HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-16 (Regular) Meeting Agenda•
• •
0
Ocot be r 16 , }ggg
Regu l ar City Council Mee ting
•
I lt.ll ('{
/
/
•
• •
)
~/ .
/ ""
0
Agend• Origlnlting
Ita De lrtllent
SA FINANCE
6A CJQ
8A FIMMCE
88
8C
II A
•
•
,. •
tin CCUICIL MEa STATUS IEPOIT
F• THE OCT .. 16, 1•, Cln COIIICIL IIEETI.
Desert t ion Action liken
CITY COUNCil MINUTES 10/2/89
( OZACEK/HATHAWAY)
APPROVED 6 -0 -1
IE STAFFORD, 3270 S . SH£~
R : LAW £MFORC[Jt£J(l PERSONNEl IOIE -DID MOT APPEAR
IESICiMATIOII Of JMICE WALTERS
f ElECTIOII COMMISSION ACCEPTED 6 -0 -1
(HAT Y/KOZACE )
DAY PtiXUMTIOII APPROVED 6 -0 -1
APPROVED 6 ·0 ·1
C PT ·0 ·1
. I
• • •
Follow -u
COPIES TO BE DISTRIBUTED
MEV ~~ TO BE SElECTED BY
COUNCil
ClU TO TRMSMIT SIGNED
ORICiiMl
TO TRMSMJT SJ ED
ORICil
Agendi Originiting
It e. Dei1irt.Rt
118 CAm
llC CAm
13A CAnY
14Bt CMGR
14Bt t CMGR .
•
• •
Description Action liken follow-u11
CBI36, INTAO. BY BYRNE APPROVED 6-0-1 PUBliSHED 10/19/89; SECOND IIIO£CENT PROfiOSALS §7-60 Dr: READING 11/6/89 (BYRN[/HATtWMY)
RESOI53 APPROVING AGREEMENT TO APPROVED 6-0 -1 UTil TO SECURE NECESSARY SIG -PERFOIIt STUDY (RI/FS), DEEP GRWm-NATURES All) FILE COPY Of ~TER OPERABLE UNIT AT lOWRY AGREOOT WITH CITY CLERK I.NI)flll (KOZACEk/KOl TAY)
TRMSMinED REPORTS f!Ot EPA All) DISCUSSED POSSIBlE UPCCIUNG CASES AGAINST THE CITY; ADVISED
COUIICIL Of CUT'S RULING IN £PIA ~ ISSU£,/ElECTICII MnEIS . KOZAC[k/KOI.TAY QED TO
APPEAl DISTRICT CUT RULING TO COlOUDO SUP1tERE tcUlT. fi)TJCII APPROVED 6 -0 -1. CATTY TO F ll£ APPEAl.
KOZACEK CLARIFIED HIS POSITION ON 'Ol.ICE/FIRE POSITIONS
FOR 1990; HIS POSITION ON TUfTS,IWIION a.CTJON; Ml) CIWCES TO UNIFOM TRAffiC COO£
R£sut.TING IN lii£ATEit SAFETY Of SCHOOl CNILDIO. R£QU(STED STAff TO D£SIIill DIWIINGS TO DIVID£ All) STI., OIFOAO fD WIIIDEM£R( TO ~y .
HATHMMY ADWism TIMT fUII)S HAVE I([N AI'NOWED FOR l£llEVI£V~Y INTEitSECTIOif .
ICHT , CI.AYT
. ' .
-
1. Call to Order
•
•
'. •
EJI&LEWOOO CITY COUIICIL
EJI&LEWOOO, ARAPAHOE CCUITY, COLORADO
Regular Sesston
October 115, 1 ta9
The regular ... ting of the Englewood City Council was called to order by Mayor
Pro T .. Clayton at 7:30 p.•.
Z. Invocation
The invocation was given by Council ~r Koltay.
3. Pledfe of Alle,tance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop No . 92 .
4. Roll tall
Present: Council Mellbers Hathaway, Koltay, Koza cek, Byrne,
Habenicht, Clayton
Absent: Mayor Van Dyke
A quon. was present.
Also present :
5 . ll tnutes
Prt ~
( )
ul
tt
t f orct.
City Manager Fraser
City Attorney DeWitt
City Clerk Crow
Director Fonda , Uttlltles
SR-ED, TO APPROVE
y, OtiC , Byrn ,
70 t • d d t r I
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 16, 1989 -Page 2
7. Non-scheduled Visitors
There were no non-scheduled visitors.
8. C~ications and Procl ... tions
•
• •
(a) CCUICIL lOBEl HATIWMY MOVED, AM) IT WAS SECOII)ED, TO ACCEPT
.JMICE WALTEIS' LmEl Of IESI81ATJ. FlOR THE EII&LEVOOO ELECTION COMMISSION.
Ayes: Council ~rs Koltay , Hatha~ay, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht, Clayton
Nays: None
Abstain : None
Absent : Mayor Van Dyke
Motion carried.
(b) CCUICIL IEIIIO IYW ROVED, AM» IT WAS SECOII)ED, TO DECLARE OCTOIEit
24, 1119, AS •u ••. DAY.•
Ayes: Council Me.bers Koltay, Hatha~ay, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht , Clayton
Nay s: None
Abstain: None
Absent : Mayor Van Dyke
Motion carried.
(c) CCUICIL IEIIIO HATIWMY IIM:D, AM» IT MAS SECc.ED, TO DECLARE THE
MEEX OF OCT_. U -H, lilt, AS •IEJ II-MEEX. •
Ayes : Counctl .....,.rs Koltay , Hathway, Kozacek, Byrne,
lays :
Abstain :
Abset~t :
ftot ton carded.
9 . Consent ..
(a )
(b)
(c)
(d)
Habefticht, Clayton
lone
leone
"-1or Van Dyke
Housing Author ty ting of August 30,
nt ~thor tY etfng of
0
$UOIMD, TO
lt •
-
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 1&, 1989 -Page 3
Motion curled.
..
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER HATIWMY ROVED, -IT MAS SI:CCIIKD, TO APPitOVE CONSENT AGENDA
ITEMS 9 (d) AS FOLLOWS:
{d) Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1989 (Council Bill No. 33, Introduced
by Council ~r Hathaway), entitled:
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN ENCROAC ... ENT OF A PORTION OF A MASONRY BUILDING AT
3653 SOUTH INCA STREET, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO.
Ayes: Council ~rs Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht, Clayton
Nay s: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Mayor Van Dyke
Motion carried.
10. Pultlic IIHrint
No public hearing was scheduled.
11 . ON i nances, leso 1 uti ons and 11ot ions
(a) City Manager Fraser presented 1 reca..endation to adopt 1 bill for
an ordinance .-Ming sections of the Code pertaining to Food Delivery Vehi ·
cles and Food Veftdors . He explained this would facilitate the lie nsing and
penattting of food vendors on city sid alks, city struts, and within city
parks . licensing of vendors on sid alks and streets would comply with stan ·
dard He nstng procedures; penatts for vendors within c ty parks uld be
granted throug~ t Finance Depart .. nt with concurrence of Parks staff . Mayor
Pro T Clayton co.ented that Council r Habenicht had concerns regarding
this Council 8tll: furth r stated he uld support 1 110tion o table th
l r , aft ,. d scuss on, Counctl ,. Habenicht still d i d not el tOll ·
fortable with the Cou tl 8111 as proposed .
ed by Cou r Clay ton ,
Till£ 5, rooo .. n-•r
SlCOieO. lO AMIOWt fl ST
•
-•
• •
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 1&, 1989 -Page 4
groups, and she requested that this suggestion be incorporated into the or-
dinance. The suggestion was thoroughly discussed. There did not appear to be
consensus a.ong Council to add the stipulation to the ordinance itself, most
~rs indicating they would prefer to have it as part of the policy govern-
ing the issuance of per.its. City Manager Fraser offered to incorporate Ms.
Habenicht's suggestion into the AO.inistrative Procedures under which permits
will be issued to park food vendors. Those procedures will be in the form of
a Resolution and presented to Council for consideration at the same time Coun-
cil Bill No. 35 is scheduled for second reading. Further discussion ensued.
Vote results:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Council Me.bers Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht, Clayton
None
None
Mayor Van Dyke
(b) City Attorney DeVitt presented a reca..endation to adopt a bill for
an ordinance ... nding sections of the Code pertaining to Indecent Proposals .
Mr. DeWitt explained that Council Bill No . 36 is intended to broaden the basis
wtth respect to the gender who can ca.1t an indecent proposal . At the pres -
ent ti-. the Code proscribes conduct only with respect to aales; the proposed
ordinance ~uld include indecent proposals by either sex . He stres sed that he
did not believe the current ordinance is unconstitutional, but th change ~uld provide a broader bash .
The City Clerk read Council Bill No. 36, Introduced by Council Metlber Byrne, entitled :
MENDI TITlE 7, CHAPTER 60, £ l£WOOO ICIPA COO£
All) RHMCTING SECTION 7 Tlt£R£0f , RElATING TO INDECENT
MWO, -IT tllS SU.O, TO APN0Wt • FIRST RUDI. , SOilS OF lilt.
1t
I .
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 16, 1989 -Page 5
•
• •
(c) Director Fondi presented i rec01111endition from the Bi -City Super-
visory C011111ittee to idopt i resolution ipproving in igreement to perform i
remedhl investigition/fusibility study for the Deep Groundwater Operable
Unit it the Lowry Lindfill. Mr. Fondi expliined thit it would be advantageous
for the City to join the other parties of the Lowry coilition in seeing that
the work is done rather than have the EPA do it; this .ethod helps control the
costs and provides us a large say in the ulti•ate re.edial iction . He ex-
plained the cost increase of $53,000 would be split 50/50 by both cities (Lit-
tleton ind Englewood). He reca..ended in a.end.ent to the resolution in the
4th line of Section 1, so that instead of • ... City ... • the resolution would
read •... Bi-City Wastewater Treat•nt Plant, with other Respondents, ... •
Mr. Fonda responded to questions concerning operible costs . The Resolution
was assigned a nu.ber and read by title:
RESOlUTION 110. 53, SERIES OF 1989
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMEIIXD AND RESTATED ~INISTRATIVE ORDER ON
CONSENT RELATING TO LOWRY LANDfiLL SHALLOW GAOUNDWATER AND SUBSURFACE LIQUIDS
AND DEEP GROUNDWATER R~DIAL INVESTIGATION /FEASIBILITY STUDY
COUNCIL ...a lOZACEl IIMD, All) IT MAS S[CCII)(D, TO APPIOVE RESOLUTIOM 110.
53, SOlES OF 1tlt, AS NEilD .
Ayes : Council "--bers Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht, Clayton
Nays: None
Abstain : None
Absent :
Motion carried .
Mayor Van Dyke
lZ. City llanater's ~
Mr . Fraser dtd not have any .. tters to brlnt before Council.
13 . Cfty Attorney 's ~
(a) Mr . O.Wttt circulated a copy o a
to yard waste , as 1ng COYnCfl to vt t . port rec tved fro. EPA relat lv
I
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 16, 1989 -Page 6
•
• •
(e) Mr. DeWitt discussed briefly the Diminis Guidelines issued by EPA
with reference to charge backs to each respondent in the Lowry Landfill
lUtter.
(f) Mr. DeWitt shared copies of the District Court 's ruling with
reference to the Englewood Pol ice Benefit Assochtion vs the City of Engle -
wood. He infor.ed Council that District Court Judge Watanabe had ruled
against the City on every issue presented. Mr. DeWitt recommended appeal to
the Colorado Supre.e Court. After thorough discussion of the ramifications of
this ruling and its effect upon the upc011ing election, the following action
was taken:
COUIICIL ...0 lODCEit IIOYED, Ml) IT MAS SECCJM)£0, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO APPEAL TO TIE COLOUDO SUPlEIE COURT TIE DECISIOM OF DISTRICT COURT .JUD&E
MATMME 1• TIE MTTEI u.LE.WOD POLICE IEJIEFIT ASSOCIATIOM VS THE CITY OF
u.LE.WOD.
Ayes :
Nays :
Absta in:
Absent :
Motion carr ied.
Council Me.bers Koltay , Hathaway, Kozacek, Byrne,
Habenicht , Clayton
None
None
Mayor Van Dyke
14 . leneral Discussion
(a) Mayor 's Choice
Mayor ProT .. Cl~ton di d not hav e any aatters to br ing before Council.
(b) Councn Mellber's Choice
(i) Council Mellber Kozacelt wished t o clarify for the record
several .. tters wh ich had been brQU9ht to his attent ion by various citizens he
had talked wtth wh ile CU~P a tgntng for reelection: (1) He wanted It to be
lt~MM~ that he had opposed by -otton th cuts of positions and funds to both
t Police and Fire Otpart.tnts for 1990; (2) He wa nted it clarified that he
s opposed to the City of Englewood pay ing for th4 Tufts/Union conn ction; and
(l) Retarding safety of children around schools, ht anted tt n that
th ar 190 h wa s nst tal n ov rrtdtng t Untfona Trafftc Cod by
tng stop stgn pl around Clay on El n ary Sc ool, ch has n n
o 1 all t st ool , as 1l as oth r schools tn th
pol l " • a .
1 h
uld •
Engl..ood City Council Minutes
October 1&, 1989 -Page 7
'.
•
• •
( ii) Council Metlber Hathaway stated she had been advised by the
Littleton traffic engineer that funds had been approved for double left turns,
all four ways, for the intersection of Belleview and Broadway .
15. Adjou......,t
CIMII:IL _,.EIItOLTAY IIOYED TO ADoJOUIII. The 11eeting adjourned at 8 :35 p.m.
•
I
•
• •
AGDDA FOR THE
RBGUlAR MEETING OF
TID DGLBWOOD CITY COUNCIL
1. call to order.
2. Invocetion.
OCTOBER 16, 1989
7:30 P.ll.
3. Pledqe of allec,iance.
aon can.
5. llinut•.
(a) llinutee of
October 2,
a6 .~ 1-
c. Pre-acbeduled Yieiton. (Pl .... liait your pneentation
to ten ainutee.)
(e) -..mie ltaffoi"Cl of 3270 1. will be
in at to N r 001~rne abou the
actlona of t.av fo 1r.Dftl' .. l.
1 it your p nta on
(a )
ca.)
City Council Agenda
October 16, 1989
Page 2
•
• •
(c) Proclaaation declaring the week of October 22
~ J th0ruro9ugFhree29c,
01
19
0
8r9ada
0
• the _R~~bbon ca~pji~ for a
· '--f./tCc ntldt/lfJ"/ A ~7c.
9. Con8ent Agenda.
Accept ~yaceh /~r
Jf.l (a) Kinute• froa the Englewood Houdng Authority
1~ ... ting Of Auguet 30, 1989.
Kinute• of the Englewood Downtown Developaent {t Authority KeetinCJ of Septeaber u, 1989.
(c) Kinute• of the Englewood Planning and Zoning
C~i••ion Keeting of October 3, 1989.
Approve
(d) for
10. Public Bearing.
11. Ol"cciftancea, lteeo1Uti0n8, and IIOt iOI\8.
(a)
(b)
--t
laca..endation tro. the City KanaCJer•• Office to
adopt a bill tor an ordi.nanoe .....-.dinCJ eectiOI\8 of
the Cocle peru 1 to Pood pe_)Jve!YJ: Vehicle• and
Pood Yenclon. At 1 7¥f1 .;
1
'"L ( 4f'.
Rec~ndation fro. the City Attorney•• Ofti to
aclopt a bill tor an ordinance ... nding MCti•
the Cocle pertaining to Indecent PropoNla. C;i.1
-
•
•
City Council A9anda
October 16, 1989
Page 3
14. General Diacuaaion.
(a) Kayor•a Cboica •
•
• •
I .
1. Call to Order
•
• •
ENGL£11000 CITY COUNCIL
EII&L£11000, ARAPAHOE COUIITY, COLOUDO
Regular Session
October Z, 1 tat
The regulAr .aeting of the Englewood City Council WiS Cilled to order by MA yor Vin Dyke 1t 7:40 p .m.
2. Invocation
The Invocation w•s given by Council MeiOer Koltay.
3 . Pled,. of A11et 1ance
The Pledge of Allegl1nce wa s 1 d by MAyor V1n Dyke .
4. Roll Call
Present : Council rs Hathaway, Kolta~. Kozacek, Byrne , Habenicht, Clayton, V1n Dyke
Absent : None
A quoru was pr s nt.
Also present:
5 . MINot
C ty Manag r Fras r
A !s tan C ty Attorn y Gr
C 1ty Cl r C
0 r tor aggo r, 1tc or s
0 r tor Fonda, Ut11 l e
5 A
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 2
•
• •
them for efforts to improve the safety conditions in and around Bishop Elemen -
tary School . He pre sented murals and various compositions of the first grade
students express i ng their appreciation for the stop light and other safety
111easures . A 1 et ter of appreciation fr011 Pall Hillegas, Chairperson of the
Parent Advisory Team , was also given to City Council.
(b) Judy Flynn, President, Business and Professional Women, was present
to receive a proclamation .
COUNCIL NEMER ltOZACEK MOVED, MID IT WAS SECOII)ED, TO 01118 FOIWAIID MENDA
ITEJt l(d).
Ayes :
Nays :
Absta in :
Absent :
Council Me.bers ltoltay, Hathaway, Kozacek , Byr ne,
Habenicht , Clayton, Van Dyke
None
None
None
Mot ion carried.
COUNCIL .. [l MTHAMAY MOVED, Ml) IT MAS SfCOII)ED, TO HCLAI[ TN[ WElt OF
OCTOIEl 11 -U, 1119, AS •MATICIIAL MJSIIESS WOitO'S W£Dt. •
Ayes : Council rs Kolt1y, H1thaway, Kozacek, Byrn ,
H1ben1ch , Cl 1yto n, Van Dyke
ays : on
Abs 11n : on
Abs nt: Non
Mot ion carrttd . M1 or Van Dy t pres nttd the signed proclaution to M .
Flynn . Ms . Fl nn 1n roduc d Sharon Win le, o has been n • n of t
Ye1r • by th E 1 wood Busin ss and Profession al W n. Congr at ul at ions r
off red .
7. Mon -schedul e4 Visitors
o non -sc uled tors .
8. cat on and ,.ocl ttons
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 3
Absta i n: None
Absent : None
Motion carried.
•
• •
(c)
TOlER &, COUNciL MENBER HATHAWAY MOVED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO DECLARE OC-1989, AS "GERMAN-AMERICAN DAY."
Ayes: Council Members Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek, Byrne,
Nays : Habenicht, Clayton, Van Dyke
None Absta i n: None
None Absent :
Motion carried .
(d) Moved forward -see Agenda lte• 6(b), Page 2 .
(e) COUNciL MMER HAIEIUCHT ROVED, MD IT WAS SECOfi)ED, TO DECLME THE
MEEl Of ROVEMER 12 -18, 198!1 AS "M£RICAN EDUCATION W£El. •
Ayes : Council Members Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek , Byrne ,
Nays : Habenicht, Clayton, Van Dyke
None Abstain: Non
None Absent:
Motion carried.
(f) CCUCJL M£MIER KOZACEK ROVED, MD IT WAS SECOfi)ED, TO D(CW£ TH£
IIOifTH Of SE'TEMER AS •SQUAAE DMCE NOifTH. •
A s: Counc 1 rs oltay, Hatha way , Kozacek, Byrne,
9.
( )
( )
(C)
(d)
Hab n cht, Clayton, Van Dyke
one
Non
on
,1(0-ED, TO
'lo I .
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 4
•
• •
COUNCIL MEMBER KOZACEK MOVEO, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9 (e) AS FOLLOWS:
(e) Council Bill No. 33, Introduced by Council Member Hathaway, entitled:
A COUNCIL BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT GRANTING AN ENCROACH -
MENT FOR A STRUCTURE INTO AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF RIGHT -OF-WAY IN THE 3200
BLOCK OF SOUTH WYANDOT STREET EXTENDED IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.
Council Member Habenicht inquired if information from the area property owners
had been received; also she wondered if there was any way the City could fa -
cilitate an agreement which would be a vacation rather than an encroachment .
City Manager Fraser confirmed that the adjoining property owner had been con -
tacted; however, that owner did not object to the procedure being followed,
also that he had no interest in pursuing any other alternative .
Vote results :
Ayes :
Na ys:
Absta in :
Ab sen t :
Mot ion cur led .
10 . Public Hearing
Coun cil MeMber s Koltay, Hathaway , Koza cek , Byrn e,
Haben ic ht , Clayton , Van Dyke
Non e
None
None
No public hearing wa s schedul d .
11. Ordinances, Re s olut i on s and Mot i on s
ul t •:
A
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 5
Nay s: None
Ab s tain : None
Ab sent : None Motion carr i ed .
•
• •
(b) City Manage r Fraser requested that Agenda Item 11(b), a bill for an
ordinance amend i ng s ect i on s of the Code pertaining to Food Delivery Veh i cle s
and Food Vendor s be tabled . He stated additional amendments are appropriate .
COUNCIL NEMER CLAYTON NOV ED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO T AILE AGENDA IT EN 11 (b) , COUNCIL IILL NO. 35, SERIES OF 1989.
Ayes: Cou ncil Member s Koltay, Hathaway , Kozacek , Byrne,
N1ys: Habenicht, Cl ayt on , Van Dy ke None Abstain: None
None Absent:
Motion carried .
(c) Director Waggoner, presented 1 recommendation fro. the Public Works
Department to 1dopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 41, Series of 1989,
concerning the lease of the Cfty greenhouse property. Mr. W1ggoner explained
that the 1mendment provided for a deposit of escrow .onles 1s 1 perfon.ance
guarantee r1ther than a perfon.ance bond . He assured Council the total ..aunt
of the deposit over a one -year period -$7,800, would adequately protect the
Ctty . The Resolution was usigned a number and read by title:
R£SOLUTI HO . S2, SERIES OF 1989
A RESOLUTION NDlNG R£SOlUTJ . 41, SERIES OF 1989, CONCERH1NG LEASE Of
CIT '.AEENHOUSE PROPERTY TO DESIGN FLORAL SCHOOL, INC., FOR SCHOOL TRAINING PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD 0 YEAR .
COUIICIL ER KOZACEK MOVED, MD IT WAS 5£COND£D, TO APPIOVE RESOLUTICIM NO. U, SERIES Of ltlt.
A s Kozecek, Byrne,
10 c
c
I .
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 6
Nays : None
Abstain : None
Absent: None
Motion carried .
12. City Manager's Report
•
• •
Hr. Fraser did not have any matters to bring before Council.
13. City Attorney's Report
Hr. GriMm , Assistant City Attorney, requested 1 motion to accept settl ... nt in
the matter City of Englewood vs R. D. Anderson. Hr. Gri-. confin.ed that the
City would receive $7,500 in addition to the $10,558 .56 previously retained in this matter .
COUNCJL HEMlER CLAYTON NOVED, AND JT WAS SECOII»ED, THAT THE SmUMOIT NO -
POSED JN CJTY OF EMGLEVOOO VS lt. D. ANDEit$011 IE APPROVED.
Ayes : Cou ncil Me~ers Koltay, Hathaway, Kozacek, Byr ne,
Nays :
Ab stain:
Absent :
Motion carried.
14 . leneral Discus sion
(a) Mayor's Cholc
Habenicht, Clayton, Van Dyke
None
None
None
M.ayor Van Dy e dtd no hav any alters to bring before Council.
(b) Coun 11 r 's Choice
th a ay, OZIC , ly
ort to
)
,
Englewood City Council Minutes
October 2, 1989 -Page 7
•
• •
by her public statement recently published in the Englewood Sentinel; however,
at the sallie time she wants it known that she supports the Ctreer Service Board's position, and she supports the Police.
(iii) Council Me.ifr Clayton offered appreciation to City Manager
Fraser and Finance Director Free.an for the excellent budget presentation at
the recent budget retreat . He ca..ented that it was refreshing to go into the
retreat with a balanced budget affording Council ti .. to discuss other issues
of i~rtance. He expressed confidence in the outcome of the budget results .
(iv) Council Me.ber Kozacek echoed Mr. Clayton's ca..ants concern-
ing the budget, stating each depart .. nt head had done a tre.endous job of co.-
ing in with budget cuts. He strongly suggested that consideration be given to
conducting the budget retreat locally next year, which would save the City considerable funds .
15 . AdJourMent
CGIII:JL ....U lOLTAY IIWO TO ...... The .. eting adjourned at 1:11 P·•·
-
.J Janice Wal tera
4415 S. Delaware St.
Englewood, CO 10110
c;zt.JI.t tAujMl tidJ..utt.l~~~
:IJ:,i '71-'1' t,!nf.tt.l -~J.ai-u,z; "~
J ... t ~~ .lh>J. 'I?'UV'..UZf: ~ (t/1.~ ~ .,J~ L4 ·~~. p
{I; ~m.?ll.:.GI.i'~t ·U a .V ~-M.Ij. b Av J .~ ~'2i"ctlA ~
, ',t(n& I (~ ,I:., ~*1' ,i (Yt)v
. • 4eht/.u.i.~.J't ·~114.
,,/J~~
•
• •
8 {a )
I
•
• -
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, U.N. Day is an international observance of the
founding of the United Nations on October 24, 1945; and
WHEREAS, in 1945, the United Nations adopted a resolution
sponsored by the United States to have all member nations
celebrate the anniversary each year; and
WHEREAS, besides the United States, more than 60 other
nations have United Nations Associations that sponsor U.N. Day programs; and
\IHEREAS, th theme established for this year's celebration
coordinated by the United Nations Association of the United
States is "Pulling Together: A Program for the United States in
the United Nations• and "Rights of the Child•;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SUSAN V~J DYKE, Mayor of the City of
Englewoo d, Colorado, hereby proclaim OCtober 24, 1989 as
o .•• DA'f
n the C t y o f Engl e wood w th he hemes for his year's
c elebra ion o ·P~llin9 To9 tb r: A Pr09raa for th Onited
s t • in h Oni d atlona• nd •a19hta of he Child.•
CI y hand a n d 1 h i s l h ~ y o f Oc o r , 198 •
8 {b)
I
•
• •
PROCLAMA'l'IOII
WHEREAS, alcohol and other drug abuse in this nation has
reached epidemic stages, and the 15-24 age group is dying at a
faster rate than any other age group; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that visible, unified prevention
education efforts by community members be launched to reduce the
demand for drugs; and
\fREREAS, The Colorado Federation of Parents for Drug Free
Young is sponsoring the National Red Ribbon Campaign offering
citizens the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to drug
free lifestyles; and
WHEREAS, the National Red Ribbon Campaign will be
celebrated in every community in America during •Red Ribbon
Week;" and
WHEREAS, business, government, law enforce .. nt, schools,
religious institutions, service organizations, youth, physicians,
senior citizens, ailitary, sports teaas, and individuals will
demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by
wearing and displaying red ribbons during this week-long
c&Jnpaign;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SUSAN VAN DY~E, Mayor of the City of
Englewood, Colorado, hereby proclaia the ek of October 22 -29,
1989 as
uoaiuo.
1t 9.
y hand nd • al hit 1 h y o 0c ob r,
8 (c)
I .
-
I •
II.
r u .
•
• •
ENGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY
BoArd 0~ Co .. issioners
RevulAr ,..._tinv
_9 A
The R-oul•r "-eting o~ the Engl.-ood Housing Authority BoArd 0~ Co .. lssioners WAS CAll~ to order At ~~4~ P••• on
w.drwsdAy, Auvust 30, 1989, At BilliOn Center, 3333 South
Lincoln Str .. t, Engl.-ood, ColorAdo, 90110, by ChAiraAn Tho-• :1. Burns.
