.1.2.4. a non-profit organization; 2.1.2.5. a domestic for-profit organization (for 2 CFR parts 25 and 170 only); 2.1.2.6. a foreign non-profit organization (only for 2 CFR part 170) only); 2.1.2.7. a Federal agency, but only as a Subrecipient under an Award or Subaward to a non-Federal entity (or 2 CFR 200.1); or 2.1.2.8. a foreign for-profit organization (for 2 CFR part 170 only). 2.1.3. “Executive” means an officer, managing partner or any other employee in a management position. 2.1.4. “Federal Awarding Agency” means a Federal agency providing a Federal Award to a Recipient as described in 2 CFR 200.1 2.1.5. “Grant” means the Grant to which these Federal Provisions are attached. 2.1.6. “Grantee” means the party or parties identified as such in the Grant to which these Federal Provisions are attached. Grantee also means Subrecipient. Page 65 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 2 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 2.1.7. “Non-Federal Entity” means a State, local government, Indian tribe, institution of higher education, or nonprofit organization that carries out a Federal Award as a Recipient or a Subrecipient. 2.1.8. “Nonprofit Organization” means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization, not including IHEs, that: 2.1.8.1. Is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest; 2.1.8.2. Is not organized primarily for profit; and 2.1.8.3. Uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the operations of the organization. 2.1.9. “OMB” means the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 2.1.10. “Pass-through Entity” means a non-Federal Entity that provides a Subaward to a Subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program. 2.1.11. “Recipient” means the Colorado State agency or institution of higher education identified as the Grantor in the Grant to which these Federal Provisions are attached. 2.1.12. “Subaward” means an award by a Recipient to a Subrecipient or a Contractor funded in whole or in part by a Federal Award. The terms and conditions of the Federal Award flow down to the Subaward unless the terms and conditions of the Federal Award specifically indicate otherwise in accordance with 2 CFR 200.101. The term does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program. 2.1.13. “Subrecipient” or “Subgrantee” means a non-Federal Entity (or a Federal agency under an Award or Subaward to a non-Federal Entity) receiving Federal funds through a Recipient to support the performance of the Federal project or program for which the Federal funds were awarded. A Subrecipient is subject to the terms and conditions of the Federal Award to the Recipient, including program compliance requirements. The term does not include an individual who is a beneficiary of a federal program. Subrecipient also means Grantee. 2.1.14. “System for Award Management (SAM)” means the Federal repository into which an Entity must enter the information required under the Transparency Act, which may be found at http://www.sam.gov. 2.1.15. “Total Compensation” means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by an Executive during the Subrecipient’s preceding fiscal year (see 48 CFR 52.204-10, as prescribed in 48 CFR 4.1403(a)) and includes the following: 2.1.15.1. Salary and bonus; Page 66 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 3 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 2.1.15.2. Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights, using the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2005) (FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments; 2.1.15.3. Earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans, not including group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of Executives and are available generally to all salaried employees; 2.1.15.4. Change in present value of defined benefit and actuarial pension plans; 2.1.15.5. Above-market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax- qualified; 2.1.15.6. Other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g., severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property) for the Executive exceeds $10,000. 2.1.16. “Transparency Act” means the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-282), as amended by §6202 of Public Law 110-252. 2.1.17. “Unique Entity ID” means the Unique Entity ID established by the federal government for a Grantee or Subrecipient at https://sam.gov/content/home. 2.1.18. “Uniform Guidance” means the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The terms and conditions of the Uniform Guidance flow down to Awards to Subrecipients unless the Uniform Guidance or the terms and conditions of the Federal Award specifically indicate otherwise. 3. COMPLIANCE. 3.1. Subrecipient shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Transparency Act and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, all applicable provisions of the Uniform Guidance, and all applicable Federal Laws and regulations required by this Federal Award. Any revisions to such provisions or regulations shall automatically become a part of these Federal Provisions, without the necessity of either party executing any further instrument. The State of Colorado, at its discretion, may provide written notification to Subrecipient of such revisions, but such notice shall not be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of such revisions. 4. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM) AND UNIQUE ENTITY ID REQUIREMENTS. Page 67 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 4 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 4.1. SAM. Subrecipient shall maintain the currency of its information in SAM until the Subrecipient submits the final financial report required under the Award or receives final payment, whichever is later. Subrecipient shall review and update SAM information at least annually after the initial registration, and more frequently if required by changes in its information. 4.2. Unique Entity ID. Subrecipient shall provide its Unique Entity ID to its Recipient, and shall update Subrecipient’s information at http://www.sam.gov at least annually after the initial registration, and more frequently if required by changes in Subrecipient’s information. 5. TOTAL COMPENSATION. 5.1. Subrecipient shall include Total Compensation in SAM for each of its five most highly compensated Executives for the preceding fiscal year if: 5.1.1. The total Federal funding authorized to date under the Award is $30,000 or more; and 5.1.2. In the preceding fiscal year, Subrecipient received: 5.1.2.1. 80% or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts and subcontracts and/or Federal financial assistance Awards or Subawards subject to the Transparency Act; and 5.1.2.2. $30,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts and subcontracts and/or Federal financial assistance Awards or Subawards subject to the Transparency Act; and 5.1.2.3. The public does not have access to information about the compensation of such Executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d) or § 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 6. REPORTING. 6.1. Pursuant to the Transparency Act, Subrecipient shall report data elements to SAM and to the Recipient as required in this Exhibit. No direct payment shall be made to Subrecipient for providing any reports required under these Federal Provisions and the cost of producing such reports shall be included in the Grant price. The reporting requirements in this Exhibit are based on guidance from the OMB, and as such are subject to change at any time by OMB. Any such changes shall be automatically incorporated into this Grant and shall become part of Subrecipient’s obligations under this Grant. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DOLLAR THRESHOLD FOR REPORTING. Page 68 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 5 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 7.1. Reporting requirements in §8 below apply to new Awards as of October 1, 2010, if the initial award is $30,000 or more. If the initial Award is below $30,000 but subsequent Award modifications result in a total Award of $30,000 or more, the Award is subject to the reporting requirements as of the date the Award exceeds $30,000. If the initial Award is $30,000 or more, but funding is subsequently de-obligated such that the total award amount falls below $30,000, the Award shall continue to be subject to the reporting requirements. 7.2. The procurement standards in §9 below are applicable to new Awards made by Recipient as of December 26, 2015. The standards set forth in §11 below are applicable to audits of fiscal years beginning on or after December 26, 2014. 8. SUBRECIPIENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 8.1. Subrecipient shall report as set forth below. 8.1.1. To SAM. A Subrecipient shall register in SAM and report the following data elements in SAM for each Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) assigned by a Federal agency to a Recipient no later than the end of the month following the month in which the Subaward was made: 8.1.1.1. Subrecipient Unique Entity ID; 8.1.1.2. Subrecipient Unique Entity ID if more than one electronic funds transfer (EFT) account; 8.1.1.3. Subrecipient parent’s organization Unique Entity ID; 8.1.1.4. Subrecipient’s address, including: Street Address, City, State, Country, Zip + 4, and Congressional District; 8.1.1.5. Subrecipient’s top 5 most highly compensated Executives if the criteria in §4 above are met; and 8.1.1.6. Subrecipient’s Total Compensation of top 5 most highly compensated Executives if the criteria in §4 above met. 8.1.2. To Recipient. A Subrecipient shall report to its Recipient, upon the effective date of the Grant, the following data elements: 8.1.2.1. Subrecipient’s Unique Entity ID as registered in SAM. 8.1.2.2. Primary Place of Performance Information, including: Street Address, City, State, Country, Zip code + 4, and Congressional District. 9. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS. 9.1. Procurement Procedures. A Subrecipient shall use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and Tribal laws and applicable regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in the Uniform Guidance, including without limitation, 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.327 thereof. Page 69 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 6 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 9.2. Domestic preference for procurements (2 CFR 200.322). As appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, the non-Federal entity should, to the greatest extent practicable under a Federal award, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States (including but not limited to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manufactured products). The requirements of this section must be included in all subawards including all contracts and purchase orders for work or products under this award. 9.3. Procurement of Recovered Materials. If a Subrecipient is a State Agency or an agency of a political subdivision of the State, its contractors must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247, that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines. 9.4. Never contract with the enemy (2 CFR 200.215). Federal awarding agencies and recipients are subject to the regulations implementing “Never contract with the enemy” in 2 CFR part 183. The regulations in 2 CFR part 183 affect covered contracts, grants and cooperative agreements that are expected to exceed $50,000 within the period of performance, are performed outside the United States and its territories, and are in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaged in hostilities. 9.5. Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment (2 CFR 200.216). Subrecipient is prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment pursuant to 2 CFR 200.216. 10. ACCESS TO RECORDS. 10.1. A Subrecipient shall permit Recipient and its auditors to have access to Subrecipient’s records and financial statements as necessary for Recipient to meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.332 (Requirements for pass-through entities), 2 CFR 200.300 (Statutory and national policy requirements) through 2 CFR 200.309 (Period of performance), and Subpart F-Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance. 11. SINGLE AUDIT REQUIREMENTS. 11.1. If a Subrecipient expends $750,000 or more in Federal Awards during the Subrecipient’s fiscal year, the Subrecipient shall procure or arrange for a single or program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with the provisions of Subpart F-Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance, issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507). 2 CFR 200.501. Page 70 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 7 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 11.1.1. Election. A Subrecipient shall have a single audit conducted in accordance with Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.514 (Scope of audit), except when it elects to have a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with 2 CFR 200.507 (Program- specific audits). The Subrecipient may elect to have a program-specific audit if Subrecipient expends Federal Awards under only one Federal program (excluding research and development) and the Federal program’s statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the Federal award do not require a financial statement audit of Recipient. A program-specific audit may not be elected for research and development unless all of the Federal Awards expended were received from Recipient and Recipient approves in advance a program-specific audit. 11.1.2. Exemption. If a Subrecipient expends less than $750,000 in Federal Awards during its fiscal year, the Subrecipient shall be exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR 200.503 (Relation to other audit requirements), but records shall be available for review or audit by appropriate officials of the Federal agency, the State, and the Government Accountability Office. 11.1.3. Subrecipient Compliance Responsibility. A Subrecipient shall procure or otherwise arrange for the audit required by Subpart F of the Uniform Guidance and ensure it is properly performed and submitted when due in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Subrecipient shall prepare appropriate financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (Financial statements) and provide the auditor with access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and other information as needed for the auditor to perform the audit required by Uniform Guidance Subpart F-Audit Requirements. 12. REQUIRED PROVISIONS FOR SUBRECEPIENT WITH SUBCONTRACTORS. 12.1. In addition to other provisions required by the Federal Awarding Agency or the Recipient, Subrecipients shall include all of the following applicable provisions; 12.1.1. For agreements with Subrecipients – Include the terms in the Grant Federal Provisions Exhibit (this exhibit) 12.1.2. For contracts with Subcontractors – Include the terms in the Contract Federal Provisions Exhibit. 13. CERTIFICATIONS. 13.1. Unless prohibited by Federal statutes or regulations, Recipient may require Subrecipient to submit certifications and representations required by Federal statutes or regulations on an annual basis. 2 CFR 200.208. Submission may be required more frequently if Subrecipient fails to meet a requirement of the Federal award. Subrecipient shall certify in writing to the State at the end of the Award that the project or activity was completed or the level of effort was expended. 2 CFR 200.201(3). If the required level of activity or effort was not carried out, the amount of the Award must be adjusted. 14. EXEMPTIONS. Page 71 of 273 ADDENDUM 2: Additional Terms & Conditions for Federal Provisions Addendum 2 - Page 8 of 8 Effective Date: 12/26/2023 14.1. These Federal Provisions do not apply to an individual who receives an Award as a natural person, unrelated to any business or non-profit organization he or she may own or operate in his or her name. 14.2. A Subrecipient with gross income from all sources of less than $300,000 in the previous tax year is exempt from the requirements to report Subawards and the Total Compensation of its most highly compensated Executives. 15. EVENT OF DEFAULT AND TERMINATION. 15.1. Failure to comply with these Federal Provisions shall constitute an event of default under the Grant and the State of Colorado may terminate the Grant upon 30 days prior written notice if the default remains uncured five calendar days following the termination of the 30-day notice period. This remedy will be in addition to any other remedy available to the State of Colorado under the Grant, at law or in equity. 15.2. Termination (2 CFR 200.340). The Federal Award may be terminated in whole or in part as follows: 15.2.1. By the Federal Awarding Agency or Pass-through Entity, if a Non-Federal Entity fails to comply with the terms and conditions of a Federal Award; 15.2.2. By the Federal awarding agency or Pass-through Entity, to the greatest extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities; 15.2.3. By the Federal awarding agency or Pass-through Entity with the consent of the Non- Federal Entity, in which case the two parties must agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated; 15.2.4. By the Non-Federal Entity upon sending to the Federal Awarding Agency or Pass- through Entity written notification setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. However, if the Federal Awarding Agency or Pass-through Entity determines in the case of partial termination that the reduced or modified portion of the Federal Award or Subaward will not accomplish the purposes for which the Federal Award was made, the Federal Awarding Agency or Pass-through Entity may terminate the Federal Award in its entirety; or 15.2.5. By the Federal Awarding Agency or Pass-through Entity pursuant to termination provisions included in the Federal Award. Page 72 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Darren Hollingsworth DEPARTMENT: Community Development DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: CB-37 Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County for the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone DESCRIPTION: IGA with Arapahoe County to allow the County to function as an enterprise zone subzone and to administer projects within its subzone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that city council adopt an Ordinance authorizing the City of Englewood to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Arapahoe County to form a South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone, which will enable Arapahoe County to function as a subzone administrator for projects within a newly expanded rural portion of the South Metro Enterprise Zone. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1990 the City of Englewood was designated the Enterprise Zone Administrator by the Department of Local Affairs of the State of Colorado. Additionally, the Colorado Economic Development Commission approved the South Metro Enterprise Zone as part of the 2015 enterprise zone re-designation. Since the inception of the enterprise zone in Englewood, city council has approved annual marketing and administrative grants to facilitate the program. SUMMARY: At its June 2024 meeting, the Colorado Economic Development Commission approved Arapahoe County’s request for a boundary amendment to the South Metro Enterprise Zone to include Census Block Groups 1, 2, and 3 of Census Tract 71.01, which are in the vicinity of Strasburg and Byers. The purpose of this IGA is to enable Arapahoe County to become an Enterprise Zone Subzone Administrator of the South Metro Enterprise Zone for administration and management of local contribution projects within the newly expanded enterprise subzone areas. ANALYSIS: Englewood economic development staff administers the South Metro Enterprise Zone, which includes all of the City Englewood, and portions of Littleton, Sheridan, Town of Parker, and rural portions of Arapahoe County. The city’s administration of the enterprise zone includes annual reporting and ongoing approvals of submissions, data input, marketing and outreach associated with the enterprise zone within Englewood. Page 73 of 273 Englewood economic development staff promote the enterprise zone exclusively in the City of Englewood. Promotion of and engagement in activities associated with the zone outside of Englewood is the responsibility of staff in Sheridan, Parker, Littleton, and Arapahoe County. At this time, Englewood does not receive compensation from Sheridan, Parker, Littleton, or Arapahoe County for enterprise zone administrative activities. Each year the City of Englewood receives a grant from the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade to defray expenses related to the enterprise zone administration. The enterprise zone is a critical element of the city's economic development program, through which approximately 100 Englewood businesses claim annual State of Colorado tax credits. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve an Ordinance authorizing the City of Englewood to enter into an IGA with Arapahoe County to form the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone, which will enable Arapahoe County to function as a subzone administrator for contribution projects within the newly expanded enterprise zone area in rural eastern portions of Arapahoe County. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Initiating the subzone with Arapahoe County carries no direct administrative cost to the City of Englewood. The annual administrative grant supports staff time for the Community Development Department's economic development manager and the department administrator. In 2023, the state reimbursed the City of Englewood $18,423 for staff time associated with the administration and promotion of the enterprise zone. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: The enterprise zone in Englewood addresses the following strategic plan goals: Business Retention  Develop, implement and maintain programs designed to retain businesses in Englewood Business Recruitment  Develop and implement projects and initiatives to recruit businesses to locate in Englewood Business Climate  Ensure a pro-business climate Job Training and Workforce Development  Supporting programs to support job training and workforce development ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #37 Intergovernmental Agreement Page 74 of 273 1 ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL NO. 37 NO.________ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL SERIES OF 2024 MEMBER ANDERSON AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY FOR THE SOUTH METRO ENTERPRISE ZONE SUBZONE WHEREAS, Sections 39-30-101 to 39-30-112 C.R.S. created the Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act; and WHEREAS, the Colorado legislature created the Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act to encourage development in economically distressed areas of the State; and WHEREAS, in 1990 the City of Englewood was designated as the Enterprise Zone Administrator by the Department of Local Affairs of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Economic Development Commission approved the South Metro Enterprise Zone as part of the 2015 Enterprise Zone redesignation; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood administers and services the South Metro Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS, the South Metro Enterprise Zone includes the cities of Sheridan, Littleton, Englewood, the Town of Parker, and Arapahoe County; and WHEREAS, municipalities and the County in the South Metro Enterprise Zone may become a subzone administrator to administer locally initiated projects within their respective jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Arapahoe County desires to function as a subzone administrator overseeing projects in its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the passage of this Ordinance will authorize the City of Englewood to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arapahoe County for the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone; and WHEREAS, Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and Part 2, Article 1, Title 29, C.R.S. encourages and authorizes intergovernmental agreements; and Page 75 of 273 2 WHEREAS, Sections 29-1-203 and 29-1-203.5, C.R.S. authorize governments to cooperate and contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each. 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 execution by the City of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County for the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone, in the form substantially the same as that attached hereto. Section 2. General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be by reference or in full in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. Manuals, Municipal Code, contracts, and other documents approved by reference in any Council Bill may be Page 76 of 273 3 published by reference or in full on the City’s official website; such documents shall be available at the City Clerk’s office and in the City Council meeting agenda packet when the legislation was adopted. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within EMC § 1-4-1. Introduced and passed on first reading on the 16th day of September, 2024; and on second reading, in identical form to the first reading, on the ___ day of ____________, 2024. Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance, introduced and passed in identical form on first and second reading on the dates indicated above; and published two days after each passage on the City’s official website for at least thirty (30) days thereafter. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after first publication on the City’s official website. Stephanie Carlile Page 77 of 273 Page 1 of 5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND ARAPAHOE COUNTY FOR THE SOUTH METRO ENTERPRISE ZONE SUBZONE This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this day of _______ , 2024, (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Englewood, a Colorado home rule municipality of the State of Colorado (“Englewood”), and Arapahoe County of the State of Colorado (“the County”) and collectively referred to as the (“Parties”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Colorado legislature created the Enterprise Zone Program to encourage development in economically distressed areas of the State; and WHEREAS, in 1990 Englewood was designated as the Enterprise Zone Administrator by the Department of Local Affairs of the State of Colorado and services the South Metro Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Economic Development Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission” has approved the South Metro Enterprise Zone as part of the 2015 Enterprise Zone redesignation; and WHEREAS, Englewood administers the South Metro Enterprise Zone for the cities of Sheridan, Littleton, Englewood, the Town of Parker, and Arapahoe County; and WHEREAS, municipalities and the County in the South Metro Enterprise Zone may become subzones to administer locally initiated projects within their respective jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of Arapahoe County within the South Metro Enterprise Zone will permit the County to take advantage of pass-through tax credits as authorized by C.R.S. Title 39, Article 30; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto desire to set forth in writing the general terms and conditions of the County’s inclusion in the South Metro Enterprise Zone, and WHEREAS, this Agreement allows Arapahoe County to function as an enterprise zone Subzone and to administer local enterprise zone projects and oversee contribution projects in its Subzone. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: a. The purpose of this Agreement is for Arapahoe County to become an Enterprise Subzone within the South Metro Enterprise Zone administered by Englewood. The County will thereafter administer and manage its local contribution projects within the Enterprise Subzone. 2. TERM AND TERMINATION: a. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue in effect until Page 78 of 273 Page 2 of 5 August 1, 2026, or until terminated. This Agreement may be extended upon mutual agreement of the Parties in writing. b. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party at any time, with or without cause upon a Party providing no less than 180 days of written notice to the other Party. c. The Parties acknowledge that during the term of this Agreement, the Commission may redesignate the South Metro Enterprise Zone and that Englewood may cease to administer the Zone. If redesignation occurs prior to the termination of this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge that this Agreement and the Parties’ duties under this Agreement shall terminate immediately upon any Commission action or redesignation of the South Metro Enterprise Zone. 3. ARAPAHOE COUNTY SUBZONE DUTIES: a. The County will identify a local point of contact and take on such roles as information dissemination, program promotion, and interfacing as the primary point of contact for businesses and interested parties within the Arapahoe County Subzone. b. The County will function as the primary point of contact for all interactions within the Arapahoe County Subzone for local businesses and non‐profit organizations. c. The County must maintain all documentation and records for the reporting requirements on the Subzone’s portion of the South Metro Enterprise Zone. d. The County shall adhere to the policies and guidelines set forth in the Enterprise Zone Administrator’s Manual and Contribution Project Guide. e. The County agrees to provide financial reports detailing the use of Enterprise Zone-related tax credits and work completed to Englewood. The Parties acknowledge that the Commission may request additional information as necessary and County agrees to respond to all such requests. f. The County will be responsible for day-to-day operations of any subzone activities and administration within the Arapahoe County Subzone. These would include promotion of the Enterprise Zone, managing contribution projects within the Arapahoe County Subzone, and submitting the annual report for the subzone. g. The County will be responsible for entering donor information and contribution amounts into the Commission's designated system, adhering to the minimum donation requirements for tax credits, and ensuring timely certification of contributions. h. The County is subject to annual renewal and adherence to Commission guidelines for contribution projects and maintaining local compliance with annual reporting requirements as outlined in the Enterprise Zone Administrator’s Manual. The County agrees to maintain compliance with all lawfully adopted Commission and Englewood requirements in the operation and administration of the Arapahoe County Subzone. Page 79 of 273 Page 3 of 5 4. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD SOUTH METRO ENTERPRISE ZONE DUTIES: a. Englewood shall continue to administer the South Metro Enterprise Zone. b. Englewood shall continue to file mandatory compliance reports with the Commission, including reports received from the Littleton Subzone. c. Englewood and the Commission’s Enterprise Zone Administrator will provide necessary training on the Commission’s system to the County. d. For the purposes of this Agreement, the South Metro Enterprise Zone Administrator will manage the pre-certification and certification process for the Arapahoe County Subzone. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: a. Englewood does not charge an administrative fee to process donations to contribution projects. Administrative fees for enterprise zone administration are covered through the annual Enterprise Zone Marketing and Administration Grant offered through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade. This agreement does not provide or imply a revenue or grant sharing mechanism for the County Subzone. b. The County Subzone may charge a contribution project administrative fee, pursuant to the approval of a fee schedule by the Colorado Economic Development Commission. 6. MISCELLANEOUS: a. Non‐Appropriation. All financial obligations of a Party under this Agreement are subject to the annual appropriations of funds by its own governing body. b. Notices. Any notice, demand, or request required by or relating to this Agreement shall be given by personal delivery, e‐mail, facsimile, or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to each Party at the addresses set forth below. Enterprise Zone Administrator 1000 Englewood Pkwy Englewood, CO 80110 Attn: South Metro Zone commdev@englewoodco.gov 303.762.2347 Arapahoe County Public Works and Development Director bweimer@arapahoegov.com 6924 S. Lima St Centennial, Co 80112 720.874.6521 with a copy to the County Attorney Page 80 of 273 Page 4 of 5 attorney@arapahoegov.com 5334 S. Prince St. Littleton, CO 80120 303.795.4639 c. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create any third- party beneficiary or beneficiaries or create a right or cause of action for the enforcement of its terms, in any entity or person not a Party to this Agreement. d. Amendments. No change, amendment, or waiver of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be valid or binding unless the same has been approved in writing by both Parties. e. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either Party. f. Severability. In the event that any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or their application, shall be held invalid as to any person, corporation, or circumstances by any court having competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement, and the application in effect of its terms, covenants, or conditions to such persons, corporations, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. g. Governmental Immunity. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed as a waiver of the limitations on damages or any of the privileges, immunities, or defenses provided to, or enjoyed by the Parties, their employees and volunteers, under federal or state constitutional, statutory or common law, including but not limited to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24‐10‐101, et seq., C.R.S., as may be amended. h. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue will be proper in Arapahoe County, Colorado. i. Complete Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the Parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein; and this writing supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written between the parties. j. Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which will constitute one agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the South Metro Enterprise Zone Subzone between the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County as of the day and year first above written. Page 81 of 273 Page 5 of 5 ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO By: Date: (Public Works and Development Director, pursuant to Resolution 24-077) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By: Date: (Department Director) By: Date: (City Manager) By: Date: (Mayor) ATTEST: Date: (City Clerk) Page 82 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: CB-39 Ordinance amending Englewood Municipal Code, adopting 2023 Bob's Rules of Order DESCRIPTION: Amending Municipal Code to adopt by reference 2023 Bob's Rules of Order, with amendments thereto RECOMMENDATION: Consider ordinance amending Municipal Code to adopt 2023 Bob's Rules of Order, with amendments PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Study sessions on July 15, 2024 and August 21, 2024 SUMMARY: In 2018, the City of Englewood adopted by reference the 2013 Bob's Rules of Order (with amendments) to establish simplified rules of procedure for Colorado municipality public meetings. Bob's Rules of Order were updated and expanded, and a new rules of procedure book published. In two prior study sessions, the City Attorney’s Office sought input by City Council as to whether it wishes to adopt the updated rules of procedure; and if so, to also provide guidance on any current amendments to rules of order specific to Englewood. The book "Bob's Rules of Order for Colorado Local Governments", 2023 edition, has been distributed to each member of City Council. Based on City Council direction received, the proposed ordinance amends EMC 1-5-2-8 to adopt the new 2023 Bob’s Rules, and to make the following additions/amendments: Remove provisions from Municipal Code that are duplicative of Bob’s Rules Adopt the new Bob’s Motion for Reconsideration (which must be made at the same meeting or next meeting) Adopt the new Bob’s Rule 1.5, so that a motion is not required before discussion on a matter Amend the new Bob's Rule 22, to allow limited debate on executive session to confirm the subject is appropriate for executive session Page 83 of 273 Amend the new Bob’s Rules to maintain the City’s current rules on: Point of Decorum Recusal to require member to stay in the room, and generally matter will be tabled if lack quorum after recusal Moving member may open and close debate Can add abstract of discussion to record COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider ordinance amending municipal code to approve 2023 Bob's Rules of Order, with amendments FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None anticipated ATTACHMENTS: Powerpoint Council Bill Page 84 of 273 2023 Bobs Rules of Order Follow up presentation Presented By Tamara Niles, City Attorney Pa g e 8 5 o f 2 7 3 Background •July 15, 2024, August 19, 2024: CAO presents on 2023 Bob’s Rules of Order •Potential Municipal Code changes •Detail on Rules/Motions •Provided Feedback on Municipal Code Changes •City Council members requested: •Whether Bob’s Rules can be added to collection at Englewood Public Library: YES •Can the City buy extra copies to sell to the public: YES, but the Public can buy it themselves from the CML website Pa g e 8 6 o f 2 7 3 Motion to Reconsider •Removed Englewood’s nuances regarding Motion to Reconsider (predominantly that it could be made at any time), and so that now it can be made at the same meeting or next meeting •Instead of a complicated Motion to Reconsider, encourages the use of a new Motion (i.e.the same Motion as original, failed one) •The matter may need to be put on a future agenda for consideration, by City Manager, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, or Council Consensus in Council Member’s Choice or Study Session Pa g e 8 7 o f 2 7 3 Recusal •Supplements Bob’s with current rule that a recusing member does not leave the room, but if lack of quorum without them, will be tabled to a future meeting with a quorum unless timely action required Pa g e 8 8 o f 2 7 3 Executive Session Motion •Amends Bob’s so that Executive Session Motions are debatable •Debate limited to “determine whether the subject is appropriate for executive session,and without disclosing confidential information” Pa g e 8 9 o f 2 7 3 Rule 1.5, Motion Before Discussion •Council Members were not uniform in position at 8/21/24 study session •Proposal received to amend to require a Motion before Discussion, like current rules •Proposed: Motion is required before discussion, but Mayor can make an exception to expedite discussion and decision-making Pa g e 9 0 o f 2 7 3 Discussion Privilege •Maintains current rule that Moving Member has privilege of opening and closing debate on a debatable motion Pa g e 9 1 o f 2 7 3 Adding Debate Summary to Record •Maintains current rule that Member, Mayor may request the Clerk add an abstract of comment to the record Pa g e 9 2 o f 2 7 3 Point of Decorum •Maintains current Point of Decorum •Provides same format and background as Bob’s Rules for the other Points (Privilege, Information, Appeal), including a sample motion Pa g e 9 3 o f 2 7 3 Other Municipal Code changes •Removes Municipal Code provisions that are duplicative of Bob’s Rules, as detailed in August 21, 2024 presentation to City Council Pa g e 9 4 o f 2 7 3 Next Steps •City Council considers ordinance amending EMC 1-5-2-8 as detailed above •After approval on second reading, City Attorney’s Office will create and distribute to Council a quick reference guide to the adopted rules •Quick reference guide may be published on City website for easy citizen access Pa g e 9 5 o f 2 7 3 Questions? Pa g e 9 6 o f 2 7 3 ORDINANCE NO. ____ COUNCIL BILL NO. 39 SERIES OF 2024 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE 2023 BOB’S RULES OF ORDER AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. WHEREAS, Efficient and well-run public meetings are a necessity for local government to assure all scheduled business is accomplished, voices are equally heard, and differences of opinion are aired amicably; and WHEREAS, Englewood City Charter Section 27 provides that “Council shall by ordinance prescribe the rules of procedure governing meetings”; and WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of April, 2018, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2018, approving the use of the 2013 version of Bob’s Rules of Order as City Council’s procedural rules; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood has reviewed the 2023 version of Bob’s Rules of Order, and desires to implement it, with amendments, to provide a simplified set of rules of parliamentary procedure to more effectively manage local government meetings and decision-making. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Englewood Municipal Code (“EMC”) § 1-5-2-8 is hereby amended to read as follows (new provisions underlined; deleted provisions struck-through): 1-5-2-8: - Rules of Debate and Parliamentary Procedure. A. Presiding Officer. The Mayor or such other member of the Council as may be presiding, may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all members, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilman by reason of his acting as the presiding officer. Adoption by Reference. There is hereby adopted by reference Bob’s Rules of Order for Colorado Local Governments (Robert Widner, 2023 edition), available to the public for inspection at the office of the City Clerk and with amendments provided in this section. B. Rule 1.4 shall be supplemented to include: Upon recusal, the Member may not leave the room. If recusal leaves less than a quorum eligible to vote on the item, the matter should be tabled to the next regular meeting at which a quorum of members is available to decide the matter, unless timely action is required. Page 97 of 273 Getting the Floor. Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. C. Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to call him to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a member, while speaking, be called to order, he shall cease speaking until the question of order be determined and if in order, he shall be permitted to proceed. D. Privilege of Closing Debate. Rule 5.6 is amended to state: The Presiding Officer shall offer the Moving Member the first and last opportunity to speak to a debatable motion. The Councilman moving the adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have the privilege of closing the debate. E. Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Council may be made at any time, subject only to the following limitations. Passage of an ordinance may be reconsidered at any time prior to its the time such ordinance becomes effective . Any action of the Council having as its ultimate purpose the vesting of any contractual or quasi-contractual right may be reconsidered at any time before the actual vesting of such right. A motion to reconsider must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or while a member has the floor; it shall be debatable. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any member of the Council from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the Council. F. Remarks, Entered in Minutes. D. Rule 7.10 is added to state: Immediately after the vote on a debatable motion: (a) a Council Memberman may request through the presiding officer, the privilege of having an abstract of their comments and/or (b) the Presiding Officer may request an abstract of all comments, be his statement on any subject under consideration by the Council entered into the minutes. The requested abstract shall be added to minutes, unless a majority of the Body present objects. If the Council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes. G. Synopsis of Debate. The Clerk may be directed by the presiding officer, with the consent of the Council, to enter in the minutes a synopsis of the discussion on any question coming regularly before the Council. H. Rules of Order. There is hereby adopted by reference by the City of Englewood, Colorado, for the purpose of establishing rules of procedure for governing meetings in accordance with Charter Section 27 Bob’s Rules of Order 2013), as written and distributed by Robert C. Widner 13133 E. Arapahoe Road, Suite 100, Centennial, Colorado 80112. Bob’s Rules of Order (2013), including those amendments set forth below, shall govern the procedure of the meetings of the City Council in all cases where applicable and where not inconsistent with the Charter or the rules and procedures herein fixed by the Council or other provisions of this Code. One (1) copy of Bob’s Rules of Order [version 1-18], with amendments as adopted, shall be provided to each member of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk upon adoption, and at the first meeting in January thereafter, and shall also be made available to the public for inspection at the office of the City Clerk, and may be posted to the City's website with the permission of the author. All amendments as set forth herein shall be incorporated into Bob’s Rules of Order (2013) and known as " Bob Rules of Order [version 1-18]". Version numbers shall be updated to correspond to each modification to the rules of order adopted by the City Council. Amendments to Bob’s Rules of Order (2013) shall be as follows: E. Rule 13.1 is added to state: Page 98 of 273 1. Inclusion of a privileged motion entitled "Point of Decorum". Purpose a. A Point of Ddecorum allows a Member to ask the Body is a request of a member, requiring a second, for the body as a whole to review an act of a Mmember for conformance with the Rrules of Ddecorum, as such rules have been established, and adopted by, the body as a whole. It shall require approval by a majority of the quorum present. It shall not be debatable. b. An example of the use of a point of decorum shall also be included. Requirements and Limitations Type of Action Point of Decorum When in Order? At any time Floor Required? No Second Required? Yes Debatable? No, but the Moving Member may make a brief statement of reason with reference to the adopted Rules of Decorum, and the Subject Member may briefly reply. Subject to Motion to Amend? Friendly Amendment Possible? No No Vote Required? Majority of Quorum Subject to Motion to Reconsider? Yes Commentary A Point of Decorum is a request by a Member to ask the Body as a whole to determine compliance by another Member with the Body’s adopted Rules of Decorum, including delay, interruptions, and refusal to obey the orders of the City Council or the Presiding Officer. Unlike the other Points, a second is required; and it is subject to a Motion to Reconsider. The Point in Practice The following exchange is an example of the proper use of a Point of Decorum: Background: The Body is engaged in discussion on a pending motion, when Member B interrupts Member A to dispute a statement. Member A: “Point of Decorum.” Member C: “Second.” Presiding Officer: “Member A has raised a Point of Decorum, seconded by Member C. Member A, please briefly state the reason.” Member A: “According to our adopted Rules of Decorum, other than to make a privileged motion, no member of the City Council shall interrupt another member. Member B interrupted me, violating the Rules of Decorum.” Presiding Officer: “Member B, do you have a brief response?” Member B: “I admit that I interrupted Member A, and I apologize for that.” Presiding Officer: Takes a vote, and if a majority of quorum votes in favor, the Presiding Officer sustains the Point of Decorum, and reminds Members they must obtain the Floor prior to speaking. 2. Modification of the rule regarding abstention. Abstentions. Abstentions shall not be counted as either a vote in favor or against the proposition before the body. Page 99 of 273 • A member declaring a conflict of interest in regard to a matter pending before the body and thereafter abstaining from the discussion and vote may not leave the room and does not change quorum for purposes of establishing a valid meeting of the body. • If, after a member declares a conflict of interest, the remaining members of the body eligible to act upon the matter do not equal a quorum, the matter should be tabled to the next regular meeting at which a quorum of members is available to decide the matter, unless immediate action is necessary and proper. This rule shall be construed to weigh against allowing less than a quorum of the membership to act upon a matter before the body. F. Rule 22 is amended to authorize debate on a Motion for Executive Session, but only to determine whether the subject is appropriate for executive session, and without disclosing confidential information. Section 2. General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The Page 100 of 273 execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within E.M.C. § 1-4-1. Introduced and passed on first reading on the 16th day of September, 2024; and on second reading, in identical form to the first reading, on the ___ day of ____________, 2024. Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance, introduced and passed in identical form on first and second reading on the dates indicated above; and published two days after each passage on the City’s official website for at least thirty (30) days thereafter. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after first publication on the City’s official website. Stephanie Carlile Page 101 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Annual Resolution setting City Attorney, City Manager 2025 compensation DESCRIPTION: City Council annually adopts a Resolution setting the compensation for City Council's two employees: the City Manager and City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Consider annual resolution establishing City Manager, City Attorney 2025 compensation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council annually adopts a resolution setting the compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney SUMMARY: City Council budgeted for a 2 percent salary increase for all City employees. The City Manager and City Attorney work directly for City Council, and therefore City Council must take specific action via Resolution to ensure these two employees receive the budgeted salary increase for all City employees. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider annual resolution establishing City Manager, City Attorney 2025 compensation FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 2 percent salary increase for 2025, which is within the 2025 budget ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Page 102 of 273 1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ SERIES OF 2024 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL SALARY FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 49 of the Englewood Home Rule Charter places responsibility for establishing the salary for the City Manager with the City Council; and WHEREAS, Article IX, Part I, Section 64 of the Englewood Home Rule Charter places responsibility for establishing the salary of the City Attorney with the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council approved the 2025 City of Englewood budget, which included a 2 percent increase in City employee salaries; and WHEREAS, in order to increase the salaries of the City Manager and City Attorney in accordance with the approved budget as it applies to the salaries of all City employees, City Council must specifically authorize the salary increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The annual base salary for the City Manager shall be increased by 2 percent to $240,720, commencing with the first pay period of January, 2025. Section 2. The annual base salary for the City Attorney shall be increased by 2 percent to $278,567, commencing with the first pay period of January, 2025. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _____ day of __________, 2024. _______________________________ Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above is a true copy of Resolution No. ____, Series of 2024. ___________________________ Stephanie Carlile Page 103 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Budget) DESCRIPTION: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (1 of 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the first of five Ordinances for the City of Englewood 2025 Budget PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  January 27, 2024 - Visioning and 2025 City Council Goal Setting Workshop  February 5, 2024 - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Prioritization Process Improvement Update Discussion  April 8, 2024 - Budget Assumptions were discussed for the 2025-2029 (5-Year) Period  April 15, 2024 - Capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following utility enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Stormwater and South Platte Renew  April 22, 2024 - General government department capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following departments: Communications, Information Technology, Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf and Public Works  June 24, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the preliminary 2025 operational and capital budget priorities and initiatives.  August 12, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the draft proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Due to the absence of two Council Members, a follow-up meeting was requested so that all Council Members could provide direction and comment regarding the submission of the Proposed 2025 Operational and Capital Budget.  August 26, 2024 - Staff reviewed questions and requested information with City Council regarding the proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Additionally staff responded to additional questions posed by Council Members prior to their direction to print the proposed 2025 in advance of the September 16, 2024 Budget Public Hearing.  September 16, 2024 - Staff provided the 2025 operating and capital budget during the scheduled Budget Public Hearing and listened and responded to the public comment with the attached Council Request, #CRT-0837. SUMMARY: The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt the next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to ensure there is legal authority to expend funds. (Article X, Part I, Section 90) Page 104 of 273 The City of Englewood 2025 Budget was developed over the past several months with significant collaboration between the City Council and City staff. This year's budget process leveraged our collective capacity to deliver quality city services, enhanced public safety, and reinvigorated our existing city infrastructure. Despite the fiscal challenges, the budget maintains our commitments through 2025. Continued long-term planning and prioritization with the City Council and the community is necessary to ensure sustainability into the future. Attached is a copy of Council Request, #CRT-0837, which includes staff's response to a citizen's comment presented during the Budget Public Hearing. ANALYSIS: The City of Englewood Budget is balanced, as required by City Charter (Article X. Part 1. Budget) and Financial Policies Resolution No. 27 Series 2022. This means that across all funds for 2025, the city's estimated Revenues in addition to the beginning Fund Balance or Funds Available meet or exceed the city's estimated Expenditures. Governmental Fund Types: Fund Balance* + Revenues >= Expenditures Proprietary Fund Types: Funds Available** + Revenues >= Expenditures The estimated ending Governmental Funds Balance for 2025 is $22.7 million. The estimated ending Proprietary Funds Available Balances for 2025 totals $17.7 million. The City's Funds are detailed in the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund. * Fund Balance = Assets less Liabilities ** Funds Available = Current Assets less Current Liabilities plus Principal portion of Debt Service COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff supports the 2025 Budget and is looking forward to Council's direction in developing future budgets. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please review the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund in addition to the budget documents using the following link: https://www.englewoodco.gov/government/city-departments/finance/budget-and-financial- reports/budget-reports. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: First reading of the 2025 budget ordinances supports the Strategic Plan Governance result/outcome  Governance - A city government that serves the community by being efficient, effective, accountable, and adaptable OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: The 2025 Budget Process included citizen input during the capital projects budget preparation through the input of the following boards, commissions and committees: Planning and Zoning Commission, Englewood Transportation Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board and Budget Advisory Committee. Page 105 of 273 Also the annual 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the operational and capital budgets. ATTACHMENTS: CB #43 - COE 2025 Budget 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund CRT-0837 Staff Response to Public Comment during the Budget Public Hearing Page 106 of 273 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. ________ COUNCIL BILL NO. 43 SERIES OF 2024 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _________________ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Part I, Article X, of the Charter of the City of Englewood, Colorado, a budget for fiscal year 2025 was duly submitted by the City Manager to the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood studied and discussed the 2025 fiscal year budget at a budget workshop held on August 12 and August 26, 2024; WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council at the meeting of the City Council on September 16, 2024, in conformance with § 87 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Englewood; and WHEREAS, 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, in conformance with § 87 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Englewood. 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 2025, 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 2025. Section 2. GENERAL FUND 2025 BUDGET Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 20,377,825 REVENUES Sales/Use Tax $ 43,832,000 Property and Specific Ownership Tax $ 6,820,000 Franchise/Occupation/Hotel Tax $ 4,264,900 Licenses/Permits $ 1,291,500 Intergovernmental Revenue $ 1,343,101 Charges for Services $ 6,636,765 Cultural & Recreation $ 3,037,300 Page 107 of 273 Page 2 of 5 Fines & Forfeitures $ 299,500 Interest $ 404,000 Contribution from Component Units $ 1,975,000 Other $ 784,235 Total Revenues $ 70,688,301 Other Financing Sources $ 145,509 Total Sources of Funds $ 70,833,810 EXPENDITURES Legislation $ 227,528 City Manager's Office $ 1,008,007 City Clerk's Office $ 895,627 City Attorney's Office $ 1,084,049 Municipal Court $ 1,600,285 Human Resources $ 982,033 Finance $ 2,447,975 Information Technology $ 5,485,912 Community Development $ 3,889,205 Public Works $ 13,965,291 Police $ 28,322,522 Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf $ 10,725,495 Communications $ 1,143,682 Interdepartmental Programs $ 764,662 Debt Service $ 145,509 Component Units $ 400,000 Total Expenditures $ 73,087,781 Other Financing Uses $ 2,435,000 Total Uses of Funds $ 75,522,781 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 15,688,854 Section 3. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Conservation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 473,128 Revenues $ 420,000 Expenditures $ 593,047 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 300,081 Donors Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 821,300 Page 108 of 273 Page 3 of 5 Revenues $ 92,100 Expenditures $ 395,500 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 517,900 Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 140,626 Revenues $ 2,500 Expenditures $ 15,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 128,126 Malley Center Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 448,700 Revenues $ 3,000 Expenditures $ 35,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 416,700 Open Space Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,159,248 Revenues $ 1,600,000 Expenditures $ 1,308,321 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 1,450,927 Section 4. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Police HQ General Obligation Bonds Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 120,599 Revenues $ 2,238,250 Expenditures $ 2,223,300 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 135,549 Section 5. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Public Improvement Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 6,376,080 Revenues $ 4,210,000 Expenditures $ 4,597,029 Transfer In $ - Transfer Out $ 3,645,509 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 2,343,542 Capital Projects Fund Page 109 of 273 Page 4 of 5 Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,880,978 Revenues $ 165,000 Expenditures $ 6,780,080 Transfer In $ 5,935,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 1,200,898 Police HQ Construction Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,084,851 Revenues $ 50,000 Expenditures $ 575,600 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 559,251 Section 6. ENTERPRISE FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 26,264,877 Revenues $ 33,549,898 Expenditures $ 53,714,228 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 6,100,547 Sewer Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,806,320 Revenues $ 31,522,000 Expenditures $ 30,154,749 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 3,173,571 Storm Drainage Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 5,710,187 Revenues $ 3,814,000 Expenditures $ 7,548,665 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 1,975,522 Golf Course Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 701,986 Revenues $ 3,372,636 Expenditures $ 3,184,078 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 890,544 Concrete Utility Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,981,166 Revenues $ 1,153,600 Expenditures $ 1,215,205 Page 110 of 273 Page 5 of 5 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 1,919,561 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,139,021 Revenues $ 136,325 Expenditures $ 314,150 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 961,196 Section 7. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Servicenter Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 152,923 Revenues $ 2,879,785 Expenditures $ 2,556,952 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 475,756 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 2,837,374 Revenues $ 1,070,591 Expenditures $ 2,655,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 1,252,965 Risk Management Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 791,443 Revenues $ 1,935,687 Expenditures $ 2,592,474 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 134,656 Employee Benefits Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2025 $ 1,027,993 Revenues $ 7,108,981 Expenditures $ 7,333,483 Fund Balance, December 31, 2025 $ 803,491 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. Page 111 of 273 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Governmental Fund Types General Fund 20,377,825 70,833,810 75,522,781 15,688,854 14,186,929 1,501,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 473,128 420,000 593,047 300,081 — 300,081 Donors Fund 821,300 92,100 395,500 517,900 — 517,900 Malley Center Trust Fund 448,700 3,000 35,000 416,700 — 416,700 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 140,626 2,500 15,000 128,126 — 128,126 Open Space Fund 1,159,248 1,600,000 1,308,321 1,450,927 — 1,450,927 Total Special Revenue Funds 3,043,002 2,117,600 2,346,868 2,813,734 — 2,813,734 Debt Service Fund Police HQ GO Bond 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Total Debt Service Fund 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Capital Projects Funds Public Improvement Fund 6,376,080 4,210,000 8,242,538 2,343,542 — 2,343,542 Capital Projects Fund 1,880,978 6,100,000 6,780,080 1,200,898 — 1,200,898 Police HQ Construction Fund 1,084,851 50,000 575,600 559,251 — 559,251 Total Capital Projects Funds 9,341,909 10,360,000 15,598,218 4,103,691 — 4,103,691 Total Governmental Funds 32,883,335 85,549,660 95,691,167 22,741,828 14,186,929 8,554,899 Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Continues on Next Page City of Englewood, Colorado 1 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 1 2 o f 2 7 3 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Continued from Previous Page Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Proprietary Fund Types Enterprise Funds Water Fund 26,264,877 33,549,898 53,714,228 6,100,547 — 6,100,547 Sewer Fund 1,806,320 31,522,000 30,154,749 3,173,571 — 3,173,571 Stormwater Drainage Fund 5,710,187 3,814,000 7,548,665 1,975,522 — 1,975,522 Golf Course Fund 701,986 3,372,636 3,184,078 890,544 — 890,544 Concrete Utility Fund 1,981,166 1,153,600 1,215,205 1,919,561 — 1,919,561 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 1,139,021 136,325 314,150 961,196 — 961,196 Total Enterprise Funds 37,603,557 73,548,459 96,131,075 15,020,941 — 15,020,941 Internal Service Funds ServiCenter Fund 152,923 2,879,785 2,556,952 475,756 — 475,756 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,837,374 1,070,591 2,655,000 1,252,965 — 1,252,965 Risk Management Fund 791,443 1,935,687 2,592,474 134,656 — 134,656 Employee Benefits Fund 1,027,993 7,108,981 7,333,483 803,491 — 803,491 Total Internal Service Funds 4,809,733 12,995,044 15,137,909 2,666,868 — 2,666,868 Total Proprietary Funds 42,413,290 86,543,503 111,268,984 17,687,809 — 17,687,809 Total All Funds 75,296,625 172,093,163 206,960,151 40,429,637 14,186,929 26,242,708 City of Englewood, Colorado 2 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 1 3 o f 2 7 3 Request No.: CRT - 0837 COUNCIL REQUEST MEMO TO: Mayor and Council REQUESTOR: Mayor Sierra FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: September 24, 2024 SUBJECT: At the September 16th Council meeting, a resident claimed that the current year capital budget request did not equal the current year spending appropriation. Can Council be provided with clarification on whether this was a mistake in the budget document or a misunderstanding on the part of the resident? RESPONSE: We appreciate the citizen review of and comment on the documents presented for the Budget Public Hearing and for the opportunity to correct the typing and rounding errors identified and provide additional details related to the Capital Projects Funds question. During the public comment portion of the 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 the following items were mentioned:  On page 2 of the Council Communication, the estimated ending balance did not add up correctly using the estimated beginning balance of $341,909. o The estimated beginning balance for the Capital Projects Funds was mistyped as $341,909 and it should have read $9,341,909 FUND TYPE Est Beginning Balance Fund Sources Fund Uses Est Ending Balance Sources % Uses % Capital Projects Funds $9,341,909 $10,360,000 $15,598,218 $4,103,691 6.0% 7.5%  The General Fund rounding errors have been reviewed and corrected as needed so that the budget ordinances reflect these changes.  The Capital Projects Funds Uses of Funds amount of $15,598,218 is different than the 2025 Capital Requests total of $11,750,080. o The total uses of funds amount includes transfers to other funds, and other non- capital spending. The details are as follows: $15,598,218 - Total Uses of Funds $11,750,080 - Total 2025 Capital Requests $3,848,138 - Difference Page 114 of 273 o $3,500,000 - Public Improvement Fund Transfer Out to the Capital Projects Fund. The Capital Projects Fund does not have a dedicated funding source and is reliant on transfers from either the General Fund or the Public Improvement Fund. o $145,509 - Public Improvement Fund Transfer Out to the General Fund. This transfer is for the debt service payment of the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds and the ground lease under the RTD parking lot adjacent to the light rail line north of the Civic Center. o $200,600 - Police Headquarters Construction Fund - $200K is budgeted for the replacement of operating equipment and ammunition for police officers. The $600 amount is for the allocation of the annual financial audit expenditure to this fund. o $2,029 - This is the annual Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) interdepartmental charge for the fleet equipment assigned to this fund. Please let us know if there are any other questions regarding this matter. Thank You! Page 115 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Appropriation) DESCRIPTION: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (2 of 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the second of five Ordinances for the City of Englewood 2025 Appropriation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  January 27, 2024 - Visioning and 2025 City Council Goal Setting Workshop  February 5, 2024 - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Prioritization Process Improvement Update Discussion  April 8, 2024 - Budget Assumptions were discussed for the 2025-2029 (5-Year) Period  April 15, 2024 - Capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following utility enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Stormwater and South Platte Renew  April 22, 2024 - General government department capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following departments: Communications, Information Technology, Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf and Public Works  June 24, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the preliminary 2025 operational and capital budget priorities and initiatives.  August 12, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the draft proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Due to the absence of two Council Members, a follow-up meeting was requested so that all Council Members could provide direction and comment regarding the submission of the Proposed 2025 Operational and Capital Budget.  August 26, 2024 - Staff reviewed questions and requested information with City Council regarding the proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Additionally staff responded to additional questions posed by Council Members prior to their direction to print the proposed 2025 in advance of the September 16, 2024 Budget Public Hearing.  