At this point in the --.ting the ChAiraAn, Tho••• :1. Burns,
end the EM~utive Director, PAul "•linows i, stAt~ they ~elt the Study S.ssion portion o~ the AW9u1Ar "--t1ngs o~
the Engl-.ood Housing Authority &hould be includ~ As • part o~ the rec;aular --.ungs, end thus beco .. record~ in the
ainutes o~ the Engle.ood Housing Autho ity BoA r d o~
eo .. issloners ..... tings. The c o .. issaoners present
concurr~.
....,_ers Pr ... nt•
Also P r e ntt
Tho-• :1. Burns, ChAar-n
R. J. hrlln, Vice CtoAlr-n
Nort .. n Norden, co .. lssa o ner
Bradley • Ztec;a, Co .. lssl o ner
Rooer ~oltAy, City Council Rep.
<W th pri o r not ce)
Paul ~U no ws l,
"-r y A. Ryan, R
EHA BOC Regul•r ~eting
08/30/89
•
• •
Discussion centered •round code violation5 il, the home<;; o
EnoleMOod Citizens Mho applied ~or reh•b loa ns. Cur r entl y
it is the policy of the Rehab Loa n P rogra111 as adopted b y
City Council in the Housing Rehab Loan Ao•·eement that code
violations .ust be abated be~ore any other rehab W0rk for
S.neral Property I~rov ... nts <&PI> can be done.
The Executive Director asked about structuring the r ehau
financing so that code violations could be abated th ro ugh ~
deferred-pay .. nt loan and the uco ... ticu or GPI rehab wor l
could be done b)' .. ans of a bank loan at the current
inter-t rate available ~or such loans. Ho .. o_ni needa f\'1
both types of rehab IIH)rk could receive a "blend" of t htr two
loans, deferred and bank loan. Thus, ho.ec~Mners needtOQ o
abate code violations 1010uld receive so .. kind of fina1~1dl
help in alleviating potentially dangerous condatio11s an
their ho-s.
Co-assaoner Norden thought that the Rehab Loan Cc.-1 tt e
had a financing -.chanisa in place already 101 ith th reh b
banks to provade suffacaent fan•ncanQ tn orde to o
uco ... tic" rehab 1010r
eo-ass oners Z 1-o nd Norden -nted to """"' how ny r b
loan applacataons had been "squa.n.du becau .. th a-aunt of
.oney rweded to br 1 ng the ho-up to cod tn or d
the rehab loan funds to do 6Pl -• too IIU ~"h
ho -.r t o repay. Co-•••aoner Z lecJ s ted th
nu.be -• pe haps thr a .onth < •• opposed
other yea > he would f .. a lt r) to
aatuat1on 110re clo .. ly.
,.
Z lecJ atated he
to c at any o f the
th pu p f doanq
t sure he
HA' S liO
} I
re willang put fund 1 t o
I .
EHA 8DC Regular ,.._tii'IQ
08/30/89
•
• •
Diacuaaion •nsu~ regerdinQ wh•th•r th.r• w.a en ed~uate
nullb.r of' hou... evellMJl• in Envl-od which would be
•veileble at • coat that .ould fit th• houaing .. rket in the
Envl~d er••· R. J. Berlin stet~ that there -re a
I'1UIIb.r of' •be~t· hou... in th• Engl-od ar•a Mhi c h
could btt fixed up.
Yic• Cheir .. n Berlin end Co .. isaioner Zieg f'elt that
building ne. ~ on V8Cent Iota should b• the EHA's lo-st
priority, end that th• renovation of' e t~iati ng housing
•tructur.. for .. ae to f'lrat-tl .. ~uy•r• should beco .. a
top priority. Vice Cheir .. n Berlin f'elt that the EHA should
be providing decent houalnv •t en ef'f'ordeble price throuQh
rehabbing exiat;lng at;ructur... eo .. taaioner Zieg f'el t that
the ~ could do ~ •t;urn erounda• on hou ... that are in
exiatence, l.e., the EHA could do •ith run-do.n hou ... what
nobody el-MOUld do.
The E..cut;lve Director •teted that ideally the aatuetlon in
~lch the ~ buys • broken do.n rent;el unit, tears lt do.n
cr._vea the .,..ore) end puta up • ne. ~-occupa~ hou-
.ould reduce the nueber of' rental unl ts by one end i ncr••••
the nueer of' ~-occupied unita by one t;hua ... ung thr-
woal• of the City Council ctnc.ludlng r._vel of' th•
eyoeaore). The poaltive t..,8Ct of r._vino bllQht an a
rwlatlborhood -.on the ..,rroundlng ha••--• end •pride an
....wr_...ap end c-.nUy pride• -.re daecuaeec~.
The nueer of lrweator o•IMI rental houalng unlta C.ultapl•
veraua aingle) -• daacu...a at length. The Eteecutiv•
Director •teted ttt•t thia aatuetlon -• currently beinQ
r .... rchlld by the C:O...nlty Devel..-nt Dllpert..nt.
Diacu.•ton ensued reverdl"l the v ant Iota p ... ntly o.ned
lay the Envl....ooct H~N;•tnv "'-tthoraty end whet the
C...i .. ioner• f•l t hey -nted o do • th thee at th •
ti... The c~•••loner• f'elt that buUdanv ,... on the
ant lot• anould • .edt praoraty, and f~ ang up
hou 1 "I 1 cf pr t r J v o he t • I
buya t fu u
ld ....
I .
•
EHA 80C R-vular "-eting
08/30/89
•
• •
Chang--de to the Engl....ood Housing Authority 1988 Goals and
ObJ~tlves by the eo .. issioners ~or the 1990 Goals are as follow:
e. Re.ove It .. III.D.a "Continue to elCplore acqutsition o f si tEc"s
and units available on larger tracts for rehabilitation nd
rental and/or rehebllltatlon and sale.•
3. Add wording to It .. I.C.a "Continue efforts to reduce the
EHA's -iting llst by providing additioNil rental subsidies."
IT WAS fCNED BY COI'tttiB&IONER BRADLEY L. ZIE& THAT THE WORDING "CONTINUE
EFFORTS TD AEDU:E THE WAITING LIST BY PROYIDIN6 ADDITIONAL RENTAL
BUBSIDIES" BE ADDED AS ITE" "I.C." TO THE ENGLEWOOD HOUSIN6 AUTHORITY 1990
BIML.S MID DB.JECTI\1£8. COI'tttiSSIONER NOALEEN NORDEN SECONDED THE f'tOTION.
Ayes• 8urn., Berlin, Norden, Zieg
Nav-a NDne
Abstained• None
Ab.-nt 1 Ko 1 tay
The Board o~ eo .. tsstoners stated that they -nted the Englewoc.-d
Hous&ng Author tty 9oals and ObJ~tlv-fo FY 1990 pu tn th•
•&nut-•
D
OF
s s·. 111
Q.l Q
... ...,La:..V L. Z l G TO ADOPT THE I~
Z t
AUTHORITY AS NJDIFI D AND
HOU61 N8 AUTHOR I TV 1990
IN D T P«JTION .
THE
I •
•
• •
EHA BOC R.Qular .... t1nQ
08/30/89
Ill.
IV.
v.
Vl.
A.
ENBLEWDOD HOUSINB AUTHORITY
Adopted Auuust 30, 1989
Provide hoe.owner~ip opportunita ..
alnole-~ .. ily houaeholds.
8. "-ke av.ail.able l.aruer ~ .. ily units.
with .attention to
C. Continue e~~orta to reduc• the w.aitinv list by p rovidtnq
additional rental aubsidi ...
A. TttrOUVf\ ectiviu-, provide lncre.aaed prop•rtv v.alues to
rwleN»orhooda.
8. Of~er 1--inter-t, ~ •ro~t lo.ans for ho-.o-rs or
ln-.tors.
C. ~asize lo•n opportunita .. to allow for bualdang/roo•
add 1 t 1 ons anct bedr0011 I.IP9 Adea.
•• Deteraine ,...... fo c slble houslno
• .. involved an provadl"9 theM -rv
c. tucty ...... hoY .. need by
•t o l and hoapat l o •n•z• 10
oHth c nat •
EHA BOC Regul•r "-eting
08/30/89
IV. tlj~J~~
•
• •
Th• word "not" sh•ll be in-rted in par;ag r •ph F, Page 3, in
the l•st -ntence b•t-n the words "but" and "necessat"lly ".
Th• words "•nd ten•ntto" iih•ll be inserted in t he eventh
p•r•gr~h on P•ge 4, the l•st sentence, between the wo ·-d s
"st•ff" •nd "froe".
eo .. iasloner Zieg st•ted th•t •n ieport•nt dlSCUSS lon o n the
quiet-enjoy .. nt coven•nt through the Englewoo d Hou s 1ng Autho ri t y's
contr•ctu•l •r r•ng-nt with 1tto ten•nt s wa s 0 111i tted fr o • th
etnut•• of the Regul•r "-eting h•ld July e6, 1989. The f o ll o wt ng
dtscuss son h•• b .. n in .. rted in th• •ppropr••te p ort1on of the
elnutea of' th• ReQul•r "-eUng of the Englewood Hous1ng Au tho r 1 t
8o•rd Of CO .. lSSlOnRrS h•ld July e6, 19891
Toe Bu rns
tha t th•
at•ted
l•ndl ord
•x1atlng b t.,...n
or two
•
• •
EHA BOC ~ular ,.._ting
08/30/89
Th.r• -r• no visitors &ch~ul~ 'for th• R~ul•r 1'11teting of the
Engl-.ood Housing Authority Board o'f eo .. ission.rs held AUQUSt 30,
1989. N.ither -r• ther• any unsch~ul~ visitors at this ~ting.
Yl • Jti!GJ.Im 'I ~1
eo..issioner Bradl•y L. Zi~ qu-tio~ th• Occupancy Report
and the siz• o'f ~· waiting list was discus~. It w•s 'f•lt
that the inclusion o'f paravraph No. I.e. in the Englewood
Housing Authority 1990 Boals and Dbj~tiv•• addr•sse<t th1s
concern.
Di~ussion ensu~ r~arding th• ... tlng that th• EHA had with
the CUy Council on AuQust lit, 1.,.,. It was th• v•n.ral
cons.nsue o'f th• eo .. tssioners pr-..nt that this ... ting -nt
very ... 11. It wae also avr-.ct upon by th• co .. issl.on.rs
pr-..nt that perhape r-vularly ... ting twic• a y•ar, e.v., 1n
August to di~u•• voale and obJ.ctiv•• 'for th• co•l.ng y•ar
and in Feru.ry to analyz• th• provr-• b•lnv -d• on tho••
goal• and obJ.ctt-and to vet 'feedback 'fro• City Counc 1 on
Mh.r• th.-y want to 90 the r-t o'f th• 'f1~al y•ar, 1010uld be
betw'ficlal to both the EHA and City Council. Co-1ssion.r
Zt-v want~ th• Engl-od Housar19 Author1ty 1990 Goal s and
ObJ.ctl-sent to th• Envl-.ood City Council •• •oon as
~•abl•.
A. a.tUng o'f 1990 Boale
••
Thle lt-was cover~ duranv the Study S..slon o'f th• Revular
.... ung o'f th• Engl-.ood Houe ng Authority 8o•rd of
eo..ts•aoners h•ld AuQuet 30, 1~.
Action on oan
_, I .
EHA BOC R~rgular ~ting
08/30/89
•
• •
The City Attorney's office gave an op1n1on that the EHA coul
ll!gally coll~t the full a•ount from the Deed o f Tt-ust e v
though it did not •atch the Pro•issory Note. Also, 3 n
application was taken that show.d the daughter qual1fied as
only low-inco-. and not very low-inco,..; she therefore woul d
be required to •ake laOnthly p ay-.nts o n the l o an .
co .. ission.r Z &eg asked what would happ1rn if the Englt?woc•d
Housing Authority operated strictly by the lethtr of the Nt•t
and Dlr&d of Trust. The EM&c:uti.ve Directot-responded that the
EHA -ould go to the daughter and infor• her (1) be ause the
o..d of Trust states the deferred loan b~a,.. due and pay ble
upon sale or transfer of the property, and <2> bec a use th
1t0ther quat -c hti.• dltlrdlrd the p ro perty to the d ughte,-1n
1986, that C3> th• defer r ed loan funds w.re i~d1ately d ue
and payable to the EHA. However, the daughter cla tm s she
do•s not have the funds to i-..Gaately r~rpay the def1r1 r d
loan and furtherltDre cannot affor d to •ake eonthly p ayMen t s
on the defer r ed loan and has requested that the EHA fo rg1~
the deferr d l oan portaon of rehab loan No. 32. Therefor ,
staff has r~o -.nded a coep o•ase <based on the f1 a 1 I
anfor .. t&on supphed by the daughter) Mh&ch a t o req 11-e
pay .. nts on th p r ancapal aeount of the d~rferrlrd l o an at OX interest rate for b eonths.
Co .. asstone Z aeg
endea or to st ac
of the Rehab
He re o-.ndlrd
1 ' •
• •
1t wa s aepo r tant that the
t he ul .. , egulatton
rog r.. nd no forgav th
EHA follow s t ffs' r
I •
-
(
•
•
• •
EHA BOC R8Qul•r .... tinQ
08/30/89
'Il 0 c.
•
The EnQl-od Hou•inv Develop-nt Corporation <EHDC) -s
•tarted in 1986. lniti•lly, the EHA Bo•rd .erved •• th• EHDC
BD•rd. Dn Aprtl f!7, 1987, the EHA Bo•rd -.bera r .. iQned
~r~ the EHDC Board to ali•lnata any potantl•l con~lict o~
inter .. t or • piercing of the corpor•t• "shield". Th• EHA
appointed thr-,_ ...eter• to be the EHDC Boarda Tho-• A.
Dinkel, ... trice L•ne, •nd Searl Brier. Searl Briar rasit;~ned
•• • -tiber o~ the EHDC lllhltn he accepted eeploy-nt in
IIDulder, Colorado. The Executive Director reco-nded that
the IDM llo•rd dlac:u•• .,.... for a ,_ EHDC Board ....,.r and
appo tnt .uc:h _..,...
The Executive Director •t•ted th•t there -.s a corollary
t•.ue ln that the EHDC llo•rd ....,_r a •r• appointed by the EHA
lloardt •nd 1~ the IDM l• to be kaeplnQ an "•r•••-lanQth" a-y
fr~ the EHDC llo•rd, he queattoned the propriety of the EHA
Board appointlnQ ,_ EHDC llo•rd ....,_r•. Co-i••1onar Ziat;~
•tated he dld not ... • probl-w1 th thla •ltuation •• lonQ
.. the t.., boarda had no ...a..r. in co-n.
CO..t••toner Norden •t•ted that .. ny housing autho r it t .. hev•
develop..nt corpor•ttona _, up for variou• purpo.... The
•ar•••-lanvth" .... •r•tlon the hou•inQ authoritt .. end the
develop..nt corpor•ttonaa are euppo~ to .. tnt•tn is beang
challaneect. Therefore, lt t• very lllport•nt that the
-.par•tton be ~r• th•n an ••r•••-lanvth•, and th•t there b e
,.., tot•llv .... •r•te enuu .. .-..ra there is no appear •nc• o~
• confllct of inter .. t. C:O..i••lonar Norden felt it -•
l~rt•nt th•t the IHA llo•rd di scuss Whether o r not they ... re
•llling to t•ke the r t•k o f appe•rtng to be .... th•n an
•are•s-lanvth• dt•t•nc• f r ~ the EHDC llo•rd eepec'•ll y 1 ~ t he
IDM lloard ls appointing the ••••r • of the EHDC llo•r d.
The lty-L_. of the EHDC W~~re d lscu~ •s t o p ro v l st one t o
r-ve and appoi nt EHDC ard -.ber•. C..•a r .. n liu nt1 s t•ted
that 1t -.. poeelble that the EHDC e l ~t h•ve the eb 111 t y to
sl~~pl y c~ the lly-l.allle tt.rouett Ulf If 1 n t to •I low the EHDC
t o appoi n t and ats own IID •r d The Ch•tr .. n
s tat ed tha t t he d could .. o t
d h a t vtno
th•t And
I •
EHA B0C ReQUlAr "--ting
08/30/89
•
• •
co .. issioner Z1eQ sta ted that he would l1ke thi s 1tem table
until IM)re detailed in'for•ation concerning the provis1 ons o
the EHDC's By-Laws on appointment and reMoval of the EHDC
Board -.bers could be presented to the EHA Board. The Elc•al-d
concurred.
eo .. tssloner Nor l .. n Norden r aised another issue relat1v to
the EHDC Board. She stated that at the last Meeting of the
Rehab Loan co .. itt .. <RLC), the RLC discovered that the EHDC
has applied, and .. y apply in the 'future 'for Rental Rehab
Provr•• CRRP) loans. She 'felt it was very inappropriate fo r
the EHDC to co .. to the RLC and requ-t a rehab lo a n when t wo
o'f the Board ..-bers of the EHDC are also on the RL C . The
RLC had never revi~ A RRP loan request 'fro111 the EHOC
becau.. these loans were deferred loans, tr ad 1t1onall y
revi~ And approved solely by the EM~utive Director. At
the .June 28, 1989, -t•nv of the EHA Board, a MOt1on was
p••sed to ... nd the current rehab loan policy so that all
de1'errltd pay .. nt rehab l o ans be sub•l ttltd to the RLC f or
rev1e. and approval p r1or to Sl Qn ing by the EKecutive
Director of th EHA.
The EMecutave Dar tor SUQQ-tltd
for A RRP loan, the EHA BoArd
C:O..iss&oner ZlRQ -ted that a
and approvinv requests for AN>
appo&ntltd.
EHA Board should
i'f t would be
Mho would
The
ass to
.. y, l'f
at.t nd t.h
,, "· l
EHOC appl1e
loan request..
for evl-lllQ
th EHOC b
•
• •
EHA BOC ~ular .... tll'lQ
08/30/89
III. D.
The per .. nent ~inancinQ ~or the eleven rental units o~ th•
WAND project wlll co.. ~ro• CHAFA. Th• EHA pl•dg.cj on
a.pt~ e1, 1988, to .. k. up any caah flow d•~ici•ncy ~ro•
ttw inter .. t -rned 1'r~ Sieon Center unr•strict•d COs. A•
part o1' ~ ~lr• co .. itaent Cfinal stav• b•for• lo•n
clo•i"V), CHAFA ••ked that eU!S,OOO b• .. t asld• in • CD and
deslvnated expr .. •lv ~or this purpo... CHAFA requested that
ttwy be • coeivner on the CD, althOUGh f'or only a .. t p•riod
of' tit... It ... the rec~ndaUon o~ ttw EMecutiv• Director
that e1es,ooo o1' unr .. tricted Siaon Center re .. rv•• b•
deslvnated in a ~ial account wlth CHAFA as a costvner, in
• .utually .. r...a.le 1'or .. t, to pledge th• inter .. t th•reon
1'or any dei'lcl~t ._., rental caah 1'low.
There -• -concern expr-..d about CHAFA beinQ • co•ivner
on ttw CD or co~• o~ the CD and thua at -ta .. in th•
futur• havinQ to relinqui.tt being • co-of' the CD. Th•
E.ecutive Director etated that the ~lr• co .. lt .. nt l•tt•r
fr~ CHAFA -• eioned on lluQuat ~. 1989. The EMecuUv•
Director auooeeted that ~ EHA direct ata level couns•l t o
.. t wlth CHAFA'a level cou,_l and c~ up with an acceptabl•
for .. t to do • security int..-.. t •• opposed to an o-rahip
intier-t. If thia i• not acceptabl• to CHAFA, then the
E.ecutive Director ... directed to co.. back to th• EHA
~rd.
The EMecuUva Director etated that he did not have CHAFA'a
1'1r• co-.Uaent l•tter an hand, and U ... decided that this
1 ._ be tabled unU I "'• co-.i taent l•tter a in hand.
The po~Ual purchaser• of 1!107 w. hker Avenue, J .... and
LeiGh ..._a, ..are rej ted by CHAFA Ce thouGh •
cond1taorwal ovel -• received fr OW"A nd the lendef')
ttwir ly •nco-. eUQhUy ••ceedecl
t.y OW"A. The .... -.-. ceu by Let
lo Whach •• celt•
lu he
ta
_., .. I
•
• •
EHA BOC R•gul•r "-eting
08/30/89
lT WAS
OF' Tl€
I '
YIJJ.
The Executive Director
$7,0QO •nnual inco-
so-.one IIUst h•ve •
and a -Xi~MM~ inco-
loan.
•
stilted th;ot the•-e was only :tbout al
"window" for this house between whi c ~e
•iniiiUM income to qu•lify ~or the loan
th•t th•y could not exc .. d for a CHAFA
Th• sales associate of th• "•lton Senti CoMp•ny who m r~ ted
2107 W. Baker Avenue, "iri•• Senti, h•d c•refully selected
th• ••rkettng plan for th1s property due to the • ny
requir._nts and r•stricttons placed upon the s•le. lt was
th• professional optnion of "ir•a• ~wnti that the EHA should
consider accepting th• FHA loan approv•l since the gutdellnes
and r•strict1ons placed on th1s property by CHAFA, he HA
and th• Stat• Dlvislon of Houstng, h•d Made h •m
virtually unsal•able to IMlSt fa•tlle& 1n th1s r fl'oil t•f
Englewood. She f•lt it MOuld be extr ... ly difftcult to
obta1n anoth•r willing and qu•llfurd pu rc hser for th 1s
prop•rty in the fores .. abl• futur•.
Discus•ton ensued rtPgilrd•ng th• res r t c tons pl ced on he
-le of thts ho .. ••t by th Board and the length of t1111 th•
unit had been on th• fllark•t. eo .. a.saone Norden t t d th•t
th• EHA should b• war• o f future s•les condttlons and
r•str1ctaon5 pl ced on una ts off red by th EHA so !, not o
r•nd•r the prop•rty virtu•lly un leollbl• to Most follmille .
Th• pr1 c1ng of th• ho .. wa s 1 o d1 cussed so as to pr•v n
an ov•rbuil valued at $74, be1ng butl a n
nttlghborhood prop ta a1 d o t f th P• ac ng,
of MOst f••alt s 1ghb rh ~d.
la , "• aeo
• 1
_,
I
•
• •
EHA BOC Regular ,.._t ing
08/30/89
IX.
Co .. ission.r Bradl•y L. Zieg qu~tion.d th• Not~ to Financ ia l
Stat-..nts on Public Housing regarding l~al ewpenditures. The Ex~utiv• Dir~tor •xplain.d that a r~training order had to be
obtain.d •vainst th• aide o~ • handicapp~ r•sid•nt at Orchard
Place Mho cau~ -v~al probl.... Discussion •nsu~ revarding t~ situation. Co .. ission.r Ztev ask~ Nhether or not the
handicapp.ct r-ident had ~ qu .. tion.d on h~ wi shes in the
.. tt~ regarding h~ aide. H. stat~ that h• ~•lt strongly about
the rights o~ handicapp~ ~sons and ~elt that th• EHA •ay have
dealt with this probl.. without input ~ro• th• handicapp•d
r .. id~t. Ex~utiv. Dir~tor "alinowaki stat~ that the tenant is
r-.ponsible ~or the actions o~ his or her o~ts accordtng to the
provisions o~ th• EHA•s lea-and could not be tr•at~ differ•ntly in this r-.p~t.
Jt ... s noted that the 1988 audit is being MDrk~ on now and that ~ 1918 books •r• near co~letion.
Nothing ... s pr-..nt~ ~or discussion und•r this portaon of the ....,.. ..
Bri~ discussion ensued regerdang the EHA's ne. of~ic•
bulldlng. The Ex~utlve Dir~tor stat~ that the asb .. tos
had been co~letely reeov~, space Plannang ... done, th• ~urnlture plan had been develop~, and th• space and ~urniture plans had QOn. to the archat~t to devel p MDrklng drMtlngs.
eo.., .. aoner .. ,.,, .. ....,
•
_,
..,.nt~ to 90 on r ord ln these
uld be r elving
on t~ Nat onal
these ballots .. nt
EHA
f
I .
•
• •
EHA BOC Re«)ular ...._ting
08/30/89
Co-issioner No r den also stated that the EHA a s an a genc.y
-lllbwr could cast a vote "for in the NAHRO national elect l c•ns.
I:!.QI!.Qij
IT WAS ~D BY ~ISSIONER NORLEEN NORDEN THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE
ASENCY I'IEmERSHIP VOTE OF THE ENGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE TWO
NAHR0 ELECTIONS (1) CONS T ITUTIONAL CHAN&ES FOR THE BY -LAWS AND C2> FOR THE
NATIONAL SR. VICE PRESIDENT, THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BE AUTHORI ZE TO
VOTE THE AaENCV BALLOT AS HE SEES BEST ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE S f-'uR
THE BY-LAWS, AND AS VOTING FOR .JACK QUJN\1 FOR NATIONAL VIC
PRESIDENT. VICE CHAIRI'tAN R • .J. BERLIN SECONDED THE 110TION.
Ayes a
Nay••
Ab•talnech
Absent•
lll.
Burns, Bwrl1n , Nordwn, Z 1~
Non.
Non.
l<oltay
Br i ef" discur.s aon
Director to c• t
wlect1 ons a s he
dect•ions would be
ensued regarding a~thoriz1ng the E<ecu 1 v~
the agen -1 v o te un all up com1 g NAHRO
sews "fit. It wa s d ct dod that has
~ de on a casw-by-c •• bas a s.
Co-t •••onwr Norden
that du to la ~
R~ular "-ttt1ngs; of
eo-1ssaone •·
al~o wan t ed to oo on record s s tat1 n g
s hedul a ng s hw may m1ss he ne x t t w
h nglewood us 1ng Autho o·a y d
Olat r .. n
1n
-· -
•
•
• •
'~LEASE NOTE: THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED"
ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3333 South Bannock -Englewood, CO 80110
Ke•bera Present:
MINUTES
~eptember 13, 1989
Birdsall,
To•ooka
Close, Hathaway, Platou,
Absent:
Breier, Green, Oxman, Pendleton, Steele, Wanuah
Staff Present: Hayea, Douglas
The regular •eeting of the Englewood Downtown Dcv lopment
Authority Board of Directors vaa called to order by Chairaan
Walt Toaooka at 12:26 p.a. He began by noting that Bill
Pendleton, board treasurer vaa absent and asking if anyone
had questions regardina the Treasurer's Report. Pollyanna
Hayes, EDDA' executive director, noted that there vaa more
aoney in the Project Account. She added that thia aoney
will always stay in the account and that th aoni s could
not be utiliaed without board approval and ••ending th budget .
Due to lac:k of a quorua at thia point, Cha1r•an To•oolla
stated that approval of last •onth'a board alnutes and the
Treasurer's leport would have to wait until the next board
•••tina when hopefully there would be • &llfCic1ent nuab r of voting •eabera present.
CHAIIMA 'S llPOIT
I
MUUTES
September 13, 1989
Page Two
•
• •
Chairman Tomooka then announced to the board members that
during the September 5 EDDA executive board meeting, it
had been unanimously decided to present Gordon Close and
his wife with a complimentary dinner at the restaurant of
their choice. This would be in appreciation of Mr. Close's
sponsorship and hard work during the Sounds of Summer concert
series. Chair•an Tomooka e•phasized how successful the series
had been, especially with the evening finale concert. He
added that due to the evening concerts in particular being
so well-received, he would like to see the board think
about budgeting •ore dollars for the• next sum•er . He
said that in his 15 years tn Englewood, never has he seen
so •uch positive response to an event. Hs. Hathaway, as
an Englewood native, agreed. Cha,.r•an To•ooka made the
final suggestion of •ore lighting for future evening concerts
and concluded his report with strong congratulations for
both Hs. Hayes and Hr. Close regarding their concert series' efforts.