September 16, 2024 - Staff provided the 2025 operating and capital budget during the scheduled Budget Public Hearing and listened and responded to the public comment with the attached Council Request, #CRT-0837. SUMMARY: The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt the next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to ensure there is legal authority to expend funds. (Article X, Part I, Section 90) Page 116 of 273 The City of Englewood 2025 Budget was developed over the past several months with significant collaboration between the City Council and City staff. This year's budget process leveraged our collective capacity to deliver quality city services, enhanced public safety, and reinvigorated our existing city infrastructure. Despite the fiscal challenges, the budget maintains our commitments through 2025. Continued long-term planning and prioritization with the City Council and the community is necessary to ensure sustainability into the future. Attached is a copy of Council Request, #CRT-0837, which includes staff's response to a citizen's comment presented during the Budget Public Hearing. ANALYSIS: The City of Englewood Budget is balanced, as required by City Charter (Article X. Part 1. Budget) and Financial Policies Resolution No. 27 Series 2022. This means that across all funds for 2025, the city's estimated Revenues in addition to the beginning Fund Balance or Funds Available meet or exceed the city's estimated Expenditures. Governmental Fund Types: Fund Balance* + Revenues >= Expenditures Proprietary Fund Types: Funds Available** + Revenues >= Expenditures The estimated ending Governmental Funds Balance for 2025 is $22.7 million. The estimated ending Proprietary Funds Available Balances for 2025 totals $17.7 million. The City's Funds are detailed in the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund. * Fund Balance = Assets less Liabilities ** Funds Available = Current Assets less Current Liabilities plus Principal portion of Debt Service COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff supports the 2025 Budget and is looking forward to Council's direction in developing future budgets. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please review the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund in addition to the budget documents using the following link: https://www.englewoodco.gov/government/city-departments/finance/budget-and-financial- reports/budget-reports. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: First reading of the 2025 budget ordinances supports the Strategic's Plan Governance result/outcome  Governance - A city government that serves the community by being efficient, effective, accountable, and adaptable OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: The 2025 Budget Process included citizen input during the capital projects budget preparation through the input of the following boards, commissions and committees: Planning and Zoning Commission, Englewood Transportation Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board and Budget Advisory Committee. Page 117 of 273 Also the annual 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the operational and capital budgets. ATTACHMENTS: CB #44 - COE 2025 Budget Appropriations 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund CRT-0837 Staff Response to Public Comment during the Budget Public Hearing Page 118 of 273 Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. ________ COUNCIL BILL NO. 44 SERIES OF 2024 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, 2025, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2025, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Proposed 2025 Budget was held September 16, 2024; WHEREAS, the proposed operating budgets and Multiple Year Capital Plan for all City departments and funds were reviewed at a budget workshop held on August 12 and August 26, 2024; 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, 2025, and ending December 31, 2025, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified and set opposite thereto, specifically as follows: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Legislation $ 227,528 City Manager's Office $ 1,008,007 City Clerk's Office $ 895,627 City Attorney's Office $ 1,084,049 Municipal Court $ 1,600,285 Human Resources $ 982,033 Finance $ 2,447,975 Information Technology $ 5,485,912 Community Development $ 3,889,205 Public Works $ 13,965,291 Police $ 28,322,522 Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf $ 10,725,495 Communications $ 1,143,682 Interdepartmental Programs $ 764,662 Page 119 of 273 Page 2 of 4 Debt Service $ 145,509 Component Units $ 400,000 Other Financing Uses $ 2,435,000 Total Uses of Funds $ 75,522,781 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND-POLICE HEADQUARTERS Total General Obligation Bond Fund $ 2,223,300 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND Total Public Improvement Fund $ 8,242,538 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Total Capital Projects Fund $ 6,780,080 POLICE HQ CONSTRUCTION FUND Total Police HQ Construction Fund $ 575,600 WATER FUND Total Water Fund $ 53,714,228 SEWER FUND Total Sewer Fund $ 30,154,749 STORM DRAINAGE FUND Total Storm Drainage Fund $ 7,548,665 GOLF COURSE FUND Total Golf Course Fund $ 3,184,078 CONCRETE UTILITY FUND Total concrete Utility Fund $ 1,215,205 HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND Page 120 of 273 Page 3 of 4 Total Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 314,150 SERVICENTER FUND Total Servicenter Fund $ 2,556,952 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND Total Capital Equipment Replacement Fund $ 2,655,000 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Total Risk Management Fund $ 2,592,474 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND Total Employee Benefits Fund $ 7,333,483 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND Total Conservation Trust Fund $ 593,047 DONORS FUND Total Donors Fund $ 395,500 PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND Total Parks and Recreation Trust Fund $ 15,000 MALLEY CENTER TRUST FUND Total Malley Center Trust Fund $ 35,000 OPEN SPACE FUND Total Open Space Fund $ 1,308,321 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 Page 121 of 273 Page 4 of 4 items within any groups, even though such line items may be set forth as the adopted budget for the fiscal year 2025. Section 3. All monies in the hands of the Director of Finance, or to come into the Director's hands for the fiscal year 2024, may be applied on the outstanding claims now due or to become due in the said fiscal year of 2025. Section 4. All unappropriated monies that may come into the hands of the Director of Finance during the year 2025, 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 2024, any surplus money in any of the respective funds, after all claims for 2024 against the same have been paid, may be distributed to any other fund or funds at the discretion of the City Council. Page 122 of 273 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Governmental Fund Types General Fund 20,377,825 70,833,810 75,522,781 15,688,854 14,186,929 1,501,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 473,128 420,000 593,047 300,081 — 300,081 Donors Fund 821,300 92,100 395,500 517,900 — 517,900 Malley Center Trust Fund 448,700 3,000 35,000 416,700 — 416,700 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 140,626 2,500 15,000 128,126 — 128,126 Open Space Fund 1,159,248 1,600,000 1,308,321 1,450,927 — 1,450,927 Total Special Revenue Funds 3,043,002 2,117,600 2,346,868 2,813,734 — 2,813,734 Debt Service Fund Police HQ GO Bond 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Total Debt Service Fund 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Capital Projects Funds Public Improvement Fund 6,376,080 4,210,000 8,242,538 2,343,542 — 2,343,542 Capital Projects Fund 1,880,978 6,100,000 6,780,080 1,200,898 — 1,200,898 Police HQ Construction Fund 1,084,851 50,000 575,600 559,251 — 559,251 Total Capital Projects Funds 9,341,909 10,360,000 15,598,218 4,103,691 — 4,103,691 Total Governmental Funds 32,883,335 85,549,660 95,691,167 22,741,828 14,186,929 8,554,899 Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Continues on Next Page City of Englewood, Colorado 1 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 2 3 o f 2 7 3 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Continued from Previous Page Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Proprietary Fund Types Enterprise Funds Water Fund 26,264,877 33,549,898 53,714,228 6,100,547 — 6,100,547 Sewer Fund 1,806,320 31,522,000 30,154,749 3,173,571 — 3,173,571 Stormwater Drainage Fund 5,710,187 3,814,000 7,548,665 1,975,522 — 1,975,522 Golf Course Fund 701,986 3,372,636 3,184,078 890,544 — 890,544 Concrete Utility Fund 1,981,166 1,153,600 1,215,205 1,919,561 — 1,919,561 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 1,139,021 136,325 314,150 961,196 — 961,196 Total Enterprise Funds 37,603,557 73,548,459 96,131,075 15,020,941 — 15,020,941 Internal Service Funds ServiCenter Fund 152,923 2,879,785 2,556,952 475,756 — 475,756 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,837,374 1,070,591 2,655,000 1,252,965 — 1,252,965 Risk Management Fund 791,443 1,935,687 2,592,474 134,656 — 134,656 Employee Benefits Fund 1,027,993 7,108,981 7,333,483 803,491 — 803,491 Total Internal Service Funds 4,809,733 12,995,044 15,137,909 2,666,868 — 2,666,868 Total Proprietary Funds 42,413,290 86,543,503 111,268,984 17,687,809 — 17,687,809 Total All Funds 75,296,625 172,093,163 206,960,151 40,429,637 14,186,929 26,242,708 City of Englewood, Colorado 2 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 2 4 o f 2 7 3 Request No.: CRT - 0837 COUNCIL REQUEST MEMO TO: Mayor and Council REQUESTOR: Mayor Sierra FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: September 24, 2024 SUBJECT: At the September 16th Council meeting, a resident claimed that the current year capital budget request did not equal the current year spending appropriation. Can Council be provided with clarification on whether this was a mistake in the budget document or a misunderstanding on the part of the resident? RESPONSE: We appreciate the citizen review of and comment on the documents presented for the Budget Public Hearing and for the opportunity to correct the typing and rounding errors identified and provide additional details related to the Capital Projects Funds question. During the public comment portion of the 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 the following items were mentioned:  On page 2 of the Council Communication, the estimated ending balance did not add up correctly using the estimated beginning balance of $341,909. o The estimated beginning balance for the Capital Projects Funds was mistyped as $341,909 and it should have read $9,341,909 FUND TYPE Est Beginning Balance Fund Sources Fund Uses Est Ending Balance Sources % Uses % Capital Projects Funds $9,341,909 $10,360,000 $15,598,218 $4,103,691 6.0% 7.5%  The General Fund rounding errors have been reviewed and corrected as needed so that the budget ordinances reflect these changes.  The Capital Projects Funds Uses of Funds amount of $15,598,218 is different than the 2025 Capital Requests total of $11,750,080. o The total uses of funds amount includes transfers to other funds, and other non- capital spending. The details are as follows: $15,598,218 - Total Uses of Funds $11,750,080 - Total 2025 Capital Requests $3,848,138 - Difference Page 125 of 273 o $3,500,000 - Public Improvement Fund Transfer Out to the Capital Projects Fund. The Capital Projects Fund does not have a dedicated funding source and is reliant on transfers from either the General Fund or the Public Improvement Fund. o $145,509 - Public Improvement Fund Transfer Out to the General Fund. This transfer is for the debt service payment of the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds and the ground lease under the RTD parking lot adjacent to the light rail line north of the Civic Center. o $200,600 - Police Headquarters Construction Fund - $200K is budgeted for the replacement of operating equipment and ammunition for police officers. The $600 amount is for the allocation of the annual financial audit expenditure to this fund. o $2,029 - This is the annual Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) interdepartmental charge for the fleet equipment assigned to this fund. Please let us know if there are any other questions regarding this matter. Thank You! Page 126 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (City of Englewood 2025 Property Tax Mill Levies) DESCRIPTION: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (3 of 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the third of five Ordinances for the City of Englewood 2025 Mill Levies PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  January 27, 2024 - Visioning and 2025 City Council Goal Setting Workshop  February 5, 2024 - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Prioritization Process Improvement Update Discussion  April 8, 2024 - Budget Assumptions were discussed for the 2025-2029 (5-Year) Period  April 15, 2024 - Capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following utility enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Stormwater and South Platte Renew  April 22, 2024 - General government department capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following departments: Communications, Information Technology, Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf and Public Works  June 24, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the preliminary 2025 operational and capital budget priorities and initiatives.  August 12, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the draft proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Due to the absence of two Council Members, a follow-up meeting was requested so that all Council Members could provide direction and comment regarding the submission of the Proposed 2025 Operational and Capital Budget.  August 26, 2024 - Staff reviewed questions and requested information with City Council regarding the proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Additionally staff responded to additional questions posed by Council Members prior to their direction to print the proposed 2025 in advance of the September 16, 2024 Budget Public Hearing.  September 16, 2024 - Staff provided the 2025 operating and capital budget during the scheduled Budget Public Hearing and listened and responded to the public comment with the attached Council Request, #CRT-0837. SUMMARY: The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt the next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to ensure there is legal authority to expend funds. (Article X, Part I, Section 90) Page 127 of 273 The City of Englewood 2025 Budget was developed over the past several months with significant collaboration between the City Council and City staff. This year's budget process leveraged our collective capacity to deliver quality city services, enhanced public safety, and reinvigorated our existing city infrastructure. Despite the fiscal challenges, the budget maintains our commitments through 2025. Continued long-term planning and prioritization with the City Council and the community is necessary to ensure sustainability into the future. ANALYSIS: The City of Englewood 2023 Budget is balanced, as required by City Charter (Article X. Part 1. Budget) and Resolution No. 51, Series 2016 as revised by Resolution No. 27 Series 2022. This means that across all funds, the city's Revenues in addition to the beginning Fund Balance or Funds Available meet or exceed the city's Expenditures. Governmental Fund Types: Fund Balance* + Revenues >= Expenditures Proprietary Fund Types: Funds Available** + Revenues >= Expenditures The estimated ending Governmental Funds Balance for 2025 is $22.7 million. The estimated ending Proprietary Funds Available Balances for 2025 totals $17.7 million. The City's Funds are detailed in the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund. Following are the 2024 Property Tax Mill Levies to be collected in 2025: Estimate Amount Mill Levy and Description $6,300,000 5.880 Mill Levy - General Fund Operations $2,235,000 2.122 Mill Levy - Debt Service Police Headquarter Building General Obligation Bonds $8,535,000 8.002 Mill Levy - Total 2024 Property Tax Mill Levies Collected in 2025 * Fund Balance = Assets less Liabilities ** Funds Available = Current Assets less Current Liabilities plus Principal portion of Debt Service COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff supports the 2025 Budget and is looking forward to Council's direction in developing future budgets. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please review the attached 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund in addition to the budget documents using the following link: https://www.englewoodco.gov/government/city-departments/finance/budget-and-financial- reports/budget-reports. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: First reading of the 2025 budget ordinances supports the Strategic's Plan Governance result/outcome Page 128 of 273  Governance - A city government that serves the community by being efficient, effective, accountable, and adaptable OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: The 2025 Budget Process included citizen input during the capital projects budget preparation through the input of the following boards, commissions and committees: Planning and Zoning Commission, Englewood Transportation Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board and Budget Advisory Committee. Also the annual 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the operational and capital budgets. ATTACHMENTS: CB #47 - Property Tax Levy 2025 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses by Fund City of Englewood, Colorado Property Tax Calculation for $100K and $500K Property Valuations Page 129 of 273 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ COUNCIL BILL NO. 47 SERIES OF 2024 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 2024, due and payable as required by statute in the year 2025, a tax of 5.880 mills on the dollar for the General Fund of the City of Englewood, Colorado and 2.122 mills on the dollar for the Englewood Police Headquarters 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. Section 2. General Provisions Applicable to this Ordinance The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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 Page 130 of 273 2 convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. C. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. D. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. Page 131 of 273 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Governmental Fund Types General Fund 20,377,825 70,833,810 75,522,781 15,688,854 14,186,929 1,501,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 473,128 420,000 593,047 300,081 — 300,081 Donors Fund 821,300 92,100 395,500 517,900 — 517,900 Malley Center Trust Fund 448,700 3,000 35,000 416,700 — 416,700 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 140,626 2,500 15,000 128,126 — 128,126 Open Space Fund 1,159,248 1,600,000 1,308,321 1,450,927 — 1,450,927 Total Special Revenue Funds 3,043,002 2,117,600 2,346,868 2,813,734 — 2,813,734 Debt Service Fund Police HQ GO Bond 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Total Debt Service Fund 120,599 2,238,250 2,223,300 135,549 — 135,549 Capital Projects Funds Public Improvement Fund 6,376,080 4,210,000 8,242,538 2,343,542 — 2,343,542 Capital Projects Fund 1,880,978 6,100,000 6,780,080 1,200,898 — 1,200,898 Police HQ Construction Fund 1,084,851 50,000 575,600 559,251 — 559,251 Total Capital Projects Funds 9,341,909 10,360,000 15,598,218 4,103,691 — 4,103,691 Total Governmental Funds 32,883,335 85,549,660 95,691,167 22,741,828 14,186,929 8,554,899 Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Continues on Next Page City of Englewood, Colorado 1 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 3 2 o f 2 7 3 2025 Consolidated Budget Summary Sources and Uses By Fund Continued from Previous Page Estimated Beginning Balance Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Estimated Ending Balance Reserves Estimated Unappropriated Balance Proprietary Fund Types Enterprise Funds Water Fund 26,264,877 33,549,898 53,714,228 6,100,547 — 6,100,547 Sewer Fund 1,806,320 31,522,000 30,154,749 3,173,571 — 3,173,571 Stormwater Drainage Fund 5,710,187 3,814,000 7,548,665 1,975,522 — 1,975,522 Golf Course Fund 701,986 3,372,636 3,184,078 890,544 — 890,544 Concrete Utility Fund 1,981,166 1,153,600 1,215,205 1,919,561 — 1,919,561 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 1,139,021 136,325 314,150 961,196 — 961,196 Total Enterprise Funds 37,603,557 73,548,459 96,131,075 15,020,941 — 15,020,941 Internal Service Funds ServiCenter Fund 152,923 2,879,785 2,556,952 475,756 — 475,756 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,837,374 1,070,591 2,655,000 1,252,965 — 1,252,965 Risk Management Fund 791,443 1,935,687 2,592,474 134,656 — 134,656 Employee Benefits Fund 1,027,993 7,108,981 7,333,483 803,491 — 803,491 Total Internal Service Funds 4,809,733 12,995,044 15,137,909 2,666,868 — 2,666,868 Total Proprietary Funds 42,413,290 86,543,503 111,268,984 17,687,809 — 17,687,809 Total All Funds 75,296,625 172,093,163 206,960,151 40,429,637 14,186,929 26,242,708 City of Englewood, Colorado 2 Proposed 2025 Budget Pa g e 1 3 3 o f 2 7 3 City of Englewood, Colorado - Property Tax Calculation RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 2024 Mill Levy 2024 Mill Levy 2024 Mill Levy 2024 Mill Levy Payable in 2025 Payable in 2025 Payable in 2025 Payable in 2025 Market Value A 500,000$ 100,000$ 500,000$ 100,000$ Assessment Ratio B 6.700%6.700%27.000%27.000% Assessed Value C = A * B 33,500$ 6,700$ 135,000$ 27,000$ General Operations Mill Levy D 5.880 5.880 5.880 5.880 Mill Levy Per Dollar E 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ Taxes Paid for General Fund Operations F = C * D * E 196.98$ 39.40$ 793.80$ 158.76$ Market Value G 500,000$ 100,000$ 500,000$ 100,000$ Assessment Ratio H 6.700%6.700%27.000%27.000% Assessed Value I = G * H 33,500$ 6,700$ 135,000$ 27,000$ Debt Service Mill Levy J 2.122 2.122 2.122 2.122 Mill Levy Per Dollar K 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ Taxes Paid for General Obligation Bonds-Police Headquarters L = I * J * K 71.09$ 14.22$ 286.47$ 57.29$ Market Value M 500,000$ 100,000$ 500,000$ 100,000$ Assessment Ratio N 6.700%6.700%27.000%27.000% Assessed Value O = M * N 33,500$ 6,700$ 135,000$ 27,000$ Combined General Operations and Debt Service Mill Levies P 8.002 8.002 8.002 8.002 Mill Levy Per Dollar Q 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ 0.001$ Total Property Taxes Paid to City of Englewood R = O * P * Q 268.07$ 53.61$ 1,080.27$ 216.05$ Pa g e 1 3 4 o f 2 7 3 Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential Non-Residential Assessment Rate 6.70%29.00%6.40%27.00%6.95%26.00%25.00% Improved Commercial and Agricultural Property 26.40%26.00%25.00% FMV growth is less than or equal to 5%6.25%6.80% FMV growth is greater than 5%6.15%6.70% FMV Property Reduction Amounts Minus the lesser of $55,000 or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Minus the lesser of 10% of actual, $70,000 as increased by inflation or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Multi-Family Assessment Rate 6.70%6.40%6.95% FMV growth is less than or equal to 5%6.25%6.80% FMV growth is greater than 5%6.15%6.70% FMV Property Reduction Amounts Minus the lesser of $55,000 or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Minus the lesser of 10% of actual, $70,000 as increased by inflation or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Qualified Seniors Residence and Multi-Family 6.70%6.40%6.95% FMV growth is less than or equal to 5%6.25%6.80% FMV growth is greater than 5%6.15%6.70% FMV Property Reduction Amounts Minus the lesser of $55,000 or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Minus the lesser of 50% of $200K of actual value or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 Minus 50% of $200K of actual value plus the lesser of 10% of actual value, or $70,000 as increased by inflation or amount that causes assessment valuation to be $1,000 2027 Tax Year, Collected in 2028 Source: Senate Bill 2024-233 and Colorado Assembly Special Session House Bill 2024B-1001 State Backfill for property tax reductions,dependent on availability of funds YES YES Section repealed effective July 1, 2027 2024 Tax Year, Collected in 2025 2025 Tax Year, Collected in 2026 2026 Tax Year, Collected in 2027 Page 135 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (South Platte Renew 2025 Budget) DESCRIPTION: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (4 of 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the fourth of five Ordinances for the South Platte Renew 2025 Budget PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  January 27, 2024 - Visioning and 2025 City Council Goal Setting Workshop  February 5, 2024 - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Prioritization Process Improvement Update Discussion  April 8, 2024 - Budget Assumptions were discussed for the 2025-2029 (5-Year) Period  April 15, 2024 - Capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following utility enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Stormwater and South Platte Renew  April 22, 2024 - General government department capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following departments: Communications, Information Technology, Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf and Public Works  June 24, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the preliminary 2025 operational and capital budget priorities and initiatives.  August 12, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the draft proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Due to the absence of two Council Members, a follow-up meeting was requested so that all Council Members could provide direction and comment regarding the submission of the Proposed 2025 Operational and Capital Budget.  August 22, 2024 - The South Platte Renew (SPR) Annual Joint Council Study Session was held on at the SPR facility and the draft 2025 Budget was reviewed with Council Members of the cities of Littleton and Englewood.  August 26, 2024 - Staff reviewed questions and requested information with City Council regarding the proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Additionally staff responded to additional questions posed by Council Members prior to their direction to print the proposed 2025 in advance of the September 16, 2024 Budget Public Hearing.  September 16, 2024 - Staff provided the 2025 operating and capital budget during the scheduled Budget Public Hearing and listened and responded to the public comment with Council Request #CRT-0837. SUMMARY: Page 136 of 273 The budget and appropriation ordinances are provided administratively as they are not required by the State of Colorado Budget Law. Definition of Reporting Entity The Cities of Littleton, Colorado (Littleton) and Englewood, Colorado (Englewood), participate in the South Platte Renew's Joint Venture (the Joint Venture) for the operation of a wastewater treatment facility. Control of the Joint Venture rests in a four-member committee, with two members appointed by each city. Littleton and Englewood each own a 50 percent interest in the Joint Venture. The Joint Venture has its own workforce for operating purposes. For payroll and pension participation, the joint venture’s workforce is considered to be City of Englewood employees. Englewood provides the Joint Venture with administrative services on a cost reimbursement basis. The accounting policies of the Joint Venture conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governmental units accounted for as a proprietary enterprise fund. The enterprise fund is used since the Joint Venture's powers are related to those operated in a manner similar to a private utility system where net income and capital maintenance are appropriate determinations of accountability. Budget The Joint Venture does not have nor is it anticipated to ever have the power to assess an ad valorem tax on the property of the participating cities. Accordingly, it is management's contention that this would remove it from the scope of the State of Colorado Budget Law. Each of the joint venture participants is a public entity and makes an appropriation of expenditures within their respective budget to cover their proportionate share of anticipated costs of construction and operations. Reimbursement of Operating Expenses Variable operating expenses are shared by the joint venture participants based on actual usage of the facility and fixed operating expenses, excluding depreciation, are shared equally. Additionally, in accordance with the Joint Venture Agreement, Littleton pays an administration fee to Englewood equal to 3% of operating expenses. Capital and Fixed Operation and Maintenance Costs Contributions The joint venture participants share equally capital and fixed operations and maintenance expenses. ANALYSIS: The South Platte Renew (SPR) 2025 Budget was developed over the past several months with significant collaboration between the Supervisory Committee, the Joint City Councils, and City staff. This year's budget process leveraged our collective capacity to deliver quality services, enhanced public safety, and improved infrastructure. The Sewer Funds of the cities of Littleton and Englewood, respectively, contain budgeted funds that provide the financial support for the SPR 2025 budget. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff supports the 2025 Budget and is looking forward to the direction of the Supervisory Committee and the Joint City Councils in developing future budgets. Page 137 of 273 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please review the South Platte Renew budget document using the following link: https://www.englewoodco.gov/government/city-departments/finance/budget-and-financial- reports/budget-reports. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: First reading of the 2025 budget ordinances supports the Strategic's Plan Governance result/outcome  Governance - A city government that serves the community by being efficient, effective, accountable, and adaptable OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: Staff presented the SPR's 2025 Budget to the the Supervisory Committee and the Joint City Councils and the input received helped shape the provided budget. The annual 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the operational and capital budgets. ATTACHMENTS: Council Bill No.45 - SPR 2025 Budget Page 138 of 273 Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. ____ COUNCIL BILL NO. 45 SERIES OF 2024 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _______________ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE SOUTH PLATTE RENEW FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council within three weeks after its submission on September 3, 2024. The hearing was held at the meeting of City Council on September 16, 2024, 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; 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 2025 was provided to the South Platte Renew Supervisory Committee at their regular meeting of August 8, 2024; 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 2025 was presented at a joint meeting of the City Councils of both Cities held on August 22, 2024; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, as the administering authority for the South Platte Renew, has studied the budget on numerous occasions; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to adopt the 2025 budget for the South Platte Renew 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 South Platte Renew for fiscal year 2025, as submitted by the South Platte Renew Supervisory Committee and duly considered by the City Council after public hearing, is hereby adopted as the budget for the South Platte Renew for the fiscal year 2025, as follows: South Platte Renew Fund Balance – January 1, 2025 $ 115,674 Revenues $ 39,498,422 Expenditures $ 39,498,422 Fund Balance – December 31, 2025 $ 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. Page 139 of 273 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. General Provisions Applicable to this Ordinance The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. C. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. D. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. Page 140 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kevin Engels DEPARTMENT: Finance DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (South Platte Renew 2025 Appropriation) DESCRIPTION: 2025 Budget Ordinances First Reading (5 of 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the fourth of five Ordinances for the South Platte Renew 2025 Appropriation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  January 27, 2024 - Visioning and 2025 City Council Goal Setting Workshop  February 5, 2024 - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Prioritization Process Improvement Update Discussion  April 8, 2024 - Budget Assumptions were discussed for the 2025-2029 (5-Year) Period  April 15, 2024 - Capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following utility enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Stormwater and South Platte Renew  April 22, 2024 - General government department capital requests were discussed for the 2025-2029 period for the following departments: Communications, Information Technology, Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf and Public Works  June 24, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the preliminary 2025 operational and capital budget priorities and initiatives.  August 12, 2024 - Staff discussed with Council the draft proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Due to the absence of two Council Members, a follow-up meeting was requested so that all Council Members could provide direction and comment regarding the submission of the Proposed 2025 Operational and Capital Budget.  August 22, 2024 - The South Platte Renew (SPR) Annual Joint Council Study Session was held on at the SPR facility and the draft 2025 Budget was reviewed with Council Members of the cities of Littleton and Englewood.  August 26, 2024 - Staff reviewed questions and requested information with City Council regarding the proposed 2025 operational and capital budget. Additionally staff responded to additional questions posed by Council Members prior to their direction to print the proposed 2025 in advance of the September 16, 2024 Budget Public Hearing.  September 16, 2024 - Staff provided the 2025 operating and capital budget during the scheduled Budget Public Hearing and listened and responded to the public comment with Council Request #CRT-0837. SUMMARY: Page 141 of 273 The budget and appropriation ordinances are provided administratively as they are not required by the State of Colorado Budget Law. Definition of Reporting Entity The Cities of Littleton, Colorado (Littleton) and Englewood, Colorado (Englewood), participate in the South Platte Renew's Joint Venture (the Joint Venture) for the operation of a wastewater treatment facility. Control of the Joint Venture rests in a four-member committee, with two members appointed by each city. Littleton and Englewood each own a 50 percent interest in the Joint Venture. The Joint Venture has its own workforce for operating purposes. For payroll and pension participation, the joint venture’s workforce is considered to be City of Englewood employees. Englewood provides the Joint Venture with administrative services on a cost reimbursement basis. The accounting policies of the Joint Venture conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governmental units accounted for as a proprietary enterprise fund. The enterprise fund is used since the Joint Venture's powers are related to those operated in a manner similar to a private utility system where net income and capital maintenance are appropriate determinations of accountability. Budget The Joint Venture does not have nor is it anticipated to ever have the power to assess an ad valorem tax on the property of the participating cities. Accordingly, it is management's contention that this would remove it from the scope of the State of Colorado Budget Law. Each of the joint venture participants is a public entity and makes an appropriation of expenditures within their respective budget to cover their proportionate share of anticipated costs of construction and operations. Reimbursement of Operating Expenses Variable operating expenses are shared by the joint venture participants based on actual usage of the facility and fixed operating expenses, excluding depreciation, are shared equally. Additionally, in accordance with the Joint Venture Agreement, Littleton pays an administration fee to Englewood equal to 3% of operating expenses. Capital and Fixed Operation and Maintenance Costs Contributions The joint venture participants share equally capital and fixed operations and maintenance expenses. ANALYSIS: The South Platte Renew (SPR) 2025 Budget was developed over the past several months with significant collaboration between the Supervisory Committee, the Joint City Councils, and City staff. This year's budget process leveraged our collective capacity to deliver quality services, enhanced public safety, and improved infrastructure. The Sewer Funds of the cities of Littleton and Englewood respectively contain budgeted funds that provide the financial support for the SPR 2025 budget. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff supports the 2025 Budget and is looking forward to the direction of the Supervisory Committee and the Joint City Councils in developing future budgets. Page 142 of 273 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please review the South Platte Renew 2025 budget document using the following link: https://www.englewoodco.gov/government/city-departments/finance/budget-and-financial- reports/budget-reports. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: First reading of the 2025 budget ordinances supports the Strategic's Plan Governance result/outcome  Governance - A city government that serves the community by being efficient, effective, accountable, and adaptable OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: Staff presented the SPR's 2025 Budget to the the Supervisory Committee and the Joint City Councils and the input received helped shape the provided budget. The annual 2025 Budget Public Hearing held on September 16, 2024 provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the operational and capital budgets. ATTACHMENTS: CB #46 - SPR 2025 Budget Appropriation Page 143 of 273 Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. ____ COUNCIL BILL NO. 46 SERIES OF 2024 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _________________ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE SOUTH PLATTE RENEW PURPOSES IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2025, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2025, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. WHEREAS, the Cities of Englewood and Littleton entered into a contract to build, maintain, and operate a joint Wastewater Treatment Plant facility; WHEREAS, the operations, including budget matters, of this joint facility are overseen by the Supervisory Committee; WHEREAS, the City of Englewood operates the South Platte Renew’ facility under the control of the Supervisory Committee; WHEREAS, the South Platte Renew has its own fund for operations and maintenance; 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 2025 was provided to the South Platte Renew Supervisory Committee at their regular meeting of August 8, 2024; 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 2025 was presented at a joint meeting of the City Councils of both Cities held on August 22, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That pursuant to the South Platte Renew agreement, there be and hereby is appropriated from the revenue derived from operation of the South Platte Renew in the City of Englewood, Colorado, and from all other sources of revenue in the South Platte Renew Fund including available fund balance during the year beginning January 1, 2025, and ending December 31, 2025, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified as follows: Total South Platte Renew Fund $ 39,498,422 Section 2. General Provisions Applicable to this Ordinance Page 144 of 273 Page 2 of 2 The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. C. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. D. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. Page 145 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Amendment to Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law DESCRIPTION: For matters of concurrent jurisdiction, state court and municipal court penalties and sentences may vary. This ordinance adds a phrase to Municipal Code that maximum penalties and sentences won't exceed those in District Court for the same offense. RECOMMENDATION: Consider ordinance amending Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: June 3, 2024: City Council considered this council bill on first reading, and it was tabled for a study session on Home Rule Authority August 12, 2024: Study session on Home Rule Authority September 9, 2024: During Council Member's Choice, Council Member Russell requests additional information for this agenda item SUMMARY: Colorado cities have been subject to, and threatened with, litigation if their municipal courts impose penalties in excess of that authorized for prosecution of the same offense in state district courts. Often, these courts have "concurrent jurisdictions" over criminal misdemeanor offenses such as assault, but the court where charges are filed may impose significantly different penalties. The proposed addition to EMC 1-4-1 ensures Englewood Municipal Court imposes no sentence or penalty in excess of the maximum penalty that could be assessed in District Court, thus ensuring defendants are treated equally regardless of the court where prosecuted. City Attorney Tamara Niles consulted with Englewood Municipal Court regarding the proposed addition to Municipal Code; Court Administrator Kennetha Julian indicated the Court did not oppose the proposal, and provided excellent feedback that was incorporated into the proposed language. Municipal Court Prosecutor Arnie Shunneson currently makes no sentencing recommendation that exceeds the maximum sentence that could be imposed for the same offense by state district courts. Page 146 of 273 The City Attorney was requested to contact Englewood Municipal Court Judge Jefferson for additional input on this ordinance, and to address concerns that this ordinance would impose a substantial burden on the Court by requiring the judge to determine the maximum penalties allowed in state courts. The City Attorney's Office proposes to reduce the burden on the Court in two ways: (1) the Municipal Court Prosecutor will not request a penalty that exceeds that in state court; and (2) the City Attorney's Office offered to provide the Municipal Court Judge with (a) the state court sentencing tables that can be followed, and/or (b) a table of all city offenses with suggested penalties that do not exceed those authorized in state court prosecutions. In addition, on August 22, 2024, the City Attorney contacted the Municipal Court Judge via email to request input on the proposal as follows: Hello Judge Jefferson, and I hope this email finds you well. On January 9, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Sergio Renteria emailed Municipal Court Administrator Kennetha Julian regarding a challenge to Rifle Municipal Court’s sentencing, in that exceeded maximum penalties authorized under state law for the same offense. When the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the case and issued a show cause order, and the City of Rifle in turn, amended its municipal code to acknowledge penalties imposed by its municipal court would not exceed those imposed by district court for the same offense. I have attached that email for fast reference. Since then, various cities in Colorado have faced the same challenge. ... We have reviewed the briefing, and we are persuaded that imposing a penalty in municipal court that exceeds the penalty allowed in district court likely violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. To that end, we have prepared the attached Council Bill that amends Englewood Municipal Code to include a similar provision implemented by Rifle in the Supreme Court challenge, as follows: “E. Despite any maximum sentence authorized by this Code, no fine or imprisonment shall be imposed that exceeds the cumulative maximum authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes (including fines, costs and surcharges) for any offense with substantially similar elements.” To ensure compliance with this provision, we anticipate the city prosecutor would make no sentencing recommendation that exceeds the maximum authorized under state law for that offense. In addition, we would recommend the Court ensure imposed sentencing meets this standard, in 1 of 2 ways: (1) consult with the District Court sentencing charts (which we are happy to provide to you); or (2) consider a table of standard fines and sentences for every offense that ensures compliance (which we are happy to prepare for you). This matter is set for Council consideration on September 16, so if you do have any comments, concerns, or objections, I would respectfully request that you provide those to me no later than end of day on September 6, to ensure we have sufficient time to address and resolve those prior to the September 16 City Council meeting. Alternatively, I’m sure City Council would welcome your input and advice in person at the September 16 meeting. Council Member Russell wanted to make sure you were given the opportunity to provide input and provided notice of the date City Council will consider this matter, so that end, I have cc’d her on this email in the event she would like to weigh in as well. Thank you for considering this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you. Page 147 of 273 The Municipal Court Judge did not respond to the email above, but Municipal Court Administrator Kennetha Julian emailed on September 7 as follows: City Attorney Niles, Thank you for the email and sorry for the short delay in response but Judge Jefferson has asked me to provide a reply to you and Council Member Russell. You originally asked for feedback on this issue back on March 6th by requesting feedback on the following: “Despite the maximum fine and imprisonment authorized herein, no fine or imprisonment shall be imposed that exceeds the maximum authorized by Colorado state law for the same offense.” I replied on April 12th with the following feedback: Although we would not “oppose” the ultimate policy question being answered by Council about the community’s decision on the maximum possible punishment for any given offense, we do have substantial feedback as to how this is proposed. Our initial thought is that a more detailed approach creating a few broad categories of municipal offenses (as we have discussed in the past) would be preferred to have more clarity for everyone involved. We are working on a list of issues for your consideration on this proposed language and we would be happy to meet to discuss: 1. Potential confusion on how to proceed on matters decriminalized by the state without a separate process in our Code when a person fails to appear for cases like littering; 2. Ambiguous impacts on charges with no state equivalent; 3. Interpretation for max fines with or without state fees/surcharges/costs that will result in reduced revenue to the City from the Court; 4. Additional work from continuous tracking of State penalties, particularly for individual fines, fees and surcharges for each type of charge to ensure compliance; 5. Additional work from new fine schedule particularly for traffic as we currently look at points instead of type of charge; 6. Additional work from posting of fines, particularly for individual fines and fees as required by CMCRP; 7. Concerns about interpretation of “same” offense as proposed and suggest language like “offenses with substantial similar elements”; 8. Plea negations impacts as City less likely to dismiss cases as part of global plea agreement that will likely result in more convictions (more work to report) and more cases being held open longer (additional admin work); 9. Likely to result in more bench warrants being issued for defendants that have 3+ cases to preserve maximum potential sanctions rather than not issuing when the City feels that the prior warrants are adequate on lesser offenses. Our understanding is that you considered this list and will include this feedback and our concerns for the Council’s consideration of: E. Despite any maximum sentence authorized by this Code, no fine or imprisonment shall be imposed that exceeds the cumulative maximum authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes (including fines, costs and surcharges) for any offense with substantially similar elements. We do have some additional concerns regarding managing the logistics of required advisements to defendants. We are concerned that simply referencing this new language will be an inadequate advisement to pro se defendants in our Court to ensure they understand the possible penalties. Therefore we will likely need to develop a system to advise, down to the specific penny, on our new max fines by adding up the State’s max fine, applicable costs and surcharges for every charge in our system and update our forms, video advisement, and software accordingly. We are also agreeing that the criminal jail and fine limits of “District Court” Page 148 of 273 may be somewhat easy to determine under this new ordinance besides the understanding of what particular costs and surcharges apply to each specific charge. However, we reiterate that traffic may be more difficult both from an advisement and calculation standpoint. This is at least partially due to our system’s historic reliance on our software that relies on a more simplified fine schedule of the number of points of the original traffic charge and their driving history to generate the fine, rather than by each specific offense. We also have different increases than the State when there is an alleged accident or if the violation occurred in a school or construction zone. Therefore, please send any info that you think may be helpful at this time regarding costs and surcharges of the State with any guidance you can provide on all the different types of charges that are applicable for each for both criminal and traffic. We would also welcome a very simplified max traffic and parking fine schedule that designates what you believe will be the new maximum after adding all the costs and surcharges for each violation specifically as required by CMCRP for public posting for the Judge’s consideration. We again reiterate that creating some different categories of offenses would help simplify and clarify this process by creating different levels of municipal offences and creating a max penalty for each category so then we can simply ensure that each category is within the maximum of the State and ensure that each charge is in the right category annually for compliance purposes. We also believe having our maximum penalties in our Code would be helpful for everyone involved. Unfortunately, Judge Jefferson is out of town on the September 16, however he could be available at the next scheduled regular meeting on October 7, if Council has further questions for the Court after review of our feedback. Although the Judge will not “advise” the Council, particularly on public policy issues, he is happy to address impacts to our Court and our local criminal justice system. Please advise on how this will proceed when you can. Thank you again for including us in the process and let us know if you want to meet with us to discuss these issues. Have a wonderful weekend all, Kennetha ANALYSIS: On September 9, 2024, Council Member Russell requested the following questions be answered in this Council Communication: 1. "Has any court declared our legal general penalties unconstitutional?" No 2. "Whose duty is it to ensure our punishments for City laws are proper?" The City Attorney's Office, the City Prosecutor, the Municipal Court Judge, City Council all have a role to ensure the City of Englewood's municipal codes and Municipal Court procedures are legally compliant. 3. "If City punishment is less than the State, is the State law unconstitutional?" No. Punishment could be less severe without implicating the Constitution. 4. "Do most cities have a general penalty provision that is also unconstitutional?" Unknown. The Englewood City Attorney's Office only represents Englewood, and has not analyzed the Constitutionality of other cities' municipal code or municipal court sentencing guidelines/procedures. 5. "How many of those cities have changed their punishments?" The City Attorney's Office is only aware of the City of Rifle, Colorado, changing its municipal code to resolve pending Page 149 of 273 litigation regarding its maximum penalties. The proposed revisions to Englewood's Municipal Code was drafted similarly to the revision made to the Rifle Municipal Code to resolve its lawsuit. 6. "What is the status of current litigation? Are these appeals or civil litigation? What are those cities arguing to the courts?" The City Attorney's Office was unable to gather detailed information responsive to this inquiry and ensure its accuracy within the short timeline for completion of this agenda item. The City of Rifle's litigation is complete, and is the impetus for this recommendation to amend Englewood's Municipal Code. The City Attorney's Office understands the following cities may be facing claims arising out of this issue, either through motions to dismiss or civil claims: Greeley, Longmont, Thornton, Westminster, Lafayette, Montrose. This list may not be comprehensive, and it may not be accurate. 7. "What is the fiscal impact of this proposed legislation?" If adopted, it could save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars by avoiding litigation (including the cost of attorney fees and damages). If adopted, it may or may not reduce the amount of revenue in Municipal Court; but the purpose of Municipal Court is not to generate revenue for the City, and therefore this consideration is not applicable. 8. "Will the penalties apply to both criminal cases and traffic cases?" Yes 9. "How will a citizen know the possible maximum punishment for each crime if the general penalty no longer applies?" The maximum general penalty provision contained in EMC 1-4-1 of $2650 is unchanged: no penalty can exceed this amount. In addition, in 2022, to increase transparency, improve prosecution efficiency, and ensure equal treatment of defendants in Municipal Court, the City Attorney's Office undertook an extensive project in an attempt to ensure Municipal Court defendants knew the penalty they likely faced for each offense in Municipal Court. The City Attorney's Office worked with City staff and prepared a standard fine schedule for every offense prosecuted in Municipal Court. While Municipal Court declined to adopt it or a similar document, the 2022 proposed standard fine schedule is attached and the City Attorney's Office would be happy to amend it to include a column with the maximum penalty imposed in District Court for each offense. If adopted and followed by Municipal Court, it will provide each defendant in Municipal Court a specific anticipated fine and maximum fine for each offense charged. In addition, in 2022, the City Attorney's Office also created a document amending the state traffic schedule to refer to the Englewood's Model Traffic Code numbers, to ensure Englewood's traffic fines align with those in state court. Because it is 53 pages in total, a sample page from that document is attached ("MTC" references are to local traffic offenses in Municipal Court). Finally, state courts follow a standard table of fees and surcharges, which could be mirrored in Englewood Municipal Court. The entire state court fee/surcharge table is attached. 10. "Do we have potential solutions to this problem that can address our concerns, but still provide detail to the public without having to understand the entire State system? Where will this information be available for the public to review?" Please see response to 9 above. The City Attorney's Office recommends Englewood Municipal Court adopt standard fine and fee schedules for each offense as proposed, and makes them publicly available on its website and in person at Court. In addition, the Englewood Municipal Court Judge is the City's criminal law expert. Utilizing his expertise, the Judge may have additional suggestions to address this issue. 11. "What are the State punishments for a false report of cruelty of an animal? What about public consumption of alcohol? Possession of drug paraphernalia?" Knowingly making a false report of cruelty to an animal is a civil infraction under CRS 18-9-209, and such a charge is not filed in Englewood Municipal Court. It provides for a $100 maximum civil penalty. State laws regarding public consumption of alcohol vary based on where it is purchased, where it is consumed and what is consumed, therefore this question does not provide sufficient information for answer. For example, while consumption of alcohol on right of way is prohibited, it is not Page 150 of 273 prohibited in public common consumption areas, CRS 44-3-901. In addition, consumption of alcohol in a moving vehicle is prohibited by state law; but there is no state law equivalent to the City's general prohibition of consuming alcohol in public under EMC 5-3C-3. Possession of drug paraphernalia is a state court drug petty offense with a maximum fine of $100 under CRS 18-18-428, requires 16 hours of useful public service, and is a non-jailable offense. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider ordinance amending Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Potentially could save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars by avoiding litigation (including the cost of attorney fees and damages). May or may not reduce the amount of revenue in Municipal Court by potentially reducing the amount of maximum fines imposed for some offenses, offset by the inability to collect fines imposed; but the purpose of Municipal Court is not to generate revenue for the City, and therefore this consideration is not applicable. OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: Emails to Municipal Court Administrator Kennetha Julian on January 9, 2024; February 29, 2024; March 6, 2024; May 8, 2024 Email to Judge Joe Jefferson on August 22, 2024 Email from Municipal Court Administrator Kennetha Julian on September 7, 2024 Email to Judge Jefferson on September 20, 2024 ("City Council adopted this council bill on first reading. Second reading is set for October 7. If you would like to weigh in on this, including a description of any hurdles to implementation, City Council would welcome your comments and participation at the October 7 meeting.") ATTACHMENTS: Council Bill 2022 Proposed Fine Schedule Sample of Traffic Fine Schedule State Court fees, surcharges Page 151 of 273 1 ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL NO. 17 NO. ____ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL SERIES OF 2024 MEMBER NUNNENKAMP AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 1-4-1, MAXIMUM PENALTIES WHEREAS, Englewood Municipal Code (“EMC”) § 1-4-1 establishes maximum penalties that may be imposed by Englewood Municipal Court; and WHEREAS, many criminal and traffic offenses may be prosecuted either in Colorado state courts or municipal courts; and WHEREAS, such courts may have differing maximum penalties, fines, and sentences for substantially the same offense; and WHEREAS, Colorado cities have faced litigation for Municipal Courts imposing penalties that exceed those imposed by Colorado state courts for substantially the same offense; and WHEREAS, to ensure those prosecuted in Englewood Municipal Court do not face significantly higher penalties and fines based on the prosecuting court, rather than the offense, and to immunize the City from potential litigation, Englewood Municipal Code is amended herein to ensure Englewood Municipal Court defendants face the same maximum sentence and fines regardless of whether they are prosecuted in municipal court or state court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. EMC § 1-4-1 is hereby amended to read as follows (new provisions underlined; deleted provisions struck-through): 1-4-1: - General Penalty. A. Fine; Imprisonment: No person shall violate, disobey, omit, neglect, refuse or fail to comply with or resist the enforcement of any provision of this Code or any secondary code adopted herein (collectively "violation"). Except as otherwise specifically provided, violations shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($2,650.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three hundred sixty (360) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. The imposition of one (1) penalty shall not excuse any violation nor permit it to continue. Unless otherwise indicated, a separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day or portion thereof during or on which any violation occurs or continues. Page 152 of 273 2 B. No Jail Sentence for Juveniles: No jail sentence shall be imposed upon persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. C. Trial By Jury for Juveniles: No child under the age of eighteen (18) years shall be entitled to a trial by jury, except for any offense classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor under a State counterpart statute. D. Every person convicted of a traffic infraction payable at the Traffic Violations Bureau shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($2,650.00), but no imprisonment. E. Despite any maximum sentence authorized by this Code, no fine or imprisonment shall be imposed that exceeds the cumulative maximum authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes (including fines, costs and surcharges) for any offense with substantially similar elements. Section 2. General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be by reference or in full in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. Manuals, Municipal Page 153 of 273 3 Code, contracts, and other documents approved by reference in any Council Bill may be published by reference or in full on the City’s official website; such documents shall be available at the City Clerk’s office and in the City Council meeting agenda packet when the legislation was adopted. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within EMC § 1-4-1. Introduced and passed on first reading on the 16th day of September, 2024; and on second reading, in identical form to the first reading, on the ___ day of ____________, 2024. Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance, introduced and passed in identical form on first and second reading on the dates indicated above; and published two days after each passage on the City’s official website for at least thirty (30) days thereafter. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after first publication on the City’s official website. Stephanie Carlile Page 154 of 273 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT FINE SCHEDULE Englewood Municipal Code § 1-4-1 provides for a general penalty for violations as follows: A. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate, disobey, omit, neglect, refuse or fail to comply with or resist the enforcement of any provision of this Code or any secondary code adopted herein. Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this Code, the violation of any provisions of this Code or of any secondary code adopted herein shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($2,650.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three hundred sixty (360) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. The imposition of one (1) penalty shall not excuse any violation nor permit it to continue. Unless otherwise indicated, a separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day or portion thereof during or on which any violation of any provision of this Code1 or any secondary code adopted herein occurs or continues. B. No Jail Sentence for Juveniles: No jail sentence shall be imposed upon persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. C. Trial By Jury for Juveniles: No child under the age of eighteen (18) years shall be entitled to a trial by jury for a violation of a municipal ordinance for which imprisonment in jail is not a possible penalty; except that such a child is entitled to a trial by jury for any offense which would be a Class 1 misdemeanor under a State counterpart statute. D. Every person convicted of a violation of any provision stated or adopted which is designated as a "traffic infraction" and for which a penalty is paid or payable at the "Traffic Violations Bureau" shall be punished by a penalty not exceeding two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($2,650.00). There shall be no imprisonment for traffic infractions. EMC § 1-7-4(D) further establishes the Municipal Judge shall designate the ordinances and sections of Municipal Code for violation of which payment of fines, penalties, fees, costs, and surcharges, may be accepted by the Violations Bureau, and shall specify a schedule for the amount of such fines, penalties, fees, costs, including those offenses requiring an appearance before the Municipal Court. The schedule of designated fines for Municipal Court below is presumptive in nature and has no impact on the inherent sentencing discretion of the Court within the limits of the City of Englewood Municipal Code considering the unpredictable nature of mitigating and aggravating circumstances of individual cases. Page 155 of 273 EMC Offense Fine Viol Bureau Sum/Must Appear Bond/PR Fix It Ticket Victim Notice TAXES 4-4-1 Sales, Use Tax License; fine set by EMC 4-4-1-5 $25/ day x 4-4-1-5 Sales Tax Records, Order $500 x 4-4-4-1 Collect and Pay Sales, Lodging Tax $500 X X 4-4-4-5 Itinerant Vendors $500 X X 4-4-4-6 Sales/Use Tax Books and Records $500 X 4-4-4-7 Sales/Use Tax Returns, Payment $500 X X 4-4-5-3 Use Tax Payment/Collection $500 X X 4-4-9 Quitting Business File/Pay Tax Return, Withhold Taxes $500 X X 4-4-11 Examination of Return; Pay Deficiencies $500 X X 4-4-19 Advertise Absorption of Tax $200 X 4-4-19 False Tax Return, Statement $500 X X 4-5-4 Business/Occupation Tax $500 X X 4-7-4 Waste Transfer Surcharge $200 X X 4-7-7 Waste Transfer Surcharge License, Return $500 X X LIQUOR 5-3-2 Intoxicating Liquor License $2000 X 5-3A-8 Liquor License Change in Location, Ownership, Name $200 X 5-3B-3 Retail Alcohol Occupation Tax $600 X 5-3B-4 Fail to Report Alcohol/Special Event Manager's License $100 X 5-3B-6 Display Liquor Tax/Fee Receipt $100 X 5-3B-7 Display Liquor License $100 X 5-3B-10 Liquor, Optional Premises Without Notice $200 X 5-3C-1 Unlawful Sales; Intoxicated, Underage Person $300 X 5-3C-3 Open Container in Public, Vehicle $200 X 5-3C-4 Unlawful Solicitation of Drinks from Another $75 X 5-3C-5 Underage Possession, Consumption $100 X 5-3C-6 Lewd Acts, Nude Dancing in licensed premises $500 X MARIJUANA LICENSING 5-3D-1 Medical Cultivation, Manufacture, Distribution, Sale $2000 X 5-3D-15 Financial Assistance by Unreported Person $1000 X 5-3D-18 Inspection of Licensee Records $1000 X 5-3D-19 Medical Primary Care-Givers $2000 X 5-3E-1 Retail Cultivation, Manufacture, Distribution, Sale $2000 X 5-3E-13 Retail Sale Hours $500 X 5-3E-15 Retail Books and Records $1000 X 5-3F-1 Retail Cultivation $2000 X BUSINESS LICENSING 5-1-2 Business License $100 X 5-1-4 Business License Application, Denial $100 X 5-1-8 Business License Inspection $100 X 5-1-10 Business License Conditions, Untrue/Deceptive Advertising $300 X 5-2-2 Amusement Business License $120 X 5-2-3 Amusement License Application, Manager License $75 X 5-2-4 Amusement License Conditions, Additional Device $50 X 5-4-2 Food Vendor License $150 X 5-4-4 Food Vendor Requirements $100 X 5-6-2 Adult Establishment License $2650 X 5-6-4 Adult Establishment Requirements $2650 X 5-7-7 Contractor Responsibilities $300 X 5-7-12 Contractor License (and must obtain in reasonable time) $500 X 5-8-2 Reflexology License $200 X 5-9-2 Towing $200 X 5-10-2 Auto Salvage/Recycling Yard License $200 X 5-10-4 Auto Salvage/Recycling Yard Requirements $200 X 5-12-2 Christmas Tree Sales License $50 X 5-13-2 Temporary Employment Services License $200 X 5-14-2 Arborist License $120 X 5-15-2 Pawnbroker License $2500 X 5-15-4 Pawnbroker Requirements $1000 X 5-16-2 Automobile Pawnbroker License $2500 X 5-16-4 Automobile Pawnbroker Requirements $1000 X 5-18-2 Auctioneer License $150 X 5-19-2 Direct Sales License $150 X Page 156 of 273 EMC Offense Fine Viol Bureau Sum/Must Appear Bond/PR Fix It Ticket Victim Notice 5-20-2 Special Event License $80 X 5-21-2 Body Piercing License $300 X 5-21-4 Body Piercing Requirements $200 X 5-23-2 Purchasing Valuable Objects License $500 X 5-23-4 Valuable Object Purchase Requirements $300 X 5-24-2 Tattoo License $200 X 5-24-4 Tattoo License Requirements $200 X 5-25-2 Breeding Canines/Felines License $100 X 5-25-3 Canine/Feline Breeder Requirements $200 X 5-25-4(A- D, F) Violation of Canine/Feline Breeder License; number of animals, sanitary conditions, waste disposal $300 X 5-25-4(E) Violation of Canine/Feline Breeder License: humane care $1000 X 5-26-2 Trash Hauling License $200 X 5-26-4(A- D, F-I) Trash Hauling Requirements $200 X 5-26-4(E) Trash Hauling Illegal Disposal $1000 X X 5-27-2 Telecommunications Facility License $200 X 5-27-4 Notice, Fee Telecommunications Addition $200 X 5-28-2 Guard/Attack Dog License $200 X 5-28-4 Guard/Attack Dog Requirements $200 X 5-30-2 Hotel/Motel License $500 X 5-31-2 Short Term Rental License $200 X 5-31-4 Short Term Rental Permit $200 X 5-31-6 Short Term Rental Posting Requirements $100 X 5-32-2 Food Delivery License $150 X 5-32-4 Food Delivery Requirements $150 X Air, Noise Pollution; UDC 6-1-4 Burning Permit $1000 X 6-1-6 Discharge of Air Pollution. $1000 X 6-1-7 Refuse Inspection, Air Pollution $500 X 6-1-9 Sell, Inhale Toxic Vapors $300 X 6-1-10 Purchase of Tobacco by Minors; Sale $300 X 6-1-11 Wood, Solid Fuel Devices on High Pollution Day $1000 X 6-1-12 Installation of Solid Fuel Burning Devices $200 X 6-2-4 Excessive Noise $100 X 6-2-6 Unnecessary Noise in Quiet Zones $100 X 6-5-1 Violate Unified Development, Environmental Codes $300 X ANIMALS 7-1A-2 "At-Risk", "Dangerous" Animals $500 X X 7-1A-3 Animal Running at Large $200 X 7-1A-4 Tethering $200 X 7-1A-6 Excessive Number of Animals $200 X 7-1A-7 Rabies Vaccination $200 X X 7-1A-8 Poisoning Dogs or Cats $1000 X X 7-1A-9(A) Animal Cruelty: kill, torture, beat, burn $2000, remove animal X $1000/PR 12 hrs X 7-1A- 9(B,C) Animal Cruelty: antagonize, care/maintenance $200 X 7-1A-10 Remove Excrement; Damage Landscape $200 X 7-1A-11 Rabies Vaccination Proof on Collar $200 X X 7-1A-13 Guard, Attack Dog Enclosure, Signage, License $200 X 7-1A-14 Barking Dogs $200 X 7-1A-15 Abuse of Police Dogs $2500 X $1000/PR 12 hrs x 7-1A-16 "Dangerous" Animals $200 X X 7-1C-2 Animal Premises Kept Clean $200 X 7-1C-3 Exotic Animal Permit $300 X 7-1C-4 Livestock Prohibited $200 X 7-1C-5 Disposition of Dead Animals $200 X 7-1C-6 Animals at large, abandon, overwork, dyed, exhibit $200 X PUBLIC OFFENSES 7-3-3 Sex Offender Prohibitions $500 X 7-6-1 Liability for Conduct of Another, Complicity Same as underlying offense Page 157 of 273 EMC Offense Fine Viol Bureau Sum/Must Appear Bond/PR Fix It Ticket Victim Notice 7-6-2 Attempt Same as underlying offense 7-6-3 Conspiracy Same as underlying offense 7-6A-1 Menacing $300 X $300; PR 12 hrs X 7-6A-2 Assault $200 X $200; PR 12 hrs X 7-6A-2 Assault DV $1000 X $400; PR 12 hrs X 7-6A-3 Recklessly Endangering Another $500 X 7-6A-4 