DIRECTOR'S .!PORT
Sounds of Su1111er Finale Concert
Ms. Bayes noted that all has been well with the concert
aeries and shoved all preaent copies of the Englewood Sentinel
finale concert picture, along with a aa•ple of the finale
proara• brochure. Reaardina the latter, abe said that the
400 proar••• printed were not enouah due to a greater
attaDdaDce tha• abe had eapected. Ma. Hayes also added
that approai•ately SO proar••• had bee• d1atributed prior
to the co•cert, leavtaa a balaace of JSO. lased on this
•u•ber, Ma. layea eati•ated an atteada•ce of approaiaat ly
500 at th ftaale concert. She also noted that abe and
aaa1ataat Mary Doualaa bad paaaed SO evaluatlona out rando•ly
durtaa tha laat afternoon co•cert aoct laat ev n1ag concert
aad to dat 27 of the• had beea returned, vtth all the
r apoaa a v ry positive. Ma. Bayea atatect that alae ah
atarted vor ala •oaths ago, ah baa aott a a b tter f 1
for the IDDA bud& t aad voulct, la th future, It onatd r
IOhJ a 811all r Ca)t for prOIIOCi of t
a 4 p •or lot th rta t •• lv a.
d u14 ~ ct 1 t
0
r t I •
MINUTES
September 13, 1989
Page Three
Business Fair
•
• •
Ms. Hayes noted that she, as EDDA Chamber representative
and fair chairperson, had been at the Englewood Chamber of
Commerce Public Relations Committee meeting the day before
and had strongly emphasized the need for fair volunteers,
along with encouraging all present to volunteer more as they
could . She reported that, by the end of this meeting,
she had secured more volunt eers accordingly . Hs. Hayes then
told the board that the Chamber of Commerce had mailed almost
1,600 business fair brochures to local merchants; Hr. Close
asked about the response, to which Hs. Hayes replied that
it was "marginal," She said that there were 10 confirmed
booths, with four autos confirmed, Hs. Hathaway asked if
the City of Englewood had secured a booth, and Hs. Hayes
affirmed, She concluded this portion by stating that she
believed that the 40-booth space goal should be attained
by the October 7 date without too much problem, and that
the Kaiser Permanente CenterStage exhibit, already confirmed,
should be particularly impressive.
Hs. Hayes, wh o is parade vice-chairwoman, has committed th
EDDA to assist with publicity. She stat d the parad will
be planned for the first Saturday in November and the theme
is, "Marchina into the '90a," with no cost to participate.
Ha. Bayes said that the board needed to diacu1s thia y ar 'a
donation, and noted that last year's was $750. Hr. Birdsall
aelted how the donation would be uaed. Hs. Hathaway interject d
that the donation would be ueed poseibly toward advertialn&
ancl priue. Ms. Hathaway aclclecl that th !oalewoocl Parada
fouaclatlon would plan to apend between $4,000 and $5,000
total for the event .
Koltday Celebration
"'' Hayea atlcl
lnalewoocl
I .
MINUTES
September 13, 1989
Page Four
. .
•
• •
Ms. Hayes also said that she and Ms . Douglas were planning
a holiday program in the Plaza utilizing the local elementary
school choirs and possibly the churches. She then referred
back to decorations and explained that input from the EDDA
Board was needed in sharing decoration costs with the City
of Englewood. Ms. Hayes noted that last year the EDDA
contributed $3,248, and she was hoping the contribution could
even be larger this year. She also stated quality decorations
were more expensive but would have a longer 1 ife in the
long run. Chairman Tomooka agreed and stated that we must
not repeat costly mistakes such as purchasing indoor bows
for outdoor use. Hs. Hayes then brought up the holiday
program plans again and said that she had not yet talked
with Roscoe Davidson, Englewood Public School superintendent,
regarding the participation of the five local elementary
schools, but would do so within the next few days. She
added that much brainstorming has been taking place regarding
a holiday prograa and has produced many ideas inclu ding
a suggestio n froa an Englewood citizen that the EDDA have
a holiday art contest with the winning entries being imprinted
on shopping bags. Hr. Close said that the idea was good
but was concerned about the tight tiae frame.
More discussion ensued on the id a of decorations w1 th Chairman
Toaooka suaaestina s 30-to 40-foot "li&ht tree" to be erected
in at least three choice locations: 1. Th Plaza at Little
Dry Creek, 2 . City Hall, and 3 . l.oaan Str t ar a. Hs.
Hathaway added that the "liaht tree" idea could b tried
in an appropriate location Cor at least a year to a ,
aaona other outcoaes, what vandslisia would result. Chairman
Toaooka then interjected that the Haapd n overpass across
Broadway also would be an eacell nt location to decorate
and hi&hliaht for all to s e; Ks. lhthavay said th at
Biabway Departaent would have to be consulted accordinaly.
Ms. Baye1 1aid that it would be iaportant for tb EDDA
to d corate the bu1in •• district area• a1 auch a• p011ible
so a• to hopefully encouraa more merchant• to do th sam
1th their own stor •·
I
MINUTES
September 13, 1989
Page Five
•
• •
Englewood Economic Development Coalition
Ms. Hayes noted that while the August meeting had been
canceled, she and Rich Wanusb still had met . She said
that Hr. Wanusb noted that an alternative EDDA representative
would be needed, in addition to Ms. Hayes, to se rv e on
the coalition . She stated that he was looking also for
candida te s to fill 10 additional positions representing varied
interests . At this point, she asked Hr . Birdsall if he
would be interested in serving as the Cinderella City
representative, and he said he would consider it .
EDDA Board No•inee s
Hs . Hayes notified the board •e•bers that Ms.
previously had informed her that Monday, Oct . 9,
the date for interviews . Ms . Hathaway said the EDDA
would be contacted by City Council .
Business Se•inars
Hathaway
wou 1 d b
nominees
Hs. Hayes noted that her 1ssistant Hs . Dougl1s is in ch1r e
of the business se•inars, which 1re being co-sponsor d by
the Cre1ter Enalewood Ch1•ber of Co••erce . The first one
is scheduled for Septe•ber 26, she 1dded, and fe1ture1
Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Ji• Wilson spe1kina on cri•
prevention . She 1dded th1t the next on will pre• nt ar a
••a J 1 business consultant Leon De••oin 1ux who ill a pea
on creatively •arltetina your business in a tvo-p1rt a •in1r
set for early ove•ber . Sh noted th1t Hr. D ••otne1ux
co••• hiahly reco••ended to EDDA and Hr. lird•sll con 1r d
that he ie a aood 1p alter. Cbair•an To•oo a euaaeeted
that it would b aood to op n up th 1 •in1r1 to all of
n 1 wood, but He. lathav1y not d this ould be t chnically
ao1na OUt of t do towa bue1a • district hit ODA • d at n d to 1 rv •
DDA Picnic
r
"'
rt •
MINUTES
Septeaber 13, 1989
Page Six
•
• •
At this point, Ms. Hayes handed out copies of a "thank-you"
note that Dan Green and his nev bride had written for the
wedding gifts of aonogra•aed glassware and microwave pieces
that the EDDA Board had presented to them.
There vas a little aore discussion on the Plaza holiday
celebration including Chairaan Toaooka's suggestion that song
sheets be printed and distributed to encourage caroling in
the Plaza. Ms. Hayes also noted that elf and/or reindeer
aasks vere beina considered for the children, along vith
her investiaatina the possibility of caroling down Broadway.
And, vith concurrence that tbe prograa should be very
coaaunity-orieoted, the board aeeting officially ended at 1:35 p.a.
•
• •
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 3, 1989
I. CALL TO ORDER.
0 R A F T
The regular .eeting of the City Planning and Zoning Co..ission was called to
order by Chai~n Ta. Gerl i ck at 7 :00 P.M.
~rs present: Fish, Hogue, Schultz, Tobin, Carson, Gerlick
0 . A. R~ns, Acting Ex-officio
Mewbers absent : Becker (with prior notice)
Wanush, Ex -off i cio
Also present : Harold J . Stitt, Planner
J I . APPP.OVAL OF MINUTES
Sipteilber 19 , 1989
Chai~n Gerlick stated that the Minutes of Septe.btr 19, 1919 were to be con -
sidered for approval .
Carson •ved :
f hh seconded : The Minutes be approved as wr i tten .
AYES : Hogue, Gerl i ck, fish , Carson, Schultz, Tob i n
MAYS : MoM
AISOO : lecker
AISTAIII :
•t10ft carri ed .
IJJ.
, C r F r 1 c ,
CAS Z-19
I
•
• •
Hr. Gerliclt outlined the procedure to be followed In conducting the Public
Hearing, that being that testi~ny fro. the applicant and proponents will be
received, and the Co..isston uy then aslt questions; testiaony will then be
received fro. opponents, and the Co.aission uy again aslt questions. The Coa-
•ission aay ulte changes or ~ifications in the proposed Sign Code, and will
then suh.it a reco.aendation to the City Council regarding the Sign Code. Hr. Gerliclt then aslted the staff to aalte the presentation.
Hr. Harold Stitt was sworn in, and testified that he is the Planner in the
Deparlllent of COIIIUnity Developt~ent. Hr. Stitt stated that the first Sign
Code for the City of Englewood was adopted in 1973, and revised in 1982 . The
proposed revision is the first aajor revision to the Sign Code in alaost nine
years. In the intervening ti~, the staff has found in working with the Code
that there are areas that are vague and lnterpretat Ions are not consIstent.
The proposed revisions are an atte.pt to clear up those areas, and aake chang-
es that wtll be beneficial to the COIIIUnity at large. Nr . Stitt stated that
one of the changes Is to bring the Sign Code Into ca.pliance with the nu.ber-
fng syste. used in the Englewood Municipal Code. When the Sign Code was en-
acted the Ca.prehensive Zoning Ordinance, of which It Is a part, was nu.bered
"Ordinance 22"; when the Municipal Code was redone to include the Ca.prehen-
sive Zoning Ordinance, it bee~ Title 16, and all sections of that Ordinance
have a "16" prefix. The nu.bering syste. throughout the Sign Code has been revised to ca.ply with the Municipal Code.
A second area of revision has been to chri fy sect tons that have presented
proble.s in Interpretation. The revisions have been written so that the in-tent of the Code has not been changed, but is clarified.
A third area of revfsfons are the result of -.etings with ca..unity groups
such as the ChMiber of C~rce, •etings with Sign Contractors, and fro. staff experfenca in workfng with the Code.
Hr. Stitt then revi.._, t PI"'ppsed revisions. A llljor revtston pofnted out
by Nr. Stttt is the dfvfston of the stgn ~~~ts for low-deftstty res deft -
tlal areas fro. t sitn ~fre.tnts for the htgher-denstty residential dis -
tricts,. sue" as l-l and l -4 . The l -l and R-4 dfstrfcts do perwft not 011ly
hig r-dens ty. but re nt se type of uses such as professional off ces,
and a s tt011 as created outlfntng t s 911 code ~ ts for t se z districts .
•
-•
• •
Mr. Fish stated that it appured that the low-density restdenthl districts
vtll not be allowed to have suspended or projecting signs. Mr. Stitt stated
that suspended signs identifying a household by giving the surnue of the
residents, or giving the street nu.bers, will not be regullted by the Sign
Code. The projecting signs and suspended signs are not applicable to residen-
thl "uses".
Ms. Tobin asked if the "grandfather" clause would be eli•inated, or would it
still pertain to those signs that are in place at this ti.e. Will the provi-
sions in this Sign Code apply only to signs that are installed after the Coun-
cil enacts it. Ms. Tobin further uked if sc.eone had a ground sign with
three flees, would the stiff still count only one flee in deter.ining the
1110unt of signage allowed. Mr. Stitt stated that the gnndhther clluse is
not being el i•inated, and that only one sign flee would be counted in cal-
culating total signage.
Mrs. Roaans stated that the Sign Code will still contain the section on Non-
confor.ing Signs. Mrs. Ra.ans further stated that, in her opinion, very few
signs will becc.e nonconfor.tng u a result of the enact.ent of the new reg-
ulations. Nr. Stitt esti.ated that there are less than IZ nonconfor.tng signs
in existence at the present ti.e, and stated that attrition has affected the
nu.ber of nonconfor.ing signs.
f the staff had chec ed with adjoining nicipaliti es to
deter. ne t proposed Sign Code she s up IS hr IS being restr i ct! e .
Mr . St tt stated t at littleton fs in the process of revising theirS gn Code,
fch IS bMn •re restrict ve than Engle.ood ' s Code . Denver pro is tons are
•re 1 beral; Aurora h •ch •re restrictive. and lakewood is SO/SO .
•
• •
th1nk Mrs. Ra..ns 1nd Mr. Stitt for involving th~ e1rly on in the process of
the Sign Code revision. The ChUiber feels th1t the revisions u before the
Ca..ission 1re pretty .uch in fin1l for., 1nd the Ca..ission should reca..end the revisions be en1cted by the City Council.
Mr. Hugh Fowler w1s sworn in lnd st1ted th1t he would 1gree with the Ch~r's
reca..end1tion. He st1ted th1t Anything to help business in Englewood should
be Approved. Mr. Fowler uked 1bout group signs; 1s it the intent of this
revision to 11low group sign1ge like th1t for Silo 1nd Rocky Rocco on U.S.
285. Mr. Stitt stAted th1t it is the intent of the Code to pen.it group signs like the one used by Silo And Rocky Rocco.
Mr. Phil Gri .. w1s sworn in, And testified th1t he is represent i ng Rocky Moun -
tAin Sign AssociAtion. They Are very h~ppy with the job the stAff h1s done on the Code, And f"K'-nded 1pprov11.
Mrs. Ra.~ns po i nted out thAt Mr. Gri .. w1s 1n Active r of the T1s Force
th1t drAfted the or i ginAl Si gn Code bAck in the e1rly 1970 's . She th1nked Mr .
Gri .. for his continued p1rticip1tion 1nd interest i n the Sfgn Code i n the Ctty of Engle-oDd .
Mr . Gerltc asked if anyone else wished to spe11t . one else Addressed the
Ca..tu on either in favor of or opposition to the proposed Si gn Code .
Cuson.,vtd :
f S SIC~: T Pu l t c Heutng on Cue 12 -19 be cl os.cl .
AYES : Tob i n, C1rson, f s , Gerlfck, Hogue, Schultz MAYS :
ABSOIT :
ABSTAI :
T' •t on carr ed .
t pl ISU Of t C u Oft .
t J.
• •
•
• -
would better reguhte sign~ge to eli•in~te the •cluttered• ~ppe~nnce. He
asked if there wu ~nything th~t could be done ~t this tt• to require the
three signs be co.bined on one structure. Mr. Stitt st~ted th~t the signs to
which Mr. Schultz w~s referring were inst~lled in co.plt~nce with the current
Sign Code. Mr. Stitt further pointed out th~t the Ponderos~ Restaurant, Pier
I, and Checker Auto Parts are on their own •pads• in the Klrltet Place, and are
not under the control of Tr-11 Crow, the developer. Further discussion
ensued. Upon questioning, Mr. Stitt stated that even under the revised Sign
Code, the s-stgnage could be requested and approved. Mr. Stitt stated that
in ~ Phnned Develoc-ent, a sign package would be part of the Phn. Mr.
Schultz stated that he would lilte to require that the placa.nt of signs for
all businesses in a develo~nt such as the Klrltet Pl~ce be on one sign. Mr.
Stitt stated sign plans would be requested on all new aajor develo~nts.
Mrs. ROllins stated thAt another probl• area has been •The Kirts• ancillary
services; the staff understood th~t there were to be se eral saall accessory
shops for the tenants of the develo~t. and the total stgnage allowed was
figured on the basis of the area of those saall units; owe er, the developer
leased a aajor port ton of the accessory area to Blockbuster Video, and the
resulting signage is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, even
though it technically ca.pltes . lri ef discussion ensued.
Mr. Cierliclt stated th&t staff wi 11 aalte the revisions to the Code as discussed
at the .. ting, and refer the Sitn Code on to City Council.
IV .
Mr . Cierlic stated that . anus has provided the ta.tss i on with an outline
of the Plan to foll i n their revis i ons. He as ed that t Ca. n t on study
t outline, and be prepared for furl r d iscuss i on at t next .eti ng .
V. PUBLIC F
re s no
-•
• •
but those in attendance indicated they would check to deten~ine if another
evening ~uld be convenient for thea. She stated that she felt the Task Force
ts progressing. and hoped to have written doc~nts by the end of the year.
Mr. Fish suggested the possibility of a special ~~eeting of the Task Force to
•infon~• City Council. and that they not be included as a part of the Task
Force on an on-going basts. Mr. Gerltck stated that City Council .-bers have
indicated a desire to be a part of the Task Force on a pen~~nent basts. not
just for an •infon~~tional• session. He suggested that Ms. Tobin follow
through with checking with the ~rship to deten1ine whether another evening
is convenient for the ll&,jority of the .-bership.
""· Fish stated that he had reviewed a 1969 edition of the COIIPrehenstve Plan.
which was done in U~all brochure fon11t for each topic . He found this fon11t
to be excellent. attractive. and infon.attonal.
Mr. Schultz ...,ort.ed on a Waste Man~t Task Force .. ting wtltch he had
attended just prior to the Planning Co.isston .. ttng thts evening. Four
Ctty COUftCtl ....-.rs are participating tn this Task Force. as are Nrs. Becker
and htiiSelf fn. the Planning C:O.isston. He stated that the City Council
already has a considerable .ount of infon.ation on Waste Man~t. and want
to .we forward on this issue very rapidly. They also want the waste Manage -
.... t issue to be addressed and be a part of the revised COIIPrehenstve Plan .
""· Hotue inquired about the construction and excavation at U.S. ll5 and South
Slllta Fe. Nr . Carso~~ and ""· Sdwltz discussed the i iiPro~ts that are
takt .. place with the railroad tracks and replac-.nt of the trestle to aca.-
IDdate both tracks.
There bet .. no further business to co. before the Co.isstcM•• the .. t tng was
declared adjourned at 1 :10 P.M.
I .
~II).
amJB ar ltl9--
M«KII~MILUDL
•
• -
9 (d )
--·· ..... ..n ~ • ..anlf buildiftl • JISl aaltll Inca ~ in tile Cltf of..,......., ODlc:lndc, ~lt ~ • Lots ll .ad lC, Block
12, ... J ........ ~ Qatty, ~. -~ 0.35 foat: ~the
s.t ....... .., Una,~ in tile pllaJJc ri1Jht~41!WI llld
-••· tt. ..n or tta rcr buildiftl a liSl laath ~nca ~
-cxawtzw::~ 0.10 tlaalt illltD tile IJica/~ .U., ~~4i!WI .ad
--· t:t..'e 1a liD pnctk:al ..., ~ ~ tile ~ partial ~ tile .U. 1d.tbaat ~ tRcpwlf CMIK to 9D to aaaa1dlnb1e i W
llld limN&d...,.l .ad
--·· tile -nat natal bt tlw Clq ~tw· • u.. tlw ~ -tltinrJ pl.-; llld
--dl, bt tlw tnnt ~ • e~~~aoa I
tlw .-tiafct.ial of all s-rtW. ~·...,
-· •• 1T miiUI., • •u.:a:P, CXI,...,,
1,
will be~to
•
• -
P\ml ished as a Bill for an OnUnanoe a1 the 5th day of <k:tober, 1989.
AIMd by title lnd paned a1 final reading a1 the 16th day of <k:tober, 1919.
P\m1ished by title as ~ r~. _, Serift of 1989, a1 the 19th day
of Octcber, 1989.
htriCii •. Claw, city didi
I, '-tricia B. craw, City o.a of ~ City of lhJlewod, Cblor..t:>,
......, o.tify tt. ttw ~ 1a • true CX1'Y of ~ ~ pas8ed Ql
final reediniJ ..S ~illhed by title • Ol'd1.nlnoe llo. _, SKies of l919.
htrldi •. &all
•
•
.. -
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, •ade and entered into the day of
, 1989, by and between the CITY OF iNGLEWOOD,
:CO~LO::RADO~:-.~a-=•unicipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
•city,• and ROBERT W. ATKINSON II and SUSAN PAULINE AT~INSON,
hereinafter referred to as •Grantees,• the owners of certain real
property leqally described as Lots 13 and 14, Block 12,
Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, also known as 3653 South
Inca Street;
~. The East vall of the aasonry building at 3653
South Inca Street in the City of Englewood, Colorado, legally
described above, vas constructed 0.35 foot beyond the East
property line, encroaching in the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the West vall of the said building at 3653 South
Inca Street vas const ructed 0.10 foot into the Inca /Jason alley
riqht-of-vay; and
WRER AS, ther is no practical vay of r..av ing the
ncroachinq portion o f th valls without causing the property
er to go to considerable expense and inconvenience; and
WHEREAS, the encroac n v s not noted by the C1ty
inspectors at the ti the cons ruction vas taking place; and
by th qrant of an ncroac~nt, the .. tter vill
e satlsf c ion o f all parties concerned;
l -
•
• •
encroac~nt shall be terainated, and no lon9er shall Grantees
use said encroachment.
3. Grantees shall .. intain insurance covera9e sufficient
to satisfy any liability arisin9 as a result of this encroac~nt
and shall hold the City haraless froa any and all liabilities
arisin9 froa this action.
•· '!'his A9r .... nt shall inure to the benefit of and be
bindin9 upon the heirs, executors, adainistrators, successors and
asai9ns of the respective parties hereto.
IN WITWESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
CITY OF EIIGLEIIOOO, COU.~
a aunicipal corporation
By
:;;s=u-=s-=a-=n-.;v:::a-=n-;;Dy::::w:k:::e:-,-.:Jia;:-::y:::o:::r:----
AtTEST:
Patricia B. Crow, city Clerk
ftAft or COLOII~
COCJM'I'Y or UAPAIIOB ss.
GRAJITEES:
aobirt •• Atkinson II
Susan Pauline Atkinson
lifned before • by Susan Van Dyke aa Mayor ADCI attested by
Patricia •· Crow as City Clerk of the City of lfttlewood,
COlorado, this ___ day of , ltlt.
lr a :
)
) as.
llotary PUblic
JUO 1. Blati,
• A naon n 4
-------· Ult.
c
' co
P ul
I •
DATE
October 16, 1989
IIIITIATm IY
STAFF SGUICE
ISSUE/ACTI ON PIOPOSm
•
• •
COUNCIL CONNUNICATION
SUBJECT
11 (a)
Council Me.ber Clayton
Roger Fraser, City MAnager
Food Vend or Ordinance
Amendment
Under the existing Englewood ~lnicipal Cod • food ven d1 ng or p dling is prohibit d .
This ordinance will provide for a proce ss to allow fo r ood vending in Ci y Parks
and during special events. Proposed action requ st d 1s to dopt t e proposed
ordinance wh ich eshbl fshes the procedures y hlch a r od vendor could receive a
penalt to operate within the City of Engl ood.
PIO IOUS CCIUIIC I L ACT ION
The City Counc il re I th s ordinance •t t e S pt
This i t .. wa s originally sc~uled on the Oc o r 2,
Fruer requested tha t be postponed unt 11 th Oc o
could be revte-ed further .
STAFF YSIS
for t
I £1191
I .
-•
• •
Though the current Code does not allow for food vending within City parks and at
special events, there have been unlicensed vendors at so.e activities. In some
cases they have been shut do.n, in others they have been allowed to r~in .
Enforc..ent of this Code provision has resulted in loss of so.e desirable activities
in Engle.ood and see.s to be fairly stringent in ter.s of acco..odation of special events.
FI._IAI.
Direct financial i.,acts to the City are •ini .. l. The increased activity by City
staff in teftdtng to the per.itting process wuld be negltgible, .tl11e the
enforce.ent aspect is difficult to quantify without having so.e experience to
justify any calculations . Ho.ever, should food vending result in inordinate ..aunts
of staff effort, a per.it fH structure could be il!ple.ttted in the future to cover the associated costs.
I .
<R>INNI::E t«>.
SI!RIBS r. 1989--
•
• -
A BILL PCR
I '1
<XUCIL BILL t«>. 35
~
Ml (R)JJW«2 RBPF.ALDI; Ml> REI!M1Cl'DI; <1fAP'D!2l 4 CF Tl'JU 5, DG.I!XO>
JIU«CCPAL CXD 1985, RElATlJI; '1'0 POD IELIV!J(y VIIIIa.BS M1> POD \I!JIXRS.
~~DDS, the preeent provisions of 0\apt.er 4, Title 5, EnglacJOd
IUU.cipal O:Jde 1985 prohibit vendon fraD ~~elling, offerinq for sale, ~,
peddlinq, or distributing food proclrt.a pn!pAn!d and pE'OCeUed for ~
~ioo ctirec:t1y to citizens lotio had not pnrviowsly ordered._; and
~. it is desirous to pemit oerta.in licerwed food V'll!rdJn to 11
suet\ ita. to pencns "'-11e enjoying the facilities of partta and oerta.1n
st.J:eeots in this City;
JIDf, liiEIG?Jilitt, BE IT ~ BY 'lliE CITY
~.~.~: IL CITY
s.::tion 1. 0\liptler 4, Title 5, EnglacJOd IU\icipal O:Jde 1985, ia heAby ~~to rHd u f o ll :
5-4-1 : PO(I) tZ.IV!JlY Vl'.HICU:S ~
A. lD"DDI'n
1.
2. •
).
4 .
I
•
• -
6. Other confection procb::ts mean I'WJrullooholic drinks, candy, gun,
etc.
7. Street lll!ans the entire width between the boundary lines of
~ry ~ pmlicly maintained when lillY part thereof is open to
the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or the
entire width of every ~ declared to be a public street or
highway by any law of this state or any ordinance of this city.
8. SicBal.Jt or sicBal.Jt an!a -.as that portion of a pmlicly
lllllintained or declared to be a ~lie street or highway by any
law of this state or l1nY l!hgle.ood ordinance between the cw:t>
lines or the lateral lines of a roadway and the adjacent
property lines intended for uaed by pedestrians.
9. For the p.lillOSe of this title and chapter ally, city parks liiNnS
any park owned by this city for Ulle of citizens, including the
Wlllkvllys and fountain ~a of the l!hgle.ood Plaza and walkways
and bike paths of Li tle Dry ~k Flood Plan.
B. PaD~ SALES F'IOl vmla.ES ...I 4 1: • It shall be
unlawful for any persons to sell, offer for sale, peddle, twwt, or
di illute y food , ice oonf ion proclx:ts or other
001'1£ ion procb::t pn!par'ed and proces for .u.diate 0Clrl8\lllption
f vetucl icle stands on any street , alley , or other
pUblic pl s ci y xoep as foll
l.
2
3.
_,,
1.
llinq as tile prior order therefor
CIC'[OlJDonm: 0 any 11 inq .
procb:: to l
rrw>arnrTiOI'l 81 and incl.J.strial
l l , off r o sal ,
rrocb:1ca ~ and pra:eq,ed
1on procb::ts or
n<ll"._,.ucl
I .
·· ..
•
• •
3. k:h licerwee 1.. ~ to q~erat:e in acoordance with
~~~Pliable stAte atatutes a ..tainistered by the Arlpllhoe County Tri~ IIBalth Depu1:Jiatt.
t. Licerwn C)I:Wlted lmder thH -=t:ion are not tr-ferable.
5. Licerweea shall not violate my traffic 1-or parkinq 1-,
nor shall they hirmr or cbft%UCt noDial buai.neu activities in
lftOJ pj)lic pl-=-, ~ .tlall CX~~~>lY with my rBCJU].nicna by the City~ ~llllelltiniJ thH Title~ Qypt.er.
&. r.u...e • .-y not wnd food in city parb.
5-4-3: Pan V!XmG lM Cl'lY PARD.