Harassment $100 X 7-6A-4 Harassment DV $300 X $200 cash; PR 12 hrs X 7-6A-5 Resist, Interfere With Municipal Officers $200 X 7-6A-6 Impersonating a Public Servant $200 X 7-6A-7 Throwing Objects $100 X 7-6A-8 Terroristic Threats $1000 X 7-6B-1 Disorderly Conduct $200 X 7-6B-2 Disturbance of the Peace $100 X 7-6B-3 Unlawful Acts and Assemblies $100 X 7-6B-4 Anonymous Papers $50 X 7-6B-5 Advertising by Sound $100 X 7-6B-6 Obstructing Highways and Public Passages $200 X 7-6B-7 Loitering $50 X 7-6B-8 Escapes $300 X 7-6B-9 Begging $100 X 7-6B-10 False Reports and Alarms $300 X 7-6B-11 Police and Fire Alarm System Reports $100 X 7-6B-12 Explosions $300 X 7-6B-13 Solicitation of Towing or Wrecker Business $100 X 7-6C-1 Concealed Weapons $200 X 7-6C-2 Possession of Illegal Weapons $200 X 7-6C-3 Prohibited Use of Weapons $200 X 7-6C-4 Forfeiture and Confiscation of Weapons $200 X 7-6C-5 Sale and Display of Weapons $200 X 7-6C-6 Prohibition on the Open Carrying of Firearms $200 X 7-6D-1 Prostitution $300 X 7-6D-2 Public Indecency $300 X $300; PR 12 hrs 7-6D-4 Registration Required for Accommodations; False $100 X 7-6D-6 Obscene Materials, Devices and Performances $300 X $300; PR 12 hrs 7-6D-7 Indecent Proposals $300 X 7-6D-9 Peepers $200 X $200; PR 12 hrs 7-6D-10 Gambling $100 X 7-6D-11 Urinating in Public $100 X 7-6D-12 Marijuana Possession, Use, Consumption $300 X 7-6D-12-1 Drug Paraphernalia $100 X 7-6D-12-2 Recreational Marijuana $300 X 7-6D-13 Proscription Against Ambush Devices $200 X 7-6D-14 Massage; Prohibited Acts $300 X 7-6E-1 Wrongs to Children $500 X 7-6E-2 Minors in Pool Hall, Adult Establishment $300 X 7-6E-3 False Representation of Age $200 X 7-6E-4 Sales: Secondhand Dealers, Bicycle Parts, Adult Materials $200 X 7-6E-5 Tattooing $300 X 7-6E-6 Curfew $50 X 7-6E-7 Harboring of Minors $200 X 7-6E-8 Possession, Consumption of Tobacco by Minor $100 X 7-6E-9 Possession of Graffiti Materials by Minor $100 X 7-6E-10 Sale of Graffiti Materials to Minor $100 X 7-6E-11 Body Piercing $200 X 7-6E-12 Prohibited Massage on Minors $500 X 7-6F-1 Injury or Destruction of Property $150 X X Page 158 of 273 EMC Offense Fine Viol Bureau Sum/Must Appear Bond/PR Fix It Ticket Victim Notice 7-6F-2 Trespass $100 X 7-6F-3 Shoplifting $350 X X 7-6F-4 Theft $200 X X 7-6F-5 Price Switching $150 X 7-6F-6 Posters, Posting $100 X 7-6F-7 Fraudulent Manipulation of Coin Machines $150 X X 7-6F-9 Bad Checks $150 X X 7-6F-10 Damage, Fail to Return Library Property $100 X X 7-6F-12 Graffiti Prohibited $100 X X 7-6F-13 Parental Responsibility for Graffiti $50 X X 7-6F-14-1 Distribution of Handbills $50 X PUBLIC SAFETY: STREETS 7-7-5 Dangerous Article Transport $500 X 7-7-6 Fire Lanes $100 X BUILDING CODES/STRUCTURES 8-1-8 Building and Safety Codes (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire, Maintenance, Residential, Fuel Gas, Energy Conservation) $300 X X 8-3A-1 Private Residential Swimming Pools $300 X 8-3B-1 Public and Semi-Public Swimming Pools $500 X 8-4-2 Duty to Number Building $100 X X 8-5-1 Moving Permit $1000 X 8-5-6-1 Moving Structures $1000 X 8-5-7 Structure Moving Preparation $1000 X 8-5-8 Structure Moving Requirements $1000 X 8-5-10 Structure Moving Notification $1000 X 8-5-11 Structure Moving Route Posting $1000 X 8-5-12 Structure Moving Permits $1000 X 8-6-1 Structure Demolition Permit $1000 X 8-6-3 Structure Demolition Procedure $1000 X 9-5-2 Mobile Homes Parking $200 X 9-5-3 Maintain Mobile Home Park $500 X 9-5-5 Mobile Home Park Alteration Permit $1000 X 9-5-6 Mobile Home Park Location, Space, Layout $1000 X 9-5-7 Mobile Home Service Buildings $1000 X 9-5-8 Mobile Home Water Supply $1000 X 9-5-9 Mobile Home Sewage Service $1000 X 9-5-10 Mobile Home Refuse Disposal $1000 X 9-5-11 Mobile Home Electricity, Lights $1000 X 9-5-12 Mobile Home Park LPG, Heating Fuel $1000 X 9-5-13 Mobile Home Park Littering, Fire Protection $1000 X 9-5-14 Mobile Home Park Alterations $1000 X 9-5-15 Mobile Home Park At large Animals $100 X PUBLIC PROPERTY/ROW 11-1-5 Skateboards, Skates, Roller Blades; Yield ROW $50 X 11-1-8 Parade Permit $100 X 11-3-2 Snow and Ice Removal, Placement on Street $75 X 11-3-3 Street/Sidewalks Obstructions, Harmful Substances $100 X 11-3-4 ROW Encroachment $200 X X X 11-3-5 Discharge of Liquids on ROW $100 X 11-4-3 Park Rules $200 X 11-4-4-1 Park Use Permit $400 X 11-5-5 Maintain ROW $200 X X 11-5-8 Prohibited Trees, Tree Mutilation $200 X X 11-6-1 Parking/Storage $200 X 11-6-2 Parking/Storage in Residential District $200 X 11-7-4 ROW License, Permit $200 X 11-7-9 Expired ROW Performance Bond $500 X X 11-7-10 ROW Work Performance Warranty/Guarantee $500 X X 11-7-12 ROW Public Safety $500 X X 11-7-14 ROW Traffic Control Plan $200 X 11-7-15 ROW Work Specifications $400 X 11-7-16 ROW Excavation Coordination $300 X 11-7-17 Minimize Impacts of ROW Work $500 X 11-7-18 Repair Sidewalk, Restore ROW $500 X X X 11-7-19 Potholing, Excavation on New Construction Streets $2000 X 11-7-20 Timely RelocatIon of ROW Facilities $200 X Page 159 of 273 EMC Offense Fine Viol Bureau Sum/Must Appear Bond/PR Fix It Ticket Victim Notice 11-7-21 Abandonment/Removal ROW Facilities $2000 X X 11-7-22 Emergency Repair ROW Damage $200 X X 11-7-25 2020 Design, Construction Standards, Specifications $500 X X X 11-7-26 ROW Newsrack Requirements $200 X X 11-7-27 ROW Newsrack Permit $300 X X 11-7-29 Newsrack Placement $300 X X 11-7-30 Newsracks Displays $300 X 11-7-32 City Use of ROW Facility, Improper Removal $1000 X X WATER/WASTEWATER 12-1-4 Connection to Water System by Unlicensed Person $1000 X 12-1-5 Pollution of Water Supply $2000 X X 12-1-6 Recreation Activities Prohibited, City Water Supply $300 X 12-1A-1 Water Use License $500 X X 12-1A-7 Wasting Water $200 X 12-1A-10 Protect Water Pipes, Fixtures from Freezing $200 X 12-1A-11 Access for Inspection, Meter Reading $300 X 12-1A-12 Cross-Connection Control $500 X X 12-1B-1 Permit, Notice for Water Connection $500 X X 12-1B-2 Tapping or Cutting Off Water Mains $1000 X X 12-1B-6 Curb Stops $500 X 12-1B-7 Shared Water Service Connection $500 X X 12-1B-9 Street Cut Permit $1000 X X 12-1B-10 Connections to Fire Hydrants $1000 X 12-2-2 Wastewater Discharge/Disposal, Trespass/Interfere with Wastewater Facilities, Sewer Connection $2000 X X 12-2-4 Private Sewers, Connections and Repairs $1,000/da y X X 12-2-5 Industrial Pretreatment Program, Unlawful Discharge $1,000/da y X X 12-5-9 Discharge into Storm Drainage System $500/day X X NUISANCE 15-2-1 Nuisance $200 X X 15-2-1(D) Water Contamination Nuisance $1000 X X 15-6-1 Weeds and Grass Exceeding 6 Inches $200 X 15-7-1 Trash, Posters, Grass on ROW/Public Property $200 X 15-7-2(A) Residential Outdoor Junk Storage $200 X 15-7-2(B) Residential Salvage, Storage Facility $500 X 15-7-3(A- E),(G) Trash Nuisance, Trash Container Placement $200 X 15-7-3(F) Trash Hauling License $200 X 15-7-4 Outdoor Residential Storage $200 X 15-8-1 Scavenging of Recyclable Material $200 X X 15-9-1 Inoperable Motor Vehicles $75 X X 15-9-2 Vehicles: Off-Road (ORV) and Trailer Parking $75 X 15-10-1 Nuisance Abandoned Refrigerator $75 X X 15-11-1 Nuisance Animals $200 X 15-12-1 Nuisance Cesspools, Privies $200 X 15-13- 1(A,B) Water Nuisances $200 X 15-13- 1(C) Water Nuisances, Business Polluting Water Supply $2,000 X X 15-14-1 Noise Nuisance $200 X 15-15-1 Defaced Property, Graffiti $500 X X 15-16-2 Garage Sales $100 X 15-16-3 Garage Sale Signage $50 X Anything not listed (excluding MTC) $200 X Page 160 of 273 Colorado State Patrol Title 42 Related Laws and Common Codes STATUTE 2020 CHARGE CLS Comm. Code Fine + S.C. PT Safety Zone Commercial Vehicle Fine Code Fine 3 CSP 13 (Revised 02/2022) Auto Theft – Abandoned Vehicles 42-5-106 (Dealer/Garage Proprietor/Agent) Failed to Notify Police of (Altered VIN/ Discrepancy Between VIN and Registration Certificate) PO P8B SUM 0 42-5-109 Failed to Submit Report of Stored Motor Vehicle CI M8J 100+9 0 42-5-111 (Transported/Towed/Hauled) (Motor Vehicle/Parts) Without Proper Authorization CI M8K 100+9 0 42-6-136 Failed to Surrender Title of Motor Vehicle Upon (Destruction/Dismantling/Changing/Sale/Disposal as Salvage) PO P8C SUM 0 42-6-143 (Altered/Forged) Certificate of Title F6 F8J NIBR 0 42-4-2202 (1) Unlicensed Person Violated Restrictions on (Purchasing/ Receiving) a Motor Vehicle for Scrap PO RMV SUM 0 42-4-2202 (2) Unlicensed Person Violated Restrictions on Scrapping a Motor Vehicle PO SMV SUM 0 Bicycles/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter 42-4-1412 (3) MTC 1412 (3) Unlawful Number of Persons on Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (4) MTC 1412 (4) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Attached Himself to Motor Vehicle MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (5) MTC 1412 (5) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Ride in Right-hand Lane as Required MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (5) MTC 1412 (5) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Ride on Right Side of Lane When Being Overtaken MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (5) MTC 1412 (5) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Ride on Suitable Paved Shoulder MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (6)(a) MTC 1412 (6)(a) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Ride Single File When Required MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (6)(b) MTC 1412 (6)(b) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Ride in Single Lane When Riding Two Abreast MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (7) MTC 1412 (7) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Keep at Least One Hand on Handlebars MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (8)(a) MTC 1412 (8)(a) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Made Improper Left Turn MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (8)(b) MTC 1412 (8)(b) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Intending to Turn Left Disregarded Official Traffic Control Device MT2 924 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (9) MTC 1412 (9) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider Failed to Signal Intention to (Turn/Stop) MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 42-4-1412 (10)(a) MTC 1412 (10)(a) Bicycle/Electrical Assisted Bicycle/Electric Scooter Rider on (Sidewalk/ Roadway/Crosswalk/Pathway) Failed to Yield Right of Way to Pedestrian MT2 925 15+7 0 30 + 13 Page 161 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 1 of 10 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS A summary of the most frequently used filing fees, surcharges, and costs in: County Court District Court  Civil  Civil  Small Claims  Domestic Relations  Criminal  Probate Water Court  Juvenile Court of Appeals  Criminal Supreme Court Miscellaneous Fees No Fees Charged Colorado Judicial Branch Office of the State Court Administrator 1300 Broadway #1200 Denver, CO 80203 This information is designed to provide members of the public, members of the bar, and court personnel with the most current filing fees, surcharges, and cost information for the Colorado State Courts. Only the most frequently used fees, surcharges, and costs are indicated. All fees, surcharges, and costs include the appropriate statutory reference and applicable taxes and special fees. All fees, surcharges and costs are current as of July 1, 2013. If you have questions, please direct them first to the appropriate Clerk of Court in your county. You may also call Court Business Services of the State Court Administrator’s Office at 720-625-5610 for assistance. We hope this information is helpful to you. Please note: This document is revised whenever significant changes occur. Your comments are welcome. Page 162 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 2 of 10 COUNTY COURT – CIVIL FEES (JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT OF $15,000.00 OR LESS) Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Plaintiff, Petitioner 13-32-101(1)(c)(lII)(A) $97.00 2. Third Party Plaintiff, Intervenor, Party filing answer with cross claim or counter claim 13-32-101(1)(c)(IlI)(A) $96.00 3. Defendant, Respondent, Third Party Defendant, other party (not filing cross claim or counter claim) 13-32-101(1)(c)(lII)(B) $92.00 4. Defendant filing Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Complaint 13-32-103(2) $55.00 5. Petition to change name 13-32-101(1)(c)(lII)(A) $100.002 6. Rule 369 docket fee; Judgment Creditor 13-32-103(6); Rule 369, CRCP $70.00 7. Foreign judgment 13-53-106 $166.00 8. Civil protection order - 13-14-110 13-32-101(1)(c)(lII)(A) $97.00 9. Jury demand fee 13-71-144 $98.00 SMALL CLAIMS FEES8 (JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT OF $7,500.00 OR LESS) Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Plaintiff: Up to $500.00 $500.01 to $7,500.00 13-32-101(1)(c)(lV)(A) 13-32-101(1)(c)(lV)(C) $31.00 $55.00 2. Defendant (without counterclaim: Up to $500.00 $500.01 to $7,500.00 13-32-101(1)(c)(lV)(B) 13-32-101(1)(c)(lV)(D) $26.00 $41.00 3. Party (with counter claim):  If Plaintiff’s claim is $500.00 or less and counterclaim is $500.00 or less.  If Plaintiff’s claim is more than $500.00 or counterclaim is more than $500.00 and is not more than $7,500.00. 13-32-101(1)(c)(IV)(E) 13-32-101(1)(c)(IV)(F) $31.00 $46.00 4. Rule 369 docket fee; Judgment Creditor 13-32-103(6); Rule 369, CRCP $70.00 Page 163 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 3 of 10 COUNTY COURT – CRIMINAL FEES AND SURCHARGES Category CRS Reference Fee 1. Defendant upon conviction (other than infractions) 13-32-105 $21.00 $5.00 $26.00 2. Defendant upon conviction (infractions) 42-4-1710(4) $19.00 $5.00 $24.00 3. Appeal from Municipal Court (not of record) 13-10-116(1) & 13-32-103(1) $70.00 4. Probation supervision fee Misdemeanor, petty offense, traffic 18-1.3-204(2)(a)(V) $50.00 per month 5. Jury demand fee; petty offense 16-10-109(2) $25.00 6. Deferred Judgment/Sentence 13-32-105 & 18-1.3-102 $21.00 $5.00 $26.00 7. Victim’s compensation cost  Misdemeanors  Class 1 Misdemeanor Traffic Offense  Class 2 Misdemeanor Traffic Offense  Alcohol/drug offenses  Deferred Judgment/Sentence 24-4.1-119(1)(a) 24-4.1-119(1)(a) 24-4.1-119(1)(a) 24-4.1-119(1)(c) 24-4.1-119(1)(a)(c) Offenses prior to 7.1.07 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $25.00 Applicable amount Offenses on or after 7.1.07 $78.00 $46.00 $33.00 $33.00 Applicable amount 8. Alcohol/drug related traffic offenses  LEAF (Law Enforcement Assistance Fund)  Alcohol/drug evaluation cost  Persistent drunk driver surcharge 43-4-402(1) 42-4-1301.3 42-4-1307(10)(b) $90.00 $200.004 $100.00 minimum – $500.00 9. Drug offender surcharge  Class 1 Misdemeanor/Level 1 Drug Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor/ Level 2 Drug Misdemeanor  Class 2 Petty Offense (marijuana)  Surcharge applies to deferred sentences 18-19-103(1)(f) 18-19-103(1)(g) 18-19-103(1)(h) 18-19-103(2) 18-19-103(1), (2) Offenses prior to 8.11.10 $600.00 $450.00 $225.00 $100.00 Applicable Amount Offenses on or after 8.11.10 $1,000.00 $600.00 $300.00 $200.00 Applicable Amount 10. Outstanding judgment/warrant cost 42-2-118(3) & 42-4-1709(7) 30.005 11. Useful public service fee 42-4-1301.4(5) & 18-1.3-507(6) Up to 120.00 12. Victim’s assistance surcharge  Misdemeanors  Class 1 Misdemeanor Traffic Offense  Class 2 Misdemeanor Traffic Offense  County Ordinance 24-4.2-104 & 42-4-1701 30-15-402(2) 37% of fine or applicable minimum or surcharge table6 Offenses prior to 5.1.03 60.00 35.00 25.00 10.00 Offenses between 5.1.03 and 6.30.07 78.00 45.50 32.50 10.00 Offenses on or after 7.1.07 78.00 46.00 33.00 10.00 13. Restitution 18-1.3-603 Varies 14. Time payment fee 16-11-101.6(1) $25.00 15. Late penalty fee 16-11-101.6(1) $10.00 16. Family friendly court surcharge 42-4-1701(4)(a)(VI) $1.00 17. Traumatic brain injury surcharge  Alcohol/Drug Offense  Traffic/Infraction Offense 42-4-1307(10)(c) 42-4-1701(4)(e)(I) – (II) 42-4-109(13)(b) & 42-4-1502(4.5) $20.00 $15.00 18. Offender identification fee 16-11-102.4 and 24-33.5-415.6 $128.00 19. Public defender fee 21-1-103(3) $25.0012 20. Sex offender surcharge  Class 1 Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor 18-21-103(1)(f) 18-21-103(1)(g) 18-21-103(1)(h) $400.00 $300.00 $150.00 21. Child abuse investigation surcharge  Class 1 Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor 18-24-102(2)(f) 18-24-102(2)(g) 18-24-102(2)(h) $200.00 $150.00 $75.00 22. Adolescent substance abuse surcharge 18-13-122(2)(b)(IV) $25.00 23. Victim address confidentially surcharge 18-6-801 & 18-9-111 $28.00 24. Genetic Testing Surcharge 24-33.5-415.6 $2.50 25. Rural Alcohol & Substance Abuse Surcharge 42-4-1307(10)(d)(I) & 42-4-1701(4)(f) $1.00 – $10.00 Page 164 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 4 of 10 DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL FEES Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Plaintiff, Petitioner, Administrative Hearings 13-32-101(1)(d) CRCP 106(a)(4)(II) $224.00 2. Intervenor (adds new party) Rule 24(c), CRCP 13-32-101(1)(d) $223.00 3. Defendant, Respondent (not filing a cross or counter claim - Answer Only) 13-32-101(1)(f) $158.00 4. Third Party Plaintiff 13-32-101(1)(d) $223.00 5. Defendant, Respondent filing a cross or counterclaim or both and an answer fee previously paid 13-32-101(1)(d) 13-32-101(1)(f) $223.00 6. Defendant filing an answer and a cross or counterclaim or both 13-32-101(1)(d) 13-32-101(1)(f) $376.00 7. Defendant filing an answer and also filing third party complaint but not filing cross or counter claim 13-32-101(1)(d) 13-32-101(1)(f) $376.00 8. Defendant filing an answer and a cross or counter claim and a third party complaint 13-32-101(1)(d) 13-32-101(1)(f) $599.00 9. Rule 69 docket fee; Judgment Creditor 13-32-103(6) $70.00 10. Petitioner under Rule 120, CRCP 13-32-103(3) $224.00 11. Respondent under Rule 120(h) CRCP 13-32-101(1)(d) $158.00 12. Foreign judgment 13-53-106 $166.00 13. Petition to change name 13-15-101; 13-32-101(1)(d) $227.002 14. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to file complaint 13-32-103(2) $55.00 15. Appellant; Appellee Civil Appeals Rule 411 13-32-101(1)(e) 13-32-101(1)(f) $163.00 $158.00 16. Appeal from County or Municipal Court of Record 13-32-103(1); Criminal Rule 37 $70.00 17. Petition to seal criminal record 24-72-308 $224.00 18. Petition to seal criminal conviction 24-72-308.6 – For controlled substance convictions entered on or after July 1, 2011, or felony drug offenses occurring on or after October 1, 2013. 24-72-308.6(4)(b) – For controlled substance convictions entered prior to July 1, 2011. 24-72-308.9 – For petty and municipal offenses (not related to controlled substances) $224.00 $424.00 $424.00 19. Jury demand fee Note: Does not apply for a jury demand pursuant to §38-1-106, C.R.S. 13-71-144 $190.00 20. Additional fee against Judgment Debtors:  Over $ 5,000, not more than $10,000  Over $10,000, not more than $20,000  Over $20,000, not more than $30,000  Over $30,000, not more than $50,000  Over $50,000 13-32-101(4)(b) $10.00 $30.00 $50.00 $90.00 $90.00 + $2.00 for each $1,000 over $50,000 Page 165 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 5 of 10 DISTRICT COURT – DOMESTIC RELATIONS FEES Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union 13-32-101(1)(a) $230.00 2. Petition for Legal Separation, Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage or Civil Union 13-32-101(1)(a) $230.00 3. Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities 14-10-123 13-32-101(1)(a) $222.00 4. Petitioner - Declaratory Judgment 13-32-101(1)(a) $230.00 5. Petition to Prevent Removal of Child 13-32-101(1)(d) 14-13.5-106 $224.00 6. Intervenor (adds new party) Rule 24(c), CRCP 13-32-101(1)(d); $223.00 7. Response 13-32-101(1)(b) $116.00 8. Foreign Decree/Judgment 14-11-101; 13-53-106 $166.00 9. Registration:  Child- Custody Determination  Expedited Child-Custody Determination  Enforcement Child-Custody  Support Order 13-53-106 14-13-305 14-13-308 14-13-111 14-5-601 $166.00 10. Motion to modify, amend or alter decree or order (more than 60 days after decree entered) 13-32-101(2) $105.00 11. Motion to modify final or permanent order concerning parentage with DNA results 14-10-122 13-32-101(8) $70.00 DISTRICT COURT – PROBATE FEES Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. 1st filings including, excluding Small Estate:  Decedent’s Estate (Formal & Informal)  Guardianship  Conservatorship  Personal Injury Settlement  Petition to Accept Transfer 13-32-102(1)(b) $164.00 2. Small estate 13-32-102(1)(a) $ 68.00 3. Additional fee for supervised administration (except contested claims) 13-32-102(1)(c) $163.00 4. Petition for Allowance of Claim/Contested Claim 13-32-102(1)(d) $163.00 5. Trust Registration Statement 13-32-102(1)(e) $163.00 6. Petition for Trust Action 13-32-102(1)(f) $164.00 7. Registration of Foreign Guardianship and/or Conservatorship 15-14.5-401 15-14.5-402 13-53-106 $166.00 Page 166 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 6 of 10 8. Deposit of W ill 13-32-102(1)(h); 15-11-515 $15.00 9. Demand for Notice 13-32-102(1)(g); 15-12-204 $30.00 10. Public Administrator Statement  Less than $500.00  $500.00 but less than $2,000.00  $2,000.00 or more 15-12-623(1)(a) and 13-1-204 $0.00 $15.00 $95.00 11. Jury demand fee 13-71-144 $190.00 DISTRICT COURT – JUVENILE CIVIL FEES Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Adoption Petition 13-32-101(1)(g) $167.00 2. Action under Uniform Parentage Act 19-4-101 and 13-32-101(1)(d) $227.00 3. Juvenile Party Response 13-32-101(1)(d) $158.00 4. Petition to change name 13-15-101; 13-32-101(1)(d) $227.002 5. Intervenor (Adds new party) Rule 24(c), CRCP 13-32-101(1)(d) $223.00 6. Motion to modify final or permanent order concerning parentage with DNA results 19-4-107.3 and 13-32-101(8) $70.00 DISTRICT COURT – JUVENILE FEES Category CRS Reference Fee 1. Victim’s Compensation Cost  Felonies  Misdemeanors 24-4.1-119(1)(d) 24-4.1-119(1)(d) ----- ----- Offenses prior to 7.1.07 $125.00 $60.00 Offenses on or after 7.1.07 $163.00 $78.00 2. Victim’s assistance surcharge  Felonies  Misdemeanors 24-4.2-104 37% of fine or applicable minimum Offenses prior to 5.1.03 $125.00 $60.00 Offenses between 5.1.03 and 6.30.07 $162.50 $78.00 Offenses on or after 7.1.07 $163.00 $78.00 3. Restitution 19-2-918 ---- ---- Varies 4. Sex offender surcharge  Class 2 Felony  Class 3 Felony  Class 4 Felony  Class 5 Felony  Class 6 Felony  Class 1 Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor 18-21-103 and 19-2-907(6) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $375.00 $250.00 $200.00 $150.00 $75.00 5. Offender identification fee 19-2-925.6 and 18-1.3-407 and 24-33.5-415.6 ----- ----- $128.00 6. Time payment fee 16-11-101.6(1) ----- ----- $25.00 7. Late penalty fee 16-11-101.6(1) ----- ----- $10.00 8. Public defender fee 21-1-103(3) ----- ----- $25.0012 9. Cost of care 19-2-114 ----- ----- $1,861.00 annually Page 167 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 7 of 10 DISTRICT COURT – CRIMINAL FEES Category CRS Reference Fee 1. Defendant upon conviction 13-32-105 $35.00 $5.00 $40.00 2. Probation supervision fee; Felony, Misdemeanor or Petty offenses 18-1.3-204(2)(a)(V) $50.00 per month 3. Victim’s compensation cost  Felonies  Misdemeanors 24-4.1-119(1)(a) 24-4.1-119(1)(a) Offenses prior to 7.1.07 $125.00 60.00 Offenses on or after 7.1.07 $163.00 78.00 4. Victim’s assistance surcharge  Felonies  Misdemeanors 24-4.2-104 37% of fine or applicable minimum Offenses prior to 5.1.03 $125.00 $60.00 Offenses between 5.1.03 and 6.30.07 $162.50 $78.00 Offenses on or after 7.1.07 $163.00 $78.00 5. Restitution 18-1.3-603 Varies 6. Drug offender surcharge:  Class 2 Felony/Level 1 Drug Felony  Class 3 Felony/Level 2 Drug Felony  Class 4 Felony/Level 3 Drug Felony  Class 5 Felony/Level 4 Drug Felony  Class 6 Felony  Class 1 Misdemeanor/Level 1 Drug Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor/Level 2 Drug Misdemeanor  Class 2 Petty Offense (marijuana)  Surcharge applies to deferred sentences 18-19-103(1)(a) 18-19-103(1)(b) 18-19-103(1)(c) 18-19-103(1)(d) 18-19-103(1)(e) 18-19-103(1)(f) 18-19-103(1)(g) 18-19-103(1)(h) 18-19-103(2) 18-19-103(1)(2) Offenses prior to 8.11.10 $4,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,125.00 $750.00 $600.00 $450.00 $225.00 $100.00 Applicable Amount Offenses on or after 8.11.10 $4,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $300.00 $200.00 Applicable Amount 7. Special advocate surcharge Applies to: 18-3-305; 18-3-402 – 405; 18-3-405.3; 18-3-405.5; 18-6-301 – 302; 18-6-402 - 404; 18-7-302; 18-7-402; 18-7-405; 18-7-405.5; 18-7-406 24-4.2-104(1)(a)(ll) Offenses prior to 5.1.03 $1000.00 Offenses on or after 5.1.03 $1300.00 8. Sex offender surcharge  Class 2 Felony  Class 3 Felony  Class 4 Felony  Class 5 Felony  Class 6 Felony  Class 1 Misdemeanor  Class 2 Misdemeanor  Class 3 Misdemeanor 18-21-103(1)(a) 18-21-103(1)(b) 18-21-103(1)(c) 18-21-103(1)(d) 18-21-103(1)(e) 18-21-103(1)(f) 18-21-103(1)(g) 18-21-103(1)(h) $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $750.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 $150.00 9. Child abuse investigation surcharge  Class 2 Felony  Class 3 Felony  Class 4 Felony  Class 5 Felony  Class 6 Felony 18-24-102(2)(a) 18-24-102(2)(b) 18-24-102(2)(c) 18-24-102(2)(d) 18-24-102(2)(e) $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $375.00 $250.00 10. Youthful offender surcharge 18-22-103 100% of fine imposed 11. Useful public service fee 18-1.3-507(6) Up to $120.00 12. Time payment fee 16-11-101.6(1) $25.00 13. Late penalty fee 16-11-101.6(1) $10.00 14. Offender identification fee 16-11-102.4 & 24-33.5-415.6 $128.00 15. Standardized offender assessment  Screening only (SSI)  Full assessment (SSI, ASUS, LSI) 18-1.3-209 $45.00 $75.00 16. Public defender fee 21-1-103(3) $25.0012 17. Cost of care 18-1.3-701 $1,594.00 annually 9 18. Cost of prosecution 18-1.3-701 Varies 19. Victim address confidentially surcharge 18-6-801 & 18-9-111 $28.00 20. Genetic Testing Surcharge 24-33.5-415.6 $2.50 21. Rural Alcohol & Substance Abuse Surcharge 18-19-103.5 $1.00 – $10.00 Page 168 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 8 of 10 DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURT MISCELLANEOUS FEES Category CRS or other Reference Total Fee 1. Issuing and docketing an execution 13-32-104(1)(b) $45.00 2. Certificate of Dismissal or no suit pending 13-32-104(1)(c) $20.00 3. Certificate of Satisfaction of Judgment 13-32-104(1)(d) $20.00 4. Certifying a copy of any record, proceeding, or paper on file 13-32-104(1)(f) $20.00 5. Preparing and issuing Transcript of Judgment 13-32-104(1)(g) $25.00 6. Certificate of Exemplification of any record, proceeding, or paper on file 13-32-104(1)(h) $20.00 7. Writ of Garnishment 13-32-104(1)(j) $45.00 8. Writ of Attachment 13-32-104(1)(k) $65.00 9. Returned check “insufficient funds” 13-32-104(2) $50.00 10. Copies of documents – Filed with the Court 13-32-104(1)(a) .75 per page or $1.50 if double-sided 11. Copies of documents – Not filed with the Court, i.e. Coin-op machine Judicial Department Fiscal Rules .25 per page or .50 if double sided 12. Fax Fee Judicial Department Fiscal Rules $1.00 per page for pleadings and motions 13. Forms and Form Packets Protection Order forms and packets shall be free per §13-14-102, C.R.S. Judicial Department Fiscal Rules $.75 per page or $1.50 if double-sided. Packets not to exceed $25.00 14. Scanning Fee Applicable where E-filing is Mandatory Judicial Department Fiscal Rules $50.00 per document per CRCP 121 & CJD 11-01 15. Tape or CD Transcript Duplication Judicial Department Fiscal Rules $35.00 per duplication 16. Search/Retrieval Fee Chief Justice Directive (CJD) 06-01 Charges assessed per the CJD DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURT NO FEES CHARGED Category CRS or other Reference 1. Mental health proceedings. 13-32-101(2) 2. Alcohol commitment. 25-1-311 3. Filing a disclaimer. 13-32-101(1)(e) 4. Acknowledgment of service for purpose of conferring jurisdiction. 13-32-101(1)(e) 5. Answer or appearance by a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or court-appointed attorney. 13-32-101(1)(e) 6. Action filed by the State of Colorado, or any agencies of the State such as the Industrial Commission, or Department of Social Services, and any county, city, or other governmental subdivision of the State. Chief Justice Directive 06-01 7. Certified copy of public record required by the Veteran’s Administration to determine eligibility for benefits. 28-5-217 8. Workers’ compensation cases. 8-43-314 9. Proceedings concerning dependent or neglected children, relinquishment, or delinquency. 13-32-101(3)(c) 10. Parent or child files for a court review of an order by the Board of Education. ----- 11. Delegate child support enforcement units. 13-32-113 Page 169 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 9 of 10 COURT OF APPEALS Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Appellant/Petitioner 13-4-112 $223.00 2. Appellee/Respondent 13-4-112 $148.00 SUPREME COURT Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Appeals Appellant/Petitioner 13-2-113 $150.00 2. Appellee/Respondent 13-2-113 $75.00 3. Cross Appellant 13-2-113 $150.00 4. Additional parties entering appearance by an attorney not of record:  Appellants  Appellees 13-2-113 $150.00 $75.00 5. Certiorari  Petitioner  Respondent C.A.R. 51(b) C.A.R. 51(d) $225.00 $115.00 6. Original Actions (Proceedings) Petitioner (writs under Constitution) C.A.R. 21 (c) $225.00 WATER COURT7 Category CRS Reference Total Filing Fee 1. Application, Complaint, Petition, or any other pleading initiating a water matter 37-92-302(1)(d) $224.00 2. Intervenor – treated as an applicant and charged an additional fee. If simply protecting an interest, treated the same as a respondent in a civil case. 13-32-101(1)(d) and Judicial interpretation $223.00 $158.00 3. Application for Change of Water Right or Plan for Augmentation 37-92-302(1)(d) $447.00 (Double filing fee) 4. Publication costs 37-92-302(3)(a) Actual costs 5. Statement of Opposition 37-92-302(1)(d) $158.00 6. Pleading in protest or support of referee’s ruling (exempt from fee if already a party) 37-92-304(2) $158.00 7. Protest to abandonment list 37-92-401(5) $45.00 8. Appeal Fee for Division 1 Only Appeal of a decision made by the State Engineer concerning  Proponent of the Substitute water Supply Plan  Any other party to the Appeal 37-92-308(3)(e) $271.00 $70.00 9. Rule 69 docket fee; Judgment Creditor 13-32-103(6); Rule 69, CRCP $70.00 10. Copy of decree (per page) 37-92-304(8); 37-92-402(8) $.75 Page 170 of 273 JDF 1 R7/15 FILING FEES, SURCHARGES, AND COSTS IN COLORADO STATE COURTS Page 10 of 10 FOOTNOTES: 1 Statutory revision tax (§2-5-119, C.R.S.) - $1.00 2 Vital statistics tax (§25-2-107(2), C.R.S.) - $3.00. 3 Displaced Homemaker Fund Fee (§14-10-120.5, C.R.S.) - $5.00 4 May be waived if non-resident. 5 May be assessed as many times as there are new judgments/warrants. 6 Must impose minimum under §24-4.2-104(1)(a), C.R.S. or 37%, whichever is larger. 7 No fee or tax shall be assessed to the State of Colorado or any agency of its executive department under §37-92-302(1)(d), C.R.S. and §37-92-304(22), C.R.S. For any water court fees and costs not specified, refer to the District Court Civil Schedule. 8 The Clerk of the Small Claims Court shall collect , in advance, the fee of the actual charge for each service of process attempted by certified mail. 10 The $97.00 filing fee is assessed, except when the Petitioner is seeking a Protection Order for domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault or unlawful sexual contact. The filing fee and service fees can be assessed to the Restrained Party at the Permanent Orders Hearing. 9 Total cost of care that can be assessed ($1,594.00) less any supervision fees ordered. 11 Includes $5.00 for the Domestic Abuse Program Fund and $5.00 for the Family Violence Justice Fund (§13-32- 101(5)(a)(IX) d (x) 12 Assessed at the final disposition of the case on applications submitted on or after 8.4.04. Page 171 of 273 Page 172 of 273 Page 173 of 273 Page 174 of 273 Page 175 of 273 Page 176 of 273 Page 177 of 273 Page 178 of 273 Page 179 of 273 Page 180 of 273 Page 181 of 273 Page 182 of 273 Page 183 of 273 Page 184 of 273 Page 185 of 273 Page 186 of 273 Page 187 of 273 Page 188 of 273 Page 189 of 273 Page 190 of 273 Page 191 of 273 Page 192 of 273 Page 193 of 273 Page 194 of 273 Page 195 of 273 Page 196 of 273 Page 197 of 273 Page 198 of 273 Page 199 of 273 Page 200 of 273 Page 201 of 273 Page 202 of 273 Page 203 of 273 Page 204 of 273 Page 205 of 273 Page 206 of 273 Page 207 of 273 Page 208 of 273 Page 209 of 273 Page 210 of 273 Page 211 of 273 Englqmggg Council Communication To:Honorable Mayor and Council From:Kennetha Julien,Court Administrator Dept:Municipal Court Date:October 2,2024 Re:CB—17-Amendment to Municipal Code regarding maximum penalties to align with state law This is a communication to update and summarize our feedback on this Council Bill,suggest some delay in implementation for more efficient implementation oftraffic fines administration and advisements,provide some information on unanswered Council questions,and to inform you Judge Jefferson and I will be attending the Council Meeting scheduled for Menday,October 7,2024,to answer any remaining questions City Council Members may have on this issue.This is an update to Court feedback on this matter that was previously relayed in our email communications to City Attorney Niles and summarized in the Council Communications for first reading of this Council Bill back on September 16,2024. We reiterate that the Court does not “oppose”the ultimate policy question being answered by Council about the community’s decision on the maximum possible punishment for any given offense.However, we still do have substantial feedback about impacts to our Court for Council’s consideration. We also reiterate that creating a few broad categories of municipal offenses and clarifying the maximum punishmentsfor eachcategory inour localCode may be moreefficient andunderstandable some lower and exclusively local chargeslikeOpen LiquorIn Public willstill be subjectto max penalties I of 360 days in jail and fine of $2,650 that will be higher than the max for the highest charge we hear, Assault. Our remaining concerns after working diligently on this to prepare for implementation surround traffic fines.This includes potential confusion on the max fines,including more difficult advisements to our pro as defendants about the maximum possible fine as required by law.This will require substantial changes to our video advisements,forms and court procedures.We also have concerns regarding the difficulty in administering this new policy on fines for traffic matters given the substantial adjustment to the fine schedule that may need to be implemented based on each and every individual charge,rather than by groups (by number of driver’s license points as our Court has historically done in an effort to simply this process).We have investigated with our IT department the logistics of reprograming our case management software from our outside vendor accordingly but we may need to implement some temporary solutions before getting to the ideal administration and advisement logistics. We wo?uvldisuggestsome moretimefor implementation,rather than theggndard 30 days,towensurean 7 efficient administrationprocess;perhaps to January 1,2025.We anticipate being able to complywith any new ordinances at this time with or without some temporarysolutions. Page 212 of 273 Finally,I have attached some information in relation to remaining unanswered questions raised by Council on this topic that may be helpful.The items include: CML Newsletter:Legal Corner dated February 9,2024 City of Rifle Ordinance dated December 2023 Denver Post Article from September 23,2024 City of Longmont Appellee Brief dated May 6,2024 Supreme Court Case:People v Wade,1988 Supreme Court Case:City of Aurora v.Martin,1973 We look forward to our discussions and seeing you all on Monday evening.Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or concerns. Page 213 of 273 ++++++++++l‘n2'4:>l"'—n0:0ZI11:0 ++++¢++++++++++++ o+++++++¢+¢§+++++ +++++++++++¢+++++ 4mm»++++++++++++++++ Legal challenges to municipal penalties By Rachel Bender, CML senior associate counsel In Nov.2023,the Colorado Supreme Court granted a Petition for Relief filed by defendants seeking direct relief from a municipal court ruling in the home rule City of Rifle (Mob/ey v.City of Rifle, 2023SA289).In brief.the defendants sought to invalidate Rifle’s municipal penalty for low level theft ——a penalty that exceeded the state penalty for substantially the same crime. While this case was short-lived because Rifle elected to amend its ordinance to bring its penalty in line with the state penalty,other municipalities should take heed of the legal challenges.It is only a matter oftime before more municipal» ities see similar challenges regarding municipal penalties that exceed state penalties for the same crime. WHY IS THIS ISSUE ARISING NOW? In 2021,the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 21«271~—a sweeping bipartisan bill to restructure the state‘s misdemeanor laws including adjust-i ing the offense level and associated punishment for many criminal offenses. The bill went into effect March 1,2022. This legislation did not expressly or impliedly preempt municipal penalties that exceed state penalties for the same offense,nor was there a clear expres— sion of intent to do so. 8821-271 had the effect of creating a new disparity between municipal and state penalties.Although 5821—271 did not alter the longstanding cap on municipal penalties in C.R.S.§31~16~101, historically,this statutory cap has large— ly followed the dividing line between misdemeanor and felony penalties. While some municipalities adjusted their February 9,2024 penalties in response to 8821-271,many did not,whether unintentionally or as a local policy choice. LEGAL CHALLENGES IN THE RIFLE CASE In the Rifle case,the defendants raised two arguments m (1)that the issue before the court is a matter of mixed state and local concern and the state’s laws preempted the home rule city’s ordi- nance,and (2)that Rifle’s greater penalty violates equal protection in the Colorado Constitution.Below is a quick overview of these two issues and some starting considerations for municipalities who may have to address these arguments. On the first argument,it an issue is a matter of local concern,local law supersedes state law but the reverse is true if an issue is a matter of mixed or state concern.Courts look to several factors to determine this issue (see City at County of Denver v.State,788 P.2d 764 (Colo.1990),for the identifi» cation of these factors by the Colorado Supreme Court)but have not addressed the narrow issue of whether municipal ordinance penalties are a local concern. Among the legal support for such a finding is Art.XX,Sec.6(h)of the Colo— rado Constitution,which provides that home rule municipalities have control over ”[t]he imposition,enforcement and collection of fines and penalties forthe violation of any of the provisions of the charter,or of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter."Some courts have expressed support for municipal control of such penalties even when they vary from similar state offenses. On the second legal issue,the defen~ dant argued that different possible sentences for essentially the same ++*+ +++++++++¢ crime violates equal protection under the Colorado Constitution depending on whether the defendant was charged in municipal or state court.Dispa- rate sentencing arises for a variety of reasons m different local versus state versus federal laws;different courts; different judges;different prosecutors and defense attorneys;and different policies and rules across the state.Each ofthese factors,among others,impact a person’s sentence.Colorado’s courts have yet to examine this question. WHAT NEXT? Although only a couple municipali» ties have been subject to these legal challenges so far,more are likely to come.especially in the absence of a ruling from an appellate court.Some municipalities may wish to conform their municipal penalties to state law to avoid litigating the legal challenge.as in Rifle.Others may wish to examine their municipal ordinances to determine if a distinct local regulation of conduct is appropriate.Municipalities with different local penalties might consider estab« lishing a local charging policy to ensure consistent treatment of violators in the jurisdiction by charging each violator the same way or,alternatively,identify bases for charging violators under state law versus local law. If your municipality finds itself facing these claims,please reach out to me at rbenderz'cucrnlorg;CML is always willing to collaborate with our members and help connect you with other municipa|i~ ties facing the same issues. This column is not intended and should not be taken as legal advice.Municipal officials are always encouraged to consult with their own attorneys. Page 214 of 273 Page 215 of 273 CITY OF RIFLE,COLORADO ORDINANCE NO.26 SERIES OF ZOMTE FILED:December 12,2023 9:19 AM FILING ID:D492581EA5873 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY on MEEEWEEMENDING CHAPTER1,ARTICLEIMND CHAPIER103ARTICLESI AND IYQETHE RIFLEMUNICIPAL CODETO CONFORMENALTXLROVISIOMWITIi STATELAW;AND DECLARINGAN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS,the City of Ri?e (“Ri?e”or the “City”)is a home-rulemunicipality organized pursuant to ArticleXX of the Colorado Constitution and with the authority of the Ri?e Home Rule Charter;and WHEREAS Section l—4~20of City of Ri?e MunicipalCode (the “Code”)sets forth the general penalty for violations of the Code;and WHEREAS,Chapter 10 of the Codesets forth the generaloffenses in the City and Section 10~1~40sets forth the penaltiesfor those offenses;and WHEREAS,Section 10~4»10 of the Code sets forth the City’s theft violation that contains a different penalty than the the?‘violation in State law;and WHEREAS,Section 10n4~80of the Code sets forth the City’s criminal mischief violation that contains a different penalty than the violation for similar conduct in State law;and WHEREAS,the City desires to conform the penaltiesin the Code with State law for similar conduct;and WHERAS,althoughthe City believesthat there may be valid legal arguments authorizing disparate penalties,the City does not avail itself to the penalties currently availablein the Code to the extent that they exceedthe penalties in State law for similar conduct,so conforming to State law will not change current City practice;and WHEREAS,given the limited ?scal resourcesof the City,and a desireto protect taxpayer resources,the City Councilbelieves furtherlitigation of disparate municipalpenaltiesis not in the best interests of the citizensof Rifle;and WHEREAS,the City Council ?nds and determines that the following amendmentsto Chapter 1,ArticleIV and Chapter 10,Articles I and IV of the Code are in the best interest of the public health,safety and welfare of the citizens of Ri?e. NOW,THEREFORE,THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE,COLORADO, ORDAINS THAT: 1.The foregoingrecitalsare incorporatedby referenceas ?ndings and determinations of the City Council. EXHIBITA Page 216 of 273 City of Ri?e,Colorado OrdinanceNo.26,Series of 2023 Page 2 of 4 2 Section 14-20 of the Ri?e Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows,with underlined text added: Sec.14-20.-General penalty for violation. (a) (b) 3 . Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Code or any rule or regulation promulgated theretnider,for which a different penalty is not speci?cally provided,shall,upon convictionthereof,be punishedby a ?ne of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00),by incarcerationnot to exceed three hundred sixty~four days,or by both such fine and incarceration,except as hereinafter provided in Section 1—4—30;provided,however,the penalty for any offenses intendedto address similar conduct in the ColoradoRevised Statutes shall be the penalty for any violation of this Code.In addition,such person shall pay all costs and expenses in the case,including attorney fees. Each day such violationcontinues shall be considereda separate offense. Section 10-1-40 of the Ri?e Municipal Code is hereby amendedas follows,with underlinedtext added: Sec.10-1-40.~Penalties. (a) Phloem”.W MMMMMMMMMMMMM 6Class [KW 1B10 (b) (C) (d) All “municipalmisdemeanor offenses are divided into three (3)categories of municipaloffenses.The classi?cationand maximum penalties for each offense are as follows: Maximum Imprisonment[MaximumFine mm"...W”'02,000.00 Three HundredSixty?Four(364)Days ls1,000.00 Six Months [$1,000.00 Ten Days .‘NWwW-u-u—WWWW a.»W... If an offense carriesa specific penalty,that penalty shall apply. Any offense not otherwiseclassi?ed whichdoes not carry a speci?c penalty is denominatedas a Class A municipaloffense. Notwithstanding subsectionsab,and 0 above,the penalty for any offenses intendedto addresssimilarconduct'1n the ColmadoRevisedStatutes shallbe the penaltyfor any violationof this Chapter. EXHIBITA ,..”4-..“..-~W..-H...WWWW W WWMWWwww.m«mmwmw“umm-_.... Page 217 of 273 City of Ri?e,Colorado Ordinance No.26,Series of2023 Page 3 of 4 4.Section 10-4—1003)of the Ri?e MunicipalCode is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Sec.10w4~10.~Theft. 0)) 5. Where the value of the thing is less than three hundred dollars ($300.00),the penalty for this theft,upon conviction,is a line of not more than three hundred dollars ($300),imprisonmentfor not more than ten days,or both.Where the value of the thing is three hundreddollars ($300.00)or more but less than seven hundred and ?fty dollars ($750.00),the penalty for this theft,upon conviction,is a ?ne of not more than seven hundredand ?fty dollars ($750.00),imprisonmentfor not more than 120 days,or both.Where the value of the thing is seven hundredand titty dollars ($750.00)or more but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00),the penalty for this theft is up to 364 days in jail and a ?ne of not more than one thousanddollars ($1,000.00)or both. Section 10~4~80(a)of the Rifle MunicipalCode is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Sec.104—80.-—Criminal Mischief. (a) 6. Any person who knowingly damages real or personalproperty of one (1)or more other persons,including property owned by the person jointly with another person or property owned by the person in which another person has a possessory or proprietary interest,in the course of a single criminal episode where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property where the value of the thing is less than three hundred dollars ($300.00),the penalty for this act,upon conviction,is a ?ne of not more than three hundreddollars($300.00),imprisonmentfor up to ten days, or both.Where the value is three hundred dollars ($300)or more but less than seven hundredand titty dollars ($750.00),the penalty for this act,upon conviction,is a ?ne of not more than seven hundredand ?fty dollars ($750.00),imprisonmentfor not more than 120 days,or both.Where the value of the thing is seven hunchedand ?fty dollars ($750.00)or more but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00),the penaltyfor this act is up to 364 days in jail and a ?ne of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00),or both. City Council has been advised that as a result of pending litigation and its scheduling deadlines,the City Council declaresthat this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservationof publicproperty,health,peace,or safety and an emergency exists.This Ordinance EXHIBITA Page 218 of 273 City of Ri?e,Colorado Ordinance No.26,Series of 2023 Page 4 of 4 shall be effective immediately upon ?nal passage and be published in accordance with applicable Enabling Laws. INTRODUCED,READ,ADOPTED,AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILOFTHE CITY OF RIFLE BY A VOTE OF LL IN FAVOR AND “:1:A?“THIS 6”DAY OF DECEMBER,2023.‘) CI ‘Y 7FRu ,COLORADO By ayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBITA Page 219 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post COLORADOLEGAL SYSTEM Two sentences,same minor crime After 2021 state reforms,municipal courts more punitive Judge Mark Gonzales,as he presides over his courtroom during the morning,docket at Greeley Municipal Court on Wednesday,explains paperwork to a defendant.”Thestate lowered its penalties for misdemeanor and petty offenses in 2021,but the reforms had no impact on municipal courts.PHOTOS BY RI]SANGOSTIm THE DENVERPOST https://enewspaper.denverpost.com/htmI5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892—2815»4049~8d4f—630081a75805 1/10 Page 220 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post Defendants wait outside the courtroom as Gonzales goes down the court docket Wednesday in Greeley.The potential jail sentences for minor crimes in municipal courts are often longer than in state courts. BY SAM TABACHNIKAND SHELLY BRADBURY THE DENVER POST On a cold February day,employees at Diva’s Boutique in downtown Ri?e called police to report a married couple had stolen two $15 mid-cut black shirts from the clothing store. When police arrived,an of?cer marked a black X next to “Ri?e Municipal Court”on a criminal summons,ordering the couple to appear in city court in April 2023 to face charges of theft under $100.The of?cer,though,had a choice.She could have sent the couple directly across the street to Gar?eld County Court on the same charges. The decision to prosecute the crime in municipal court rather than pursue state charges carried enormous consequences. Under state law,the pair faced a maximum of 10 days in jail if convicted in Gar?eld County Court.But they faced the possibility of 180 days in jail if convicted in Ri?e’s municipal court -—a jail sentence 18 times longer. https://enewspaper.denverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892-2815—4049-8d4f—630081a75805 2/10 Page 221 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post Colorado’s city courts -designed as the lowest—levelcourts for the lowestmlevelcrimes —~— have in recent years become far more punitive forums than Colorado’s state courts,with residents facing exponentially more jail time in many municipal courts than they would for the same offenses if they were charged in state court. “There’s a traditional belief that municipal court is less serious than state court,”said Chris Carraway,a staff attorney and professor at the University of Denver.“The reality is that’s not always true anymore.” Sweeping state—levelreforms in 2021 signi?cantly lowered the potential penalties for misdemeanor and petty offenses in Colorado’s state courts,but those reforms didn’t impact municipal courts.As a result,the potential jail sentences for minor crimes in city courts now often far outpace the state’s limits. Some municipalities,like Aurora and Pueblo,beefed up their local ordinances in response to the state reforms,passing mandatory-minimum jail requirements for certain low—level, non—violent offenses that carry little to no jail time in state courts. The potentially longer municipal sentences are drawing increased attention from attorneys m—whohave in recent months filed a cascade of legal challenges aimed at reaching the state Supreme Court ~—and from legislators,who plan to run a bill next year addressing disparate punishment for city crimesA Denver Post analysis of 468 theft and trespassing convictions across 10 of Colorado’s largest:cities found defendants on average served ?ve times more jail time in municipal court -—but that the difference was just a matter of days.On the whole, people spent little time in jail after their convictions on those crimes across both municipal and state courts. Still,civil rights attorneys say the disparities in the potential punishments between municipal and state courts Violate the Colorado Constitution and should not be allowed to continue. ‘ “Equal protection is a right afforded to all Coloradans,”the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado wrote in a brief in the Ri?e theft case.“That constitutional guarantee does not disappear at a city’s borders just because local legislators try to exert harsher punishment for offenses treated more leniently by the state.” Cities,though,say this is a home—rule issue.Colorado’s state constitution gives cities and towns the authority to create,de?ne and regulate municipal courts.Municipalities must be able to enact their own laws to best serve their communities,local leaders say. “(The state)is trying to dumb—downcriminal prosecution,”Ri?e Councilor Brian Condie said in an interview.“One of the purposes of our charter is to protect citizens of our city. How can we do that if our hands are tied?” Sentencing reform https://enewspaper.denverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892-281 5—4049-8d4f—6300812175805 3/10 Page 222 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post Before 2021,Colorado had not systematically reviewed its sentencing laws in 36 years. But as protests erupted in Denver streets and across the country after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police of?cer,the state began what would become a transformative process.In June 2020,Gov.JaredPolis convened a sentencing-reform task force to go line by line through Colorado’s 1,100 misdemeanors. There were numerous goals to the process:Remove outdated statutes that had remained on the books for decades ——-if not more than a century.Consolidate duplicitous offenses.And reassess the gravity of certain offenses to better align with the state’s goals. “Our sentencing scheme should be rational,just and consistent so that the punishment ?ts the conduct,”Polis wrote in a June 2020 letter to the Colorado Commission on Criminal and JuvenileJustice. He instructed the commission to look at the reforms through an anti-bias lens so sentences wouldn’t he disparate depending on a defendant’s race. “Incarceration and detention should be reserved for the most serious cases,and rehabilitation should be our goal in every case,”the governor wrote. The result:a new rubric to determine how much jail time an offender might serve for awide swath of low—leveloffenses. The subsequent bill,SB21u271,reduced the potential jail sentence for petty offenses,such as theft or trespass,from six months in jail to 10 days.Class 2 misdemeanors,such as resisting arrest and criminal mischief,previously punished by up to a year in jail,now carry a maximum 120~day jail sentence. Criminal-justice advocates and lawmakers praised the bill as “long overdue,”calling Colorado’s criminal sentencing laws “outdated and ineffective.”Critics said the approach would make it more dif?cult for police and prosecutors to hold offenders accountable for their crimes. “The legislature has been increasingly offender—friendly,”said George Brauchler,a former prosecutor and the Republican candidate for district attorney in Douglas,Elbert and Lincoln counties.“Every year I’ve said,‘This is the most offender—friendly legislature I’ve seen,’and every year I’ve been proven right.Some reforms I get,but there is an effort here to diminish the amount of punishment that can be doled out for crimes.” But for all the attention surrounding the new law,the reduced jail sentences never applied to Colorado’s more than 200 municipal courts,which are governed independently by each city and are not part of the Colorado JudicialDepartment. This dynamic now makes many city courts a potentially far more punitive forum. https://enewspaper.denverpost.com/html5/reader/prodnotion/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=t785b892-2815—4049-8d4f—630081a75805 4/1 0 Page 223 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post Consider Denver’s municipal code:Retail theft or trespassing are punishable by up to 300 days in jail.In state court,those offenses carry up to 10 days in jail. In Aurora,those same offenses could mean up to 364 days in jail -—more than 36 times the potential sentence in state court. In practice,though,defendants in both courts this year Spent very little time in jail for the low-level crimes of theft and trespass,The Post found. The Post’s review of more than 400 municipal trespassing and theft convictions and sentences across 10 of Colorado’s largest cities and 4,035 such cases in state courts showed defendants served an average of ?ve days in jail after their municipal convictions,compared with an average of one day in jail for such convictions in state courts. In theft cases,municipal defendants served an average of six days in jail,while defendants in county and state courts served an average of three days in jail on theft convictions for goods valued less than $300,and 20 days in jail on thefts of $300 to $1,000. Municipal theft charges vary by city,with somejurisdictions including thefts up to $1,000 and others up to $2,000 in the municipal—level charge,even when the amounts stolen are significantly less. On trespassing convictions,municipal defendants served an average of ?ve days in jail, while state defendants served an average of one day in jail,The Post found. Some city courts stood out:In Pueblo,defendantsconvicted of theft served an average of 23 days in jail;in Denver,trespassers served an average of 15 days.In Fort Collins,Greeley and Thornton,people convicted of theft usually spent no time in jail after their convictions,the data shows.The maximum time a defendant spent in jail on a theft conviction in Greeley was three days. The highest amount of jail time served on a municipal theft conviction was 90 days in Pueblo,the data showed.For municipal trespassing,it was 81 days in Thornton. Aurora has passed several ordinances in the past year imposing mandatory jail sentences for shoplifting,car theft,failure to appear and skipping out on a bill at a restaurant.Now retail thieves in Aurora will spend at least 90 days in jail if they have one prior shoplifting conviction and 180 days in jail if they have two or more convictions. “When people throw off consequences,when they throw off restraint,then we have anarchy,”Aurora City Council member Stephanie Hancock said during a February meeting, referencing the need for more-stringent punishments in the city. Case data provided by Aurora Municipal Court shows that only six people were sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence lengths for motor vehicle theft,failure to appear or theft https:llenewspapendenverpost.com/htmI5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892~2815~4049~8d4f—630081a75805 5/10 Page 224 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post from a restaurant between January and july.Five of those six people had portions of their jail time suspended. In municipal courts,the prosecutors and judges are appointed by the city.In state court, they’re elected positions.City councils,therefore,hold signi?cant sway in what happens in their local courts. And that’s how it should be,Brauchler said.Local residents ought to be able to decide through their local politicians how crime is punished in their communities,whether they live in Denver or on the Western Slope,he said. “That is up to the city.That is up to what those citizens vote for,”he said.“I don’t think it should be the business of the state of Colorado to try to meddle with what the municipalities do.” But defense attorneys said the mere possibility of higher jail sentences can be coercive for municipal court defendants. “You do see people pleading out because they face higher sentences,”said Ashley Cordero, a municipal court defense attorney.“Maybe they wouldn’t if it was a 10-day sentence.” Two municipal judges consulted by The Post for this story said they take the state statutes into account when sentencing defendants ~——-but that it’s just one in a litany of factors they might consider. Of?cers pick the court Police can now heavily in?uence how much jail time a defendant will face for a range of petty crimes by sending an arrestee to municipal or state court ——and that decision is largely left up to the of?cers’discretion. The Denver and Aurora police departments have no speci?c policies that state how an of?cer should decide whether to send a defendant’s case to municipal or state court. The charging decision in Denver is based on the “totality,severity and the circumstances of the call/case,”a spokesperson said.Ultimately,though,“it is reliant on the of?cer’s discretion and facts at the time.” In Aurora,certain offenses,such as juvenile cases,must go to county court.Municipal charges must have a city ordinance violation. “Basically,if it can be charged through municipal,then it is,”said Sydney Edwards,an Aurora police spokesperson. Marc Sears,president of the Aurora Fraternal Order of Police union,acknowledged that Aurora police officers are cognizant of the two different courts when they make an arrest https://enewspapendenverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892—2815—4049—8d4f—630081a75805 6/10 Page 225 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post and said of?cers are encouraged to send people to municipal court because the court generates funds for the city. “You’re encouraged to write things into municipal court,instead of the county court, because who is going to get the money?”he said.“The municipality is going to get the money.That’s the cold hard truth of it.Politically,people will say different things,but they are full of (expletive).” Aurora’s municipal court generated $2.1 million in revenue in 2023,city spokesman Ryan Luby said.City of?cials expected to spend about $13 million on the Court Administration Department in 2023,which includes municipal court case management,court administration and security,probation and detention,according to the city’s budget. Municipal courts across the country collect billions of dollars in ?nes and fees annually,a 2021 Harvard Law Review study found.Colorado’s more than 200 municipal courts collected $106.7 million in ?nes and fees in 2018,the study estimated. “Municipal courts are not the only lower courts that self—fundthrough ?nes and fees:Some state district and county courts are funded by local revenues as well,”the study read.“But municipal courts provide some of the most extreme examples.” Sears denied that of?cers consider the potential jail sentence -—and the potential for a harsher sentence in municipal court mwhen making the decision on whether to send a defendant to municipal court or state court. “To be honest with you,if we took that into consideration we’d never put anyone in jail because any judge,whether it is municipal or county,is letting people back onto the street,” he said. Of?cers do consider whether an arrestee needs particular resources,such as mental health care,that might be available in county court but not in municipal court,he said. Defense attorneys say the signi?cant leverage arresting of?cers hold over defendants’ sentences gives the of?cers “misplaced and concerning”power in the criminal justice system. “Sentences should be regulated by the court and.judge,not a law enforcement of?cer,”said Mackenzie Morris,a defense attorney who worked on the couple’s theft case in Ri?e. Fighting for equal protection Attorneys for the couple accused of stealing the $15 shirts in Ri?e appealed the case to the state Supreme Court,arguing the disparate sentences in state and municipal court for the same crime violated the couple’s constitutional rights. At issue:the equal protection clause. https:llenewspaper.denverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892—281 5—4049—8d4f—6300812175805 7/10 Page 226 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post “For more than 60 years,this court has time and again reaf?rmed that Colorado’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection is violated when two laws prohibit identical conduct but punish that conduct differently,”the ACLU wrote in its brief.“That is exactly the case here.” The most visible aspect of the equal protection violation,the couple’s attorneys argued,is the fact that the Gar?eld County jail houses people sentenced by both Ri?e Municipal Court and Gar?eld County Court. “Thus,defendants from the same county,sentenced for the same conduct,housed in the same jail could be serving signi?cantly different sentences,”the lawyers wrote. The Supreme Court in December dismissed the appeal after Ri?e changed its local ordinances to align with the state’s penalties.The city also dropped the charges against the .couple.Neither received any jail time. The Ri?e case,though,struck a chord with municipal defense attorneys around the state, spurring a movement to more regularly challenge the constitutionality of these disparate sentences. In july,an attorney in Aurora ?led a similar motion for a defendant accused of trespassing. The charge carries a maximum sentence of up to 364 days in jail,while the equivalent state charge would only be up to 10 days. In Longmont,awoman is challenging a 30-day jail sentence for a probation Violation and trespassing that would be limited to 10 days in state court. A Denver individual accused of obstructing the street during a pro—Palestinian rally at the downtown Auraria campus faces a maximum jail punishment 30 times longer in municipal court than if the of?cer had chosen to charge them in state court for identical conduct. The legal analysis,the individual’s attorney argued in court ?lings,is straightforward:The municipal and state ordinances for obstruction are the same.The maximum penalties are vastly different. “It smacks of unfairness,”said Alison Gordon,a municipal court defense attorney.“As defenders,we’re playing whack—a-moleuntil something comes down from a higher court saying this isn’t allowed.” judges,too,are waiting for more guidance. “Appellate decisions are like recipes,”said Michael Goodbee,a municipal judge in Golden and Idaho Springs.“You want me to bake a cake?Tell me what to put in it.Tell me how to mix it.Tell me what I’m supposed to consider so that I don’t have to waste your time by getting it wrong.” https://enewspaper.denverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892—2815-4049-8d4f-630081a75805 8/10 Page 227 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post Cities pushed back on the equal protection argument,saying the Colorado Constitution allows for home rule --meaning municipalities can pass ordinances addressing matters of local concern. The legislature,when passing SB21-271,took no action to modify the powers granted to home—rulemunicipalities under the constitution,Greeley city attorneys noted in a recent court ?ling. “Thus,the present situation arises not from municipalities suddenly seeking to impose harsher penalties for offenses but rather from municipalities continuing on with the unmodi?ed grant of constitutional and statutory authority previously given to them,” Greeley’s attorneys wrote. Ri?e city councilors,responding to the 2023 theft case,said they believed their original municipal code aligned with their local priorities to deter crime. “Our conditions are different than Denver or even Silt,”said Condie,the Ri?e councilor.“As long as we comply with federal and state laws,local control is best.” There are some crimes that wouldn’t be prosecuted at the state level that have immense local concern,said Kathryn Kurtz,Arvada’s presiding city judge.Prosecuting the use of ?reworks,for example,due to west Arvada’s high ?re danger,means much more to this city than it would in other jurisdictions,she said. Potential changes coming Colorado’s municipal courts are enshrined in the state constitution,which gives cities and towns the authority to create,de?ne and regulate municipal courts. The city courts operate with total independence from the Colorado JudicialBranch. About half of the 7,500 city courts in 30 states operate like Colorado’s,with freedom from the state judiciary,according to the Harvard Law Review study. In the other half,municipal courts are legally uni?ed with the state judiciary,the study found.Such city courts may report data about charges,convictions and sentencing to the state court administrator,and some are subject to state supervision. Along with being the most independent type of municipal courts,Colorado’s city courts also carry some of the heaviest potential maximum penalties W.364 days in jail ~—among all municipal courts across the U.S.,according to the 102-page study. In North Dakota,municipal courts can sentence a defendant to no more than 30 days in jail; in New Mexico,90 days in jail.In Texas,municipal courts can penalize crimesonly with ?nes,not with jail time.Across all states,the maximum jail sentences are typically less than six months,the study found. https:llenewspaper.denverpost.com/htmIS/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=t785b892—2815~4049—8d4f—630081a75805 9/10 Page 228 of 273 9/23/24,7:51 AM The Denver Post A handful of states,including Colorado,allow municipal court jail sentences of up to a year. These courts have been long-criticized for “legal sloppiness,punitive harshness and disrespectful treatment of defendants,”wrote the study’s author,Harvard Law School professor Alexandra Natapoff. City courts lack impartiality and are often “run in informal fashion by interested parties or by parties whose salary and tenure depend on satisfying local political and economic interests,”she found,going on to suggest that reform of the municipal court system is needed. “At the bottom of the penal pyramid,injustices ?ow not only from the presence or absence of rules and lawyers but also from the pervasive sense that these are minor cases and unimportant defendants who do not deserve full-?edged legal respect,either on paper or in practice,”she wrote. “In other words,to improve municipal courts,?rst and foremost we have to care about them.” In Colorado,reforms at the state and local level could be in the of?ng. Denver City Council members are working on a bill to bring the city in line with the updated state sentencing schemes. “By making city level offenses consistent with the state classi?cations,the City Council would reduce unnecessary duplicate bureaucracy and court time for those navigating the legal system,”council members Shontel Lewis,Serena Gonzales—Gutierrezand Sarah Parady said in a joint statement.“Restructuring and streamlining sentencing guidelines was the correct choice for Colorado and is the right decision for Denver.” In the legislature,meanwhile,lawmakers are contemplating a bill next legislative session to address these sentencing disparities. Rep.Mike Weissman,an Aurora Democrat,said legislators are still early in the process,but they recognize that people shouldn’t receive different punishments for the same offense just based on their geography in the state. “The most severe thing any government can do is take away your autonomy,to put you in jail.We need to be really thoughtful about that,”he said.“It should not be casual and should not be disparate.” https://enewspapendenverpost.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f785b892—2815-4049—8d4f~630081a75805 10/10 Page 229 of 273 BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 1777 Sixth Street Boulder,CO 80302 LONGMONT MUNICIPAL COURT The Honorable Robert Frick Case Numbers 240489/241013 THE CITY OF LONGMONT BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristina Persechini, Defendant—Appellant DATE’FTEEDTMEY‘Q‘Z‘O‘Z‘WTSWM‘ FILING ID:3BAA5076B98E4 CASE NUMBER:2024CV30086 COURT USE ONLY Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Elizabeth Lorina-Millsa#39501 Longmont City Attorney’s Of?ce 408 3rdAve Longmont,CO 80501 303-651-8619 Elizabeth.lorina-mills@longmontcolorado.gov Case 2024CV030086 APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page 230 of 273 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................... ........................................ l I.ARGUMENT .......................................................................... ................................................................. l A.Longmont’s Trespass Ordinance and its penalty are valid as applied to Ms.Persechini. Longmont’s sentencing scheme for trespass is a valid exercise of its home rule authority.............l B.The State statutes should be presumed constitutional ............................................... .................. 