A. llo ~ .ay •11 food or othK it.. in..., city park without the
pemi•icn of the City of lb)~.
a. rraa u .. to u.., t1w City MllwiJK -.y u-ll*=ial peuaiu
ClCinCIIrminq tlw 8ale of food or other ita. in the City • a parka illd
fa::iliti•. '1'1-. pemiu .tlall be .mject to ataini8trnive
~of tlw City of~
I.ntrocb:led, rNd in full., ~ PMeecS en fint rMdinr;r en t1w 16th day of oct.cb.r, l.tl9.
Jl\j)}Htwd • • Bill fer Ill Cll'diMnce en t1w 19th day of October, 1989.
~I
tr.trld:a B. &aW, d ty didi
flitilCta •• &;;
I . .
CR>DWCE NO.
SflUES (:1 1989--
•
• •
A BILL FCR
<::X:XKIL BILL NO. 35
INl'IOlOCm B'i <n.JNCIL
~~------
AN CR>nw«:::E R!PULIM; AND Rm'W:Tn~ OW"n:R 4 OF TI'lU: 5, ~
KlaCIPAL COOE 1985, RELM'IM; 'ro f'CXX> DELI"'IDY Wila.ES AND FCXD vm::x::as.
~. the present provisions of O!apter 4, Title 5, Englewood
MJnicipal Code 1985 prohibit vendors frat~ selling, offering for sale, hal.it.inq,
peddling, or distributing food products prepared and processed for ilmediate
CXlnSU!ption directly to citizens who had not pr~ious1y ordered sane; and
1~, it is desirous to permit certain licensed food vendors to sell
such items to persons ·~ ile enjoyi g ~ f · · ~ r c f -.u-~ and certain
streets in this Ci y ;
M:W, ~. BE IT CIUl.\INE:) Bi THE CJT"l
~.~,THAT:
Section 1. a, pter 4, Title 5 , EnglL"
repealed and reenac to read as f o l -':
5-4-1:
A. DEFINITl 'S:
1. Vehicle
of
2. h cl
bu.ildinci.
3.
4.
OF 'mE CI'N CE
Code 1985, • hereby
I .
•
• -
15. Other confection products nean nonAlcoholic drinks, candy, gum,
etc.
7. Street neans the entire width t1et:wen the boundary lines of
wery way publicly maintained \ol)en ~y part thereof is open to
the use of the public for purpcses of vehicular travel or the
entire width of f!llf!ry way declared to be a public street or
hie#Jway by any law of this state or ~y ordinance of this city.
I. Sicilwalk or sidewalk area r.ean.s that portion of a publicly
maintained or declared to be a public street or hi9hway by any
1.., of this state or any Engl~ ordinance bebMen the curb
lines or the lateral lines of a road.ey and the adjacent
property lines intended for UM4 by pedestrians.
t. For the purpose of this title and chllpter only, city parks r.eans
My park owned by this city for use of citizens, includi.ng the
Wlllb.'ays In! fountain area of the Englewood Plaza and walitways
end bike paths of Little Dry Creek Flood Plan.
8. PQJ) PIOX.X:"r SALES P10t V!MCZS N1> !OMlf.ICZ ~. It ah&ll be
\11\l-..ful for .-sy penon. to sell, offer for Nle, peddle, hM, or
distribute any food pcocb:ts, i~ confection pn:ltb:ta or other
oonfect.ion procb::ts pnp&rect a."ld pt"OeeSsed for innediate ~ion
frca '*ticlH or nclr'!Whicle s~ on My su.t, alley, or other
(U)lic place in this city ~ u follows:
...
,
1. Deliverin to a lling u the rHUlt of a pdor order t.hudor
by the occ::up.nt of y &..llinq.
).
-2•
l.
J,
sed busineaSH of food procb:t.s to loyen
11 ts, con ion sitH and inclatrial
I
•
• -
t. 1ft aditit::icn to t:tL fate;c:itnt 811111 ~ 1 t • pa:eate• ift ==
i t a at;, _... ,..,...-'_ ef ~ 1 ef 'l'i-.1• s ef ~
•liU llf'PlY 1 [4 tbet Lice1ses granted under this section are
not tra:1sfero!ibl .
5. Licen~s s 11 not v1olate IMIY tra.fflc lliW!I or parlti.ng laws,
nor shall they hlnder o r obstruct not'l"'al business activities in
IM!y t'Ublic place, IM!d shall OCIT'ply ~o"J.th IMIY regulations by the
City Ha."1 r ir.pl ntinq this T1 tle IM!d O'.apter.
6.
5-4-3:
I .
•
• •
;b
CXU«::L BILL t«>. 36
~<XUOL MMD_.{} 'l . J l
A BILL FtR
AN <Hl~ NIH>JHO T1'DZ 7, QIAP'lD 6D, fJG.D«XJ) IUaCIPAL CXXE 1985, BY
t:m.E'l'DC JH) RI!BW."r'na:; SB:TICJf 1 ~, R&ATn«; ro IlUIJ:fm' PJOIQW..S.
IHm'.AS, Sec:tia\ 7-Q)... 7 Englewood fblicip&l Code 1985, as ~ly
written, proEribes CXlnlb:t only against males; and
~. it is iAport.ant to provide for the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of this city and protect thaa fn:a i.ndllcent prc:ipOUls fraa
both llll.les and females;
lOf, 1illJCUU<t, BE IT CRlo\DirD BY 'DIE CITY CXU«::L r;, 'DIE CITY CR ~. ~. 'l'HM':
Sec:tion 1. Title 7, 0\lpter 60, Section 7, l!ngl4MX:Id flJnicipal Codt
1985, Is tift'eby ~by repealing and reen.ct:ing Section 7 to read u follows:
7-6D-7: lliB::Dft' PIO'O!W..S: It llh&ll be W\1-.tul for -.y s-nort
to follow, .,lest, amoy or offend my ot:t.r penon by
eoliciti.nq thllt other penon to pertaaa a 1-.d -=t cr a ~~~eretrieiQlS dUplil)' or to ~to etice cr ~1 that
other penon to .,ter my whicle for Clbeoai•, or ~ly
offensive purpoen, or to ocnait my 1-.1 -=t, or ., -=t of ~i tut.icr\.
Intiroca.IC!tl(l, rud in full, and ~ on tint Eeld1ng on the 16th city of OC"':aarr , l .. Ul fcr.,~on
I .
-
•
DATE
October 16, 1989
INITIATm IY
STAFF SOURCE
ISSUE/ACTION PllOPOSED
•
• •
COUNCIL COIIUUCATJOII
A&EJI)A ITEII
11 (b)
City Counc 11
SUBJECT Indecent Propos~l
Ordin~nce A.eno.ent
Section 7, 60-F, EMC 1985
Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
Council "-ber Byrne asked for the revision of the !"decent proposal ordin~nce bec~use it w~s selective in enforc ... nt s t nce it only prosc ri bed aale conduct .
PII£YIOUS CCIUKIL Ani•
None .
STAff MM.YSIS
This ordinance has beett rewrtttlft to proscribe conduct of both aales and feaales and
to be ., ... de ftntte tn the tlleg~l cOftd uc t . The proposed -ndllents have been
nvt twed by the Dtrector of Safety Servi ces, the Ctty Cltrlt, lftd tile Court
Adllf ntstrator . No adv rse c ~ts re rece ived .
IACIIiiOI_,
As tat bove .
fin nc al I act f nt tct pated .
I . •
DATE
October 16, 1989
INITIATED IY
STAFF SCUlCE
•
•
,. •
~ll COfiUUCATJON
,
II (c)
SUIJECT lowry landfill
Superfund Site Deep
Groundwater Operable Unit.
81-Ctty Supervisory Co..ittee
Stewart Fonda
The action proposed 1s to approve by resolution an agree~~ent to perfo,.. a re me dial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for the Deep Groundwater 0 r abl e Un it at
the lowry landfill, in conjunction with the RI /FS for the Shallow Groundwater and
Subsurface liqu i ds Operable Unit (Shallow Groundwater O.U.) and author i ze th e
Director of the littleton/Engle.ood Bi ·Ctty Wastewater Trtat.ent Plant to si gn t he ag,....nt .
PIDIOUS CGUIICIL ACTI.
On Stptlllbtr 19, 1918, Rtsolut ton 62 wu pautd approvi119 the appropria ti on of
S200 ,000 f~ the Bi ·Ctty WWTP fund to participate i n tht Rl /FS .
STAFF MALYSIS
T cl tt ts have
•
• •
Attached ts a copy of the littleton/Englewood Bi-City Wastewater TreAt~ent PlAnt Background Paper on lowry landfill.
FIIWICIAL
The cost of perfor.ing the Deep Groundwater O.U. RI/FS will not exceed $53,000 ,
bringing the total financial co..it.ent to the RI/FS to SZ53,000 . The cost of lowry
landfill services ts split 50/50 between the respective sewer funds of Englewood And lt tt leton.
•
• ..
LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD BI-CITY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT BACKGROUND PAPER
ON LOWRY LANDFILL
The following explains the background and positions of
the Littleton/Englewood Di-City Wastewater Treatment Plant (•oi-City Plant") on the Lowry Landfill.
I. Factual Background
The Lowry Landfill is located at Section 6, T4S, R65W,
6th P.M., approxi•ately 15 •iles southeast of downtown
Denver at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Gun
Club Road in Arapahoe County. The Lowry Landfill site vas
for .. rly used by the United States Air Force as a bo.bing
range. In 1964, the federal govern•ent deeded the property
on which the landfill is loc~ted to the City and County of
Denver (•Denver•) for use as a •uniclpal sanitary landfill. Denver continues to own the landfill site.
In 1967, Denver began operating an industrial and
•unicipal waste landfill at the site. The Environ•ental
Protection Agency (•EPA•) esti•ates that fro. 1967 through
1910, 71 •illlon gallons of liquid industrial wastes con-
taining hazardous substances, pollutants or conta•inants
were placed in approxi .. tely 65 unl i ned pits at the site,
which were then covered with •unlc p 1 refuse, soil and approxl .. tely 1 •llllon tires.
The ll-Clty Plant hauled s a.e or 11 of the sew ge
sludge produced t the Plant fro. •ld-1977 to •id-1910 to
the Lowry facility. In 11, approx • tely 3,557 one of
sludge were hauled. Of hat a~un , the greatest bulk vas
water, ••ountlng to appr o xl•at ly 2 ,1 50 ton s , tol l d by
organic •aterlal, un l ng to appr o x l ely 700 tons .
)
I
•
• •
In 1984, Lowry Landfill was placed on the National
Priorities List ("NPL") of waste sites posing the ~ost
significant public health or environaental ris~. So~e 200
person and entities, including the 9i-City P!ant, were
identified as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") for
the cleanup or Lowry Landfill pursuant to the Coaprehensive
Environ•ental Response, Coapensation and ~lability Act of
1980 (•CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund Aaend .. nts and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), comaonly known as •superfund.•
II. SUPERFUND
Once a Superfund site is established, Superfund
requires EPA to select a re .. dial action •that is protective
of hu .. n health and the environ•ent, that is cost effective,
and that utilizes per•anent solutions and alternative treat-
.. nt technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
•a•i•u• extent practicable.• Section 12l(b) (1).1/ Superfund
further provides for two .. ans of re•edial actions, which
are usually used in combination: l) tran s fer o f hazardous
substances, pollutants and conta•inants fro• the site to an
approved disposal facility, Section 12l(d) (3) and 2) on-site
cleanup that .. ets all applicable or relevant and
appropriate require .. nts ("ARARs") •andated by state or
federal lav for those hazardous su~stances, pollutants and
cont .. inants at the site. Section 12l(d) (A).~/ ---------------
1; •Re .. dial actions• are distinguishable fro. •re•oval
actions• in that r dl l c I ons ar hose ac ions consis-
tent with a per•an nt r •ed y, s uch a stor ge, clay cover,
cleanup, etc. R .aval a c tion s re 1 sa per•anent, such as
fencing to li•it access to a s ite, provision of alternate
water suppliea, t •porary evac uation, etc. Section 101 (23), (24).
2; Att in o f RAR a ay wai v d wh er e :
u or total
ely a atn
2) n h " h 1 h nd
" .,
I •
•
• •
Re111edial actions ·.~hich permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants are preferred, and
EPA 111ust conduct an assessment of permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resourc~ recovery
technologies to deter111ine which will result, in whole or in
part, in a per•anent and significant decrease in the
toxicity, •obility or volu111e of the hazardous substance,
pollutant or conta111inant. Section 12l(b) (1). Remedial
action usually involves a ca.bination of treat111ent or
resource recovery technologies. EPA must address the long-
tee• effectiveness of those alternatives and 111ust take into account:
1) ~he long-term uncertainties a ssociated with land disposal,
2) The goals , ob je ct i ves and requ i c e•e nt s o f t h e Solid Wa s te Di s posal Act:
3 ) ~h e pe r sistence , t o x icity , •obility , and
propensi ty to bi o acc umu late of such h azardous su~stances:
4 ) S ho rt-and long-ter• pote n tial for adverse health effe c t s fr 0111 hu~~~a n e x posu r e,
5 ) Long -ter• aainte n a nce costs:
6 ) ~· potent ial for futuro reaedial action costs if
t he a l t e rnat i ve re•edial action i n question were to fall; a nd
7) ~he pote n tial threat to huaan health and the
env iron .. n t associated with exca v ation, transportation and
udhposal or contain• nt. Section 12l(b) (l) (A-G).
In deter•t nln9 whi c h re .. dlal act i on o •ploy,
•ust bu11tt an adalnhtratlve record as the basis fo r
selection or reaedial ct t o n , EPA c an th n i•pl n
re dial a c ton i sel f th rough the e xpend t ur o f u
aon l • a nd h n o r c p h c o h t pl
---------------0
0
•
• ..
tion fra. one or more PRPs, or it can order one or more PRPs
to carry out the remedial action themselves. Sections 104, 106 and 107.
Liability is generally considered to be joint and
aeveral under Section 107. That is, EPA may pursue the
total cost of its selected remedial action from any group of
PRPs or fro. a single PRP. Liability is also strict. That
is, once a PRP is shown to have di9posed of hazardous sub-
stance• at a Superfund site, liability is automatic unless
the PRP can show one or •ore of tho following defenses:
that the release of the hazardous su~stance was caused
solely 1) by an act of God, 2) ~n act of war, or 3) the acts
of independent third parties with whom the PRP had no
eaploy.ent or contractual relationship, and the PRP
exercised due care with respect to tho hazardous substance
and took precautions against foreseeable acts of third parties. Section 107{b).
The selection of a remedial action begins with a
reaedial investigation/feasibility study ("RI/Fs~). This
process consists of the following t cp :
1)
2)
))
4)
Scoplnl of h RI /FS. This st ~ involves th
ldentl Ication of ARARs, da a quality objectlv s
for the RI and possible operabl units.
This
II of FS).
••
•
•
•
,. •
7) Selection of Remedy. This step involves selecting
a remedy that protects human health and the envir-
onment; that attain ARARs; that is cost effective,
and that utilizes permanent solutions and alter-
native treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The EPA has designated six operable units for Lowry Landfi 11:
1. Surface water
2. Landfill solids
3. Landfill gas
4. Soils
5. Deep groundwater
'· Shallow groundwater and subsurfac liquids
These operable units were d sign t d to allow for a clos r
focus and analysis on sp cific po ontial proble•s at the site.
I
•
• •
III. FUTURE PLANS AND POSITIONS
While the avoidance of liability under Superfund
re•ains an ultimate goal, it is generally regarded as
prudent to cooperate in the remedial action selection
process to reduce potential liability because of the limited
number of defenses available to PRPs under Superfund and
because of the possibility that the EPA may seek all
re•edial action costs against only one or a relatively
li•ited nu•ber of PRPs. Good faith cooperation •ay also be
considered as a defense or mitigating factor in an action
for treble da•ages or penalties.
A. Participation In The Superfund Process
A PRP •ay take advantage of settle•ent •echanis•s
within Superfund, such as de minimis settle•ents, •ixed
funding and ~onbinding PreiTmTnary-Allocations of
Responsibility (•NaAns•):l/ and to seek to influe nce the
•anner by whi ch liability-may ultimately be apportioned and
to influence th selec 4 n ut th-. ... , ••aediol l
action.4; In add ition, ? x r1 nc . h s dc•onatrated
that it-ia •ore cost-e f f cti ve for PnPs to conduct the RI/PS
process than to let EPA conrluc that process and recoup its cost fro• the PRP s .
-----......... _____ _
I
0
',
I •
•
• ..
the PRPs to address the environmental threat posed by their
waste. (hs a practical matter, these factors may also be
used by a court to allocate initial liability as well.)
While actions for c ontribution are advantageous in
that they allow one or more PRPs who have been sued for re~edial action costs to spread those costs to other PRPs,
the transactional costs (attorneys' fees, engineering
costs, employees• time, consultants' time , etc.) in pursu i ng
such actions are high. Moreover, there is no guarantee as to
which equitable factors a court will consider in allocating
costs. As a result, most PRPs who participate in the Super-
fund process try to agree on an allocation scheme among
themselves. (The Lowry Coalition has provided for an
Allocations Subcomm i ttee to try to develop s uch an allocation scheme .)
The Bi -Ci ty P l ant s ho u ld pu rs ue a nd pa rt ic ipate i n
effort3 t o d e v elop a scheme to alloca t e ultima t e remedial
act i on cos t s amo ng PRPs , while at the same time r e t aini n g
all rights t o see~ contribution from other PRPs. In no case
shou ld v olume of materials deposited at tho site be th sole
basts for allocation of rem dial action costs; persistency,
special or extraordinary environmental threats posed by
particular wastes volume of h zardouos s ubstances , to ~1city ,
mobility, etc., should be considered as well inasmuch as
each of these fac ors b rs on the ultimate remedial ction selected.
2 . NB ARs ----------
7
I
•
• -
and if PRPs are not assessed the cost of considering those
factors, the Bi-City Plant should consider supporting an
NBAR. Support for an NBAR should also depend on whether
enough information regarding wastes has been gathered to develop a meaningful NBAR.
J. De Minimis Settlement
Superfund provides that EPA shall, whenever
•practicable and in the public interest," enter into a
settle•ent with a PRP if the settlement involves only a
•inor portion of the response costs at a Superfund site and
the a•ount and toxicity of the hazardous substances
contrlbuted-oy the PR ? to the site are •inimal in comparison
to other hazardous s u bs tance s at the site. Section
122(g) (1). Su c h a settlement is s ub j ect to public co.ment
and •ay be acc o•pan i d by a cov e nant not to sue, unless such
a covenant woul d b i ncon sistent with the public interest. Section 122(g)(2),(i).
Th e de ermlnation of who qu~lifie~ for d mi n i mis
treat•en t i s mad by EPA on a i o-y-! • 1 iJ-.--O nce EPA
deter•ine s wh o qua lif t J for such t r a tmcn , those PRPs re
encouraged to dra ft nd .re nt multi-p rty s t tlement
offers to EPA so tho single , com p c hcnsiv set t leme nt can
be rea c h e d w i t h~~!! PRPs. 52 F d.Reg. 2 4 333 (1987).
Th e a v ant g s of d m!n !nti 'I nu11 r o u s: ---
l e CJal
nd
l•s for:
PRr Ia
tor: c l l•• • t d by th
or
I
I >,
•
• •
4. ~ixed Funding
Superfund provides that EPA may use a combination of
Superfund monies and PRP funds to clean up Superfund sites
by agreeing with PRPs to reimburse them from Superfund
•onies, with interest, for certain costs of actions the PRPs
agree to perform. Section 122(b) (1). Mixed funding is
designed to aid in expeditin9 cleanup of sites where one ·or
•ore major PRPs are blocking a settlement. Instead of
delaying cleanup until settlement is reac~ed or until liti-
gation against them is completed, mixed funding would allow
the other PRPs to undertake cleanup and obtain reimbursement
fro. EPA when it is completed. ~PA would then pursue those
costs fro• the recalcitrant PRPs. Mixed funding would also
be used where a number of PRP s cannot be found and it would
be inequitable for the other PRPs to bear the responsibility
for those •orphan• shares. EPA might provide mixed funding to cover those clal•s.
The Di-City Plant should pursue mixed funding if
circu11stances present themselves for the a ppl ic tion of such funding.
s . .!!!~~~~
re•edy requires
ntt the envir-
c lve, and that
llaxiiiUII
to aeh
•• ia prov d
•
• •
The ni-City Plant should take an active role in any
aspect of the Shallow Groundwater OU that may influence the ultimate selection of remedial action.
6. Particlpatlon_~ther OUs
As indicated above, the EPA has designated five
operable units in addition to the Shallow Groundwat~r OU.
They are: surface water, landfill solids , landfill gas,
soils and deep groundwater. EPA has indicated that it
intends to send out special notices to PRPs to participate
in or pay for additiona l operable units in May and June of
1989. EPA has not Indicated which PRPs will receive such
notices. Bl-City should seek to avoid being included in any
special notice group for th dditional OU's.
Depending on the 3i-City Plant's progress in achieving
a de •inimis settl ment, he Oi-r.lty Plant will want to
•onitor the other op cable un1ts clos ly. In particular , we
will want t o watch h L ndfill Soll s OJ qiv n he nature
and locat ion of he municipal slu1qe w l H~ l, to nsure
that the nature or t nt of probl s ssoc i ted with those
wastes are not mi:s ch c cteriz d or unf irly tributed to
the Bi-City Plan by oth r PRPs.
3. ~!.!.!!.!!-~ __ -!!!__sueer!~-~~~
0
I
•
• •
As discussed above, the Bi-City Plant's response to
inforaation requested by EPA indicates the presence of trace
concentratio~s of several heavy aetals in the Plant's
sludge. Of those aetals, soae have been characterized as
hazardous substances in other contexts. While the concen-
trations of those aetals are s•all, they provide an arguable
basis for EPA continuing to pursue the Bi-City Plant as a PRP.
2. Legislative Lobbylni
The two Cities have participated in lobbying efforts
in several regards. First, representatives of the two
Cities have .. t with Congressional representatives to dis-
cuss the Plants's position with respect to Superfund issues.
Second, representatives have participated in EPA's Municipal
Settle .. nt Discussion Croup. That Croup has •et several
ti .. s to discuss issues with respect to hov •unicipalities
should fit into the Superfund settle .. nt process. An EPA
•unlcipel settle•ent policy based on those discussions is
expected !n •id-1989. Finally, representatives of the two
Cities have supported recoa.endations that the National
League of Cities establish a policy addressing the concerns
Of •unlcipelltles involved in the Superfund rrocess. The
two Cities continue to pursue their Congress onal and
National League of Cities lobbying efforts.
l. Insurance ----
The Cl t s h ve notified their insurance carriers of
potential clal•s under th lr policies with respec to
liability arising out of th Plant's Involve nt in Lowry
Landfill. The Cities ar coaplylng with Insurance carriers•
requests to p th tnfor .. 4 abou th status of the •atter.
ltn r/
l
I .
DA¥1D W. aoee&Na
.a.aTr ... LL
........ IIIONTOONaiW _,. .........
IIOIIALD L . WILCOX ...... ., ........
~··aLOOII
a.v. .......
•
• •
HILL 8c RoBBINS, P.G.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 BL.A.K• STREET BUILDING
1.&41 KIOKTEENTII STR&KT
DKNYKII. COLOIIIADO eoao•
October 2, 1989
TI!L&P'.ONI
ao. IM·••oo
TILIGOPIIIt
:.oetH·I ...
Mr. Stewart Fonda, Director
81-City Waatewater Treat•ent Plant
2900 South Platte River Drive
Enqlewood, co 80110
De r Stu:
Re: Second Aaended and R stated
Ad•in islrative Order on Consent for ho
Lowry Landfill Shallow Groundwater and
Subsurface Liquids nd Deep Groundwat r
Op rabl UnJ.ts Re• dial Investigation
nd F s i il y Study ("S cond Am end d
AO")
to
Mr. Stewart Fonda, Director
October 2, 1989
Paqe 2
•
• •
EPA had requeeted execution of the enc1oeed by Septeaber 29,
1989. EPA hae aqreed to an exteneion of that date to enable the
Citiee to foraally approve the encloeed at their council
.. etinqe. However, to eneure that an executed vera ion of the
encloeed ie provided to EPA ae quickly a• poeeible after the city
council• foraally approve the Second a-ended AO, I would
appreciate it if you would execute the encloeed eiqnature pa9e
and return it to thie office, where we will hold it until we have
received foraal approval froa both city council• to forward it to !PA.
RIM:cp
Encloeure
(2322)
Sincerely,
/_.._4/,/).. w.L,~
Ronald L. Wilcox
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES OF 1989
3
•
• •
RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER ON CONSENT RELATING TO LOWRY LANDFILL SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
AND SUBSURFACE LIQUIDS AND DEEP GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY.
UHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimates that 71 million gallons of liquid industrial waetee
containing hazardous eubstances, pollutants, or contaminant• were
sent to Lowry Landfill fer disposal; and
WHEREAS, all entities having dumped any waetea at Lowry
Landfill were cited for cleanup costa of the hazardous waetea
regardless of what was dumped; and
WHEREAS, the Bi-City Wastewater Treat~ent Plant, along with
other Respondents, has been in negoti tiona with the EPA on a
feasibility study for such cleanup;
OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE
CITY or E.GLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
•
•
• •
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
IN THE HATTER OF :
LOWRY LANDFILL SHALLOW GROUND -
WATER AND SUBSURFACE LI QU IDS AND
DEEP GR OUND -WATER
OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIA L
INVE STIGATION /FEASIB ILI TY
STUDY (I ES )
Adolph Coo r s Comp ny;
A ~x Research ' Developm~nt , Inc.,
F/K/A Amax Ex rae ive Research
'Developmen , Inc.;
Asamera Oil Cu.S.) Inc.;
Conoco Inc.;
He v lett Packard Company;
Honey well Inc.:
In ernational Business H chines
Corporation;
Ci y ot L~kevood;
L1 1 ton -Enqlevood Bi-Ci
Waste water Tr n
H ropol1 an o~nv r S v
Dis ric: No. I;
a rand Cor ra ton;
ex ~h m1c 1 , tnc:.;
Ga s Ru r Co
S. w. Sh Ch
Inc:. 1
II pon n •·
y
Plant;
Dispos 1
nd
l Co ny,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
l
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
o I
I ,
I
I
SECOND AMENDED
AND RESTATED
ADMINISTRAT I VE OR DER
ON CONSENT
•
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. JURISDICTION
II.
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII .
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
xvu ..
xvrn.
1(1)(.
XX.
XI.
XIUl.
n.
rv.
DEFINITIONS 2
NOTICE OF ACTION 6
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 7
FINDINGS OF FACT . 8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 1
DETERMINATIONS 1 2
WORK TO BE PERFORMED 12
ADDI TIO NA L WORK 16
RESPO NDENTS' CO NTRA CTO R 1 8
PROJECT COORDI NATORS • 19
REPO RTI NG AN D EXCHANGE OF DOCUMENTS 21
ACCESS AN D SAM PLI NG 24
ADMISSIBILITY OF DAT A 26
REI MBURSEMENT OF RESPO NSE COSTS 27
FINANCIAL ASSU~ANC!, INSURANCE, AND INDEMNIFIC ATION 30
DELAYS IN P!RFORMANCE/STIPULAT~ PENALTIES • 33
FORC MA.JEUR J9
ll Ol.U'TlO N
CUt
R RVATIO OF Rl MTS Y
Or COLO DO •• , •
, . . .
NlT TAT AND . . . . . . .
. . . . • 40
• • 4 7
RIGHT AND D IA~ 0 LtA ILlTY Y
. .. . . . . 0
0
I
-
xxv.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
xxx.
XXXI.
COHPLI~NCE WITH OTHER L~WS
PUBLIC COMMENT . . .
•
• •
EFFECTIVE D~TE ~NO SUBSEQUENT MODIFIC~TION
TERMIN~TION AND SATISFACTION •
P~RTIES BOUND
MUNICIP~LITY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
COUNTERPARTS . . . . . . ..
u
51
51
53
54
55
56
57
-•
• •
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSE NT
I.
.JUIUSDICTION
· 1. This Second Amended and Restated Administrative Order
on Consent (the •order•) is issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the President of the United States by sections 104(b),
122(a), and 122(d)(J) of the CoMprehensive EnvironMental
Response, COMpensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as a .. nded by
the Superfund AMendMents and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(•CERC LA•), 42 U.S.C. It 9604(bl, 9622(a), and 9622(d)(J). This
authority was del89ated to the Administrator of the United States
Environ .. ntal Protection A9ency (•EPA•) on .January 23, 1987, by
Executive Order Mo. 12,510, 52 Fed. R89. 2,923 ( 1987), and
further del89a ed to the Re9ional Ad•inistrators by EPA
Oel89at1on Mo . 14 -14 -C on F bruary 26, t9 7.
2. Ad ol p Coo rs Co.p ny, a Co l o r do corpora ions AaalC
R search • laware c orpor i o n, F/ /A. A lC
' As 011 (U. . , Inc:.,
Conoeo Inc:., a ons
c l1 o n 1 11
Inc:: •• • 10 In hln
Corpor
u Colo
o t
1
Y1 t u
•
• •
Di~posal District No. 1, a political subdivision of the State of
Colorado; Sundstrand Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Syntex
Che•icals, Inc., a Delaware corporation; The Gates Rubber
Company, a Colorado corporation; and The S. w. Shattuck Chemical
Company, Inc., a Colorado corporation, (the "Respondents•) aqree
to undertake all actions required by the terms and conditions of
this Order. The Respondents consent to and aqree not to contest
EPA jurisdiction to issue or enforce this Order.
3. Respondents reserve their riqhts and deny liability as
set forth in Section XXII (Reservation of Riqhts and Denial of
Liability by Re spondents) of his Order.
II.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of his Ord r, h followln?
he anin9 set for h below.
1 •
UIS sh 11 h V
The terM •con rae or• ana any person, ineludin?
on rae ora or au on r e o r , r in by h R pond n I 0
f o r ny 0 119 tons r hh Ord r .
2. l' H ne
n ,_ .s.c.
).
ny
C'O
o r
h t 0
• 0
I
•
• •
Respond~nt• ~nd the United States Environmental Protection ~q e n c y
(•EPA•) individually or collectively .
5. The ter• •shallow Ground-Water ou• means the Shallow
Ground-Water and Sub•urface Liquids Operable Unit. The Shallow
Ground-Water OU includes all •ubsurface liquids in the upper
(weathered) Daw•on aquifer and the alluvium. The areal extent
include• the entire area where contaMinated shallow ground wa t er
.. y have or could •!grate within the shallow ground-water
aquifer. The Shallow Ground -Wat e r OU addresse • the follow i ng
-.dia:
a. Sha llow Gr ound Wa ter -Th e s ha llow g r o un d water is
defined to be a ll grou nd wate r within the alluvi u • and we athered
bedrock i n t he u p pe r Da wson forMation. The weather ed bedrock is
tha t po rtion o f the Da wson For .. tion, nea rest to the ground
sur fa c e , t h a t ha • had an incre1se in its ability to tra n s•it
ground wa er due o the ac ion of physical and che •ical
p roce a• •· This por ion of th Da w•on ror .. tion is ~re s1•1lar
o the over lying alluvial qu1fer than the under lyinq unv a he red
Oaw•on 0 1 sa Ui 'I to trans 1 ground water .
b. p L uids -Th w • • pi 1 q ids r
tin 0 1 pi ••
c. ion -u urh
1 • d fr w
pt p p
r 1ft 0 hr u h
0 1 r
•
• •
d. Saturated Subsurface Solids -saturated subsurface
solids include soils belov the vater table, saturated vaste pit
solids, saturated soils adjacent to vaste pits, and saturated
refuse belov the shallov ground vater table.
6 . The term "Deep Ground-Water OU" means the Deep Ground-
Water Operable Unit. The Deep Ground-Water OU .includes all
ground vater belov the Shallow Ground -Water, as defined in
paragraph S.a., above, to the top of the Pierre Shale underlying
the Laramie Fox -Hills Formation. The areal extent includes the
entire area vhere contaminated Dee p Ground -Water may have o r
cou l d migrate v ithin the deep ground-vater aqu ifers.
7. Th e term "Site" means the Lo vry Landfill site , which
va s listed on the CERCL A Nat ional Prio r ities List ("NPL") on
September 21, 1984 , 49 Fed. Reg. 37,070 (198 4 1.
8. The term "State" means th State of Colo rado, by and
hrouqh the Color do Department of H alth.
9. The term "Work• .. ana h activi iea required by the
Co nceptual Work Plan da ed S p em r 22, 1989 ("CWP") at ached a
Exhibit A nd any EPA-pproved vork plans or planning docu n a
aut.i
1
Inv
nc:
oo. ,_
o th CWP. Th
tfor nc: 0 ll
Ground-w r ou
ion c. 1") a1 111
Wl c 1on
oo. h in r
or nelud s he follov1n
e v 1 s r quir 0 c
roun -w r OU 1
y ( .. ( s l" I 1n
1 n, o c.r.
0 "N .. ) . I
•
• -
and all appropriate EPA guidelines, policies, and procedures.
b. Construction and maintenance of a command post at
the Site.
c. Manaqement of specified wastes qenerated at the
Site.
d. Collection of Phase II RI data in accordance with
the CWP.
The ter• •work• does not include additional work as described in
Section IX (Additional Work).
10. The ter• •Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs•
... an• any of the followinq activities:
a. additional site characterization in the Shallow
Ground-Water OU deter•ined by EPA to be necessary followinq
ea.pletion of Phase II or Phase III of the FS or the
Ca.prehensive Data Evaluation; or
b. Staqe 3 treat1bil i ty es inq deter•ined by EPA to
be necessary that is in addition to one Staqe 3 Pilot -Se 1
Treatability Test.
tl. The er
Gr ou nd -
t o ion be low
un
t
•Add i ional Wo rk Wi h 1n
n a ny of h
eiUc 1 1
200 t
he Seope o t th
v i .Ls:
nv
ion1 o
r 0
Oep
00
ry 0 of U or 11 0
•
•
• •
the FS or the Compreh~nsive Data Evaluation.
III.
NOTICE OF ACTION
1. On June 24, 1988, EPA notified Respondents pursuant to
section 122Ce) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. I 9622(e), and offered them
the opportunity to perform the Shallov Ground Water OU RI /FS
Work. The .aratorium provided for in section 122(e) of CERCLA,
42 u.s.c. I 9622(£), applied only to the commencement of the
Shallov Ground-Water OU RI /FS. The moratorium did not apply o
coMMand post construction, v aste management, collection of Phase
II RI data, or any other studies or investigations authorized
under section 104(b) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. I 9604Cbl. With
respect to the Deep Ground Wa er OU RI /FS, EPA has determin
that u e of the no ce procedures se forth in a ction 122Ce) of
CERCL A, 42 u.s.c. 22(e) is not pr c icabl , is no in h
public in eres , vill no expedi e comple on of he RI /FS
S te. and vill no •inl• ze li iga ion. Th R &POnd n • " lv
he us of h no 1c proc ur s as • for h in s c ion 122( ),
42 u. .c. 1 h r • c:t o 0 Cround w OU
AI /
utr
n.
o h1a c Jon pursu n 0
o CtRCLA, U •• c.
t\1 0
10 fcH t, 10 HIt
I •
•
• •
Hanag8m~nt Assi~tance Cooperativ~ Agr~~ment), and 121(f) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. II 9604(c)(2), 9604(d)(1), 9621(f). EPA is the
lead agency for coordinating, overseeing, and enforcing the
response action required by this Order.
IV.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
1. This Order and CWP replaces the A .. nded and Restated
Administrative Order dated December 7, 1988, and the Conceptual
Work Plan dated September 28, 1988, vith errata as modified
effective DeceMber 7, 1988, as of the effective date of this
Order. The AMended and Restated Administrative Order dated
DeceMber 7, 1911, and the Conceptual Work Plan dated SepteMber
21, 1911, vith errata as MOdified effective DeceMber 7, 1988,
reMain in effect vith respect to the Work or other activities
perforMed or required to be perforMed during the period fro•
Oec .. ber 7, 1911, until the effective date of this Order, excert
that the ti .. period alloved f or any Tier I or Tier II
deliverable shall be tolled fra. the date this order is initially
ign by Retpond n 1 o
Ord r 1• r acinded
2. ln
LowrywndUll
h purpn• of
ny, pre
tt iv da ot his Order or he
co in9 (fee iv .
I •
•
• •
substances or pollutants or contaminants from the waste media in
these OUs and to evaluate remedial alternatives in accordance
with CERCLA. The Respondents also aqree to construct and
maintain a command post at the Site, to manaqe specified wa~tes
generated at the Site, and to collect Phase II data in accordance
with the CWP.
3. The activities conducted pursuant to this Order,
including any Additional Work, are subject to approval by EPA
after consultation with the State, shall employ sound scientific,
enqineerinq, and construction practices, and shall be consistent
with CERCLA, the NCP, and all appropriate EPA guidelines,
policies, and procedures, and, to the extent not inconsistent
with CERCLA and the NCP, State law.
V.
FINDINGS OF FACT
For purpose s of this Order, EPA ha s aade the following
fa c tual d e er•inatio n s .
I. :r:
T h l e-t u. y wh eh h he aubjee of hh Con
Ot r h h Lo ry ndf ll, loc • S e ion 6, T4S, R65 W,
n
h '·"·, h in ers c: on of uinc:y Av nue nd Gun Club
Ro ~ in Ar p ho Coun y, Color do.
b. In. 4, h Un eon 1 ion lly d 4tded
he pro r Y upon whteh h Lo wry • loc 0 h c y
nd C un y 0 D .nv ("D nv c•t tor u ntc 1 n ry
•
I • •
-•
• •
landfill. Denver has owned Lowry Landfill from 1964 until the
present.
c. From 1967 through 1980, Denver operated the Lowry
Landfill as an industrial and municipal waste landfill. During
this period, EPA estimates that 71 million gallons of liquid
industrial wastes containing hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants were sent to Lowry Landfill for disposal. These
materials were placed in approxiaately 65 unlined pita which were
subsequently covered with municipal refuse, soil, and tires .
From 1967 through the present, most of the metropolitan Denver
area's municipal refu se has been deposited at the .Site. Denver
operated the site from 1967 through 1980. Naate Management of
Colorado, Inc. has operated the Site froa 1980 until the present
under contract with Denver. In addition to the liquid and
municipal wastes and tires, the Lowry Landfill also received
significant quantities of solid and hazardous wa ste& containing
hazardous aub&tancea, pollutants, or eonta•inants. EPA asaer •
the R aponden a, amono o hers, • nt hazardous aubstane a,
pollutants, or conta inants to Lowry Landfill for disposal.
d . Dep o 9round v ic lly
hrou hou h Site o o 15 o 0 t
ot nie p 1 refuse on o J'r
•1d-e ion 6 o h nn c r hy
Cree pproaci
w er 1& pproxi
&h llov 9round v l rt
•
• •
flows above it and wit.h th"! weath'!red bedrock aquifer (Dawson
Formation) beneath it. The ground water in the weathered Dawson
Formation has been found to be contaminated. Investigations in
the unweathered Dawson Formation and the Denver Formation, which
is below the Dawson ForMAtion, are ongoing to determine the
presence or absence of contamination and the potential for future
contamination.
e. Results of the Phases I and II RI /FS show that the
hydraulic gradient between the shallow and deep ground water is
downward indicating he potential for the migrati on of shallow
ground water to de p ground water.
2. or Substantial Threa of Releas
a. The v as es disposed a h Lowry Landfill
con ain numerous h z rdous subs nc: •• pollu n s, or
con n s. To da ny of h h z rdous su nc s dhpo ed
Lowry wnd n d in h shallow ground w r
nd su urf c: 11 uida.
• pr u. nar1ly s d on 1
ii'IV ton ll h h r•
or ou e
e . e 1 n n
h ll 1n • llo ro
r
tO
•
• •
cap~htliti~~ ~o p•rform the ShAllow Ground-Water and De~p Ground -
Water OUs.
b. EPA has arranqed for a qualified per s on to assist
in overseeinq and reviewinq the activities required by this
Order. The Respondents have aqreed to rei•burse th8 Fund tor
response costs incurred in connection with this Con s ent Order a s
provided in Section XV (Rei•burse .. nt of Re s pon s e Cos t s).
VI.
CO NCLUSIO NS OF LAW
Fo r p u rposes of this Ord•r and ba sed on the precedinq
Findin9s o f Fa ct , !PA has .. de the fol l o winq Conclusions of La w.
1. The Lo wry La ndf ill is a •facility• a s defined in
section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. 9601(9 ).
2. •Hazardous su stanc s• as defined in sec ion 101< 14)(0 )
of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c 9601(14)(0), have bend posi ed, s ored,
disposed of, pl c , or loc ed a the Lo wry Landfill Site.
3. l •peuons • s d tin in s c ion 1 0 1 ( 21 l
01(21).
for
1 or
ot ion , .
,., tll
•
•
• •
of hAzardous substances or pollutants or contaminants constitute
an actual or a substantial threat of a "release" as defined in
section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. I 9601(22).
6. The Respondents are "responsible parties" vithin the
meaninq of sections 104 and 122 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. II 9604,
9622.
7. No Respondent or Contractor shall be subject to a
lesser standard of liability, receive preferent i al treatment, or
in any other vay, direct o r indirect, benefit from their
relationsh i p as a r espon se action contractor v ith respect to
Lovry Land f 111.
VII.
Df:TER HINATIONS
Based on th Find1n9s of Fact and Conclusions of Lav set
for h above, EPA has d
1. The ac ions Ord r are n c ssary to
pro e th public h 1 h or v Har or h rwiron n , ar in
h publ e in vi CE~CLA and h NCP, v ill
111 ton.
a. • 0 r or ly
pro 1)' for h n tu Or r.
VIII.
'· 0 c C:l
•
•
. . •
of Law, the Respondents are ordered and agree to conduct the
Work, the Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs, and the
Additional Work Within the Scope of the Deep Ground-Water OU, as
aet forth in Section IX (Additional Work), in accordance with the
CWP attached as Exhibit A and any EPA-approved, after
consultation with the State, work plans and planning documents
su~itted pursuant to the CWP. The CWP and any EPA-approved work
plans and planning docu .. nts su~itted pursuant to the CWP are
hereby incorporated into this Order. The Work, Additional Work
Within the Scope of the OUs, and Additional Work Within the Scope
of the Deep Ground-Water OU that Respondents agree to cenduct
under this Order includes without limitation performance of all
activities determined by EPA to be necessary to prepare an RI and
FS(s) and ~ecord (s) of Decision for the Shallow Ground-Water and
Deep Ground-Water OUs, consistent with this Order, the CWP, and
any EPA-approved wort pl ns or planning docu nts su~itted
pursuan to the CWP, exc p for Additional Work Within the Scope
ot th OUa in excess of an ggregate amount of seoo,ooo.oo and
exc p for Addi ion 1 hin the Scope ot the De p Ground-., r OU in •c • ot • un of ' oo,ooo.oo.
2. In rtor ln on 1 r Wl hin h
Scop of ou l Ol't Wi of he p
Ground -rOU r no r rtor h
ollovin c hi 1
ly pi o r
1 ol r y
)
I •
•
• •
b. perform significant investigations more properly
included in the Landfill Solids OU or other OUs;
c. remove, manage, or dispose of tires located at the
Site or relocate significant numbers of tires located at the
Site;
d. characterize, investigate, manage, treat, or
dispose of 1) vastes generated by others at the Site, 2)
contaMinated surface vater, 3) landfill solids, 4) surface soils,
5) sedi .. nts, 6) air, or 7) landfill gases, except as explicitly
required in this Order, the CWP, or any EPA-approved vork plan or
planning document su~itted pursuant to the CWP; and
e. perform site-specific field investiga ions belov
the base of the Denver for~tion.
3. EPA in consul ation vi h the 5 ate shall prepare all
nece ssa ry co uni y rela ions plans, h endanger nt ••••••men
Ac ion Obj c iv s (•RAOs•), n Proposed Pl ns
requ ired for h Shallov Gro••nd-Wa er and De p Ground-w r OU RI
and FS(s). EPA's EA and RAOs sh 11 be re1 ased v h h •t
R spond n 1 and EPA, in consul on
n'J e
ns prio 0 1r
o r solv
r
r
•
• •
may provide th~ir comments to EPA separately or submit them
during the public com.ent period provided for the RI and FS(sl
reports. EPA's decisions concerning the EA, RAOs, and Proposed
P l an~ a re not subject to the formal Dispute Resolution provisions
of this Order (Section XIX).
4. Upon discovery of the occurrence of any event that may
constitute an e .. r9ency situation or an i-..diate endan9ermen to
public health, welfare, or the environment, Respondents shall
within 24 hours notify EPA's and the State's Pro j ct Coo rdinat or
verbally. The Respondents shall therea fter provide wr itten
notice to EPA within 7 calendar days of occurrenc or discovery
of the event . The writ en no ice shall includ a d tailed
description of the event, includin9 he 1 and the loc ion at
which he ev n occurred or w s discov red, any known cau s of
he ev n • and any ac ione It n, or 0 n, o s op or
1 19• •
s. No hin in his lh ll li 1 EP 's u hori y 0 or r h or 0 r e tv 1r by • Ord • or
r
0
0
•
• ..
6. For purposes of this Order, time shall be computed in
accordance vith Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IX.
ADDITIONAL WORK
1. If EPA after consultation with the State determines
that Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs must be
performed, EPA shall request in vritinq that the Respondents
perform the Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs and shall
specify the basis and reasons for EPA's determination that the
Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs is necessary. Within
14 calendar days after receip of EPA's written determination
hat Additional Work Within h Scope of the OUs is necessary,
he Reaponden s shall no ify EPA in vritinq vhe her or not they
intend to und rtake such Add i on 1 Work. Addi ional Work Within
S o OUa ha R nd n s o b j c t o perfor 1n9 s ha ll
a un o f
$1 00 ,000.00. ilu re
h
o t OOs p o n o saoo .ooo.oo • 11
• no
n
h
Or
z. r
r lh
,
-•
• •
the sa~ procedures as set forth in paragraph 1, sentences 1 and
2, of this Section IX for Additional Work Within the Scope of the
OUs. Additional Work Within the Scope of the Deep Ground-Water
OU that Respondents object to performing shall be performed by
Respondents up to an aggre9ate a~unt of $300,000.00. Failure to
perfor• Additional Work Within the Scope of the Deep Ground-
Water OU up to an a99r89ate a~unt of $300,000 .00 shall
constitute a violation of this Order. Respondents .. y elect not
to perfor• Additional Wort Within the Scope of the Deep Ground-
Water OU that exceeds an a99re9a e a~unt of $300,000.00 vithou
violatin9 this Ord r .
3. If Re•pond n s d er ine hat additional vor is
neces•ary to acco.plish t ives of th Shallow Ground-
Water and Deep Ground -a r OU IU and FS isl and EPA d er 1n •
after consulta ion vi s • ha h v o r is no
EPA sh ll 0 ivi
ac lvi 1es an nviron or hu n h 1 h
y on 0 uc • d a•
sa, or lay ln
0 0 or
r ny
•
• •
4. If EPA d~terMines after consultation with the State
that additional work is required at the Site that is not
necessary to acco~lish the objectives of the Shallow Ground-
Mater or Deep Ground-Mater OUs, EPA May after consultation v ith
the State, in its discretion, provide an opportunity for the
Respondents to perfora the additional work. A refusal by the
Respondents to undertake additional work that is not necessary to
acca.plish the objectives of the Shallow Ground-Mater or Deep
Ground-Mater OUs shall not cons tute a violation of this Order.
The cost of any additional work perfor-.d voluntarily by
Respondents that is no neces s ary to accoaplish the ob j c ives of
the Shallow Ground-Mater or De p Ground-Mater OUs shall no
included in the $800,000.00 a99reqa e a~un of Addi onal M rk
Mithin the Scope of th OUs or e $300,000.00 a99r un
of Additional r Mi h n o h p Ground -M r ou
ha Respond n s y o rf o r r hi Or r .
s. Any Addt Sc 0 or n
o r ddi i~n 1 11
0
I •
I -
•
• .. ..
ensuring that any Contractor co•plies vith the terms of this
Order.
2. The Contractor shall be dee-.d to have a contractual
relationship with the Respondents within the meaning of section
t07(b)(J) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. I 9607(b)(J). Therefore, the
Respondents shall not assert any defense based on section
t07(b)(J) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. I 9607(b)(J), with respect to any
nonperforMance or any costs or daaages caused by an act or
a.isaion of any Contractor.
XI.
PROJECT COORDINATORS
1. On or before the
S ate, and th Respond n s
Coo rdina or and an Al
no ify ac o r
Al
shall
Pro
ot
ot
date of this Ord r, EPA, the
ch d aiqna a Prol c
Coordlna or, and shall
t 1 , a fllia 1 n,
or nd
or
•
• •
of the Work an~ the requir~ments of this Ord~r, the Project
Coordinators shall, whenever possible, attempt in good fa ith to
resolve disputes informally through discussion of the issues.
2. EPA, the State, and the Respondents shall each have the
right to change their respective Project Coordinators and
Alternates. Such a change shall be accomplished by notifying the
other Party in writing at least 14 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the replaceMent.
3 . ~espondents• Pro ject Coo rdinator shall be responsible
for direct ing the day-to-day ac ivities of he Responden s and
Respondents' Contractor in perfor nee of the Work and other
activities required by th s Order.
4. The EPA Pro c Coordinator shall have h au hori y
vested in h R tal Projec nager and On-Scene Coordinator
\and r • CP. T is au hori y nclud s. is no 11 o,
pow r 0 tn no 1nconsis n Wl h h NCP, 0
r in ion 0 res pons
c ivi
n ry
lY 0
h
....
,
•
• •
XII.
REPORTING AND EXCHANGE OF DOCUMENTS
1. All docu .. nta, includinq but not li•ited to, plans,
reports, specifications, correspondence, and notices, subMitted
pursuant to or required by the ter•• of this Order, the CWP, or
any EPA-approved work plans or planninq docu .. nts su~itted
pursuant to the CWP shall be sent by Respondents by hand delivery
or by certified .. il, return receipt requested, to the followinq
listed persona, or such other address as the Parties or the State
.. y hereinafter deaiqnate in writ inq.
a . Docu .. nta to be sent to EPA shall be sent in
. triplicate to:
EPA ProJect Coordinator
Lowry t.&ndfill RPM
Superfund Enforc nt Section (IH -SRI u.s. Environ n al Pro ec ion A9 ney
999 11th S r Sui e SOO
Denver, Color 8020 -2 405
with an addi ional eo y o EP •a con r c or, o
d a1qna ed by EP •
Ooeu
o:
o R • nd n a a 11 s n
I .
•
• •
Lovry Coalition
Technical Subcommittee
c/o James c. Thompson
Director of Environmental Affairs
Denver Refinery
North AMerican Refining
Conoco Inc.
5801 Brighton Boulevard
co ... rce City, Colorado 80022
c. Documents to be sent to the State shall be sent
to:
Lovry Landfill State Project Officer
Colorado Department of Health
Hazardous Materials and
Naste Management Di vis ion
421 0 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 8 0220
2. The Respondents ~y. if the y desire, assert a bu si ne ss
confidentiality claia covering part o r al l of any i nf o raa t i o n
subaitted to EPA o r the State pur suant o the teras o f h s
Order, the CWP, o r any EPA -approved v o rk pl ns o r p l ann i n q
docu .. nts subai t ed p u r suan o h e
all o wed by s c on 10 4 (e)(7 ) o f CtaCLA , 4 2 u.s.c. 9 0 4 ( )( 1)
a nd s a t 1 v , Colo. R v. s a • 2 -7 -201 o 206 (1 2 'Sup
con f td ntial busin •• tnfo r ton <•cat •) 'I
nn d scr y 4 0 C.F •• .zo (b ).
by
or
4]
• 0 o •
24 ·:7 • 0 1 0 0 (I • • ' '71, J
•
•
.. •
accnMpanies the inf~rM~tion vhen it is received by EP~. Er~ or
the State MaY .ake it available to the public without further
notice to the Respondents. Any assertion of a CBI claim shall be
substantiated at the ti .. the claia is aade. The Respondents
specifically agree not to assert confidentiality clai•s with
respect to any data related to site conditions, sa•pling, or
-.onitoring.
3. The Respondents agree that they shall preserve, during
the pendency of this Order and for a period of 6 years fro• the
date of teraination of this Order, all records, documents, or
infor .. tion of whatever kind relating to the perfor.ance of the
Work, other activit ies required by this Order, or to coapliance
with the ter .. of this Order, i n its possession or in the
possession of its e.ployees, agents, accountants, Con rae ora, or
at orneys, notvlthstandin any docu .. n re n ion policy. After
his 6-y r period e Re pondenta shall no lfy EPA and
the S ate at leas 30 c 1 ndar days prior o d struc ion of such
n •· and intor ion. u n r qu tr a ny
o h d s rue on o sue r cord , docu
EPA ori
r Jon XII h 11 con r
0 or -cl orn y
vu
,
•
• •
XIII.
ACCESS AND SAMPLING
1. To the extent access to or easements over property
owned or possessed by third parties is required to perform the
Work or other activities required by this Order, Respondents
shall obtain or use their best efforts to obtain a reasonable
written ri9ht of access or easement not later than 15 calendar
days after the effective date of this Order. In the event
ease .. nts are obtained, such ease .. nts shall be recorded vith the
~rapahoe County Recorder.
2. Nithin 15 calendar days follow1nq the effective date of
this Order, Respondent s shall infora EPA ln vri in9 of h s a us
of its efforts to ob aln access and ease nts (the •Access S a us
Report•). Copies of al l a ccess and eas nt aqre
attached to the Ace •• It Respon n • n
unable to ob a n all n c • ary ace • or
shall xplain in
ob ain access or
o ob in cc •
y
of
se
0
-•
• •
the St~t~ r~pr~sentatives of the Work or any other obligations
under this Order at any reasonable ti-e during the performance of
the Work or any other obligations under this Order. Oversight
activities .. y include, but are not limited to, inspecting non-
p rivileged records, operating loqs, and contracts, reviewing
conduct of Respondents in carrying out the terms of the Order,
conducting tests, inspections, and sampling as EPA deems
necessary, using a caMera, sound recording equi~nt, or other
docu .. ntary-type equip-.nt, and verifying the data and
inforaation collected by Respondents. The Respondents will
provide EPA or the State with split sa~les at any ti-. upon
request by EPA or the State.