5 C.Longmont’s sentencing scheme does not violate equal protection.......................................... ... 5 D.Ms.Persechini has not been denied equal protection by Longmont......................................... ... 8 E.Some of the requested relief is unavailable to Ms.Persechini......................................... ......... 10 CONCLUSION ............................................................................ ................................................................. 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................ ........................................... 12 ii Page 231 of 273 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Canon City v.Merris,137 C010.169,180,323 P.2d 614 (1958)................................................... .... 2 City &Cnty.ofDenverv.State,788 P.2d 764 (C010.1990)......................................................2,3,6 City ofAurorav.Martin,507 P.2d 868 (Colo.1973)............................................................2,3,'8,9 Dean v.People,366 P.3d 593,596 (Colo.2016).......................................................... ..................... 5 De11/[arco v.UnitedStates,415 US.449,450,n.,94 S.Ct.1185,1186,n..39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974).9 Estrada v.Heckers,521 P.2d 766,768 (C010.1974).............................................................. ........... 5 People v.Bramlett‘,573 P.2d 94 (C010.1977).................................................................... .......... 7,1 1 People v.Edmonds,195 Colo.358.578 P.2d 655 (1978)......................................................... ......... 5 People v.Estrada,601 P.2d 619,621 (Colo.1979)............................................................... ............ 7 People v.Martinez,660 P.2d 1292,1293 (Colo.1983)........................................................... ........ 11 People v.Wade,757 P.2d 1074 (C010.1988)..................................................................... .... 2,3,6,7 Pullman-Standard v.Swint,456 US.273,291—92,102 S.Ct.1781,1791492,72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982)....................................................................................................... ....................................... 9 Quintanav.Edgewater Municipal Court.Colo,498 P.2d (C010.1972)..........................................3 Vela v.People,484 P.2d 1204 (C010.1971)..................................................................... ................. 2 Statutes C.R.S §13-10-113 .............................................................................................. ......................... 4.5.7 C.R.S.§16-1—102.............................................................................................. ................................. 4 C.R.S.§18-4-503 .............................................................................................. .................................. 3 C.R.S.§18—4-504 .............................................................................................. .................................. 3 iii Page 232 of 273 Other Authorities Article XX,§6 ................................................................ ................................................................ ... 1 C010.Const.an.XX §6 .......................................................... .......................................................... . 1 Colorado Senate Bill 21—271(Signed into law July 6,2021;effective March '1.2022)....................5 Longmont Municipal Charter,Article 1 ................................................ ............................................. 1 Longmont Municipal Charten Article 1.1 ........................7 Longmont Municipal Charter,Article 4.1 ............................................... ........................................... 7 Longmont Municipal Code,Section 10.02.020 ................................................ .................................. 7 Longmont Municipal Code,Section 10.24.100 ..................................................... ............................. 7 iv Page 233 of 273 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The Longmont Municipal Court did not Violate Ms.Persechini’s right to equal protection when it accepted her guilty plea and sentenced her to 30 days jail,to be served concurrently,for the two cases before the court.Longmont’s maximum penalty of 180 days for trespass—only half of what is expressly authorized by Colorado law,and does not conflict with state law.The Colorado Supreme Court has consistently recognized that the Colorado Constitution empowers home rule cities,like Longmont,to enact different sentencing schemes from State statutes so long as there is not a conflict between the two laws.Ms.Persechini’s sentence of 30 days does not con?ict with State law or violate her right to equal protection,and her sentence should be af?rmed. I.ARGUMENT A.Longmont’s Trespass Ordinance and its penalty are valid as applied to Ms. Persechini.Longmont’s sentencing scheme for trespass is a valid exercise of its home rule authority. Longmont is a home rule city,as authorized by Article XX,§6 ofthe Colorado Constitution and the Longmont Municipal Charter,Art.l(l.2).The Colorado Constitution speci?cally grants to home rule cities those powers: [N]ecessary,requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters,including power to legislate upon,provide,regulate,conduct and control: h.The imposition.enforcement and collection of ?nes and penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of the charter,or of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter. Article XX.§6.Longmont,like the State.is empowered to enact laws criminalizing conduct,such as trespassing.As a home rule city,Longmont has the “right to impose its own system of punishments for violations of its ordinances.”People v.Wade,757 P.2d 1074,1076 (Colo. Page 234 of 273 1988).Longmont is not prohibitedfrom enacting its own trespass ordinance even though the State has a similar statute.See eg.City ofAurorav.iMartin,507 P.2d 868,869-870 (Colo.1973)(both Aurora and the state criminalize assault and battery)and Vela v.People,484 P.2d 1204,1205 (Colo.1971)(both Greeley°s disturbance ordinance and the state statute could co—exist,since the ordinance went further in its prohibition by proscribing profane language and holding additional parties accountable.and neither permits what the other forbids).“The effect of the amendment was to grant to home rule municipalities ‘every power theretofore possessed by the legislature to authorize municipalities to function in local and municipal affairs."'City &Cnly.of Denver v. State.788 P.2d 764,767 (Colo.1990)(emphasis original).The authority for the city’s trespass ordinance “emanates”from Colo.Const.art.XX,§6.CizjvofAurorav.Martin,507 P.2d 868,870 (Colo.1973) However,“the power is not unbridled...”Wade,757 P.2d 1076.Home rule cities must treat as criminal offenses the same conduct that state statutes prohibit.Id.For example.a city could not proceed against drunk driving violations as a civil matter since the State has criminalized that conduct.This assures the “salutary effect of ensuring that "uniformity in treatment and disposition of an offense is achieved,whether the act is a statutory crime in the area [outside the boundaries ofthe home rule city]or a violation of the ordinance in [the city itself].’”1d,citing Canon City v. Merritt,137 Colo.169.180,323 P.2d 614,620 (1958).However,the Court expressly rejected the lower court’s contention that “uniformity in the treatment and disposition of an offense’requires that penalties mandated by city ordinances and state statutes be based on similar sentencing principles.”Id.Instead,the court held that neither its prior decisions nor relevant legislation would support "such a limitation on a home rule city's power to select appropriate punishments for Page 235 of 273 Violations of the city's laws.”To hold that Longmont’s sentencing authority for trespassing is strictly limited by the equivalent State statute’s penalty would fly in the face of existing precedent. The authority of home rule municipalitiesis not absolute,and a municipalordinance cannot conflict with a State statute.If a matter is of mixed local and State concern,a municipal ordinance “may coexist with a state statute as long as there is no conflict,but in the event of con?ict the state statute supersedes the conflicting provision of the charter or ordinance.”Cily &Cnty.OfDenver, 788 P.2d 767.There is not a conflict here between Longmont’s municipal trespass ordinance and the State pettytrespass statutes since both prohibit the same conduct,and it is not a felony offense. “Except in felony categories,mere difference in penalty provisions in a statute and ordinance does not necessarily establish a conflict in the sense discussed here.”Martin 507 P.2d 870. Municipalities’sentencing provisions do not conflict with state law when they are greater than the penalty for the equivalent state statute.The Colorado Supreme Court specifically rejected the contention thatthe penalties had to be the same.“Indeed,to find that a home rule city's penal ordinances must share the State's so-called ‘philosophy in sentencing”would diminish.to a large degree.the independence and self-determination vested in those cities by the constitution."Wade. 757 P.2d 1077.Notably,the Court did not limit its holdings to home rule cities’penal ordinances related only to probation portions ofa sentence. Longmont’s penalty for trespass violations,a maximum of 180 days,is within the limits of Colorado statutes and its Constitution.Longmont’s enactment of a municipal ordinance prohibiting trespass does not con?ict with the state statute prohibiting trespass.This is not a case where the home role city authorizes what the state forbids,or forbids what the state has expressly authorized.either of which would create a conflict.Martin.507 P.2d 869—870.Both the State and Page 236 of 273 the City prohibit trespass.Nor does Longmont’s trespass ordinance attempt to prosecute what the state prosecutes as a felony,whichwould also be prohibited.See ag.Quintanav.Edgewafer [MunicipalCourt.Cola,498 P.2d 931 (Colo.1972)(a municipal ordinance prohibiting shoplifting that included shoplifting of articles having a value in excess of$100 was prohibitedsince that was a.felony under state statute).Trespass is a petty offense under State law.C .R.S.§18-4—503 and 504 Longmontis penalty for trespass is not prohibited by the legislature and does not con?ict with State law.The State legislature has chosen to restrict municipal sentences of courts of record to 364 days,or a fine not to exceed $2,650 (adjusted for in?ation in the future).or both.C.R.S §l3—10—113(_1).The legislature did not choose to limit the sentence to 364 days “or whatever the equivalent punishment would be if charged in state court.”It could have chosen to attempt such a limitation,but it did not.Longmont‘s trespass ordinance,L.M.C.10.24.100,is punishable by a ?ne up to $999.00 or by imprisonment up to 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment, which is well within the limits proscribed by C.R.S §l3—10—113.In fact,the State criminal procedure code explicitly states that provisions of the code,unless speci?cally set forth in the code, "are not applicable to violations of municipal charters or municipal ordinances.”C.R.S.§16— 1-102.lfthe legislature intended or desired that all municipal penalties be restricted by the penalty for the equivalent State statute,this statute simply would not exist.nor would C.R.S §13—10—113 only restrict municipal courts of record from imposing penalties greater than 364 days without other limitations. When the legislature enacted misdemeanor reform in 2021through “An Act Concerning the Adoption of the 2021 Recommendations of the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission Regarding Sentencing for Offenses,and.in Connection Therewith,Making an Page 237 of 273 Appropriation."Colorado Senate Bill 21-271 (Signed into law July 6,2021:effective March 1, 2022)it reduced some of the state statutes prohibiting trespass to petty offenses.Nowhere in the 304 page act did the legislature attempt to further limit municipalities’authority to sentence offenders of similar State statutes.'Nordid the legislature draft that Act to achieve “uniformity”by prohibiting municipalities from prosecuting offenses that are already addressed in State law.It could have tried to do so,but it did not. B.The State statutes should be presumed constitutional. The State statutes discussed above that permit municipalities to impose penalties up to 364 days.and restricts imposition ofthe State criminal procedure code to municipal ordinances unless it is expressly stated in a statute to apply should be presumed constitutional by this Court.“It is our duty to presume that a statute on its face is constitutional and that it was intended by the legislature to be constitutional."People v.Edmonds.195 Colo.358.578 P.2d 655 (1978).It is Ms. Persechini's high burden to prove that these statutes are unconstitutional.“Courts should not seek reasons to find a statute unconstitutional.Rather.it is the duty of courts to presume the statute is constitutional.In order to prevail,one who attacks a statute must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt.”Estrada v.Heckers,521 P.2d 766,768 (Colo.1974). C.Longmont’s sentencing scheme does not violate equal protection. The Colorado Constitution’s due process clause implies a guarantee of equal protection. Dean v.People,366 P.3d 593,596 (Colo.2016).“Equal protection of the laws assures the like treatment of all persons who are similarly situated.”Id.(citations omitted).Since lVls.Persechini is not alleging that this law impacts a traditionally suspect class or fundamental right,she “must prove that the statute’s classification bears no rational relationship to a legitimate legislative Page 238 of 273 purpose or government objective,or that the classi?cation is otherwise unreasonable,arbitrary,or capricious.”Id.at 597 Longmont’s enactment of an ordinance allowing a maximum penalty of 180 days (only half of what is authorized by C.R.S §l3-l0-113)is a valid exercise of its constitutionally-permitted home rule authority,and within the limits of penalty maximums already explicitly authorized by State law. There are no cases exactly on point whether a municipal sentence of imprisonment can violate equal protection if it has a harsher punishment than a similar State offense.The existing precedent that addresses similar State offenses violating equal protection are all for comparisons of State charges against other State charges.However,there is one case from the Colorado Supreme Court that addresses sentencing authority with respect to probation sentences for a municipal violation,and permitted the municipal com“:to impose a sentence of probation that exceeded what was allowable under State law.Wade,757 P.2d 1076.in Wade,the defendant challenged his sentence by Denver County Court to a violation of the city‘s unsafe automobile ordinance to one year of probation,contending that the maximum allowable probation would be l80 days under State law.The district court agreed,holding that he could only be sentenced to a term of probation up to the maximum term ofimprisonment under the state scheme to be consistent with the state’s “philosophy in sentencing.”The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the district court’s contention that uniformity required similar sentences for State and municipal offenses. We do not accept the court of appeals’conclusion,however.that “uniformity”in the treatment and disposition of an offense‘requires that penalties mandated by city ordinances and state statutes be based on similar sentencing principles.Neither our previous decisions nor relevant legislation supports such a limitation on a home rule city's power to select appropriate punishments for violations of the city's laws. Id.The Court further held Page 239 of 273 that article XX,section 6 of the constitution does not require that a home rule city's sentencing scheme evidence “consistency of philosophy in sentencing”with the state's sentencing provisions.Even if state statutes preclude the imposition of probation for a term longer than the maximum imprisonment authorized for a particular offense—an issue on which we express no opinionwthat limitation serves as no constraint on a home rule city's right to impose its own system of punishments for violations of its ordinances. Id.at 1077.Wade is applicable.regardless of attempts to restrict it to probation sentence differences.First,the claim that none of the law at issue at here allows municipalities to create their own regulations blatantly ignores the existence of C.R.S.§13—10—113 which explicitly authorizes -without limitation-municipal penalties of imprisonment up to 364 days (for courts of record,which Longmont is).Longmont enacted LMC 10.24.100 Trespass and LlVlC 10.02.020 Penalties,pursuant to its lawful authority under Articles 1.1 and 4.1 of the Longmont Municipal Charter and the Colorado Constitution.Second,either a disparate sentence for similar behavior violates equal protection or it does not.If Wade permitted a municipal probation sentence six months more than the state equivalent offense without violating equal protection,it belies belief that a sentencing difference of 20 days violates it.Third,chapter 16 is for general criminal procedure. It is true that the Colorado courts have held that “wildly divergent”State statute sentences may violate equal protection.See e.g.People v.Estrada,601 P.2d 619.621 (Colo.1979)(“We find a penalty scheme that provides widely divergent sentences for similar conduct and intent to be irrational and thus uphold that part of our decision in Bramlett ...”)However.those cases do not compare to the current facts at issue.First,those cases address state sentencingdiscrepancies of years and decades,not mere weeks or months.Second.in Bramlett,the possible sentence differences for assault in the first degree was 5 to 40 years,compared to 6 months to 2 years for criminally negligent homicide.People v.Bramlelt.573 P.2d 94 (Colo.1977).That is a potential 7 Page 240 of 273 spread of possible sentences of three and a half decades that was at issue before the Colorado Supreme Court.while here we only have a divergence ofmere months (10 days versus 180 days), which is hardly “wildly divergent".And as applied to the case here,Ms.Persechini’s actual sentence difference is a negligible 20 days. The Colorado Supreme Court held that a difference of 275 days between the Colorado statute related to assault and battery (maximum sentence of one year or a fine not to exceed $500 or both)and the home rule city of Aurora’s municipal ordinance for assault and battery (maximum imprisonment not to exceed 90 days and a maximum fine of $400 or both)were not "so great that the state's interest will not be protected by a proceeding under the municipal ordinance.”Martin, 507 P.2d 870.If a difference of 275 days is considered insignificant,the difference of 170 days should likewise be considered insignificant.If we compare the difference of the maximum sentence under state statute with the sentence Ms.Persechini actually received,the difference is almost minuscule—a scant 20—daydifference.Notably.the Court did not find a violation of equal protection because the Aurora ordinance had a lesser penalty than the state offense,even though individuals in Colorado faced a harsher penalty for assault and battery outside the boundaries of Aurora. D.Ms.Persechini has not been denied equal protection by Longmont. The ordinances at issue in Martin,like here.were almost identical in its language for the elements.The only real difference is the penalty.When the conduct is prohibited by state statute and municipal ordinance.but has different sentences,the municipal ordinance can stand.“Neither are we concerned with the question of whether the subject of assault and battery so requires state— wide uniformity of regulation that a local ordinance cannot stand,since the local ordinance is Page 241 of 273 practically identical to the state statue.”Id.at 869.There are no Colorado cases that hold that a municipal ordinance cannot have a harsher penalty than an equivalent State statute,and there is at least one Colorado Supreme Court case that has upheld a municipality sentencing a term of probation greater than what is allowed in State statute,and that a home rule city could punish assault and battery with a maximum sentence 275 days fewer than the State equivalent statute. Ms.Persechini’s argument about equal protection as applied to her is belied by the math. Ms.Persechini’s actual sentence of30 days is not so dissimilar to the maximum penalty she could have received if prosecuted in State court.Ms.Persechini claims the “widely differing punishments violate equal protection as applied”to her since the potential Longmont sentence is “eighteen times longer than could be imposed for the same conduct under the State statute”(emphasis original).However.the actual sentence Ms.Persechini received is only 3 times longer-a matter of a few weeks-not even a month.Ms.Persechini was sentenced to 30 days for her trespass charge. As applied to Ms.Persechini,a sentence “eighteen times longer"than the similar State offense does not exist and is mere speculation if she would ever suffer that fate.Moreover,as discussed above.the Marlin court considered a difference of 275 days between a state and municipal ordinance to be insignificant and not enough to create a conflict between State law and municipal ordinance. Ms.Persechini’s other arguments that her sentence violates equal protection relies on assertions of facts that are not a part of the record.and should not be considered in this appeal.“[F]act?nding is the basic responsibility of district courts,rather than appellate courts.and the Court of Appeals should not have resolved in the first instance this factual dispute which had not been considered by the District Court.”Pullman—Standardv.Swim;456 US.273,291—92,102 S.Ct.1781,l79l~ Page 242 of 273 92.72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982),quoting DeMarco v.United States.415 US.449.450.n..94 S.Ct. 1185.1186,n..39 L.Ed.2d 501 (1974).For example.Ms.Persechini alleges that transient people are the ones "most likely to become subject to laws proscribing Trespassing.”While the City would argue that it is irrelevant to the analysis here whether its trespass ordinance is enforced mostly against individuals from outside of Longmont.since there is no actual State preemption of its penalty or otherwise a conflict between the State statute and city ordinance,that issue is also not ripe for review.There is nothing in the record about whether transients are actually the ones most likely to be charged with trespass by Longmont of?cers (whether in state or municipal court). Likewise,the claim that the charging of?cer “in an exercise of unfettered and unreviewable discretion decided to charge Ms.Persechini under the L.M.C.”There are no facts in the record that show—one way or the other-whether the decision to charge in municipal or State court is subject to the of?cer’s “unfettered and unreviewable discretion.”These arguments should be disregarded since they are not developed in the record and not ripe for appellate review. Ms.Persechini further argues that “the guardrails provided by equal protection are even more vital in the context of municipal offenses”because municipal courts are governed by “simplified procedures”and “are typically subject to less oversight.”Ms.Persechini’s appeal has not put forth any arguments that she was not afforded due process in her proceedings before municipal court,and this should be similarly disregarded for the purpose of this appeal. E.Some of the requested relief is unavailable to Ms.Persechini. Ms.Persechini requests the Court “vacate Ms.Persechini’s conviction,order the charges against Ms.Persechini dismissed and strike down Longmont’s sentencing scheme as unconstitutional.”Even if the Court finds that Ms.Persechini has proven beyond a reasonable 10 Page 243 of 273 doubt that the sentence of 30 days is unconstitutional,the appropriate remedy would be to remand the case to municipal court for resentencing in accordance with this Court’s ruling.There is no basis to vacate her conviction that she—with the assistance of counsel-willingly pled guilty to the municipal court.In People v.Martinez,a defendant tried to vacate his guilty plea of first-degree assault or in the alternative,resentence him because he acted in self-defense.660 P.2d 1292.1292 (Colo.'l983).He argued that People v.Bramlett required such action since the Court held there that the affirmative defense available to criminally negligent homicide had to be extended to first— degree assault since both statutes proscribe similar conduct and intent.The Court rejected his request,holding “[t]he defendant's conviction pursuant to a plea agreement forecloses any assertion of the affirmative defense and sentencing considerations recognized in Bramlelzi Martinez,660 P.2d l293.Ms.Persechini should be similarly foreclosed here from her requested relief. CONCLUSION The Court should hold that Longmont’s sentencing scheme,which is squarely within the limits set by the Colorado legislature,is constitutional and uphold the sentence. Respectfully submitted this 6‘hday of May,2024 /s/Elizabeth Lorina—Mills Elizabeth Lorina-Mills Senior Assistant City Attorney #3 9501 ll Page 244 of 273 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 6,2024,I served to the opposing party the foregoing document by: _X_ICCES /s/Cristi Campbell Cristi Campbell.Legal Administrator 12 Page 245 of 273 10/2/24.2:36 PM People v.Wade.757 P.2d 1074 -Colo:Supreme Courl 1988 -Google Scholar 757 P.2d 1074 (1988) The PEOPLE of the City and County of Denver,Petitioner, v. Donald WADE,Respondent. No.8780168. Supreme Court of Colorado,En Banc. July 18,1988. “1 0/3 Stephen H.Kaplan,City Atty.John D.Poley.Asst.City Atty,Mark R.Muller,Denver,for petitioner. Carlos M.Sandoval,James S.Covino,Andre Adeli,University of Denver Student Law Office,Denver,Student Counsel,for respondent. ROVlRA,Justice. We granted certiorari to determine whether the City and County of Denver,a home rule city.may authorize its courts to impose a term of probation for a period longer than the maximum jail sentence which the court could impose for an ordinance violation.We conclude that it may.and therefore reverse the district court's decision to the contrary. I: As a result of a plea bargain,respondent Donald Wade pleaded guilty in Denver County Court to operating an unsafe automobile in violation of section 54-68(8)of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver (D.R.l\/l.C.).[11 The maximum punishment for violating section 54-68(a)is 180 days in jail or a fine of $999,or both.but the court may.in its discretion,suspend all or part of the sentence and impose a term of probation not exceeding one year.D.R.I\/I.C.§§1~13 & 14—61(1987).[‘2‘]The court ordered Wade to pay a fine of $58 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.The court then suspended the jail sentence and placed Wade on probation for one year. On appeal to the Denver District Court,Wade argued that the county court was without authority to sentence him to a term of probation longer than 180 days.because that was the longest period to which he could have been sentenced to jail.The district court agreed.and accordingly remanded the case for resentencing. The district court relied primarily on the decision of the court of appeals in Martinez v.Kirbens,710 P.2d 1138 (ng?gpjg?g),rev’d on other grounds.742 P.2d 330 (QQLQJJQQZLwhich found that section 14-61 could not be interpreted to permit county courts to impose terms of probation longer than the maximum jail sentences to which offenders could be sentenced.The facts in Martinez were,as far as relevant,identical to those in this case.The court of appeals explained: in interpreting Colo.Const.art XX,§6.our Supreme Court has held that uniformity in the treatment and disposition of an offense must be achieved whether an act is a statutory crime or the violation of the municipal ordinances of a home rule city.Canon City v.Merrie,137 Colo.169.323 P.2d 614 (1958),insofar W").as the rights of offenders are concerned,we construe this rule to require consistency of philosophy in sentencing as well as in pretrial and trial procedure.See Zerobnick v.City &County of Denver.139 Colo. 139,337 P.2d 11 (1959),. 710 P.2d at 1139.The court found that under the state sentencing scheme,an offender could not be sentenced to a term of probation longer than the maximum term of imprisonment to which he could have been sentenced for the same offense,and concluded that Denver's sentencing scheme must be interpreted so as to remain consistent with the state's "philosophy in sentencing.“ httpS://scholar.google.com/scholarhcase?case25042170267930772726&q=People+v.+Wade.+757+P.2d+10721+(Colo.+1988)&hl=en&as_sdt=4.6 1/3 Page 246 of 273 10/2/24.2:36 PM People v.Wade.757 P.2d 1074 -Colo:Supreme Court 1988 —Google Scholar The state constitution specifically grants to home rule cities those powers: [N]ecessary.requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters. including power to legislate upon.provide,regulate.conduct and control: n.The imposition,enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of the charter,or of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter. Colo.Const.art.XX.§6. That power is not unbridled:The constitution also provides that home rule cities must treat as criminal offenses the violation of any ordinance that prescribes conduct also proscribed by state statute.Id.See also City of Greenwood Village v.Fleming. 643 P.2d 511 (Colo.1982).That requirement has the salutary effect of ensuring that "uniformity in treatment and disposition of an offense is achieved,whether the act is a statutory crime in the area [outside the boundaries of the home rule city]or a violation of the ordinance in [the city itself]."Canon City v.Merrie.137 Colo.169,180.323 P.2d 514,620 (1958).As Justice Moore elaborated. [Tlhis portion of the constitution amounts in substance to a reaffirmance of the Billof Rights...it means that a person who is alleged to have committed the same act within the boundaries of a home rule city cannot be deprived of the basic protections guaranteed by the Billof Rights simply because the effort to subject him to fine or imprisonment takes the form of an alleged violation of a city ordinance. 137 Colo.at 185,323 P.2d at 622 (Moore._.L,_specialiyconcurring), We do not accept the court of appeals'conclusion.however.that "uniformity in the treatment and disposition ofan offense" requires that penalties mandated by city ordinances and state statutes be based on similar sentencing principles.Neither our previous decisions nor relevant legislation supports such a limitation on a home rule city's power to select appropriate punishments for violations of the city's laws. in City ofAurora v.Martin.?181Colo.72.507 P.2d 868 (1973).for example.we held that Aurora's laws prohibiting assaults and batteries and the accompanying penalties were valid notwithstanding the state’s proscription of identical conduct,and notwithstanding the fact that the penalties for assault and battery under state law were substantially harsher than those penalties authorized under Aurora's law.Similarly,in Woolverton v.City &County of Denver,146 Colo.247.361 P.2d 982 (1981).we upheld Denver’s prohibition of gambling against a challenge that the city ordinance was preempted by a similar state statute.which statute provided markedly less severe sanctions than Denver's ordinance.Although Canon City and Woo/verton centered on a city's fundamental power to enact criminal legislation in the face of existing state regulation.it is also clear from the reasoning of both cases that a city's choice of a sentencing scheme different from the state‘s is well within the city's constitutional power as a home rule city. That conclusion is further mandated by the legislature's affirmative expression of its intent that state penalties for offenses not be understood as preempting home rule city laws.The Code of Criminal Procedure,§§16-1—101to -1 3-601.8A C.R.8. "57".“(1986 &1987 Supp),which governs sentencing in the state courts.is the sole authority on which the court of appeals has relied in finding that a probationary term is limited to the maximum term of imprisonment applicable to a particular offense.See People v.F/enni‘ken.720 P.2d 617 (_Co|o.App.1986)_,rev'd 2'49P.2d 395 (Colo.1988).:Martinez.710 P.2d 1138; People v.Knaub.624 P.2d 922 (Colo.App.'l980).Yet the Code itself contains the following limitation on its scope:”[e]xcept as specifically set forth in this code.the provisions of this code are not applicable to violations of municipal charters or municipal ordinances."§16—1—102,8A C.R.S.(1986).See Peep/av,District Court.198 Colo.284,599 P.2d 260 (1979). Moreover.although the legislature has commanded that the state motor vehicle laws “shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein,"the same section also provides that "[21]“ local authorities may enact,adopt,or enforce traffic regulations which cover the same subject matter as the various sections of this article..."§42—4-108(1)(a),17 CR8.(1984).in City of Greenwood Village v.Fleming,643 P.2d 511 (Colo.1982)_.we explained the meaning of section 42—4408 while rejecting Greenwood Village's argument that it permitted the city to decriminalize certain traffic offenses: https:l/scholargoogle.com/schoiar_case?case=50421702679307727268q=People+v.+Wade.+757+P.2d+lO74+(Colo.+1988)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,6 2/3 Page 247 of 273 10/2/24,2:36 PM People v.Wade.757 P.2d 1074 -Colo:Supreme Court 1988 -Google Scholar [It]does no more than grant a municipality the authority to prosecute violations of its traffic ordinances through its own court system under a penalty scheme of its own choosing.but always consistent with the procedural protections accorded a criminal defendant charged with violating a state statute prescribing the same conduct. 643 P.2d at 518 (footnote omitted)(emphasis added). The respondent argues only that Denver's sentencing scheme is inconsistent with the state's "philosophy in sentencing."He does not contend that he has a fundamental constitutional right to receive a term of probation no longer than the jail sentence he could have received,nor does he contend that he has been deprived of those "procedural protections afforded a criminal defendant"under state law. We find no support for respondent's argument either in the constitution,or in the state laws on which respondent relies as providing limitations on probation terms,or in our prior decisions explaining the meaning of article XX,section 6.indeed.to find that a home rule city's penal ordinances must share the state's so«ca|led "philosophy in sentencing"would diminish,to a large degree,the independence and self—determinationvested in those cities by the constitution. We hold.therefore,that article XX,section 6 of the constitution does not require that a home rule city's sentencing scheme evidence "consistency of philosophy in sentencing"with the state's sentencing provisions.Even it state statutes preclude the imposition of probation for a term longer than the maximum imprisonment authorized for a particular offense—«an issue on which we express no opinionQL—thatlimitation serves as no constraint on a home rule city's right to impose its own system of punishments for violations of its ordinances.