•. If Respondents obtain any sa~les fr011 property owned
by a third party, Respondents shall provide the third par y with
a receipt describing the aaaples obtained, and •n opportuni y to
reques and ob ain split sa~les. The Respond n s shall also
proep ly provide such hird party vi copy of h r sul • of
&fly analy h d • R nd n s sh 11 sut.i vri 0
EPA d • , spU •
of
of
n lysis ly,
lt i • or or
ra. 0 0 r lle l 1
ul
-•
• •
XIV.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DATA
1. Respondents shall review all data gathered, generated,
or evaluated by EPA during Phase I or Phase II of the RI /FS to
deteraine whether the Respondents have any objections to the
authenticity of the data. Respondents shall subMit to EPA
siaultaneously with the Initial Data Evaluation Report, which is
identified in the CWP, a report that identifies any objections to
the authenticity of any Phase I or Phase II data. If any
objections to authenticity of any data are identified, the
Respondents shall explain their objections, describe the
acceptable uses of the data, if any, and identify any liaitations
to the use of the data. After such report is pr•pared and
subaitted to EPA, EPA aay request Respondents to stipulate o he
authentic! y ot the Phase I and Fhas II da a to be r lied on for
d cision .. kinq in he Sh llow Cround-Wa er and Deep Cround-W er
OUs and waiv any obj c ion o th in roduc ion of such d a
~sed on h arsay. Th a in 9ood hi h
wi EPA for a per1
it an
o f
0 0 y I •
•
• •
2. Resp~nd~nts hereby waive any evidentiary objection, to
the authenticity of any data gathered, generated, or evaluated by
EP A, the State, or Respondents in the perforMance or oversight of
the Work that has been verified according to the quality
a ••urance/quality control (•QA/QC•) procedure• required by the
Order, the CWP, or any EPA-approved work plana or planning
docu .. nta auO.itted pursuant to the CWP. The Respondents also
waive any objection, including in any proceeding initiated by the
State, to the introduction of such data baaed on hear•ay.
3. For purpo•es of thi• Section, the phrase •evidentiary
objections to authenticity• includes, without li•itation,
objection baaed on the failure to offer testi-ony or evidence
concerning collection and sa~linq procedures, cheMical or
physical analy•ea, chain of custody, field and laboratory QA /QC
procedure•, and objection baaed on the failur o offer any
spon•orinq witneaae•, i ncluding sa~ler•, c he 1st•, and heir
a•si•tant•, and other person• in th chain of eu• ody.
XV.
I • T " r eo
at er he o f h la
e nn .t o n h h Or r.
2 . 0 f l c: 1
0 It 1 r ' r r u
J
,
•
• •
States in connecticn vith this Order . Within 60 calendar days
after receipt of each such accounting, the Responden s shall
re•it to EPA a certified or cashier's check for the full amoun
of all uncontested costs. EPA's accounting of response costs
will consist of EPA's standard cost docu-.ntation package.
3. Paynent for all response costs incurred in connec ion
with this Order shall be made payable to the order of the
•Hazardous Substances Superfund" and transmitted to the following
address:
EPA Region 8
Attn: Superfund Accounting
P.o. Box J60859M
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251
or such other address as EPA may hereinafter designate in
writing. Pay nt s should be id n ified as •Rei burse n Cos •--
Lowry Landfill Shallov Ground-Wa er and De p Ground-wa er OUs,
CERCLA VIII -88 -18 , !Color do).• A copy o r ns al l
and he rei rs c ck sh 11 be prov eoncurr n ly 0
EPA Pro or.
Al ern 0 PA 'I by 1r r ns r
0 EPA Aec oun tn P
nn ylv 1'1 . 11
v r r nat r 0
nsr r • tollo
0
,
•
• •
tran•fer for•. This infor-.tion, along with a transmittal letter
lpecifically identifying the pay-.nt as "Reimbursement of Costs--
Lowry Landfill Shallow Ground-Water and Deep Ground-Water OUs,
C!RCLA VIII-88-11, (Colorado)", shall be forwarded to the EPA
Project Coordinator and to Frank MacFadden, Financial Management
Officer, U.S. Environ .. ntal Protection Agency, Region VIII,
Office of Policy and Manage .. nt, 999 1Ith Street, Suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 10202-2405.
4. If Re•pondents conclude that EPA ha s -.de an accou nt ing
error or ha• included re•pon•e costs that are inconsistent v ith
C!RCLA or the NCP , they M&y contest pay .. nt of such co•ts set
forth in the accounting by providing writ ten notice to EPA. The
written notice of contested co•ts au•t •pecifically ide n ify each
cont e1ted co•t and explain the ba•is for Re•pond•nt• obj c ion.
EPA and he R •ponden • •hall h n have 14 c lendar day• o
he ir difference•. Thi• diaput r 1olu ion procedure
ahdl be in 11
prov aJon• of
an ecoun
tnc nat. " v i
ln
" e ion
"
0
u of the for
his Ord r.
ing rror
h c
14 y
ina
1 01 pu e Re1 olu on (S c ion XIX )
0
u .. c.
bur n of proving
1 ar
e nno _
0
Oft 1(\J O(
I
•
• •
r-.serves its rights to recover any other past and future resronse
costs under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. § 9607, incurred by
the United States in connection vith response activities
conducted pursuant to CERCLA in connection vith the facility.
5. If pay .. nt is not received vithin 60 days of receipt of
an accountin9, interest shall accrue on the declining principal
balance at the 52-veek U.S. Treasury MK Bill rate at vhich
Superfund ~niea are in1ested. Interest shall be compounded at
the be9innin9 of each fiscal year.
6. Notvithatandinq the fiscal year accountinq provided
above, EPA shall, to the extent possible, cooperate in providinq
Respondents ~re frequent inforaation concerninq the response
coats incurred or to be incurred under this Order.
XVI.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE, INSURANCE, AND INO NIFI CATION
1. The Respond n s shall establish and
f n ncial ins rus ac un fund
rfor he Nor and
Or r, inel din
z.
rly
h IS h
oe
v rr n or
ny o
n •
in ain a
auf 1cien ly
und r
o A
0
hu
or
I •
•
• •
demonstrate the relationship between funds available and the Work
and other obliqations required under this Order for the upcoming
quarter.
3. Within IS calendar days after the effective date of
this Order, the Respondents shall fund the financial instrument
or trust account sufficiently to perfor• the Work and other
activities required under this Order projected for the period
beginnin? with the effective date of the Order throuqh March 31,
1990. Beqinninq January IS, 1990, and on or before the 15th
calendar day of each calendar year quarter thereafter, the
Respondents shall fund the financial instru .. nt or trust account
sufficiently to perfora the Work and other activities required
under this Order projected for the succeedinq calendar year
quarter.
4. The Respondents shall review he f nancial instru-.n
or trust account periodically to deteraine whether it is funded
sufficiently to perfor• he Work and other obli1ations under his
Ord r for the upcoainq qu r r. If a any he n worth of
he financial ins ru rua account 1s naufficien o
Nor nd o h r o lt .ions un r h Or r for h
upc 1nq 11 P&"OV1 ic PA
w1 h n 7 calend r days
ina ru
n ic
n or
1hall
ccoun is
" 0 ill
rua
ert
c:coun
w y
0
n
ln
tn nc1 l U\
n nci l
Th wr t n
ru
on h v
o ru
)
I •
-•
• •
account adequately.
5. Respondents shall require any Contractor to obtain and
maintain in force during the pendency of this Order an
occurrence-form policy or policies of insurance providin7
coverage for all liability arising out of the acts or omissions
of the Contractor in amounts not less than those listed belov:
a. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability
Insurance in accordance vith the State lav.
b. Automobile Liability Insurance f?r bodily injury
and property damage liability in an amount of $1,000,000.00 per
occurrence.
c. Co•prehensive General Liability Insurance,
vith li•its of not less than $2 million per claim/aggregate.
6. Respondents shall require any Co ntractor to provide
Respondents vith copies of he policy or policies evidencing the
coverage obtained by each Contractor. At leas 7 calendar days
prior to any Work, Additional Work, or o h r obligations und r
this Ord r being conduc ed by ch Co n r c or, R • ond n s sh 11
e r lfy o EPA r quir in ur nc h • n ob • ned y
h Con r e or, n prov v i h eo 1 • 0 pol cv or
pollc:i 0 1n Con r c o •
l. no ah or any
Injury o or or
0 or
r, w
pl " 0 "" 0 1 t)
..
I
•
• •
~xcept a~ EPA m~y be liable under the F~deral Tort Claims Act
("FTCA"). Neither EPA nor the State shall be considered a party
to any contract entered into by Respondents for purposes of
impleMenting this Order.
8. The Respondents aqree to indemnify and save and hold
harMless the United States, the State of Colorado, and their
agencies, departments, agents, and employees from any and all
claims or causes of action arising from or on account of act a or
o.iasions or the Respondents, their contractors, agents,
successors, or assigns, in carrying out ac !vi 1 s pursuant o
this Order, except for claims in contribu ion against he Uni ed
States, the State of Colorado, and their d par nta, agencies,
ag nta, and e ployees based upon heir liability as o wner a,
operators, tr nsportera, or 9
C!RCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, nd
h FTCA.
t •
ora und r • c ion 107 of
xc p a E A y be l bl un~ r
XVII .
-•
• •
FS(s) Phase I and Phase II RP.ports, and the ARAR's Evaluation(&)
Nu~bers 2 and 3. Due to the interactions of the various steps in
the RI/FS process, ~inor delays in submission of these non-
critical path documents are not anticipated to result in delay of
any critical path deliverable or the Final OU FS Report(s).
Therefore, the Parties have aqreed, that althouqh the project
schedules .ay indicate that certain docu~ents are due at an
earlier date, atipulated penalties will not beqin to accrue on
Tier II deliverable• until delay s in submission of these
docu .. nts result in these documents fallinq on the critical path
such that the overall schedule is delayed in any respect.
7. Co~pliance with the terms and conditions of this Order
shall include co•pletion of any activity or coMpliance with any
require•nt under this Order in an adequate Manner v i hin he
t1 fra established under hh Ord r, he CNP, nd any EPA-
approved work plans or planninq docu n s ed pur,.uan 0
he P. EPA y, in i s di ere ion, illlpO e r or no
p.nd y for inor viol ions. Any r uc ion in h s !pula ed
y pos shall sol ly E A's d sere on nd ah 11 no
apu aol 1on.
0 no tc
fr
ot
r,
0 " 0
I •
•
•
,. •
the terms of this Order shall be defined as the failure to su~it
to EPA timely or adequate dr~ft or final versions of each of the
following deliverables or to perform timely or adequately each of
the following activities:
a. Monthly Status Reports,
b. Field Work Memoranda,
c. Transmittal of Validated Data,
d. Administrativ• Record Documents,
e. PerforMance of Waste Management Activities
According to Approved Site Management Plan,
f. Perform4nce of Additional Work Within the Scope of
the OUs or of Additional Work Within the Scope of
the Deep Ground-Water OU (Section IX),
g. Quarterly Bud9et Reports (Section XVI).
5. Stipulated penalties shall be calculated accordin9 to
the schedule li sted below.
no
roj
Calendar Day s After Adequate
and Timely CO!pliance Required Amount /Day
TIER I NON COMPLIANCE PENALTY SCHEDULE
1-10 d ys
11-20 days
21 or 1110re days
$),000.00
$6,000.00 Sl2 ,o oo.oo
TIER II NON CO MPLIANCE PENALTY SCHEDULE
1-10 days
1 1-20 d ys
21 or r d ys
TI
tc lly,
one
$1,000.00
$2,500.00
S5,ooo.oo
S500.00
'· ooo.oo n,5oo.oo
or
OU I
. r I •
•
• •
approved work plans or planning d~cuments submitted pursuant to
the CWP. The schedules for performance of activities required by
this Order or for submission of deliverables is set forth in this
Order or the CWP.
2. For purposes of this Order, Tier I Noncompliance with
the terMs of this Order shall be defined as the failure to subm i t
to EPA tiMely or adequate draft or final versions of each of the
following listed deliverable&:
3.
the t r•s
to !PA 1
following
4.
a. Media Interacti o n Report,
b. Fate and Transport Mechanisms (Deep and Shallow Ground Water),
c. Additiona l Site Characterize ion Summary,
d. Natur~ and Extent of Contamina ion in Was Pits
Liquids, Shallow Ground Water nd Subsurface
Liquids Outside the Waste Pits, and Deep Ground Water,
•· General Charac eristics of the S udy Area,
f. Ground-w r Charac eris ics and In er c ions
Between he Sh llov and Deep Ground Wa er,
9· Well Inv ntory and Ground-Water Us Evalu ions, h. OU FS R por (s).
For purpos s of his Order, Ti r II Nonco111pl1 nc Vi
of th s Order sh 11 d fined as h f Uur 0 au
or final ver ions Of ch of h
d liverabl s:
c.
d • ••
9· h.
1. '.
r of JtJ
h
i
I
•
• •
from EPA. Penalties will continue to accrue through the final
day of the correction of the noncompliance. Noth i ng herein shall
preclude the simultaneous accrual of separate penalties for
separate violations of this Order. Payment of stipulated
penalties shall be due to EPA within 30 calendar days of demand.
9. Stipulated penalties shall be made payable t o the order
of the •Hazardou s Subs tance s Supe rfund• and tran smitted t o t he
follovin9 address :
EPA ~e g io n 8
S uper f u nd Account i n9
P.O. Bo x 360 8 59 M
Pittsbur9h , Pen n sylvania 15251
o r s uch o ther a d d r ess as EP A .. Y hereinafter desi9nate i n
v ritin9. Par-ent must be made b y ce r tified or cashier's check
and i d en ti f i ed as •stipulated Pe n a l ties --Lo wr y Landf i ll Shallow
Ground -Wat e r a nd Deep Ground-Water OUs, CE~CLA VIII -18 -11,
(Color ado)•. A copy o t t he transmittal le ter and s i p u la ed
penalties chec k s hall be s n c onc urren t ly o the !PA Proj c
Coordinator .
Alter n iv ly , o EP A ma y be m de by v r
o EPA At::coun
" llon 8 n in 1 aburqh,
P nn ylv ni All
n N r•) ot
for a follova:
A 1:
ro h ll tn , A
0
I
•
• •
tran~t•r f rm . Thi in orma 10n, along ~1 h a ra n sm it a l
apecificall y identifying h'! paymen as "S i pu at d P n a l
Lovry Landfil Sha llow Ground-Water and De
Ground -at r OU ,
CERCLA VIII-88-18, (Color ad o )", shal l ~ forwarded t o h E
Pro ec Coord1nato and o Frank Mac add , F i nanc1a l M nag m n ~
Officer, U.s. En v1 ronmen a l P ot
Offie of Po 1c and ManaqeMe , 99 18 h S re _, S u1 SOt,
Denve r, Co orado 8020 -4 05.
1 0. If pay 0 t 1 p u at d 1 r.o Vi hl 30 c naar
a ecru 0
Tr aaur · M} ...... }
In er
v •r .
I I •
da.y s
n g
ra ••
co ou
..l
r .
Wt -::t •
0 ••
ba~an c
1
a ll no
0
I .
•
• •
XVIII.
FORCE MAJEURE
1. The Respondents shall perform all Work and activities
required by this Order, unless performance is delayed by an event
or occurrence that constitutes a "Force Majeure".
2. For purposes of this Order, a "Force Majeure" is an
event or occurrence, which delays or prevents performance of the
Work or any obli9ation under this Order, that is beyond the
control of the Respondents.
3. Force Majeure events shall not include increased cost
of performance, chanqed economic circumstances, normal
precipitation events, the failure of a Contractor to perform the
Work or any activities required under this Order, or delays
caused by the Dispute Resolution procedures of this Order.
4. When circumstances aria hat may cons 1 u e a Fo re
Ma j eure event that may delay the completion of any phas of th
Work or any ac lvities r quired under his Order, h Respond nts
shall pro~ ly no ify EPA's and he S ate's Pro c Coordina ora
o rally vi hin 48 hours af r h Responden s discover ha a
Fore Ma j ure even h occurred or s 11 ly o occur.
T spo s sh 11, v i hin 7 r 1
no t 1e on o rA, no ity PA 1n r y,
h of h d l y,
pr v n or 1n1•
0
I
-
•
•
• •
notify E~A in ~ccordance with this Section either orally or in
writing of any event for which Force Majeure is claimed shall
constitute a waiver of any claim of Force Majeure.
5. The Respondents shall bear the burden of proving that
any failure to perform the Work or to comply with the
requirements of this Order is due to Force Majeure. The
Respondents shall also have the burden of proving that the
proposed corrective action timetable and schedule modifications
are appropriate. If EPA, after consultation with the State,
agrees that a delay or failure of performance is or va s
attributable to a Force Maje~r e the project schedules may be
~ified. Any schedule modification due to a Force Ma jeure shall
be written and shall be incorporated into this Order. Any such
extension does not alter the schedule for performance or
co~pletion of other tasks required by this Order , the CWP, or any
~PA-approved vork plans or planning docu~n s subMit ed pursuan
to he CWP, unlesa such achedules are sp cifically ~odified and
incorpora ed in o his Or r.
XIX.
I . • 0 h rvla • cHic lly provt in h1
Ord r, R olu ion 11 p ly 0 11
di n pon n s
Ord r. I 0 ny '" 0
for l 01 R 101\1 ion rovtsion of hit I •
0
I .
•
• •
Respondents shall not later than 7 calendar days following
receipt of EPA's decision notify EPA's Director of the Region
VIII Hazardous Waste Management Division (the "Director") of its
objections. Respondents' notice of objections shall be written,
shall define the dispute, shall state the basis of Respondents•
objections, and shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to all Parties and the State. EPA, the State, and the
Respondents shall Meet promptly and work in good faith for a
period of 7 calendar days in an effort to reach a mutually
agreeable resolution of the dispute. If agreement is not reached
within the 7-day period, EPA after consultation with the State
shall provide a written stateMent of its decision signed by the
Director. If the Director does not render a decision vi hin
5 calendar days following th conclusion of the 7-day nego ia ion
period, the accru 1 of s !pula ed pen lties related to he
dispute shall be olled un il he Direc or's decision is
rendered.
2.
larg nu
nd
Due o
r of Par
pl x hnic
o r
ct l ct eu
co unica ion probl
h po n 1 lly conflic in7
hau •
s, h
••
h1n
0
I
•
• •
EPA decision concerning additional data needs provided for in the
CWP, concerning Additional Work Within the Scope of the OUs, or
Additional Work Within the Scope of the Deep Ground -Wat e r OU
(Section IX), Respondents shall not later than 7 calendar days
followinq receipt of the EPA's decision siqned by the Dir e ctor
notify EPA and the State of it s intent to request the appointme nt
of a neutral mediator to a i d in r esolution of th e di s put e .
Additionally, Re s pondent s -ay invoke Med ia tion not .are t han 2
ti .. s for any other deci s ion, s ub ject to d ispute r eso l ut ion, t o
wh i ch Re s ponde nt s o b j ect .
3. Selection a nd conduct of the Mediator shall be qoverned
by the follo v inq protocols:
a. Mediators have been selected by the R spond n s
and EP A, in consul a ion with the State. A -.dia or ybe
-•
• •
tel•phone number, and a short statement of qualifications.
b. Non-binding neutral mediation may extend f or up to
14 calendar days. EPA shall pay its fair share of the cost s of
mediation. Agendas and procedures shall be as EPA and the
Respondents agree, but suggestions by the mediator shall be given
full consideration in good faith. The mediator may meet or talk
vith EPA or the Respondents separately, in the mediator's sole
discretion. It is the intent of EPA, the State, and the
Respondents that mediation be flexibl e and infor .. l, in o r der to
fa c i litate t he con se n s ua l r esolu t i on o f any d ispute to t he
greatest e x ten t possible. The Stat e aa y attend a nd participate
in any joint mediation sessions.
c. EP A or the Respondents aa y v ithdra v froM mediation
t any ti-., but only after par icipating in a least one -. tinq
or con f e rence convened by the Mediator. Th ri9ht to v ithdr v
fro• media ion shall be con1id red A las r sort and should
exercised only on a 9ood f ith belief tha ia ion v ill • rve
no us ful purpose . Wi hdravin9 Par ie• r
provisions on conflden i 11 y.
d. " in or COl\( . "
on 1.
ny such onf
h n
• 11 ot 1n , 11
•
und by pro ocol
or h lJ
duri
0 n
of 0
ny I .
•
• •
con~ultant, or expert in any pending or future action relating to
the subject matter of the mediation, including those between
persons not party to the mediation. Failure to comply with the
mediation confidentiality requirement is a basis for termination
of or exclusion from mediation .
•· Th e mediator shall make no written findings or
recommendations. Mediation s essions shall not be recorded
verbatim and no formal minute s or transcript s of se ssion s shall
be maintained.
f. If agr eeme nt i s not r e a c hed wi th i n the med i at i on
period t he Responden t s ma y ra ise t he d ispu t e to t he Region VIII
Regiona l Ad ai n istrator (t he •RA •).
4. No t later than 7 c a lend a r d a y s f ollowi ng c omp l etion of
media t ion, i f the dispute is not resolved , or r eceipt of the
Dir e ctor's decision , v hich ever is later, the Respondents shall
no 1fy th RA and the S ate of th ir ob j e c tions to EPA's
d c 1sion . Respondents' notice of ob j c ions shall be writ en,
s h 11 defin he d ispute, shall • ate th basis of Respond n s'
o j c t i o ns, and sh ll
consul
v r
0
0
ton v
o r rwi r t n
" 1. u _h
v r
•en by c ert i f i ed
• nd
• 11
no
•
• •
days folloving recet~t of Re~pondents notice of objections, the
accrual of stipulated penalties related to the dispute shall be
tolled until the RA's decision is rendered.
5. Implementation of these Dispute Resolution procedures
shall not provide a basis for delay of any schedule for
activities required in this Order unless EPA agrees in vritinq to
a schedule extension. If Respondents do not prevail in the
Dispute Resolution process, Stipulated Penalties, as provided for
in this Order, shall accrue throughout the term of the dispute
resolution procedure s. If the Respondents prevail or if an
agreement is reached in the Dispute Resolution process, no
stipulated penalties shall apply to any delays caused solely by
he Diapute Reaolution proceaa.
6. Pre-entorce .. nt reviev of the Nork, Additional Work
Within the Scope of the OUs , Addit o nal Work Ni hin th Sc of
h Oe p Cround-Na er OU, or any p r of hie Order shall
pr eluded as provided under CEftCLA.
7. Th RA ah 11 hav u hori y o nd 01
R solu ion proe ur s durtnq any p rlod in vhich t o n
ia r o n ncy.
Any ny ll ln
r1 n ,
1ft
•
I
•
• •
XX.
OTHER CLAIMS
1. Nothing herein is intended to release any claims,
causes of action, or demands in lav or equity against any person,
partnership, corporation, federal or state agency or departMent,
or Municipality not a signatory to this Order for any liability
it .ay have arising out of or relating in any vay to the
generation, storage, treat•ent, handling, transportation,
disposal, or release of any hazardous vaste, solid vaste,
pollutant, contaMinant, or hazardous substance found at, taken
to, or taken fro• the Lovry Landfill Site. Nothing contained in
this Order shall affect any righ t, clai•, interest, or cause of
action of any Party hereto or the State vith respect to third
parties.
2. The Respondents vai ve all elai•s or de.andt, dirac or
indirect, for COMpensation o r p y nt under 1ec ions t06 (b)(2),
Ill, and 112 of CERCL~, 42 U.S.C . 9606(b)(2), 9611, 9 12,
a9ain1 he Fund, o r f or any pat cos • or tor any COs arhin
ou o f any ac !vi y p rfor or xpenset 1neurr 1n c lyin
v h hi Or r.
Th h Or r d no nr CU1o n
pr u horh ton o t runds unci r .to 111( )(2) 0 c
u u.s.c. II( HzL
•
•
• •
XXI.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS BY THE
UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF COLORADO
1. Notwithstanding compliance with the terms of this
Order, Respondents are not released from any administrative,
civil, or criminal, cause of action, or demand in law or equity,
includinq without limitation any natural resource damaqe claim,
or any liability Respondents may have arisinq out of or relatinq
in any vay to the qeneration, storaqe, treatment, recyclinq,
handlinq, transportation, release, or disposal of any hazardous
substance, hazardous wa ste, solid va ste, pollut nt, or
cont aainant f ou nd a , a n to, or taken from the Lovry Landfill
Site.
2. rl
h riq o f
ac 1 1 1e a
or r
, and nothinq herein shall affec
o her investiqa ion and
1
ake any nd all enforc
her available l a l
ion h r1qh 0
on tOt o c CLA, •z u .. c.
1lur l 0
'"
'
I
•
• •
dama9es, under section 1n7(a) and (c)(J) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
I 9607(a) and (c)(J).
4. Except as provided in Section XXIV (Covenant Not to
Sue), nothinq herein shall be construed to release the
Respondents from any liability for failure of the Respondents to
perform the Work or other obliqations under this Order in
accordance with the Order, the CWP, and any EPA-approved work
plans or planninq documents. The Parties further expressly
recoqnize that this Order and the successful completion and
approval of the Work or any other obliqations under this Order
does not represent satisfaction, waiver, re~ease, or covenant not
to sue, of any claia of the United States or the State a9ainst
the Respondents relatinq to the Lowry Landfill Site, except as
specifically provided in Section XXIV (Covenant No to Sue) of
this Order.
5.
or by partieipatin9 in accordane v i h this Ord r has no waiv
e, fed r l, or co n
1 ", tneludin9 bu no li .cS 0 s c ions 107 end 310 0 LA,
42 . .c. 07, , and h ri 8 0
11 v ••
pur 0 0 v • ur on hh Or r.
xu .
I , It
•
I •
-•
• •
liability under any federal or state statute, regulation,
ordinance, or common lav for any response costs, damages, or
other liability caused by or arising out of conditions at or
arising from th e Site. Notwithstanding Respondents consent to
jurisdiction (Section I), Respondents do not admit the Findings
of Fact (Section V), Conclusions of Lav (Section VI),
Deter•inations (Section VII), or any other allegations conta i ned
in this Order.
2. Jltespondents expressly reserve any legal and equitabl e
rights and defenses that they may have raised to the entry of
this Order or v hich might be rai sed in any other proceeding
brouqht by EPA or any other person, except as specifically vaived
in this Order.
3. Respondent s expressly reserve any riqhts of
contribution and indemni y ha they have against ny p rson,
xcept as specifically vaived in his Order. No hing in this
Order is intend~ to cr ate any priva • c uses of c lon in f vor
of any person no
1
ah
ht
poe
4. Mo p
"
Respond n •
by Jlt spond n 1 o plan for nd
r r h s
ot • 1 ul tot~ xvru.
1n ,
1ft
0 'I 0
•
•
• •
of an issue by assertion of the doctrine of collateral estoppel,
except in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order or any
judqment. Nothinq in this Order shall preclude, however, any
Respondent from using this Order or the fact of its entry against
any person for contribution or for recovery of costs expended in
ca.plying with this Order, except as specifically waived in this
Order.
XXIII.
CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION
Pursuant to section tt3(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
I 9613(f)(2l, Respondents and Non-Signatory Participants shall
not be liable to other persona or entities for contribution
elai•s reqardin9 he Work or other activities required by this
Order.
XXIV.
COVENANT NOT TO SU
I. PA eov n n • no o tu , 1ttue ny or er, or ny
0 lns , o cl
N n •
f r, " t 1 h _
I
-•
• •
~1rsuant to Section XXVIII (Termination and Satisfaction), and
b. certification by the Respondents that such
Respondent and Non-Siqnatory Participant has paid its share of
the coata of the Work and other activities to be performed under
this Order in accordance vith the fundinq aqreement amonq the
Reapondenta and the Non-Siqnatory Participants.
XXV.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
All actiona carried out by the Responden • pursuant to his
Order ahall be done in compliance vith all applicable federal,
. atate, and local lava and requlations. The Reapondenta ahall be
reaponalble for obtaininq all federal, atate, or local
per•ita vhieh are neceasary for he perforaance of the Work, bu
ahall no be r quired o ob dn federal, s , or loc 1 p<~r•1 •
for h por ion of he Work or o h r c .1v1 iea eon uc u r
h1a Or r h •r on-at • • provi 1n
• e 1 n I Z I ( ) o t c Ct.A, 4 u.s.c. Z I ( ).
VI.
I • " f " 0
r
r· r
•
• •
1988, with the Amended and Re~tated Administrative Order and
Conc~ptual Work Plan dated September 28, 1988, with errata,
effective as of December 7, 1988.
2. Followin9 execution of this Order, EPA will provide for
a 30-day public coMMent period on the amended portions of the
Order and CWP. Copies of any of the comments received by EPA
shall be provided to Respondents within 14 calendar days after
the close of the com.ent period. Followin9 review of the public
co..ents received, EPA, in consultation with the State, shall
either:
a. deterMine that this Order should be Made effective
in its present for• and notify the Respondents and the State in
writin9 that the Order is i-..diately effective; or
b. deterMine that -adification of this Order is
necessary and notify the Respondents in vritin9 as to he nature
of all chan9es de -.d o be necessary by EPA.
•
• •
obliqation under this Order, and to seek reimbursement pursuant
to section 107 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. § 9607, from the Respondents
for the costs thereof.
4. EPA's decision to make the Order effective or require
modifications is not subject to the Dispute Resolution (Section
XIX) procedures provided in this Order.
XXVII.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
1. In the event that EPA, after consultation with the
State, determines that this Order should be .. de effective in ita
present form followinq Public co ... nt, the effective date of this
Order shall be the da e on which the Respondents receive written
notice fro. EPA that this Order is effective. In the even that
~ifieation of this Order is necessary followinq Public co ... nt,
h e!f e ive da • ot such modified Order shall be the dat on
•
• •
advice, c;ruidanc'!, suc;rge!':tions, or comments by EPA or the State
shall be construed as relievinc;r the Respondents of their
oblic;rations under this Order.
3. Any vork plans or planninc;r documents required to be
subMitted by Respondents are upon approval by EPA incorporated
into this Order and CWP. Any noncompliance vith such EPA-
approved vork plans and planninc;r documents may be considered to
be a violation of this Order.
4. If the State does not ac;rree to any modifications a9reed
to by P.PA and the Re s pondent s , the State may v ithdra v its
siqnature and its participation in impleMentation of this Order,
and the Order v ill be modified to reflect this v ithdra v al.
XXV III.
T~MINATION AND SATISFACTION
1. This Order shall ter~inate vhen the Respond n s
de~nstrate in vr itinq to the sa isfaction of EPA, in
consultation v ith th S a •· 1nd eer ify that all ac iv 1 s
r quired under his Ord r, includinc;r any addi ional vorlt, hav
n perfor-.d ( h •cer ftc ~on•), nd EPA, f r c n ul
vi h h S C r fie on.
2. C r 1t e ion 1h 11 sign by r
I .
•
• •
official representing each Re~pondent and shall c onform
substantially to the following attestation:
I certify that the information conta i ned in or
accompanying this Certification is true, accurate, and
complete. As to the identified portion(s) of this
Cert i fication for which I cannot personally verify i ts
truth and accuracy, I certify as the c o mpany official
having supervisory responsibility for the person(s )
who, acting under my direct in s truction s , made the
verification, that th i s information i s tru e , accura te , and complete.
For purposes of thi s Ord e r, a re s pon s ible official is a c orpo rate
officer wh o i s in charge of a pr i nci pa l bu si ne ss fun c ti o n .
XX I X.
PARTIES BOU ND
1. Each of the P rties to this Order states that he or she
is fully authorized o en r into the terms and conditions of
this Order and to bind 1 gally the par y represented by him or
he r o h Order.
2. This Order applies to and binds he EPA, he
R epond n a, nd h R 1 ond n 1' reap c iv oft c re, d1r e ore,
princip h, loy s, •9 n •· serv n s, euec ssora, and ssi9ns.
•
Ho eh n9
Ul 1 11 h ny
\1
n o n rship or cor
y l r
r. T
or e rrytn 11 c 10
0 0
or lp
ne1 111 y of
,
I
•
•
'. •
XXX.
MUNICIPALITY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
1. The Metropolitan Denver Sevage Disposal District No. 1,
the Littleton-Englevood Bi-City Wastevater Treatment Plant, and
the City of Lakevood ("Municipalities/Special Districts") are
political subdivisions of .the State of Colorado and are subject
to constitutional, statutory, and home-rule restrictions,
includin7 li•itations on incursion of debt. Notvithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Order, EPA
acknowledges that the Mun ici pal ity/Special Districts are not
a9reein9 to a ssume responsibility for obligations under thi~
. Order in excess of the folloving a111ounts:
Metropolitan Denver Seva ge
Disposal District No. 1
L1ttleton-Englevood Bi-C1ty
Wastevater Tr ~~~ent Plant
$885,500
$253,000
$126,500
In add1 ion, the Municipal ti s/Sp cial Dis ric s are no
nify and save and hold Un1
ot Color o • on
r u1red o 1 or
l Oi
1
ed
leVI
In h
fl ~ I • •
-
•
• •
•
• •
2. Nothing in this Order is intended to or shall waive the
defense of sovereign immunity or any other protection granted to
the Municipalities/Special Districts under state or federal
con•titutions and law.
XXXI.
COUNTERPARTS
Thi• Order .. y be executed and delivered in any nuMber of
counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be
dee-.d to be an ori9inal, but such counterparts shall together
constitute one and the saMe docuMent.
IT IS SO AGI'!ED :
,
I • •
• -
• •
ADOLPH COORS COMPANY
BY: RICHARD D. ZILLMAN
TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER
• • I . •
-
•
•
• •
AMAX RESEARCH 'DEVELOPMENT, INC., F/~/A/ AMAX EXTRACTIVE
RESEARCII ' DEVELOPMENT, INC.
BY:
TITLE:
DR. A. KUMAR BHASIN
PRESIDENT
DATE
I . •
•
•
•' •
\.
ASAMERA OIL (U.S.) INC.
IY: A. R. S!LLO DATE
TI'l'L!: PR!SIDEN'l'
BY: G. S. TH~S DATE
TITLE: ASSISTANT SECRETARY
I . •
•
• •
CONOCO INC.
BY: D. F. MYERS DATE
TITLE: MANAGER OF DENVER REFINERY
' ..
I . .
•
• •
RBWLZT'l' PACKARD COMPANY
BY: HAlOLD E. EDMONDSON DATE
,.I'I'LE: VICE PRESIDENT, MANUFACTURING
I . .
•
• •
HONEYWELL INC.
BY: DATE: TITLE:
I . .
•
• •
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
BY: JOHN F. SERINO, .7R. DATE
TITLE: DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
•
4
• -
• •
CITY OF LAKEWOoD
IY:
TITLE: NANCY FREED
ACTING CITY MANAGER DATE
A'!"''EST:
IY:
TITLE: IWtEN GOLDMAN DATE CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
li: AfcHAio l. PLAsTtNo ~D~At-.----------------------DiaCCToa OF PUIL1C NO•Ks TITLI :
.\PPaovto AS '1'0 ro
OA
I . .
•
•
• •
LITTLETON-ENGLEWOOD BI-CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BY:
. TITLE: STEWART H. FONDA
DIRECTOR DATE
I . •
•
• •
M~OPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL DIS~ICT NO. 1
BY:
. TITLE: ROBERT N. HIT£
MANAGER DATE
1
I . .
• -
• •
, _______ _
SUifOS'nAND CORPORATION
IY: WILLIAM l. COOLE
TITLE: ASSISTAM'I' SECRETARY DATE
• • •
SYNTEX CHEMICALS, INC.
BY: G. L. HOERIG
TITLE: VIC! PRESIDENT AND
GEifDAL MAIIAGD
•
• •
DATE
I •
•
• -
I
•
• •
THE S. W. SHATTUCK CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
IY : HENRY r. BARRY DA~
TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT OF ~HNOLOGY
I
I . .
,,
•
•
---
IT IS SO OltDDED:
U.S. ElfVIROIIMENTAL PROTECTION AGEifCY
BY:
TITLE: JAMES .7. SCHERER
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
•
• •
DAft
•
• .. •
APPitOVED AS TO P'OIIUt:
STATE OF COLOitADO
IY:
TITLE: fiOMAS P. LOOIY ~D~A:n;=---------------------
DIRECTOR. OFFICE OF
HEALTH AND ENVIRON"EWTAL
PllOTECTION
-•
• •
-..... /) -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
?he undersi9ned h~reby certifies that the ori9ina1 and one
copy of the attached SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER ON CONSENT, Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-88-18, and the
Conceptual Work Plan dated SepteMber 22, 1989, were hand carried
to the Reqional Hearin9 Clerk, EPA Reqion VIII, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver. Colorado, and one copy of the SECOND AHENUEO
AND RESTATED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT and the Conceptual
Work Plan dated S.pteaber 22, 1989, vas sent via certified .. 11,
return recetpt requested, to each of the follovtn9 persona :
Adolph Coors COMpany
c/o John R. Jacus, Esq .
Bradley, CaMpbell ' Carney, P.C.
Counsel for Adolph Coors COMpany, Inc.
1717 Waahin9ton Avenue
Cold n, Colorado 10401
A x Research • Develop.ent, Inc.
F/K/A AMax Ex rae tve R search ' DevelopMen , Inc. c/o Louis "arucheau, Esq. ~AX stern Ar a t.w Depart nt
J707 Cole Boul vard
Cold n. Color do 80401
.1, Inc:.
,
I .
/l .. • ..L '"' I •
•
• •
I ) A I 11.._ ••• /;IU
Honeywell Inc.
c/o Gary E. Parish
Popha•, Haik, Schnobrich ' Kaufman, Ltd. 1200 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
International Business Machines Corporation
c/o Michael L. Murray, Esq.
208 Harbor Drive
Sta.ford, Connecticut 06904
City of LAkewood
c/o Howard Kenison, Esq.
Gorsuch, Kirqis, C~~bell, Walker 6 Grover
Counsel for City of Lakewood
1401 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80217-0180
Littleton-Enqlewood Bi-City Wastewater Trea -.nt Plant
c/o David w. Robbins, Esq.
Hill ' Robbins, P.c.
Counsel to the Littleton-Enqlewood Bi-City
Wastewater Treat-nt Plant
1441 18th Str .. t, No. 100
Denver, Colorado 10202
Metropolitan Denver Sewaqe Disposal Diatric No. 1
c/o Robert w. Bite, Manager
6450 York Stree
Denver, Color ado 80229
Sundstrand Co rpora ion
c/o Charlo te ._1 tel, Esq.
Hol , Roberta ' en
Counsel tor Sunda r&~ Corpora ion Suit 4100
1700 Lincoln S r
nv r, Color do 0203
ra v t...aw
43
• •
-
I
DATE
•
•
•
• •
The Gates R•Jbber C'.....,any
c/o Merry Ann Vernon, Esq.
Gates Corporation
900 South Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80209
The S. w. Shattuck Ch .. ical Ca.pany, Inc.
c/o John D. Fau9ht, Esq.
John D. Fau9ht, P.c.
Counsel for S. w. Shattuck Che•ical COIIpany, Inc.
Boettcher DTC Buildift9, Suite 1040
1400 Ea•t Prentice Avenue
Eft9leVOOd, Colorado 10111
Colorado Depart .. nt of Health
c/o Tha.a• P. Looby, Director
Office of Health • Envtron .. ntal Protection 4210 East Eleventh Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
BY:
, Vl.f •
I • •
/. &11 (J ~ _)
JJ.W;( ---
.. H .Z/kr~.<L
J
I AGEJI)A ITEit __ _
/ I
'-r l/' (,
•
• •
PIESEJITm IY ------
I
I
•
• •
---
PIESEJITm IY ----
•
• •
-----~~~~--~~--------------~
AGEJI)A ITEM 1~J PRESENTm BY
TJ :--------------------------------------------
I .
•
• •
AGOOA ITEM l (/c PREsoom av ------
I . .
•
•
.. •
PIESENTm IY ------
i t) I
•
• -
• •
PRESENTm BY ------
I
• -
• •
PR£soom av ------
(
-I
•
•
.. •
PRESENTm BY ---
/
• -
• •
AGEIIJAIT'"~ PRESENTm BY
~
rlc (
l ~ r f)_[
~J )
• TJ
• I . .
•
• •
AGENDA ITE" ~' ----
I .
•
• •
A6[JI)A ITEM ---PRESENTED BY ----=---fy
~
•
• •
PRESENTED BY
/-
I . •
•
•
, . •
AGENDA ITDI
---PRESENTED IY / cr-/-_v_/_L_ __
0_}-~ (/~~~
·-=-57 ~ ~· ~
--~·
{/
. __ ,
I . •
•
• •
AGENDA ITE" ~--~---~-u ;•oom ov
1/lWL£ L . ; ~ _f)
~~~--c::--7-
__[ y J .~
-(-(
t('l ( -t_; tf"1 7 __.._r
;; /{(": ~) J
t '(' I t _ _,., / ~ /~
I . •
•
• •
,_,o .
-~ Y'.
_;It'! e ~.__( cP L ~ J
/
J ~ /1 ~
a .. -e--. /
7! ~y /
?
/-:.-/
(;.... / /""' (.
• TJ : / /"
~ '""-=
• /7 • • TS : I •
•
•
, . •
AGENDA ITDt
fl I
I . •
/
• -
• •
·----......;..._
AGEfiJA ITEM ----
~ / PRESENTED BY
•
Tl '-----------------------------------------
• • SfCOte : _________ _
• SU&.TS •--------------------------------I .
•
• •••
AGDIDAIT'"__i}Q__
Prl::u~ ror{k;l~
c /3# 3~
J~ /} /;-u;-~ ~ f /'
{ ~ ch_u /J
/"]
(
I . .
•
• •
---~-
P3 1)
AGENDA ITEM ---7RE may
a LLt-e .--z:::,
I
TION: =---------
COM): I . ·-------
TS: --------•
•
• •
•
• •
.....-:...;,.._ -----------
~~ d ..) ;<O~ -r ~
) f .tJ 5~C-({'Q
PRESENTm BY -----
/.
I . .
•
•
• •
-'-=-= --~-~-------
:?t-1/1 d {j /Y ~ ~ / ~__)-t('\
AGENDA ITDt PRESEHTm BY ----
dJttJd / 00 ~/If~
L~ '-<:/
/lL/ ---L , !) ,-//. /Vo
.)
1_,) ~ :::7
/ ___)~ /!~, //
n c , __________ _
/
I .
• -
• . . •
--
AGENDA ITEM ,/d tJ__}
C/)
PRESENTm BY
Tl l
TSt • -------
•
•
i'. · .•
-------
/J b PHsmmoY --A&EJI)A nat _ ----
e Tl ·----=====-
•
• -
•
i . •
. .
A6Efi)A ITDI PREsoom av ___ _
) ~ ( '-C?· ?/ ~0~u~
U j?a-1
. /
{. / ( 't.o
•
• -
• •
..:.......:::: . a:;:--
-.
AGOOA ITEM 13al PR£SENTm BY
(2___./ ('5/3 ~ ~l-7~
tfi7 0
z /l A{}t:t_L
Co
) 7/ /c£j__
• • •
•
• •
...... IT.. JiJ e__ PIESENTm BY
dtJ:J u ~ /
j r )n/!--
?
~
I . •
•
• •
--~
AGOOA ITEM /3
PRESENTm BY ------
Tl '-----------------------------------
• S[C '··---------TS a ______________________ _ I . •
•
• •
--• r;.
PRESENTm BY -----
-
7
•
• •
' -------~---=~-----~~--~---------
A6Efi)A ITEM ---
PRESENTm BY -----
I
/
2 C/d c ( -· /" (..._/
~""
(<./t?~
u__
• I .
/-=--
•
• •
AGENDA ITDI
;L/~-PRESEHTm BY ----
3C (
(
=--/_,;~/. /-
. -?1 (.~
/" r-r ·-./ . !' .._.--,.
•
• ------( I . •
/
• -
• • ' '
------::..;::::_-.:.: ---
)-·s
• I . TSt ---------------------------
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ---PIESENTm IY
~/~~----
/
r' Lf c/J .--C ~
(1/r~tf~)
-/ Jtt /v .
1 /
/) c__./,
L /
I
I •
• -
• •
1
~/ // -z::>, '-
:") ~~ / /l
AGENDA ITEM ----PRESENTm BY
• • I .
I
------
•
• •
PRESENTm BY ----
ddMJ
~~_tz-f~uyp6
!7 ~r
/---? //~
I .
•
• ••
Tl : -----------------
5 C I ·-----
• TS: ----------------I . •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM -~
n : -----------===
• •
•
• •
AGENDA ITEM ---PRESENTED BY c;Lcj -z;~.-JA
8
•
•
.. •
VERBATIM EXCERPT -COUNCIL MEMBER'S CHOICE -AGENDA ITEM 14Bi -OCTOBER 16, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING
KOZACEK: YEAH, YOUR HONOR, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. I
FOUND IN GOING AROUND THE STREETS AND STUFF FOR MY CAMPAIGN THAT
THERE ARE SEVERAL MISPERCEPTIONS OUT THERE ONE OF WHICH WHICH CAME
OUT IS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC EYE THINKS THAT THE WHOLE COUNCIL
VOTED TO CUT THE POLICE AND FIRE. I'M GOING ON RECORD TO STATE
THAT I MADE A MOTION TO RETAIN All THE POLICE AND FIREMEN AND
SALARY FOR NEXT YEAR. I NEEDED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE MADE COMMENTS.
I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THE FACT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD PAYING FOR THE TUFTS/UNION CONNECTION. THAT IS ANOTHER
MISPERCEPTION, AND THE THIRD MISPERCEPTION IS THAT THIS COUNCIL IS
NOT CONSIDERING THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN AROUND SCHOOLS. I, THREE
YEARS AGO, OVERRODE THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CODE TO REQUEST STOP SIGNS
BE PLACED AROUND CLAYTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND REDLINED AROUND
CLAYTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHICH NOW HAS GROWN TO GO AROUND All THE
SCHOOLS, NOT ONLY IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BUT ACROSS THE
METROPOLITAN AREA, THAT WE HAD SET FORTH TO OVERRIDE THE UNIFORM
TRAFFIC CODE AND SEVERAL DISTRICTS HAVE NOW ACCEPTED IT AND FOUND
IT TO BE A LOT SAFER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MISPERCEPTIONS CAME
ON THAT END OF IT, BUT FOR THE RECORD I'M STATING CATEGORICALLY If THEY'D LIKE TO CHECK IT, IT WAS IN A MOTION HERE ON THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT A FORMAL COUNCIL.
THE OTHER THING IS MD THE lAST THING I HAVE IS I'M ASKING STAFF TO
GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH DESIGN DRAWINGS AND STUFF TO DIVIDE OfF OXFORD AVENUE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT W£ S££ GOING DOWN
BEllEVIEW • HAVE A MID·LANE FOR TUMING ONLY AND SINGLE LAN£ GOING
IN EACH DIRECTIO.. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT IS O.LY BECOMING MORE
UfTENSIFJ£0. All STAFF HAS TO 00 IS GO DOWN AND LOOK AT EARLY
... I HOURS N10 RUSH HOURS IN THE EARLY I E THE MEAOOW
GOlD DAIRY TRUe S ARE STARTING TO RET All) THEY ARE BlOCKING
OJFORO, CR£ATI A VIEW HAZARD AND CREATING AN EXTRE HAZARD FOR
IDS GOJ TO SCHOOl, CAUSE A lOT Of KIDS THAT CROSS OXFOftO TO GO
TO ClAYT El NTARV SCHOO(, AND IT 'S HIGH Tl G TOUR TRAFFIC
E I It TO IT TO A PROBLEM BECAUS TH HAVE 'T ll D IT AND
G T THAT IT T1 SOLVED . THAT 'S Al l I HAV •
GO D OR .... ?
I
-
•
(
•
• •
KOZACEK: A LONG TIME AGO, YES. WHETHER THEY ARE STill PLANNING, I DON'T KNOW.
BYRNE: IT'S STill IN THE PLAN.
KOZACEK: IT'S A LONG RANGE PLAN AND THERE'S A HAZARD TODAY TO BE DEALT WITH.
FRASER: I REVIEWED WITH STAFF TODAY A PROPOSED STRIPPING FOR OXFORD AVENUE
FR(M BROADWAY TO SANTA FE. I Will BE SHARING WITH YOU THAT
PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THAT STRIPPING A LITTLE BIT LATER ON THIS WEEK
Nil ONCE YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, WE ARE PLANNING ON PROCEEDING AS SOON AS WEATHER PERMITS.
CLAYTON: I WOULD FRCJII MY PERSPECTIVE, HOPE THAT WE COULD LOOK AT SOME PLAN
BEFORE WE ACTUAllY IMPLEMENT IT. I KNOW THAT GARY HAS SOME IDEAS
Nil I HAVE SOME IDEAS AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A
COUPLE OF ALTERNATIVES BEFORE WE ACTUALLY EXPEND THE MONEY. THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EXPENSIVE ONE TO STRIP.
KOZACEK: WEll, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD EXPEDITE IT CAUSE IT IS A HAZARD.
I'M NOT ONE TO WAIT UNTIL SOMEBODY IS HURT TO REACT. I'D LIKE TO
BE AHEAD OF THE GAME AND TRY TO MITIGATE ANY PROBLEMS AS filCH AS POSSIBLE.
BYRNE : ALSO THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BIKE ROUTE, AND IF THERE WERE STRIPES
FOR BIKES TO SEPARATE THEM FD TRAfFIC, I 'D AGREE WITH THAT.
CLAYTON: CARY, 1lWIC YOU FOR CLEARING UP THOSE MISCONCEPTIONS.
I . •
•
• •
Verbatim Excerpt -City Attorney's Choice -October 16, 1989 Council Meeting
DEWITT: YES, THERE ARE SEVERAL MATTERS I'D LIKE TO TAKE UP WITH THE CITY
COUNCIL. NO. 1 IS I HAVE RECEIVED A REPORT HERE ON, FROM THE EPA,
CONCERNING COUNCIL'S CASE STUDIES IN CITIES. SOME OF THOSE CITIES
MAY REFLECT CITIES THE SIZE OF ENGLEWOOD. YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS REPORT. THIS IS THE COMING THING. AND WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PLAIN OLD YARD WASTE. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER TYPES .
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT REPORT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THAT TYPE -THERE'S JUST ONE THERE.
CLAYTON: THIS IS IT? THAT'S All?
DEWITT: LET ME MAKE SURE. THAT'S THE WHOLE THING.
CLAYTON: IT'S All JUST ONE.
DEWITT: YES, IT'S All ONE REPORT . MINE IS IN DIFFERENT FORM . TAKE A LOOK
AT IT AND SEE IT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU CIRCULATE IT . IF ANY
OF YOU WANT ONE, YOUR OWN COPIES, LET ME KNOW AND I'll GET YOU ONE.
CLAYTON: OKAY. I 'll TAKE IT FIRST.
DEWITT : THE NEXT MATTER IS A MATTER WITH RESPECT TO PETERSBURGH DITCH. ON
PREVIOUS OCCASION I GAVE A REPORT FROM THE WATER ATTORNEY DAVID
HILL HAVE ANY Of YOU AMY OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING AS THE lETTER
SUGGESTS? (NO CCIWNT) SO WE CM JUST GO IN THAT REGARD AND TAkE NO ACTION .
CLERK : COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT DIT CH IT IS? I DIDN 'T GET THE NAME .
DEWITT : PETERSBURGH DITCH .
HATHAWAY : DOES THAT REQUIRE A 'I)TJON?
DEWIT T: NO , IT REQUIRES NO ACTION .
CtA T _: THAT TJ ACAI 1 T A YOU GOI TO
• 1 •
I .
•
• •
DEWITT: I'LL BE ASKING YOU HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE $1,000 PENALTY. HOW IT
SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED? SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ON A BROAD BASIS,
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COMMITS A SPEEDING OFFENSE AND THAT IS
SUBJECT TO A $1,000 PENALTY? OR SHOULD IT BE ISOLATED TO ONLY
INCLUDE THE WASTEWATER PRE -TREATMENT COURT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY?
CLAYTON: WILL YOU HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US?
DEWITT: WEll, FRANKLY, I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU
DEFINITELY ADOPT IT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRE -TREATMENT PROGRAM . YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT 'S WORTH FOOLING AROUND WITH . ON A GENERAL
BASIS, I DON'T, I CAN TEll YOU WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE PRACTICE .
FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT USED THE $1,000 PENALTY, WE HAVEN 'T
USED THE PENALTIES THAT WE HAVE NOW -$300 AND $500 IS SOME CASES.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE OCCASIONS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT
WHERE THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR HIGHER PENALTY, BUT FRANKLY WE DON 'T
FINO THE COURTS USING THEM NOW . OUR HIGHEST PENALTY EVER WAS A
VIOLATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PRE -TREATMENT PROGRAM AND THE PENALTY
THAT WAS IMPOSED, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, WAS $7,500. THAT WAS
ACCOMULATION OF A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS, SO YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE
THOUSANDS OF CASES THAT COMES THROUGH EVERY YEAR WE JUST DON 'T SEE
THAT MANY OF THEM . SO IF YOU WANT A RECOMMENDATION I'll GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT .
CLAYTON: OKAY .
DE WI TT: I 00 FEEL THAT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF THOUGH IS GOING TO HAVE TO HELP
YOU OUT ON THAT TO SOME DEGREE AS WELL. n . .u _
!' n vva L '-S SO ANOTHER .. TTER IS THAT THERE ... A HEARING LAST ~UIST WEE' BEFORE THE CAREER SERVICE BOARD ON AN EMPLOYEE, A MR. AND
THIS PARTI CULAR EMPLOY EE WAS CHARGED WITH A OUI WHILE, DRIVING
A CITY VEHICLE AND THEN THAT NIGHT HE WAS CAllED OUT ON AN
EMERGENCY AND A POliCE OFFICER RECOGNIZED HIM EN HE WAS INVOlVED
IN AN ACCIDENT. W HAVE 'I)VED TO, THE CITY STAFF HAS, RECCM'NOEO
DISMISSAL AND HE WAS DISMISSED. WE HAD AN APPEARt BEFORE THE
CAREER SERVICE 80AAD AND THE HEARING WAS LAST WEEK . HE DID NOT
TESTIFY IN HIS BEHALF . AND SO WE FEEL THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT HIS PROPOSITIOH. AND TH REASON Y HE WAS TE IMATED WA
BECAUSE HE WASN 'T COl TO A TREA NT PROGIWI liKE H WAS REQUIRED
TO CO. SO THAT'S ONE 0 TH CRITICAL FACTORS, I BEliEVE, IN TH
TERMINATION AND I 8El1EV · IT IS ALSO A CRITICAl fACTOR IN TH
T£RMIMATJON H ARJ . T TH R SU T ON THAT Ill , 5JW D
8 FOR A l . SO Ill . T HAP II T
•
•
• •
('ftd }Cf:: l--ac.--
JI-m I J1 I s ~to :e'-d,.-1'\J '~l ft~
THE EPA HAS ALSO ISSUED DIMININMUOUS GUIDELINES, THE INFAMOUS ~
DIMINIMUOUS GUIDELINES. THEY COME IN AT, RIGHT NOW, AT A 100,000 i
GALLONS. THEY DO NOT SEEM TO WEIGH THAT HEAVILY ON THE TOXICITY .
WHEN THAT'S FIRMED UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, I'll BRIEF THE COUNCIL ON
THAT . I THINK THAT IF IT JUST GOES A $100,000 WE 'RE GOING TO
OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME USERS IN THERE THAT HAVE SOME
PRETTY TOXIC MATERIALS THAT FRANKLY ARE WELL UNDER THE $100,000
LIMITS. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PERSUE THAT ASPECT OF THE APPEAL.
•
•
• •
KOZACEK: YOUR HONOR. RICK, HAVE WE EVER IN YOUR HISTORY OR YOUR KNOWLEDGE,
HAS THE CITY GRANTED A SPECIAL ELECTION DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION BEFORE IN ITS HISTORY?