‘ Accordingly,the judgment of the district court is reversed. [1]Wade was originally charged with speeding.in his appeal to the district court,Wade argued that the sentence was excessive in light of the relatively minor offense to which he pleaded guilty.The district court disagreed.noting that Wade‘s “deplorable"driving record included, among other things.his having accumulated 23 penalty points within 2 years and 4 months after he first received his license.Wade has not appealed that portion of the district court's order. L2]Section 14—61,D.R.i\/i.C,(1987).provides: Authority of court.Whenever any person shall be adjudged guilty of.or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to.a violation of any j ordinance of the city ..where the court has discretion as to the penalty.and.it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the ends of ‘ justice and the best interests of the public.as well as the defendant.will be best served thereby.the county court shall have the power to suspend the imposition or execution of all or part of the sentence.and/or to place such person on probation for such period and upon such reasonable terms and conditions In conformity with this article as it may deem best.Such court.subject to the provisions of this article.may revoke or modify any condition of suspension or probation.or may change the period of suspension or probation.The period of suspension i or probation.together with any extension thereof.shall not exceed one year from the date of conviction or entry of plea. (Emphasis added.) L11]in People v.Flaunt/ten.749 P.2d 395 (Colo.1988).we held that a defendant in a felony case may be sentenced to a term of probation that exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment in the presumptive range for the crime he committed.We did not address whether a term of probation may exceed the applicable maximum sentence in the aggravated range.nor whether a misdemeanor defendant may be sentenced to a term of probation exceeding the maximum authorized term of imprisonment.749 P.2d at 400 n.4:see also Hunter v.People, 757 P.2d 631 (999%). https:ilscholargoogle,com/scholar«case?case=6042i70267930772726&q=People+v.+Wade.+757+P.2d+'i074+(Colo.+1988)&hl=en&as-sdt=4.6 3/3 Page 248 of 273 Page 249 of 273 10/2/24,2:36 PM City ofAurora v.Martin.507 P.2d 868 ~Colo:Supreme Court 1973 —Google Scholar 507 P.2d 868 (1973) CITYOF AURORA,a municipal corporation,Petitioner, V. Marion J.MARTIN,Respondent. No.(3—224. Supreme Court of Colorado,En Banc. March 5,1973. 13:89 ’86::Gary L.Calder,Aurora.for petitioner. Charies G.Jordan,Denver,for respondent. GROVES.Justice. The respondent Marion Martin was convicted in the Aurora Municipal Court of violating the City of Aurora's assault and battery ordinance.On appeal to the district court the conviction was reversed on the grounds that:(1)assault and battery is a matter of statewide concern;and (2)the municipal ordinance was preempted by enactment of the state assault and battery statute.We view the matter differently. Aurora is a home rule city under Colo.Const.art.XX.The city‘s assault and battery ordinance reads as follows: "An assault and battery is an unlawful beating of another.it shall be unlawful to commit assault and battery upon the person of another.Any person found guilty of assault and battery upon conviction,shall be fined an amount not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00).or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90)days." The language of the ordinance is practically identical to the state assault and battery statute.C.R.S.1963.40.23611The only significant difference between the ordinance and the statuteis that the statute provides a possible penalty of one year's imprisonment,or a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars,or both. The city does not contend that assault and batteiy is a matter of strictly local and municipal concern.See yewegple, 174 Colo.465,484 P.2d 1204 (1971),It argues,rather.that there is sufficient local concern with the subject of assault and battery so that it becomes a matter of "mixed"state and local concern.Woolverton v.Denver,146 Colo.247.361 P.2d 982 (195;),it calls attention to the fact that the majority of assault and battery filings in the Aurora Municipal Court result from domestic disputes.The municipal court would seem particularly appropriate for handling this type of case.We conclude that the offense of assault and battery may be viewed as a matter of "mixed"state and local concern. The question then becomes whether the municipal ordinance and the state statute can co~exist within the city.We are not concerned here with a municipal ordinance which has intruded into a state established felony category.See Quiptanay. Edgewater Municipal Court,Colo.498 P.2d 931 (1972),Neither are we concerned with the question of whether the subject of assault and battery so requires statewide uniformity of regulation that a local ordinance cannot stand,since the local ordinance is practically identical to the state statute.See Bennion v.Denver.Colo.504 P.2d 350 (1972). There is nothing basically invalid about legislation on the same subject by both a home rule city and the state,absent some conflict between the two regulations.Bennion v.Denver.supra,and Vela v.People.supra. Several tests for determining whether an ordinance and statute conflict were set forth in gayvcityand 9951MB;Denver“ 10900|Q74121P2d88t>(1942)As applied here,the essence is whether the ordinance authorizes what the state forbids.or forbids what the state has expressly authorized.in the light of this test.it is apparent that there is no conflict between the substantive portions of the city ordinance and the state statute. The respondent contends that a conflict does exist because the assault and battery statute provides for a greater penalty than does the municipal ordinance,citing Davis v.DenverLMOColo.30.342 P.2d 674 (1959).in Davis this court did hold an ordinance invalid on the independent ground that the penalty provisions of the statute and ordinance "confiictec https://scholar.googlecom/scholar_case?case=615773605115836864-&q:aurora+v+martin+1973&hl=en&asw_sdt=4.6 1/2 Page 250 of 273 10/2/24.2:36 PM City ofAurora v.Martin.507 P.2d 868 -Colo:Supreme Court 1973 ~Google Scholar However,in the later cases of Melav.Eeopigdgpigg,and Woglvertgn y.Denver._§gp_r_a,no conflict was found even though the various statutes and ordinances considered in those cases had different penalties.Cf.Bennion v.Denver,_s_up_ra.If a statute provides for a substantially greater penalty than does a similar municipal ordinance,this fact may be considered in ruling whether the General Assembly intended.by enactment of the statute,to pre-empt that ?eld of regulation.Except in felony categories.mere difference in penalty provisions in a statute and ordinance does not necessarily establish a conflict in the sense discussed here. The final question is whether the state.by enactment of the assault and battery statute.pre—emptedthis area of regulation. There is no express declaration of any legislative intent to prevempt.Additionally,there is nothing in the statute from which we can conclude that the state impliedly intended to preclude any exercise of municipal jurisdiction over the subject of assault and batten/-1"Estates.it.991.95%?.§.t?.!tlt1tt§—.v..1.£99.19;..2.th:..§..5...1...E:.?,St.§§fi.(19%).:this 00“”retecied"‘6 idea that the mere enactment of a state statute constituted a pre—emptionby the state of the matter regulated: "To accept the contention of [the]petitioner would be to adopt a doctrine of virtual pre-emption by the state in all matters upon which the legislature has taken cognizance through enactment of a state statute.it would also strip all of the home rule cities of the state of every last vestige of local rule and local control with the possible exception of a few regulatory and licensing ordinances.“ We cannot say that the difference in penalty provisions between the statute and the ordinance is so great that the state's interest will not be protected by a proceeding under the municipal ordinance. The respondent states that no case in Colorado has upheld the theory of concurrent state and municipal jurisdiction where the municipality was not specifically authorized by statute to legislate in the area in question.However.two cases decided since briefs were filed here.suggest that ~~but for certain other problemsmconcurrent jurisdiction was possible even though there was no specific statutory authorization for the ordinances in question.Bennion v.Denver.supra.and Quintana v. Eggewater Municipal Court.__sup_r_a. While it might be possible to imply statutory authorization for municipal assault and battery ordinances from 1967 Perm. Supp,C.R.S.1963.1139—33—1(general police power).and C.R.S.1963.139—324(53)and (55)(fights and affrays).we do not feel compelled to do so.A statute specifically delegating the power of regulation to cities or towns would be useful in deciding that the state did not intend to pre~empt that field of regulation.Wooiverton v.Denver.__s_gpra_;and Klemme.The Powers of Home Rule Cities in Colorado.36 U.Coio.LRev.321 (1964).The absence of such a statute is not determinative of the issue.As discussed earlier in this opinion.the authority for the city's assault and battery ordinance emanates from Colo.Const.art.XX,§6. The remaining contentions of the respondent are without merit. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with the direction that the judgment of the municipal court be reinstated. ' KELLEY,J..does not participate. [1]We should point out that this case arose prior to the effective date of the Colorado CriminalCode and the amendments to the state assault and battery statutes contained therein at 1971 Perm.Supp.C.R.S.1963.40—3—201through 40-3~204.For this reason it was not argued and we do not consider here whether.in the light of these amendments.the City's ordinance is valid. .-eve trees ~read court opinions oniine on (Boogie Scholar, httpszllscholar.google.com/scholar_case?case:615773605115836864&q:aurora+v+martin+1973&hl=en&as_sdt=4.6 2/2 Page 251 of 273 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: CB-23 Creation of a Hookah business license DESCRIPTION: Creation of a Hookah business license, for the retail sale of Hookah, including for consumption on the premises. RECOMMENDATION: Consider council bill requested by City Council, to establish a business license requirement for hookah retail businesses PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:  February 5, 2024: City Council discusses hookah retail business regulation during Mayor's choice (approximately 2:25:20 in meeting recording)  February 7, 2024: Council Request CRT-0705, Can staff look into hookah bar regulations as they relate to Denver and other regional regulations? Specifically, should we limit the hours of operation to be consistent with neighboring jurisdictions?  May 6, 2024: Mayor Sierra requests the City Attorney's Office draft a council bill to create a Hookah business license  July 15, 2024: City Council considers a first reading of a Hookah licensing ordinance, and it is tabled at the request of Arapahoe County Public Health  August 19, 2024: Leslie Levine, Arapahoe County Public Health, provides public comment requesting City Council study issue to consider expansion of tobacco business regulation SUMMARY: In response to Council Request CRT-0705, EPD contacted various cities within the Denver metro to determine how they regulate "hookah bars." That Council Request contains a description of how various cities regulate them—including some that prohibit them altogether and some that do not regulate them at all. City Council then requested the City Attorney’s Office draft a proposed Council Bill creating a “hookah bar” City business license, in an attempt to avoid the nuisance issues experienced by unregulated hookah bars in the City of Denver, and to protect public health and safety. The proposed Council Bill mirrors the hookah license established by the City of Denver, as follows: Hookah business license required in the City Page 252 of 273 No smoking of hookah on the premises between midnight and 7 a.m. No locations in a liquor-licensed premises, or within 1000 feet of schools, city-owned rec centers, or city-owned outdoor pools No smoking of marijuana or other products in a licensed hookah establishment Application fee of $250 and license fee of $500 In addition, at the request of a Council Member to limit the spread of a communicable disease, the proposed Englewood license requires each person smoking Hookah to use their own sterile mouthpiece. On August 19, 2024, Finance Department's Curt Osborne confirmed there are no currently- operating hookah lounges within the City. ANALYSIS: City Council did not request the City Attorney's Office amend the Council Bill tabled on July 15, and therefore it is in the same form as originally presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider council bill requested by City Council, to establish a business license requirement for hookah retail businesses FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The initial proposed fee for the license is a $250 application fee and a $500 license fee. Renewals of the license are subject to a $500 renewal license fee. There are currently no known hookah retail businesses, and therefore the financial impact is unknown. OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: The City Attorney's Office consulted with both the Englewood Chamber of Commerce and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority regarding the proposed business license. Neither objected to the proposal. Arapahoe County Health Department staff requested the City consider study for a potential expansion of regulation into additional tobacco-based businesses. ATTACHMENTS: Council Bill Powerpoint Page 253 of 273 1 ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL NO. 23 NO. ____ INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL SERIES OF 2024 MEMBER NUNNENKAMP AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, CREATING A HOOKAH TOBACCO RETAILER BUSINESS LICENSE WHEREAS, Englewood Municipal Code Title 5, Business and License Regulations, regulates various business operations within the City by requiring a City license to operate; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid nuisance and environmental hazards experienced by neighboring communities and to implement safety regulations for hookah tobacco smoke exposure, the City of Englewood desires to establish a hookah business license. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Englewood Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Title 5, Chapter 33 Hookah to read as follows (new provisions underlined; deleted provisions struck-through): 5-33-1: - Hookah Tobacco Retailer License. A. License Required. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to operate a Hookah Tobacco Retailer business in the City of Englewood without a City license in accordance with this Title, and paying the license fee established by City Council. B. Conditions and Restrictions of License. 1. It shall be unlawful to smoke Hookah in a Hookah Tobacco Retailer between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m. 2. No Hookah Tobacco Retailer may be located in a liquor-licensed premises, or within 1000 feet of any school, City-owned recreation center or City-owned outdoor pool. 3. No person shall smoke marijuana or other products in a Hookah Tobacco Retailer, except for Hookah. 4. In order to limit the spread of communicable disease, each person smoking Hookah in a Hookah Tobacco Retailer shall use their own sterile mouthpiece. C. Definitions. 1. Hookah means a type of waterpipe, used to smoke shisha or other tobacco products, with a long flexible tube for drawing aerosol through water. Components of a Hookah may include heads, stems, bowls, and hoses. 2. Hookah Tobacco Retailer means a person or entity engaged in the retail sale of Hookah, Hookah smoking accessories, or tobacco intended to be smoked in a Hookah, which includes Hookah tobacco, shisha tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, maassel, narghile, and argileh. Hookah tobacco retailer includes facilities that permit the consumption of Hookah on the premises by customers. Page 254 of 273 2 Section 2. License Fee Amount Established The license fee created by this Ordinance shall be included in the City of Englewood Comprehensive Schedule of Fees and Rates and shall initially be set as follows: Non-refundable Initial Application Fee: $250 Initial License/License Renewal Fee: $500 City Council may revise these initial fees by any official action, including by motion, resolution, or ordinance. Section 3: General Provisions The following general provisions and findings are applicable to the interpretation and application of this Ordinance: A. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. This Safety Clause is not intended to affect a Citizen right to challenge this Ordinance through referendum pursuant to City of Englewood Charter 47. E. Publication. Publication of this Ordinance may be by reference or in full in the City’s official newspaper, the City’s official website, or both. Publication shall be effective upon the first publication by either authorized method. Manuals, Municipal Code, contracts, and other documents approved by reference in any Council Bill may be published by reference or in full on the City’s official website; such documents shall be Page 255 of 273 3 available at the City Clerk’s office and in the City Council meeting agenda packet when the legislation was adopted. F. Actions Authorized to Effectuate this Ordinance. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the approval authorized by this Ordinance, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to such execution by the Mayor where necessary. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced documents. The execution of any documents by said officials shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such documents in accordance with the terms thereof and this Ordinance. City staff is further authorized to take additional actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. G. Enforcement. To the extent this ordinance establishes a required or prohibited action punishable by law, unless otherwise specifically provided in Englewood Municipal Code or applicable law, violations shall be subject to the General Penalty provisions contained within EMC § 1-4-1. Introduced and passed on first reading on the 16th day of September, 2024; and on second reading, in identical form to the first reading, on the ___ day of ____________, 2024. Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance, introduced and passed in identical form on first and second reading on the dates indicated above; and published two days after each passage on the City’s official website for at least thirty (30) days thereafter. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after first publication on the City’s official website. Stephanie Carlile Page 256 of 273 Proposed Hookah Business License Presented By Tamara Niles, City Attorney Pa g e 2 5 7 o f 2 7 3 Background •City Council requested information on hookah regulations in the Denver metro •In response to Council Request CRT-0705, EPD contacted various cities within the Denver metro to determine how they regulate "hookah bars." •That Council Request contains a description of how various cities regulate them— including some that prohibit them altogether and some that do not regulate them at all. •City Council requested the City Attorney’s Office draft a proposed Council Bill creating a “hookah bar” City business license, in an attempt to avoid the nuisance issues experienced by unregulated hookah bars in the City of Denver, and to ensure public health and safety. Pa g e 2 5 8 o f 2 7 3 Proposed license •The proposed Council Bill mirrors the hookah license established by the City of Denver, as follows: •Hookah business license required in the City •No smoking of hookah on the premises between midnight and 7 a.m. •No locations within 1000 feet of schools, city-owned rec centers, or city-owned outdoor pools •No smoking of marijuana or other products in a licensed hookah establishment •No hookah in a liquor-licensed premises •Application fee of $250 and license fee of $500 •In addition, at the request of a Council Member to limit the spread of a communicable disease, the proposed Englewood license requires each person smoking Hookah to use their own sterile mouthpiece. Pa g e 2 5 9 o f 2 7 3 Questions? Pa g e 2 6 0 o f 2 7 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tamara Niles DEPARTMENT: City Attorney's Office DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Resolution Setting 2025 City Council holiday, meeting schedule DESCRIPTION: Resolution establishing holidays to be recognized by City Council, and setting its 2025 meeting schedule accordingly RECOMMENDATION: Consider resolution setting 2025 City Council holiday, meeting schedule PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Annual resolution setting meeting schedule to allow for a summer break, winter break SUMMARY: Pursuant to Englewood Municipal Code § 1-5-2-1, this Resolution sets City Council's City holidays for 2025 as follows: New Year's Day, January 1, 2025; Martin Luther King Day, the third Monday in January; Presidents Day, the third Monday in February[not a city-wide holiday]; Memorial Day, the last Monday in May; Juneteenth, June 19; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, the first Monday in September; Veterans Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, the last Thursday in November; Friday after Thanksgiving Day; Christmas Eve Day, December 24; Christmas Day, December 25; New Year's Eve Day, December 31. Should one of these days fall on a Sunday immediately prior to a scheduled Regular Meeting date (or the first or third Monday of each month), the City Council generally shall observe the holiday on the Monday after and thus meet on the Tuesday after the Sunday holiday. Due to this holiday designation, City Council shall meet for a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, instead of Monday, on the following dates in 2025: January 21, instead of January 20; February 18, instead of February 17; September 2, instead of September 1. The resolution further cancels study sessions/reschedules regular meeting dates for holidays/breaks as follows: Cancels study session on Memorial Day, May 26; Provides a Summer break during the 2nd and third weeks of June; and Provides a Winter break for the last two weeks of December. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider resolution setting 2025 City Council holiday, meeting schedule Page 261 of 273 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None anticipated OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS: Discussion with Leadership Team regarding preferred meeting, holiday schedule ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Powerpoint Page 262 of 273 1 RESOLUTION NO. ___ SERIES OF 2024 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2025 CITY COUNCIL HOLIDAY MEETING SCHEDULE WHEREAS, Englewood Charter § 27 requires City Council to meet at least twice per month; and WHEREAS, Englewood City Council generally holds two regular meetings per month for the transaction of business, and two study sessions per month for presentations and study of various issues affecting the City; and WHEREAS, Englewood Municipal Code § 1-5-2-1 provides that when City Council designates a City holiday on a Monday, City Council shall meet on the following Tuesday; and WHEREAS, during the months of July and December, because schools are not in session and holidays regularly include travel, City staff and elected officials often have conflicts between City and familial obligations, resulting in meeting absences; and WHEREAS, to respond to these concerns, various other cities reduce the number of meetings during the months of July and December; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood did so in prior years, by eliminating study sessions; and WHEREAS, while eliminating study sessions increased the City Council workload in surrounding months, it also reduced schedule conflicts and absences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City Council Holiday Designations. Pursuant to Englewood Municipal Code § 1-5-2-1, City Council hereby designates the following City Council City holidays for 2025: New Year's Day, January 1, 2025; Martin Luther King Day, the third Monday in January; Presidents Day, the third Monday in February 1; Memorial Day, the last Monday in May; Juneteenth, June 19; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, the first Monday in September; Veterans Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, the last Thursday in November; Friday after Thanksgiving Day; Christmas Eve Day, December 24; Christmas Day, December 25; New Year's Eve Day, December 31. Should one of these days fall on a Sunday immediately prior to a scheduled Regular Meeting date (or the first or third Monday of each month), the City Council generally shall observe the holiday on the Monday after and thus meet on the Tuesday after the Sunday holiday. Due to this holiday designation, City Council shall meet for a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, instead of Monday, on the following dates in 1 Not otherwise recognized by the City of Englewood as a holiday; City offices are open Page 263 of 273 2 2025: January 21, instead of January 20; February 18, instead of February 17; September 2, instead of September 1. Section 2. Cancellation of Study Sessions. A. City Council shall not meet for study session on Memorial Day, May 26; this study session shall be cancelled unless re-scheduled by City Council at a later date. B. During the month of June, 2025, City Council shall hold its Regular Meetings starting at 6 p.m. on Monday, June 2, and Monday, June 23, at Englewood Civic Center City Council Chambers and through electronic format. Unless established by City Council at a later date, City Council will not meet for study sessions or other meetings of the entire Council during the month of June, 2025. C. During the month of December, 2025, City Council shall not meet for study session on December 22, 2025. City Council shall otherwise follow its regular and study session schedule for that month. Section 3. Grant of Authority to Implement Resolution. The Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem (in the Mayor’s absence), and/or City staff are hereby granted the authority to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions above. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _____ day of ___________, 2024. Othoniel Sierra, Mayor ATTEST: Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk I, Stephanie Carlile, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above is a true copy of Resolution No. ___________, Series of 2024. Stephanie Carlile Page 264 of 273 2025 City Council Holiday Schedule Presented By Tamara Niles, City Attorney Pa g e 2 6 5 o f 2 7 3 Background •Charter 27 requires City Council to meet two times per month •EMC 1-5-2-1: •City Council sets its holidays •When regular meeting falls on a Monday, City Council meets on Tuesday instead •City Council generally holds two regular meetings, 2 study sessions per month •Historically cancels two consecutive study sessions in Summer and in Winter, for a staff/Council Summer and Winter holiday break Pa g e 2 6 6 o f 2 7 3 2025 Holidays Proposed •New Year's Day, January 1, 2025 •Martin Luther King Day, the third Monday in January •Presidents Day, the third Monday in February •Not a City-wide holiday•Memorial Day, the last Monday in May •Juneteenth, June 19 •Independence Day, July 4 •Labor Day, the first Monday in September •Veterans Day, November 11 •Thanksgiving Day, the last Thursday in November, and Friday after •Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, December 24-25 •New Year's Eve Day, December 31 Pa g e 2 6 7 o f 2 7 3 Proposed Cancellation of Study Sessions •Memorial Day, May 26 (not rescheduled) •Generally no time-sensitive issues this time of year •Summer Break:no meetings June 9,June 16 (meetings on June 2, June 23) •Break the 2nd and 3rd week of June •Alleviates time crunch to set November ballot questions •Alleviates extended time between 1st and 2nd ordinance readings •June 23 ordinance 2nd readings can be 1st week of July,given June is a 5-Monday month •Winter Break:no meetings December 22, December 29 (meetings December 1, December 15) Pa g e 2 6 8 o f 2 7 3 Questions? Pa g e 2 6 9 o f 2 7 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Hilarie Portell DEPARTMENT: Downtown Development Authority DATE: October 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Approval of 2025 Englewood Downtown Development Authority Budget DESCRIPTION: Motion to approve the 2025 Englewood Downtown Development Authority (EDDA) Budget RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Directors and staff of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority recommend City Council approve, by motion, the Proposed 2025 EDDA Budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council Study Session on Proposed 2025 EDDA Budget (September 23, 2024) SUMMARY: Per the Colorado DDA statute, specifically C.R.S. § 31-25-816, the EDDA submit its proposed annual budget to the city for approval during its normal budget cycle. The EDDA Board of Directors voted on August 28, 2024, to refer the Proposed 2025 EDDA Budget to City Council for consideration. ANALYSIS: The EDDA Board of Directors approved a 2025 Operating Plan by resolution on August 28, 2024. The Proposed 2025 EDDA Budget is intended to allow the EDDA to implement the 2025 Operating Plan. The Operating Plan is aligned with the goals and objectives of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development, adopted by City Council in 2021. 2025 Property tax increment revenue is based on a conservative projection, due to recent state legislation reducing commercial property tax assessment rates and a pending tax appeal by a major property owner. The 2025 EDDA operating plan and budget represent numerous ways the EDDA is partnering with city departments. This leverages resources and offsets costs that the city has committed to Downtown priority projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Board of Directors and staff of the EDDA recommend City Council approve, by motion, the Proposed 2025 EDDA Budget. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2025 operations and activities of the EDDA will be funded through property and sales tax increment. The work of the EDDA as represented in the Proposed 2025 Budget will help offset Page 270 of 273 costs that would otherwise be born by the General Fund through grants and service delivery and will provide intangible benefits to the City by enhancing the downtown district. CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN: The EDDA's annual operating plan is now a plug-in to the City of Englewood's Strategic Plan to ensure alignment with city goals. The programs and projects in the EDDA's 2025 Operating Plan connect with many of the goals and outcomes in the City's Strategic Plan. In addition, the EDDA partners with various city departments on projects connected to the goals of the Strategic Plan, including Community Development, Parks, Public Works, Sustainability, and Communications. Examples include: Safety  Improve safety of the public realm  Increase energy-efficient lighting Transportation  ensure access and increased opportunities for multi-modal transportation  enhance walkability, accessibility, and bicycle travel Economy  support vibrancy of commercial districts throughout the downtown  support small business recruitment, growth and retention  act as a public financing partner for the CityCenter redevelopment project Community Engagement  ensure that Downtown news and events are shared through a variety of tactics  support events to bring the community together and enhance sense of belonging  provide public information and engagement opportunities to inform project planning Sustainability  energy efficient and sustainable public realm designs  native landscaping and tree canopy enhancements  support city waste and recycling programs  promote sustainable business practices Community Wellbeing  support and advocate for housing affordable to middle income workers in Englewood  promote and encourage beautification, cleanliness and code compliance in downtown  enhance placemaking and design of public spaces in the Downtown District that support local identity and community health and well being  plan for integrated, place-based public art  improve wayfinding and access ATTACHMENTS: EDDA Proposed 2025 Budget Page 271 of 273 Englewood Downtown  Development Authority   Proposed ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN Final Budget DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 2025 Revenue 3,500,334 1,096,445 Expenditures Management & Administration 268,200 270,600 Programs Marketing 131,100 183,300 Supplementary Maintenance 40,270 57,430 Projects   Mobility & Transportation 142,000 471,200 Public Space Enhancement/Placemaking 240,000 432,000 Economy, Jobs & Homes 65,000 97,500 Operations 13,350 32,850 Contingency 60,000 50,000 959,920 1,594,880 $2,540,414 ‐$498,435 Fund Balance ‐ Beginning $476,600 $3,017,014 Fund Balance ‐ End $3,017,014 $2,518,579 Fund Balance Detail Assigned $2,700,000 $2,195,000 Use of Assigned Fund Balance $505,000 Committed Unrestricted ‐ Operations $317,014 $323,579 TOTAL Revenue TOTAL Expenditures Excess Revenues Over Expenses Page 272 of 273 LETTER OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE (Participating Jurisdiction Letterhead) September ___, 2024 Arapahoe County Office of Emergency Management 13101 E Broncos Pkwy Centennial, CO, 80112 Re: “Statement of Intent to Participate” as a participating jurisdiction in Arapahoe County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Dear Arapahoe County OEM, In accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) requirements, under 44 CFR §201.6, which specifically identify criteria that allow for multi- jurisdictional mitigation plans, the [Participating Jurisdiction] is submitting this letter of intent to confirm that [Participating Jurisdiction] has agreed to participate in the Arapahoe County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning effort. Further, as a condition to participating in the mitigation planning, [Participating Jurisdiction] agrees to meet the requirements for mitigation plans identified in 44 CFR §201.6 and to provide such cooperation as is necessary and in a timely manner to Arapahoe County to complete the plan in conformance with FEMA requirements. [Participating Jurisdiction] understands that it must engage in the following planning process, as more fully described in FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook dated April 2023 including, but not limited to: • Identification of hazards unique to the jurisdiction; • The conduct of a vulnerability analysis and an identification of risks, where they differ from the general planning area; • The formulation of mitigation goals responsive to public input and development of mitigation actions complementary to those goals. A range of actions must be identified specific for each jurisdiction; • Demonstration that there has been proactively offered an opportunity for participation in the planning process by all community stakeholders (examples of participation include relevant involvement in any planning process, attending meetings, contributing research, data, or other information, commenting on drafts of the plan, etc.); • Documentation of an effective process to maintain and implement the plan; • Formal adoption of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan by the jurisdiction’s governing body (each jurisdiction must officially adopt the plan). Therefore, with a full understanding of the obligations incurred by an agreement between the Lead Jurisdiction and the Participating Jurisdiction, I [Name and Title of Authorized Jurisdiction Official], commit [Name of Participating Jurisdiction] to the Arapahoe County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning effort. Executed this ___ day of September [_Signature of Chief Elected Official or Authorized Agent_] [_Signature of Chief Elected Official or Authorized Agent_] Page 273 of 273