DEWITT: AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TIME?
KOZACEK : YEAH.
DEWITT :
KOZACEK :
DEWITT:
KOZACEK :
DEWITT:
KOZACEK:
DEWITT:
1
HA THA: AY :
0 ITT :
Cl A
WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW 30 YEARS 6F SPECIAL ELECTION AND
FRANKLY I DIDN'T DO IT ALL THE CASE~ AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THERE
IS SOME LAW THAT ANY ELECTION THAT HAS OTHER THAN REGULARLY
OCCURRING POSITIONS, THAT IS, COUNCIL GENERAL ELECTION THAT COMES
UP LIKE THIS NOVEMBER EVERY TWO YEARS IS CONSIDERED A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION. WHENEVER THERE IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT ON
THERE, WHENEVER THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATING TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN
THE ELECTION OF OFFICIALS, THAT IS A "SPECIAL ELECTION ITEM."
AND THAT'S HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES.
ARE THEY CONSIDERED SPECIAL ELECTIONS? FOR TERMS OF NUMBERS OF
ELECTIONS, NO. ARE THEY CONSIDERED SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN TERMS OF
SUBJECT MATTER, YES, THEY ARE. BUT THEY ARE NOT CALLED A SPECIAL
ELECTION WITH REFERENCE TO, LET'S HOW WE SAY, SECTION ....
DOES THE CODE ASK FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IF THERE'S ANY CODE CHANGES?
NO, CHARTER CHANGES .
CHARTER CHANGES.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT. IN FACT, I THINK THE THRUST IN HERE IS
THAT OUR POSITION, AND FRANKLY WE'VE CHECKED THIS OUT, WE 'VE GONE
TIIIOUGH IT . THE CONCEPT IS TO HAVE AS MANY PROPOSITIONS ON THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OR THE GENERAL STATE ELECTION AS
POSSIBLE. THE CHMTER DOES NOT, YOU KJOI, DOES NOT LIKE TO HAVE
PEOPLE CONING lACK FOR ELECTION ALL THE TIME . NOW THERE ARE
CERTAIN SUIJECT MATTER LIMITATIONS · MERGER IS ONE, G.O.IIONO$ IS
ANOTHER. WE HAD A G.O.IOND ELECTION · THAT'S RIGHT, WE 'VE HAD
THREE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS · SPECIAL G.O.IOND ELECTION FOR TH£
REC . CENTER AND HAD ON£, OH ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, WITH RESPECT TO
THE SENIOR CENTER, T ORCHARD PLACE, BUT THE SIMON CENTER . SO
THOSE AR TH£, AND THEN HAD A SPECIAL ELECTION LAST SPttl FOR
TH F HI • THOS HAY BEEN TH ONLY THR 'Y HAD IN T
LAST TE Y • TH Y'R NOT VERY l.l liK D TH Y'R T Y RY ll tAll D.
THA 'S RIGHT . YOU
LE CTI
I IT TO AP
R APART FRCit TH GEN RAL ICIP
PT IS TO PUTT
THI 'r n
• • •
I .
DEWITT:
•
• •
THERE IS A STATUTE -38-10-1401 THAT REQUIRES US TO APPEAL IT
WITHIN TEN DAYS -WITHIN FIVE DAYS, EXCUSE ME. WE ANTICIPATE THAT
THE SUPREME COURT WILL MAKE ITS DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT
I ALSO THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THIS
QUESTION OF "HOW DOES THE CITY COUNCIL ACT?" IF IT'S THAT NARROWLY
WRITTEN, THEN NO CITY AGENCY CAN ACT IN ANY REGARD, UNLESS IT IS
EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE CHARTER. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS JUDGE
WILL RELY ON THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
IT. SO IT'S SUCH A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF A MUNICIPALITIES
AUTHORITY THAT FRANKLY EVEN TONIGHT'S ACTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO
RECONSIDERATION. I'M TALKING NOW PROBABLY ABOUT INDECENT EXPOSURE,
TALKING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE FOOD VENDORS. All
OF THIS IS BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION WHEN THAT TYPE OF AN
INTERPREATION IS MADE. AND THE WORDING THAT I'M STATING HERE IS
FOUND ON PAGE 5, AND IT SAYS: "THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN SECTION 14
OR 12 OF THE CHARTER WHICH GIVES ANY SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO MERGE AN
IMPASSE RESOLUTION SPECIAL ELECTION WITH A GENERAL ELECTION." WHEN
IT SAYS THAT, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXPRESS
LANGUAGE TO DO SOtETH INC. AND WE BEll EYE THAT THAT'S CONTRARY TO
THE CONCEPT OF HOME RULE MUNICIPAL RULE IN COLORADO. AND IT'S ALSO
CONTRARY TO WHAT, WE BELIEVE, IS FACT -FINDING CASES IN THIS AREA.
I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT BE ON THAT ISSUE AND ALSO WITH RESPECT
TO THE WAY THE QUESTION IS WORDED . I THINK THAT 'S AN UNFAIR
WORDING . YOU KNOW WHAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE? IT WILL REQUIRE EVERY
TIME THAT THERE IS AN IMPASSE ELECTION THAT THE CITY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE ITS POSITION, BE DISSATISFIED WITH EVERY SINGLE POSITION
Of THE CAREER SERVICE BOARD . AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU 'RE
BASICALLY GOING TO A VOTE Of THE PEOPLE FOR EVERYTHING . NO LONGER
WILL YOU TRUST ALLOWING THE, YOU KNOW, ONE MATTER TO LASPE AND
CONSIDERING IT AS BEING A fiNAl ISSUE. YOU 'RE GOING TO HAVE All
THE ISSUES GO TO A VOTE Of THE PEOPlE. I THINK THAT 'S CONTRARY TO
WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS . THE CHARTER SAYS THAT IT 'S, YOU KIOI, TO BE
D£ALT WITH IN A CCMPREHENSIV£ MillER AND ONLY SELECTED ITEMS . SO
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU 'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CO ON EVERYTHING
BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU 'Ll RISK NOT HAVING THE ITEMS YOU WANT TO GO , TO GO .
CLAYT ON : SO WHAT DO DO WITH THE ElEC TION CCIUNG UP ?
DEWITT : WELL, I TH J THA T If THE SUPREME COURT ISSUES AN ORDE R BE FORE
HAND, THE N W CM fOLL OW THAT ORDE R. If THE SUPR COURT DOES.'T
ACT, WHAT HAPPE NS IS THAT T POLICE QUESTION WILL BE llllOIFI £0
IT Ill GO TO A VOTE or THE P£0Pl£ AT SPEC IAL ElECTI ON HElD
l ArTER THE GE £RAl £lECTI • TH I , LD B 45 MY
AT ICH 0 PUT IT , TH lEST IT COU 0 8 H lD IS JUST f 0«1 s
Cl AYl : I CU SS QU STl IS YE
TH COURT 'S ORDER TO O£l T
ITT :
I TJ TO , IT BAllOT? I . •
FRASER:
•
• .. •
BUT THE PREPARATION OF THE BALLOT IS AS A SEPARATE PAPER BALLOT,
ANYWAY. AND WE WOULD HAVE THE BALLOTS PRINTED UP AND THEN IF
INDEED WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM HAVING THAT AS AN ISSUE, WE WOULDN'T
USE THE BALLOTS.
HATHAWAY: BECAUSE THE NON-EMERGENCY EMPLOYEE'S ISSUE IS STILL ON THAT BALLOT
AS WELL. AND IT'S NOT UNDER QUESTION.
DEWITT: IT'S NOT UNDER QUESTION, THAT 'S RIGHT. THAT Will STILL PROCEED .
HATHAWAY : SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE HAD THOSE PAPER BALLOTS PRINTED,
THEY'RE STill GOING TO BE USED FOR SOMETHING, NO MATTER WHETHER
IT'S TWO ISSUES OR ONE.
DEWITT : WE WOULD PROBABLY DELAY THE PRINTING OF THOSE BALLOTS AS LONG AS WE
COULD FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT FRANKLY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT WILL
HAPPEN AND WE WOULDN'T WANT BOTH QUESTIONS SHOWING UP ON THE SAME
BALLOT . BASICALLY, THE EPBA WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM THE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION.
CLERK: UNLESS THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE CONDITION?
DEWITT: THAT'S RIGHT.
CLERK: AND, THEN IN THAT INSTANCE, WE WOULD HAVE BOTH QUESTIONS AND THE
WOP.OING WOULD BE THE SAME ON EPBA AS IT IS NOW PROPOSED?
DEWITT: THAT 'S RIGHT.
CLERK: All RIGHT . IF THE DECISION IS NOT REVERSm, WOULD WE STILL BE
HAVING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE EEA QUESTION?
DEWITT: THAT 'S CORRECT.
CLERK: All RIGHT.
CLAYTON : DO HAV A BASIS FOR SORT Of I DIAl ACTION THE PART Of
THE COURT ON THE INJUAY W WOU D I UR If IT 'S F 1 OUR FA
LATER?
D ITT :
•
•
•
• •
HABENICHT: AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULING IS JUST IN REGARD TO THIS
SPECIFIC SITUATION, THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION?
DOIITI: YEAH. THAT'S IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION ISSUE, NOT WITH
RESPECT TO THE AUTHORITY.
HABENICHT: I HEAR YOU.
KOLTAY: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT. AS A COUNCILPERSOit I FULLY WOULD
SUPPORT AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATIORIIEY TO APPEAL THIS TYPE Of
DECISION. I CAN'T FATHOM THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE OUR CHARTER
INTEJI)[D FOR VOTERS TO HAVE EVERY ISSUE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM All THE
TIME, I THIIIC THAT'S WHAT II£ SERVE FOR IN THAT INTEREST, All) IF WE
DON'T WE CAN BE REJI)YED. All) SECONDLY, I SURE CAN'T BELIEVE THAT
THE PEOPLE, THE VOTERS INTENDED THAT EVERY ITEM WOULD CM BEFORE
THEM AT A SEPARATE ELECTION ON A SEPARATE All) DIFFERENT DAY, All) I
THIIIC THAT THIS TOTALLY SEEMS TO BE A DECISION THAT I THIIIC WE'RE
GlTTING INTO SUCH A LITIGIOUS SOCIETY THAT WE 'RE LOOKING AT EVERY
WORD All) EVERY COMM All) EVERY VIEWPOINT, TRYING TO SUDDENLY TAKE
OUR CHARTER All) PICK IT APART TO G£T LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Of EVERY
WORD All) LIME. All) I SURELY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT 'S
INTEJIXD . I THIIIC UNQUESTII:*ABLY WE HAVE TO APPEAL THE DECISION
PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
MUMBLE, fUtilE
CLAYTON : THE POINT RICK MOE WAS THAT THE DECISION SEEMS TO INSIST THAT IF
IT ISil 'T SPECIFICALLY WltiTIEN IN TH£ CHARTER WE CAN 'T DO IT . All) I
THIIIC THAT 'S JUST NONSENSE. THAT SPEAKS AGAINST TH( BASIC
KOLTAY :
CLA YTON :
IWZACEK:
KOlTA :
CLA l
Cl£ :
PlliiiCIPI.E THAT TH( CHARTEI SHOULD, OR THAT W SHDUlO 1£ AUCIIED TO
DO MYTHIIC W All£ .,T PIOHIIITED TO DO IN ADDITION TO THAT WUCM
IS MEIITICIO, All) THAT'S A FWDMOITAL PRIIICIPI.E Of •.•
All I CM SAY , IS EVENTUALLY MIMT I SEE IW'KNIIC N£ IS IIJUlD
HAY£ M ELECTION WHER£ ., CIIE COMES . THEl£ WOULD 1£ JUS T TOO
All) THAT I s 11M T I SEE HAPPEN lie .
... IWZACEK .
YOUR HONOR , I NOV E THAT OI R£CT THE CITY ATI Y TO APPEAL THIS .
$[CCII)
lET'S l .
• 7 •
,
I
-•
• •
VERBATIM EXCERPT OF DISCUSSION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 11(A}, CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 (AFTER MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOOD VENOORS ORDINANCE}
CLAYTON: ALEX, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WISHED TO SAY?
HABENICHT: THANK YOU, YES. I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE ORDINANCE OR SUGGEST THAT
WE ADO TO THE ORDINANCE THAT ANY PERMENANT FACILITY LOCATED IN ANY
CITY PARK BE RESERVED FOR LOCAL NON-PROFIT GROUPS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FUND RAISING THROUGH THE SALES OF PREPARED FOOD CONCESSIONS. WE
DISCUSSED IN THE PAST THAT WE NEED TO FIND MORE WAYS TO ASSIST
NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO RAISE FUNDS WITHOUT DIRECT SUBSIDY FROM THE
CITY. PERHAPS FOOD CONCESSIONS COULD BE OFFERED FIRST SAY OVER ONE
YEAR TO GIVE THIS A TRIAL BASIS TO NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE BOY SCOUTS, GIRL SCOUTS, 4-H AND OTHER
SUPPORT GROUPS, LIKE SUPPORTERS WHO ARE SEEKING TO ASSIST KIDS
RAISING FUNDS FOR THE CONCERT (?} PROGRAM, OR I UNDERSTAND THAT A
GROUP AT THE HIGH SCHOOL IS RAISING FUNDS TO GO TO FRANCE AS AN
ENHANCEMENT TO THEIR LANGUAGE CIRCULUM. LAST YEAR ONE OF THE
CITY'S CORRAL GROUPS EARNED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE NATIONALLY
IN A MAJOR EASTERN CITY, BUT THE FUND RAISING EFFORT AND SOME OTHER
COMPLICATION PRECLUDED THEIR PERSUING THE TRIP. HOWEVER, IF AN
AVENUE HAD BEEN AVAILABLE TO MAKE MONEY THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
GONE . PERHAPS THE HORSECAR FUND COULD BENEFIT OR OTHER GROUPS AND
ASSOCIATIONS. I RECOfMEND THAT IN THE 11 CITY PARKS THAT ANY
CONCESSIONARY BE RESERVED FOR NON -PROFIT COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC
SCHOOL TYPES, SUPPORT GROUPS, AND THAT THIS BE WORKED INTO THE
ORDINANCE. AND THAT PERHAPS WE MIGHT WANT TO 00 THIS BY ONLY
RESTRICTING THAT KINO OF USE FOR THE FIRST YEAR THAT IT WOULD BE IN
PLACE JUST TO SEE IF IT WOULD WORK . I 'M, I KNOW I 'VE HAD CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS AND AS I WAS THIIICING ABOUT IT IT THI IT FINALLY
EMERGED, YOU KNOW, WHAT MY CONCERN WAS AND THAT IS IF WE CAN
UTILIZE THIS TO HElP BENEFIT THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY RATHER
THAN , SAY JUST A C ERCIAL KINO Of VENTURE, I THI IT WOULD
REAL LY BE A lOOM .
B YOUl HONOR, TH£R£'S NOT ANYTHI AT THE PR£500 TIME THAT WOULD
PIIOHIBIT A NON ·PWIT ;ROUP F COMING, AND DOING THAT .
or A
l O •
I .
•
• •
CLAYTON: MR. DEWITT --
HATHAWAY: ... A PUBLIC FACILITY AT A PARK.
DEWITT: I THINK EXPLICIT IN COUNCIL PERSON HABENICHT'S POSITION, SAY IN
HERE TONIGHT, IS THAT THERE IS SOME FACILITY THAT WOULD BE USED, I
AM NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE SITUATION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE
IS ACROSS THE CITY PARK'S SYSTEM A FACILITY THAT THEY CAN USE.
THERE MAY BE ISOLATED INSTANCES SUCH AS AT THE SINCLAIR SWIMMING
POOL AND SOME OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE MAY BE A CONCESSION STAND.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT GENERALLY EXISTS. NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE
SECOND ASPECT OF THE POLICY THAT SEEMS MORE CLEARLY EXPRESSED IS,
IS CONTRACTING WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR CONCESSION FOOD
VENDING IN CITY PARKS WOULD NOT VIOLATE FAIR TRADE LAWS . NO. I,
THE NATURE OF THE CONTRACT WOULD PROBABLY VARY, NO. 2, IS IS THAT
THERE IS SUCH A LIMITED AREA TO WHICH IT COMPLIES THAT THERE IS
ESSENTIAL PRE-TREAT (?) THROUGHOUT THE CITY .
CLAYTON: ALEX, DID YOU WISH TO RESPOND?
HABENICHT: YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I 'D LIKE TO ADDRESS. IF WE DO HAVE ANY
PERMENENT FIXTURES, CONCESSIONS, THIS IS THE AREA THAT I 'D LIKE TO
HAVE IT RESERVED FOR NON-PROFIT USE . I 'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT WRITTEN
INTO THE ORDINANCE, AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE SOME SUPPORT ON
THAT, AND •••
CLAYTON: lET ME, BEFORE WE GET ANY FURTHER ON THAT, I 'VE INVESTIGATED
CONCESSION FACILITIES AT CITY PARKS, AND WE DO NOT HAVE YTHING
THAT AT THIS TIME Will MEET ANY OF THE COOES OR IN ANY AY SUITABLE
WITHOUT MAJOR REHABILITATION. THE CONCESSION STANO AT BEllEVIEW
PARK WAS TORN DOWN, THE ON£ AT CENT£ IAl PAIUC IS T SUITABLE.
I 'M NOT FAMILIAR THAT THERE IS ANYTHING AT Sl LAIR OTHER THAN A
liTTlE OPENING AND A COUPLE OF VI . GARY?
ICOZACEK :
. ll .
I .
KOLTAY:
•
• •
HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THE COMMERCIALIZATION, AS IT WERE, WITHIN
OUR PARKS AND THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE PARKS. AT THE SAME TIME, I CAN
SEE THAT THERE MIGHT BE, ESPECIALLY IN BELLEVIEW PARK, WHERE WE
HAVE SOFTBAll GAMES AND A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
CONCESSIONS, AND IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF NON-PROFIT
COMMUNITY BASED GROUPS THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO RAISE FUNDS . THEY
CAN'T TURN TO THE CITY FOR ANY HELP, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE
LIMITED TAX DOLLARS AVAILABLE, AND PERHAPS THIS IS A WAY THAT WE
COULD OFFER THOSE GROUPS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME MONEY. AND I KNOW
THAT THIS THOUGHT JUST OCCURRED TO ME TODAY, OR I 'D HAVE IT A LOT
MORE, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURED. YOU KNOW, I HAD A, I WAS TRYING TO
GAIN, GET, GAIN SOME INFORMATION TODAY, AND COULDN'T QUITE GET
ENOUGH CAll BACKS TO GET THE INFORMATION AND THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING
TO SUGGEST THAT WE TABLE IT, AT LEAST FOR A WEEK OR SO, AND LOOK
INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF HOW WE COULD ENCOURAGE THAT WITH THIS
ORDINANCE, SO THAT WE AREN'T TAKING AWAY FROM THE INTENT OF THE
ORDINANCE TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE THE KIND OF SPECIAL EVENTS THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE IN OUR CITY AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE
COULD BE BENEFITING A LOT OF THE NON -PROFIT GROUPS IN OUR CITY AND
OUR OWN PEOPLE.
I HAVE A QUESTION ....
HABENICHT: AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
KOLTAY:
DEWITT:
MR. DEWITT, RICK, ON PAGE 3, SECTION 5-4-3 REGARDING FOOD VENDING
IN CITY PARKS, UNDER ITEM B, IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY ISSUE
SPECIAL PERMITS CONCERNING THE SALE OF FOOD OR OTHER ITEMS, IT GOES
ON TO SAY THE PERMITS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. IF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
REQUESTS THAT THOSE PERMITS FIRST BE GIVEN SPECIAL PREFERENCE TO
NON-PROFIT GROUPS, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?
NO. NO, I THINK THAT'S, IT'S ONE WAY TO HANDLE THE ISSUE.
HABE ICHT : THAT, THAT WAS ONE Of THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, AND I HAD THE
UMDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD BE HEARING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY TONIGHT .
OLTAY:
F
THAT I 'D -MAYOR PRO TEM, I WOULD REFER TO OUR CITY MANAGER AND ASK
HIM IF HE FEELS THAT THE REQUIR[M(NT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
AT LEAST GIVE CIWUTBLE gtQUPS AN ADVANTACE IN THE PERMIT PROCESS?
DOES HE SEE A PROIL ITM THAT?
D USED
ITOOS T
. ll .
,
I .
KOLTAY:
•
• •
I'D JUST LIKE TO RESPOND TO ALEX'S CONCERNS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH ACCEPTING IT WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT WE CAN
DESIGNATE THAT A NON-PROFIT GROUP WOULD HAVE PRIORITY. MY PROBLEM
WITH IT IS THAT SOME GROUP WOULD COME IN AT THE LAST MINUTE AND
DECIDE THEY WOULD WANT A BOOTH WHEN SOMEONE WHO HAD REQUESTED AN
EVENT, OR THE USE 30 OR 60 DAYS. SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IF WE
CAN ADDRESS IT IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY IN HERE THAT THEY WOULD BE
GIVEN A PRIORITY 90 OR 120 DAYS BEFORE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
HABENICHT: THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS HOPING TO POSTPONE THIS FOR AT
LEAST UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TIME TO, FOR
ME TO FORMULATE HOW I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT, AT LEAST SUGGEST THAT
IT BE EXPRESSED, AND EVEN, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY,
BUT ALSO IN THE ORDINANCE. 1 THINK, I THINK THAT THIS IS, THIS IS
THE TYPE OF THING THAT, THAT ALTHOUGHf IT COULD BE ADDRESSED
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY, 1 THINK~T IS APPROPRIATE THAT THE
DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY BE DIRECTED BY THE COUNCIL
AND THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IF IT ISN 'T STATED IN THE
ORDINANCE, THEN IT IS LESS IN THE OPEN AND IT COULD BE POINTED TO
BY All SORTS Of PEOPLE •WELL, THAT'S NOT THE POLICY, IT'S JUST
ADMINISTRATIVE POliCY.• I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT IN THE
ORDINANCE, AND 1 UNDERSTAND THE COMPLICATIONS THAT WOULD ARISE IF
WE TRIED TO DRAFT SOMETHING ON THE SPOT RIGHT HERE, WE WOULDN'T BE
DOING A VERY GOOD JOB, WE WOULDN'T BE DOING IT JUSTICE, THAT'S WHY
I'D BE ASKING FOR TWO WEEKS, THAT TIME TO INVESTIGATE THIS IDEA
FURTHER, AT WHICH POINT, YOU KNOW, IF IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE
COULD All AGREE, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. IF NOT, YOU KNOW,
THEN THE ORDINANCE WOULD PROBABLY GO THROUGH AS IT IS . I DON 'T
THINK THAT THAT TWO WEEKS WOULD REALLY HARM ANYTHING .
CLAYTON : LADIES AND GENTLEM£N, AS THE SPONSOR Of THIS ORDINANCE, THE, I 'D
WMT TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT 1 THINK THIS PE.lTTING PROCEDURE IS
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE AT TH( GOLF COURSE AND OTHER CITY
FACILITIES WHERE, 1 DON'T BELIEVE T TO WRITE All TERMS IN THE
ORDINANCE. MY CONTRACT WITH THE CORPS OF E INEERS AND THE STATE
OF COLORADO OUT AT CHERRY CREEK CHATFIELDS IS 45 PAGES lONG AND
CONTAINS A ER OF DIFFERENT CLAUSES AND SECTIONS THAT ARE All
SU8JECT TO EGOTIATION, ARE All Of THE lURE AS THIS .
AND I BEllEY£ THAT THAT SORT Of ITEM SHOULD 8£ ADMI ISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE AND l THI WE SHOULD A THE CITY ER TO BRI BACK
TO US FOR OUR APPROVAL lEFOR£ APPRO E A CONTRACT lCH WOU LD
BE DOl • '0 HAY£ TO APNOVE A CONTRACT lTH THIS •••..
ICHT :
T
Y 1 HAY , OFF R A SOLUTI
. I .
I
•
•
•' •
ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY IN ORDINANCE FORM. I WOULD LIKE TO
SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT YOU INTRODUCE THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT
AS IT'S PRESENTED TO YOU ANO WHEN IT COMES BACK ON FINAL THAT WE
PRESENT IT WITH AN ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION WHICH DESCRIBES IN
RESOLUTION FORM THE COUNCIL'S INTENT IN DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO
PROVIDE FIRST OPPORTUNITIES OR PRIORITIES TO NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN THIS PERMITTING PROCESS.
THUS YOU HAVE THE GENERALLY FRAMED ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION
THAT FOLLOWS THAT, THAT SUPPORTS HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS
ADMINISTERED, AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS EASILY DONE AWAY WITH
BECAUSE IT IS A FORMAL PART OF THE RECORD, BUT IT IS NOT AN
ORDINANCE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO COURT INTERPRETATION. AND IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES THAT YOU HAVE
ESTABLISHED FOR DEALING WITH THESE KINDS OF THINGS AND WOULD BE FOR
A WAY OF ADDRESSING COUNCIL ME~ER HABENICHT'S CONCERNS IF INDEED
THE REST OF COUNCIL ENDORSES THAT WE CAN PROCEED TO GET THIS
ORDINANCE OFF THE GROUND THE RESOLUTION CAN BE ADOPTED AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU FINALED IT .
CLAYTON: I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT. I THI THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS
REGARDING THIS ISSUE THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED AT FURTHER LENGTH.
ON THE SURFACE IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA TO LET -PROFITS R A
CONCESSION STANO, ANO ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED AND ll E COMMIT ENTS, AND
CERTAINLY WHOEVER DOES THIS WE 'D T SORT OF BONO SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE 'VE REQUIRED OF THE CREE S F HISEEE, -PROFIT OR
NOT, SO WE CAN GUARANTEE PERf E.
HABENICHT : I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WE 'RE NOT TAl I ABOUT SOMETHING THAT
SIMPLISTIC Kl OF OAT THAT REQUIRES A SIMPLISTIC SOlUTION.
~
CLAYTON: AND I CERTAI LV ACREE WITH VOU, AlEl, THAT IF COU D GET A
·PROFIT IN TO OUR CONCESSI AT BEll IE P , C£NTE IAL P , 1 THI THAT lO 8 E FU •
THEN If TH R 'S OISACRE
PlEASE VOlE. R OJSCUSSI 1
Cl£ :
c \'T
•••
,
I
•
• •
...
OTHER MOBILE VENDORS. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT WE NEEDED TO AMEND THAT
TO BE VERY FLEXIBLE INASMUCH AS ME MAY NOT WANT TO INSTALL
PERMANENT BUILDING, BUT WE MAY WANT TO PERMIT A PERSON WHO HAS A
QILE CART. WE MAY ALSO WANT TO PUT IN A PERMANENT BUILDING OR
ALLOW SOMEONE AT THEIR EXPENSE TO ERECT A PERMANENT BUILDING, AND I
THINK THIS ALLOWS US THE FLEXIBILITY THEN TO CARRY ON THAT NEXT
STEP DISCUSSION AS TO HOW DO WE INTEND TO AIJUNISTER THIS. WHAT I
KIND OF CONCESSION DO WE WANT • • • • I I
HABENICHT: OR HOW THE MANAGER INTENDS TO AIJUNISTER THIS. • • •
CLAYTON: ••• OR HOW THE CITY INTENDS TO ADMINISTER THIS? DOES THE~Y WANT
A PERMANENT STRUCTURE? DOES THE CITY SOME QILE FOOD CA~~! DO
WE WANT ONE OR TWO? WHAT WILL THE MARKET SUPPORT? AND SO FORTH.
AND NOW WE HAVE THE VEHICLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT.
. I .
I .